Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DONALD FREEMAN
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by
publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in
certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
eBook Edition
ISBN: 978 0 19 4427531 eBook (epub)
ISBN: 978 0 19 4427548 eBook (mobi)
First published in 2016
No copying or file sharing
This digital publication is protected by international copyright laws. No part of this digital publication
may be reproduced, modified, adapted, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, to any other person or company without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by law. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the
scope of the above should be sent to the ELT Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not modify, adapt, copy, store, transfer or circulate the contents of this publication under
any other branding or as part of any other product. You may not print out material for any commercial
purpose or resale
Any websites referred to in this publication are in the public domain and their addresses are provided
by Oxford University Press for information only. Oxford University Press disclaims all and any
responsibility for the content of such websites
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University
Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above
should be sent to the ELT Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any
acquirer
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford
disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this
work
If I knew then what I know now, I’m not sure I would have so blithely undertaken a project of
this nature. Gathering and organizing ideas from the last 25 years, and then making them useful
for others is a serious undertaking. It could not have happened without the help, support, and
input of many people (whom I will mention here alphabetically). At different points and
critical junctures, Kathi Bailey, Anne Burns, Courtney Cazden, Caleb Gattegno, Pam
Grossman, Karen Johnson, Jack Richards, Anna Richert, Katie Sprang, and Earl Stevick were
each key to the thinking that has yielded this project. Sophie Rogers and Tony Wright have
been critical in finalizing the ideas for publication. Kim Lier has been an indispensible
sounding board, reader, and tracker of detail. And the home team has stuck through it all—
many thanks.
I also want to thank my colleagues and students from the MAT Program at the School for
International Training (now the SIT Graduate Institute) for helping to gestate these ideas, and
at the University of Michigan for helping to hone the thinking. As always, the oversights and
mistakes are my own.
The author and publisher are grateful to those who have given permission to reproduce the
following extracts and adaptations of copyright material: p.8 Reprinted from “Teacher
Training, Development, and Decision Making: A Model of Teaching and Related Strategies
for Language Teacher Education” by Donald Freeman, TESOL Quarterly, Volume 23 (1)
1989: page 29; 10.2307/3587506. Reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
p.11 Figure from Teaching Teachers: Processes and Practices by Angi Malderez and Martin
Wedell, Practical Teaching Guides; © Angi Malderez and Martin Wedell, 2007. Reproduced
by permission of Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. p.16 With kind permission from Springer
Science+Business Media; “Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around
us” by Ference Marton, Instructional Science 10 (1981) 177–200. p.26 “A critical look at
the Communicative Approach (1)” by Michael Swan, ELT Journal Volume 39 (1), 1985.
Reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press. p.26 Abridged extract from “Against
dogma: A reply to Michael Swan” by H.G. Widdowson, ELT Journal Volume 39 (3), 1985.
Reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press. p.28 Extract from “The Grammar-
Translation Method” by Nancy Thuleen, www.nthuleen.com, 24 October 1996. Reproduced
by permission of Nancy Thuleen. pp.29–30 Reprinted from “Language Teaching as
Sociocultural Activity: Rethinking Language Teacher Practice” by Russell Cross, The
Modern Language Journal Volume 94 (3) 2010; page 447; 10.1111/j.1540–
4781.2010.01058.x © The Modern Language Journal, 2010. Reproduced by permission of
John Wiley & Sons Inc. p.33 Reprinted from “Language moves : the place of “foreign”
languages in classroom teaching and learning” by Diane Larsen-Freeman and Donald
Freeman, Review of Research in Education Volume 32 (1) 2008: pages 161–162;
10.3102/0091732X07309426. Reproduced by permission of SAGE Publications. pp.44–45
Extract from “Are teachers born and raised (not trained)?” by Robert Bligh; The Washington
Post, 13 November 2012 © 2012 Washington Post Company. All rights reserved. Used by
permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing, copying,
redistribution, or retransmission of this Content without express written permission is
prohibited. pp.45–46 Extract from “Op-ed: Good teachers are made, not born” by Jonathan
Knapp, www.seattletimes.com, 11 September 2012. Reproduced by permission of Jonathan
Knapp. p.50 Extracts from the JET Programme website, www.jetprogramme.org. Reproduced
by permission of Department of JET Programme Management. p.58 Extract from “Standards
for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century” by National Standards in
Foreign Language Education, www.actfl.org, 2014. Reproduced by permission of American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). p.76 Abridged extract from
Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives: Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger; © Cambridge
University Press, 1991. Reproduced by permission. p.77 Abridged extract from Translingual
Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations by Suresh Canagarajah © 2013 by
Routledge. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK. pp.86–87 Reprinted
from Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive
Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge by Etienne Wenger, © Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, Inc, 1987; pages 133 and 134. Reproduced by permission of Elsevier. pp.90–91
Reprinted from “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning” by John Seely Brown, Allan
Collins and Paul Duguid, Educational Researcher Volume 18 (1) 1989: pages 32, 33 and 40;
10.3102/0013189X018001032 © American Educational Research Association, 1989.
Reproduced by permission of SAGE Publications. p.91 Abridged extract from The
Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA) Course Trainer’s Manual by
Scott Thornbury and Peter Watkins © Cambridge University Press, 2007. Reproduced by
permission. pp.100–102 Figure: Active Theory Model and extracts from Developing
professional vision for practice: Preservice teachers using students’ scientific ideas in
simulations of practice; doctoral dissertation by Amanda Benedict-Chambers, University of
Michigan, 2014. Reproduced by permission of Amanda Benedict-Chambers. pp.110, 111
Figure and extracts from Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research by Yrjö Engeström © Yrjö Engeström 1987, 2015. Reproduced by
permission of Cambridge University Press. p.128 Reprinted from “Eclecticism in Language
Teaching” by Tony Deyes, World Englishes Volume 2 (1), 1982; page 16; 10.1111/j.1467–
971X.1982.tb00512.x. Reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.133
Abridged extract from Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A description and
analysis by Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers © Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Reproduced by permission. pp.136–137 Reprinted from “The Postmethod Condition:
(E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching” by B. Kumaravadivelu,
TESOL Quarterly, Volume 28 (1), 1994: pages 29 and 32; 10.2307/3587197. Reproduced by
permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.140 Figure 8 “The Jargon Generator” from Ways of
Training: Recipes for teacher training (Pilgrims Longman Resource Books) by Tessa
Woodward; published in 1992. Reproduced by permission of Pearson Education Limited.
pp.141–142 Abridged extract from “Communicative language teaching: Making it work” by
David Nunan, ELT Journal Volume 41 (2), 1987. Reproduced by permission of Oxford
University Press. p.150,160 Reprinted from “What Is The Basic Teaching Skill?” by Richard
J. Shavelson, Journal of Teacher Education Volume 24 (2), 1973: page 144;
10.1177/002248717302400213. Reproduced by permission of SAGE Publications.
pp.152,160 Figure 9.1 “A model of teacher thought and action” from the chapter “Teachers’
Thought Processes” by Christopher C. Clark and Penelope L. Peterson; From Wittrock.
Handbk Research Teach 3E, 3E. © 1986 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced
by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions. pp.156,160 Figure from The Cambridge
Applied Linguistics Series: Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching by Devon Woods;
Series Editors: Michael H. Long and Jack C. Richards © Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Reproduced by permission. pp.159–160 Figure from “Teacher cognition in language teaching:
A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do” by Simon
Borg, Language Teaching Volume 36 (2), 2003. Reproduced by permission of Cambridge
University Press. p.169 Table of Contents from Teaching Practice Handbook by Roger
Gower and Steve Walters; Original Copyright © Macmillan Education, 1983. Reproduced by
permission of Roger Gower and Steve Walters. p.179 Reprinted from “Content Knowledge
for Teaching: What Makes It Special?” by Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Mark Hoover Thames,
and Geoffrey Phelps, Journal of Teacher Education Volume 59 (5) 2008: page 389;
10.1177/0022487108324554. Reproduced by permission of SAGE Publications. p.182
Figure from Chapter 2 “Response to Tarone and Allwright” by Donald Freeman and Karen E.
Johnson; in Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives edited by
Diane J. Tedick © Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005. Reproduced by permission of
Taylor and Francis Group, permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
p.207 Abridged extracts from The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action by Donald A. Schon © Basic Books, 1983. Reproduced by permission of The Perseus
Books Group. pp.213–214 Abridged extracts from Early childhood teachers’ use of
information to reason about and enact moment-to-moment instruction; doctoral dissertation
by Rachel Erin Schachter, University of Michigan, 2014. Reproduced by permission of
Rachel Erin Schachter. p.216 Extracts from Cambridge Teacher Training and Development:
Training Foreign Language Teachers: A reflective approach by Michael J. Wallace ©
Cambridge University Press, 1991. Reproduced by permission. p.237 Extracts from Learning
in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives: Communities of Practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity by Etienne Wenger © Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Reproduced by permission.
Sources:
pp.79,80 “The CEFR Common Reference Levels: validated reference points and local
strategies” by Brian North, www.coe.int, 6 February 2007. p.84 “Training ESOL teachers:
The need for needs assessment” by Jack C. Richards and Nobuyuki Hino in Applied
linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers: Toward a rationale edited by
James E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, and Peter Strevens (Georgetown University Press, 1983). p.191
“Disciplinary knowledge as a foundation for teacher preparation” by W. Grabe, F. L. Stoller
and C. Tardy in The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching edited by Joan Kelly Hall
and William G. Eggington (Multilingual Matters, 2000)
Although every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders before
publication, this has not been possible in some cases. We apologize for any apparent
infringement of copyright and if notified, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or
omissions at the earliest opportunity.
Preface
This book traces the development of my thinking about the work I fell into as a language
teacher 40 years ago. That work could be distilled in the following statement: I have always
been interested in how people who teach second languages use what they know to do what
they do in the classroom. The statement brings together three elements: a group of people—
those who are teaching second languages—and two types of processes—a private one, using
what they know, and a public one, doing what they do, with a venue—the classroom in which
the content is a second language.
The statement also has several loose ends, and intentionally so. I am interested in people
who are teaching second languages; most may be formally trained as teachers, but some may
be people who have fallen into the job as I did. Speaking a language often creates teachers
out of teaching opportunities, as when a so-called ‘native’ speaker arrives and becomes a
teacher because she or he speaks the language to be taught. Certainly engineers become
mathematics teachers, and nurses or pharmacists become science teachers, but the process
and assumptions are not the same. The central difference is they have to convert knowledge
and understandings they have learned formally into content they teach from. Language, I will
argue, is different. Many who teach it, whether ‘native’ or ‘non-native’, need to take
something they know, often tacitly through experience, and use it to teach, which creates
fascinating and unique challenges.
Borrowed ideas
This same–different process happens in other ways in our field. As in other fields, we
borrow concepts, sometimes uncritically, in pursuit of connecting second language teaching
and teacher education to teaching and teacher education in other subject-areas. These
connections are important because they place language teaching in the wider context of
schools and teacher preparation and professional development. But few people also focus on
how language as content may alter these borrowed ideas. Language is the subject matter I
know; I have studied and understand these teacher education ideas through it. I will argue that
some of the core constructs we use to understand knowledge and thinking, and how these
work in the classroom, need to be reworked to account for language as content in teaching.
This core problem—how second language teachers use what they know to do what they do
in classrooms—has both theoretical and practical dimensions. We need to grapple with both
dimensions in order to fully understand and work with the complexities and nuances of the
problem. On the conceptual side, we need to think through language teachers using what they
know to do what they do, and we need to understand how language as content fits into, and
perhaps changes, the conceptualization. On the practical side, we likewise need to design,
implement, and evaluate programs and activities to educate people to teach second languages.
This book is about both these dimensions.
The strategy is to situate this work in both second language teaching and in the research and
conceptualizations of teacher learning and in general education. The risk is that neither
community will be satisfied. But the potential benefits of placing the content of language
teaching within the wider landscape of theorizing and research in teacher education is worth
that risk.
A word on perspectives
I use two perspectives to supplement and extend the book’s central argument. One is a series
of narratives from my own growing up as a language teacher. These passages are specific to
my experiences and do not assume any level of generalization; they are meant to offer
examples through a shift of voice. The other perspective is an historical one. This is tricky
because the book is not intended as a history of language teaching or language teacher
education. Nevertheless there are places in the argument where the perspective of how things
got to where they are is useful.
Signposting
Each chapter begins with a short statement of the point I mean to make in it. This introduction
lays out the logic in abbreviated form. Each chapter ends by ‘revisiting’ that initial argument
both by way of summarizing its key points and by amplifying the implications. In a similar
ways, each of the book’s four parts begins with a short introduction to explain the core
argument and how the chapters fit into it. The hope is that these signposts make the book more
usable and reader friendly. They may also serve to remind the reader that it all turns on a
central argument.
Language teacher education is different. Language is both the content that teachers teach
and the medium through which they teach it. This dual role reshapes many ideas that are
accepted from general teacher education as givens in our field; it also suggests new ways of
thinking about and doing that work. The central argument that runs through this book reflects
this difference. Educating second language teachers is, in the words of the subtitle, ‘the same
things done differently’. The purposes, borrowed ideas, and many of the processes make
language teacher education ‘the same’ as educating teachers in other content areas. But the
content, and the opportunities it creates and depends on, also mean those things get ‘done
differently’ in educating second language teachers.
D. F.
PART ONE How people use what they know to do what they do in the language
classroom
Introduction to Part One
1 Teaching (language) teaching
The chapter argument
Prescriptive proposals and descriptive understandings
Teaching teaching: pronominal and nominal views
The isomorphic relationship
Social facts and thought collectives
The chapter argument revisited
This first part orients the book to the problem of teaching language teaching as I see it. It lays
out the elements of the central argument, namely that teaching (language) teaching differs in
important and useful ways from educating teachers in other content areas. For some readers,
depending on their backgrounds, some of the points will be familiar—even comfortable—as
a place to start. For others, particularly those who come from outside the field of language
teaching, the points may be new. In either case, this initial discussion is intended to create a
common ground from which to build the argument that follows in subsequent parts and
chapters.
How Part One is organized
The two chapters in this part bracket the central argument. Chapter One orients the overall
project to the contrasting nature of language in the world and in the classroom. The chapter
also examines the way terminology creates the landscape of the work in teacher education.
Chapter Two frames three core questions—about the nature of language as content, about how
classrooms make that content work, and about how people learn to teach it in classrooms.
These questions together introduce key ideas and anchor the book that follows.
1
Teaching (language) teaching
The chapter argument
This chapter lays out the core ideas of the book: that learning to teach second languages is a
social process, which depends on a set of understandings (called ‘social facts’). Two
elements help to elaborate this central idea. The first is the distinction between prescriptive
views from the field of language teaching that, in effect, ‘wall in and wall out’ particular
ideas and descriptive understandings that reflect the kaleidoscopic nature of social
perceptions. The second is the interrelation of nominal and pronominal views, in which the
former labels the elements in teaching and learning while the latter describes the
interrelationships. These distinctions are used to unpack the central isomorphic relationship
in teacher education: teaching teaching.
Although this may seem to be a story of casual, last-minute hiring or of a disorganized school
administration, it actually isn’t, as I have come to see through my career as a language teacher
and teacher educator. Rather the story goes to the heart of how we understand what it takes to
teach languages, and how we think people learn to do this work. This book is about these
core issues; it is about what people know in order to teach second languages, how they learn
to teach them, and how pre- and in-service professional education is organized to support the
process. The argument is not prescriptive; it is not about what ought to be, about what people
should study or demonstrate they know in order to teach languages. Such proposals assume
that how teachers teach is well understood and how their knowledge develops and functions
in teaching has been determined. For this reason, prescriptions are by definition limiting,
since they assume the importance, efficacy, and value of certain experiences, and they rule out
or devalue others. To paraphrase the American poet Robert Frost’s metaphor of stone walls
in northern New England, we might ask what is being walled in or walled out by our
prescriptions, and how these limitations might ‘cause offence’.
These three questions raise challenges to the status quo by calling attention to what is taken
for granted by conventional prescriptive thinking. They suggest possibilities for descriptive
understanding. In the words of Frost’s poem, these three challenges ‘wall in’ some things and
‘wall out’ others, which is likely to give offense to what is assumed about what people do in
teaching second languages and how they learn it.
A word on terms
These walls are evident in the terms used to describe educating second language teachers.
Any field of professional activity uses many different terms; the use of specialized discourse
is a hallmark of a profession. Most terms in second language teacher education have been
coined from elsewhere, although they may have taken on specific meanings through their use
in this field. The term ‘teacher training’ is an example. While the term is widely used in
second language teacher education (often in contrast to ‘teacher development’), it is avoided
in general teacher education where it has a negative mechanistic connotation. In other
instances, versions of a term converge, as with ‘teacher development’ and ‘professional
development’. The first term has been favored in professional writing in English language
teaching, while the second is more common in writing about teacher education. However, it
has been brought into ELT recently with the term ‘continuing professional development’ (see
Hayes, 2015). This density and overlap in terms is one indication of a maturing discourse
community that is looking to make more refined distinctions and to argue for more nuanced
connections between them. Using one term over others also suggests alignment with particular
positions and the arguments that support them.
With this positioning in mind, it is worth laying my own terminological cards on the table
and to revisit the terms commonly in circulation in second language teacher education that
describe the key protagonists, the roles they play, and the processes in which they engage to
teach and learn teaching. In 1989, I argued for making an operational distinction between
‘teacher training’ and ‘teacher development’ as terms that could describe different processes
falling under the superordinate term of ‘teacher education’ (Freeman, 1989). The distinction,
represented in Figure 1.1 below, circulated widely and helped to distinguish types of teacher
learning that are often bundled together. I will continue to use the terms in this way in this
book, though I modify the term ‘teacher development’ to ‘professional development’.
Figure 1.1 Language teacher education as training and development (after Freeman, 1989)
In distinguishing terms like ‘learner’ and ‘pupil’, Malderez and Wedell label roles and
levels of direct involvement in the teacher educating process. They also capture different
social processes in contrasting terms like ‘mentoring’, defined as ‘one-to-one’, with
‘ToTing’, which works with groups. But interestingly, they use an acronym—ToTing,’ to
represent the core isomorphism of teaching teachers.
The principal interactions and relationships are in triangle (A), in which the ‘teacher’ is a
teacher educator and the ‘student’ is a teacher-learner (perhaps a pre-service trainee or a
teacher-participant in professional development). Their ‘content’ is the set of relationships
and interactions in triangle B, but the roles change. In triangle (B), the teacher-learner (who is
the ‘studentA’ in triangle A) becomes the ‘teacherB’, and the ‘studentsB’ (fellow trainees,
peers, or perhaps actual language students) are (or play the part of) the learners in the
classroom in which the ‘contentB’ is the lesson. So the social processes of the embedded
triangle B are the content of the superordinate triangle A.
The book
This book argues that educating second language teachers is a process of making meaningful
social facts that matter to the language teaching community. Neither the facts nor the
community are permanent in the sense that one does not exist without the other. Prescriptive
discussions in second language teacher education assume social facts, and that the facts matter
to the language teaching community. Many of these facts do; however, that makes them
functional, which is different from making them true. Prescription gives the air of
permanence; it reifies a nominal view of fluid social agreements. Descriptive understandings
do not solve the problem; as pronominal accounts, they simply correspond more accurately to
how people make sense of things. Descriptive understandings reflect the perspective taken; in
this sense they are always partial. That partialness is critically important because it reminds
us that educating teachers is about more than social facts, it has to be about how they matter,
to whom, and under what circumstances.
The chapter argument revisited
This chapter has laid out the issue of terms used to describe the people, roles, and processes
of learning and teaching in teaching language teaching. The question of terms involves more
than creating a glossary, however. At its core, it is about the social facts used to define and to
do the work of second language teacher education. These terms are the facts of the matter and
they are the facts that matter to the particular thought collective that is language teacher
education. Taken by themselves, the terms risk being static unless they are examined to see
what they assume and how they fit together. Left alone, the terms can be a set of labels that
camouflage an architecture of assumptions.
2
The central challenges in second language teacher education
The chapter argument
This chapter introduces three issues that bear centrally on educating second language
teachers. Although these challenges are common to teacher education in all subject areas, the
way in which they are addressed and resolved in the field of second language teaching shapes
it as a unique form of teacher learning. The first challenge is defining the content: how
language in the world relates to language as content in the classroom. The second challenge,
which follows from the first, is how the classroom, with its social structures and
expectations, defines language teaching as a particular form of pedagogical activity. The third
challenge is how people, who are users of language and have been students in classrooms,
learn to teach language. These three challenges take the fact of teaching languages (in
contrast to other subject areas) as centrally important in shaping learning to teach it. Together
they frame how this consideration overrides and reshapes most other factors in educating
people to be second language teachers. Although they are listed sequentially, the challenges
are not hierarchical, however; they nest within one another as a sort of DNA for second
language teacher education.
Purpose-as-use
Understanding how language becomes content in second language classrooms is a
complicated, messy, conceptual, and practical problem. The starting point of the argument is
that language use is a social process under any circumstance; ‘purpose’ is a way of labeling
the interrelation between the language and how it is used. When used as classroom content,
language purposes are embedded in—and reflect—the particular social processes of the
classroom. In this case, the social processes are educational ones; they circumscribe how the
participants—teacher and students—interact, what they do, and thus how and for which
purposes language gets used in the social context of the classroom. This dynamic, which is
abbreviated as purpose-as-use, happens in any classroom; but in those classrooms in which
language is the stuff being taught (and hopefully learned), the dynamic is altered in subtle and
important ways. Understanding how purpose-as-use works in the language classroom is
therefore the central challenge in second language teaching, and it is the starting point for
understanding second language teacher education.
Stevick’s statement outlines several layers of reasons for using language in the world in
general. Each of these embodies dimensions of interaction (with whom, to do what), and form
(how particular words are used). Designing bridges, expressing spiritual aspirations, or
proposing linguistic theories (to paraphrase Stevick) each entail using language in specific
ways; indeed the language itself differs, reflecting those uses. These purposes for using
language in the world intersect, and even sometimes contravene, the purposes of learning a
new language in the classroom. As teachers and students, we recognize these purposes for
language in the world outside the classroom intrinsically and experientially from growing up
in our first (or home or mother) language, and they carry over and shape what happens in the
classroom. Studying languages for specific purposes exemplifies this carry over of purpose,
as when, for example, people learn medical English to practice nursing or orthopedics. When
language becomes the content for classroom teaching however, when the learning becomes
‘instructed language learning’, the ecology of purpose-as-use shifts because the social context
of the classroom takes over. Therefore defining language as classroom content becomes an
educational problem as much as a linguistic one.
An educational problem
But ‘educational’ here does not simply equate to classroom methodology; it has a broader
meaning. Conceptualizing language in order to teach it to students in classrooms is an
educational problem that involves who, how, and why. It includes who is seen as capable of
teaching the content, which in language teaching introduces the misleading, geopolitical
categorizations of ‘native’ versus ‘non-native speaking’ teachers. It also includes how people
teach languages, as exemplified in debates over methodology and curriculum. And it includes
arguments over why teachers do (or don’t do) what they do in classroom teaching as well as
how they learn to do these things through second language teacher education. These aspects of
the educational problem can be summed up as follows: when a language becomes a second
language in the classroom, its purpose-as-use is circumscribed (and even defined) by
instruction.
Reflexivity
A second key attribute mentioned in Stevick’s statement at the start of this chapter is the self-
referential nature of language, ‘We can talk, we can talk about talk, we can talk about talk
about talk, and so on forever’ (1976, p. 4). The quality, which is usually associated with
metalanguage and the use of language to talk about itself in terms of grammar, is central to its
role as classroom content. This type of reflexivity permits language to be made into the
content of lessons, as it is in grammar translation lessons for example.
Figure 2.1 demonstrates a sample grammar-translation lesson. The content is represented in
the table of German pronouns to be written on the board; the accompanying explanation
suggests the teacher focus on the form and ‘any discrepancies between English and German
usage.’ This is the reflexive quality of language, which permits—and indeed supports—its
representation as classroom content, and contributes to the enduring power of grammar
translation teaching in spite of this being broadly seen as an outdated methodology.
Figure 2.1 German grammar-translation table (Thuleen, 1996)
While the IRF sequence can be easily identified in an activity like recording quiz grades, it
is not limited to such formulaic interactions. The pattern underlies most talk in language
classrooms.
T: Finished? Perfect. What does this—mean? [She writes on the board ‘Erm’] (Erm) ‘Erm’
is that a word?
S: No
T: Erm. Why’ve we got that there? (Nunan, 1996, p. 47)
As the teacher pushes towards the point she wants to make about the difference between
spoken and written language, the same IRF interaction pattern is operating:
Inquiry T: It’s because we’re listening to it. Listening to what’s written down.
So don’t worry, don’t think ‘oh what does erm mean?’ It’s just erm.
And how do they say ‘yes’? Do they say ‘yes’?
Response S: Yeah (Yeah—Australian accent)
Feedback T: Australian accent do you think? (Nunan, 1996, p. 47)
Table 2.2 The IRF structure—’It’s just erm’
In this interaction, the teacher is constructing the content. Using the transcribed language on
the strips of paper, she calls students’ attention to what they hear—the filler ‘erm’ or the
Australian pronunciation of ‘yes’—but wouldn’t usually see written. This listening activity, in
which students organize strips of paper to represent what they hear, is a common one in
language classrooms. It creates content by converting what would simply be listening in the
world, to reading and comparing oral and written text in the classroom. The technical culture
of language classrooms allows for these aspects of talk to be written down so that oral
language can function as content.
Subject-languages
Larsen-Freeman and Freeman (2008) called the socio-pedagogical conversion process that
turns language in the world into language as a school subject creating ‘subject-language’. We
defined a ‘subject-language’ as ‘a language that has been designated as subject matter within a
school curriculum and therefore has certain teaching practices and learning expectations
associated with it’ (p. 148). The technical cultures of schools and classrooms attribute certain
qualities to language, as in the talk-written-down example:
The imposition of certain conventions through the written language and social norms that
prescribe and proscribe certain forms may give the appearance of stability. We refer to this
sense of stability in language as its grammar, which in effect helps to create the content of
language as a school subject
(Larsen-Freeman & Freeman, 2008, pp. 161–62)
In the technical cultures of schools, subject matters depend on stability and predictability so
that classrooms, in essence, have to freeze content through materials, methodologies, and
formulaic interactions.
In the case of language, this conversion process, which Wenger (1998) described as
moving from ‘participation’ to ‘reification’, creates a fundamental tension. Teachers and
students know implicitly how language works; they know what Widdowson (1985) called in
the earlier debate its ‘use potential’. When they meet language as a subject-language, teachers
present it and students encounter it through its reified attributes—parts of speech, grammar,
language skills, proficiency levels, and so on. These attributes, which are intended as
descriptive, literally make the language teachable in the classroom, just as the teacher does in
explaining the filler, ‘erm’, in the interview. The attributes of subject-language stabilize it as
classroom content, making it amenable to the predictable interactions of the technical cultures
of classroom language teaching.
Subject-languages are the content of second language teacher education. Trainees learn
these reifications of content in their preparation as tools of language teaching, and they use
them in the classroom according to the norms and conventions of the technical cultures of
schools. Learning how to distinguish subject-languages from language in the world and how
to act on that difference in teaching is central in second language teacher education. The
learning involves teacher identity as much as it does methodology and classroom procedure,
and this is the third challenge.
Professional socialization in the experience of growing up in and through school has been
well documented; Lortie’s (1975) phrase ‘the apprenticeship of observation’ distils that
process of acculturation. This apprenticeship is where individuals learn how to be and act in
classrooms, a process sometimes referred to as ‘studenting’. Studenting—’what students are
thought to do to learn as well as [the] work negotiating and managing being in schools’
(Goldin, 2010, p. 1)—creates a functional role through schooling; but this experience does
not convert directly into teaching knowledge. As Lortie observed, the apprenticeship of
observation is from the ‘other side of the desk’, which makes activity and social processes
look very different. In Dan’s Japanese class for example, the students may have noticed that
he didn’t repeat ‘twenty’ in Japanese as he was recording their quiz grades. They would be
familiar with the public side of his actions; they would not know his reasoning at the moment.
In this sense then, the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ establishes the behavioral side of
teaching, what teachers do and how they usually do it, but it leaves inaccessible the hidden
side of the work, the underlying thinking and reasoning.
These studenting experiences become the basis of learning to teach. We learn to teach in
relation to how we ourselves were taught. As students, there are few opportunities to hear or
probe the reasoning behind the teacher actions we experience. We may figure that teachers
have reasons for what they do (however fickle or unjust a particular action may seem at the
time), but those reasons are not generally explained to us because the teacher’s thinking and
reasoning remain tacit and largely inaccessible.
This reasoning is an amalgam of social experience, but it is not disinterested or benign.
Social dynamics like class, and political and economic power, can shape how teachers
reason through these socialization processes, and thus reasoning can replicate the dynamics of
schools and classrooms as they are. The question becomes how teacher preparation can
interrupt or change these social patterns of the classroom.
Part Two presents three views of how people learn to be language teachers, each of which
has implications—either explicit or suggested—for the role of second language teacher
education. The three views form a loose continuum from seeing learning to teach as an
informal and contextually based process to seeing it as explicitly structured.
Two of the positions on this continuum (1 and 2) are tacitly held. They are embedded in
different approaches to how language teachers are recruited and selected, and if (or how)
they are trained. The third position (3), which is made explicit in educational policies and
practices, depends broadly speaking on the mechanisms of academic disciplines and
transmission models of teacher education. None of these three positions has a theory directly
associated with it that describes how people learn to teach languages. However, underlying
these positions are two theorizations—of learning-in-place (situated learning theory) and of
learning-in-practice (social practice theory)—that can inform the assumptions and describe
the processes on which the views are based.
How Part Two is organized
Chapter 3 looks at how background knowledge figures in learning to be a language teacher.
There are two alternative positions on how background knowledge develops (positions 1 and
2 in Figure ii.1): that it comes from natural born expertise or that it is learned over time
through professional training and support. Examples of policies and practices in language
education based on the born expertise position and the concept of the native speaker are
discussed as reflections of this position.
The alternative (position 3)—that people learn consciously and explicitly to do the work of
teaching—is the position held by most educational and political organizations in what could
loosely be called the ‘industry of language teaching’ (this includes training institutions,
certifying bodies, professional associations, teachers’ unions, and so on). This position,
which essentially formalizes the ‘know-how made over time’ view (position 2), is that
learning to teach is based on formal professional preparation. Chapter 4 examines this
position from the standpoint of the academic disciplines on which language teaching is based,
and the learning processes associated with disciplinary learning. These ideas are
complicated by the fact that language teaching knowledge draws from several disciplines as a
hybrid, which affects the normative assumptions and designs in second language teacher
education.
Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 introduce two explicitly theoretical perspectives, situated learning
and socio-cultural theory, into the discussion of formal preparation (position 3). Theoretical
presumptions about learning-in-place (Chapter 5) underlie the clinical and practice teaching
arrangements that are central to current teacher preparation, including in second languages.
Theories about learning-in-practice (Chapter 6) complicate notions of place to account for
how people learn through participating in social practices, settings, and institutions over time.
These theories help to anchor the different views, from contextual to formal, across the
continuum of how people learn to be language teachers.
3
How people become language teachers: defining background
knowledge
Teacher personality traits mean much more than mere academic ability.
(Bligh, 2012)
The chapter argument
Two views—that people are ‘born’ with the qualities that make them ‘good’ teachers or that
‘teachers are made’ through professional study and preparation—are broadly held opposing
social opinions about how people become teachers. They are complicated by the fact that
people teach languages that they have learned through social participation and growing up;
they likewise teach languages that they have formally learned in school. This chapter uses
these two positions to frame issues of background knowledge in language teaching. Three
national teacher-recruitment initiatives—the Japan English Teaching Program, the English
Program in Korea, and the Chilean Centro de Voluntarios—are taken as examples of how
background knowledge features in policy interventions in English language teaching.
These arguments about whether teachers are ‘born’ or ‘made’—like so many generic
education debates in the popular sphere—can seem separate from language teaching and
second language teacher education; they are not, however. The debate anchors central
assumptions about who is employed to teach English, how their qualifications are
documented and assessed, and how teacher preparation and development can improve
classroom language teaching. The debate is helpful in exposing some of what tends to be
taken for granted in policies and practices in English language teaching, in particular,
assumptions that connect to how teaching language differs from teaching other content areas.
How does the content, and its perceived availability and value, figure in the ‘born or made’
argument? For many people, teaching calculus or auto mechanics or Renaissance history, for
example, do not depend entirely on the teacher’s personality; a person is not simply born into
teaching these things. So even in the popular mind, content does matter to some degree, and it
is fair to argue that teachers of these (and other similar subjects areas) are made through
mastering the content they teach. In contrast, there are certainly widespread perceptions that
minding young children or helping adults learn to read, or giving swimming lessons, for
example, are teaching that can be done fairly well by someone with the proper disposition
and commitment to the work. Someone who is caring and nurturing can mind young children;
someone who is able to read can help others do so; a person who is able to swim is able to
give swimming lessons. These types of teaching seem to reinforce the ‘born’ position. The
question is where does teaching language fall on this spectrum? Is it like teaching someone
how to repair cars or to swim? Is it more like teaching someone calculus or caring for
children? Language, as a content to be taught, blurs these distinctions because it can be both.
Centro de Voluntarios
Like the EPIK Program, the Chilean Centro de Voluntarios program uses nativeness as the
proxy for background knowledge, although their selection statement acknowledges blurriness
in the criteria. The goal of the Chilean program is described as ‘bring[ing] native and near-
native English speakers, between the ages of 21 and 35 years, into Chilean public and
subsidized schools to develop the listening and speaking skills of young Chileans as well as
to encourage cultural exchange’. (EOD, 2014) The program is part of a larger educational
policy initiative known as English Opens Doors Program, which aims to ‘increase the
English proficiency of Chilean students and teachers of English as an indispensible skill to
aid in Chile’s continued development in our globalizing world’ (EOD, 2014). The website
offers details of the roles that volunteers can play, which interface with other student-focused
activities such as summer and winter intensive English language camps and national speaking
contests.
Table 3.1 What language teachers need to know, how it is learned, and how that learning is
organized—Version 1
The struggle to choose curricular materials is emblematic of the challenges of hybridity. The
experience shows the levels of the challenge, defining language as classroom content, and
then defining how to teach it. On one level, the challenge is about how the content is
represented. The Mauger book is an example of the hybrid version of language content; it is
language that is essentially about itself. The Quebecois materials on the other hand are
disciplinary. They were about mathematics; the French language is about something else. On
another level, I saw the materials as a choice in role, between teaching French and using
French to teach mathematics, and I felt I knew how to teach French. My ‘apprenticeship of
observation’ (Lortie, 1975) in Grade 7, the socialization as a French language student,
equipped me (at least in my own mind) to be a teacher with the Mauger book. The experience
embodied the two levels of hybridity, in the book as content, and choosing it because I felt I
knew how to use it, which captured the ill-defined nature of teaching. The irony is that had I
been formally prepared as a French teacher, I might well have made the same choice. I might
have decided that I could teach language with the Mauger book. The difference being that I
would have had social facts of language teaching at my disposal to explain the choice and
how the carefully structured and sequenced French content would help my students to master
language patterns.
Institutions
In the midst of this hybridity, coherence comes from educational institutions: how they are
organized around disciplines, how they sustain them through research and dissemination, and
how they teach them. Arranged by academic department, with faculty dedicated to research
and service, tertiary institutions are the epistemological homes and social drivers of
disciplinary knowledge; teaching is a form of dissemination. The knowledge which is
presented to students in curricular sequences from beginning to advanced courses, can seem
immutable and permanent, but it is not. Disciplines are themselves dynamic social
agreements, communities of explanation that change over time:
Like any other social fact, disciplines are subject to change, albeit usually gradually and at
long intervals. Their relative stability is the precondition for societies to be able to
accumulate knowledge and at the same time to select and forget what is no longer relevant
when conditions have changed. Disciplines, like any other classificatory principle of
knowledge, have the function of mediating and directing social change.
(Weingart, 2010, p. 4)
Teacher education
As a view of how teachers are taught, knowledge transmission has two parts. First, there
needs to be a recognized set of agreed-upon knowledge and skills (and more recently also of
dispositions), which is the knowledge base. Broadly speaking, this foundation defines
teaching as a social, professional, and educational form of activity. In teaching language,
these definitions have changed over time, as communities have used language for different
ends, as discussed in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10. Underlying the knowledge base is the
premise that preparing teachers according to its contents will support more effective
instruction. Teachers who explicitly know and draw from the knowledge base, so the
argument goes, are likely to be more effective in teaching and therefore in creating desired
student learning outcomes.
The second part is that this knowledge base can best be learned through explicit instruction
or training, the outcomes of which can be documented and evaluated. To educate teachers, and
other professionals like doctors, architects, lawyers, etc., the knowledge base is taught
through a mixture of transmission and organized practice. Induction into the profession
depends on individuals mastering its knowledge base and demonstrating that mastery in
practice. Together these ideas—of a socially established knowledge base that is learned
through professional training and can be demonstrated in practice—structure
professionalization in a field; teaching languages operates in basically the same way.
In this basic analysis, the table uses a denominator, or working total, which is the total
number of invited papers less those presented by faculty from the host institution. This is
simply a crude attempt to create a common basis for comparison, and is in no way meant to
minimize the contributions of speakers. It is based on the rationale that those from outside
institutions have to travel to participate. By this same reasoning, the table also distinguishes
the number of presenters from outside the United States, which ranged from 62 percent (in
1994) to 24 percent (in 1990). A possible explanation for the high in 1994 could be the topic,
which linked educational linguistics to cross-cultural communication and global
interdependence. The number of non-US-based participants is also broken down into the
number who came from Australasia, Britain, or North America, the rationale being that these
so-called ‘BANA’ countries (Holliday, 1994a) were centers of the Anglophone disciplinary
traditions, and might be expected as immediate members of the community of explanation. To
see participation expand beyond these BANA countries might suggest a widening of the new
community.
What does all this suggest about the emerging vernacular community of the new knowledge
base in the pre-internet era? In some senses, it could be a picture found in many academic
meetings, of either well established or new explanatory communities. The number of papers
presented by speakers mostly from the United States, the host country, is relatively stable.
Some patterns forming the community surface among repeat speakers who were invited to
more than one of the Roundtables. Taking the 1983 Roundtable as a point of comparison, the
number of repeat presenters in subsequent years was 22 percent in 1990 and 1991, rising to
30 percent in 1994, which was a smaller event. In 1991, six of the nine repeat presenters had
spoken at the previous year’s Roundtable in 1990, while three had spoken at the 1983
Roundtable. In 1994, there were repeat presenters from several years: one presenter from
1990 only; three from 1991 only; and two had spoken at multiple years’ meetings. Only one
person, Professor Jack C. Richards, was invited to speak at all four Roundtables. Table 4.3
outlines the continuity in speakers and institutions across the four Roundtables.
The invitations to these repeat speakers may have been a function of several factors
(availability, proximity, or professional and personal friendships); however, their
involvement did contribute to a common platform. The continuity in speakers meant certain
individuals became central—for whatever reason—in the articulation of the new social facts,
which helped to establish core thinking in the emerging knowledge base. It is interesting that
this continuity was more individual than institutional however, if we consider the universities
that were represented by more than one speaker.
Over the four Roundtables, the focus of the 131 papers was primarily on disciplinary
knowledge (29 percent) and on classroom practices (34 percent), which is not surprising in
building up the social facts of the knowledge base. The 38 discipline-derived topics were
closely divided between applied linguistics (22 papers or 58 percent) and second language
acquisition (16 papers or 42 percent). The papers about the work of language teaching were
less evenly divided: 69 percent, or 31 of the 45, focused on the classroom itself, including
methodology and concerns of classroom teaching, while 31 percent (14 out of 45) concerned
the work of teaching beyond the classroom, such as standards setting and teacher-research.
There were few papers, 19 percent, or 25 of the 131, that explicitly addressed theorization of
the knowledge base, however, and only 18 percent, or 23 papers, were accounts of actual
practices. These were primarily about the work of language teaching or teacher education in
specific contexts (78 percent or 18 of the 23); only 5 papers (22 percent) could be called
‘synthetic’ accounts that brought together experiences from multiple settings and attempted to
generalize from them.
The Roundtable content could undoubtedly be parsed in other ways, but regardless of the
specific categories, the central point underscores Bazerman’s observation that he ‘couldn’t
see what a text was doing without looking at the worlds in which these texts served as
significant activity’ (1998, p. 4). In this relatively short ten-year period, the social facts of
language teaching spread through these meetings confirmed a social process. Knowledge
transmission depended on an increasingly clear articulation of content, expressed in terms of
disciplinary communities, and a consensus around the skills involved in the daily work of
language teaching. The proceedings of these Roundtables offer a window into the process of
self definition.
Table 4.5 City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Language Teacher Education Conferences content
overview (1992, 1994, 1996)
Although this content analysis is basic, several aspects stand out. Very few papers (only three
across the three conferences) had an explicit disciplinary focus; in contrast, nine papers, half
of the published proceedings, from the first conference were about new theorizations. A
leitmotif of practice ran against this conceptual backdrop. These two foci were split equally
between the language classroom, papers that focused on language teaching as the content of
language teacher education, and teacher education, accounts of its designs, and practices.
Disciplinary transmission rounds out the typology at the explicit end of the continuum. It
complements and formalizes the terms of teacher learning in the know-how made over time
view. The view delivers content, defined by the disciplines, through knowledge transmission,
and the institutional structures and arrangements that support it. Even though there is
sometimes scrutiny and debate over the specifics of content, delivery, and institutional
arrangements, the premises themselves about what counts as the knowledge base are not often
directly challenged (see Freeman & Johnson, 1998).
The chapter argument revisited
Disciplinary knowledge plays a central role in language teaching and second language
education. As it does in other fields, it provides a way into the work and defines the
professional identity. But this knowledge is not inert; it is produced by groups that value it as
communities and that use it to understand and explain what they do. In educating second
language teachers, this process is complex for two reasons: because the core content,
language, is a hybrid idea that is variously defined by different disciplines, and because
teaching and education are also hybrids that draw from different disciplines for definition. In
the face of these ambiguities, second language teacher education has defined itself a
specialized sub-area within language teaching on the one hand and teacher education on the
other.
5
Learning-in-place: situating content and professional learning in
language teacher education
Translingual practice
Canagarajah’s point that using language, which he calls ‘languaging’, is trans-linguistic
changes the conversation about language as what is taught as classroom subject-matter. As
suggested in Chapter 2, language teacher identity comingles professional and linguistic
socialization; the former comes from the apprenticeship of observation and the latter from
experiences of language in the world (see Figure 2.2). Together these socializations
contribute to the content in language classrooms. Now, the comingling process is essentially
the user’s experiences of situated language use over time. The Common European Framework
of Reference defines this as plurilingualism: ‘… a communicative competence to which all
knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which all languages interrelate and
interact’ (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4). The CEFR describes a developmental process that
situates language learning in a widening gyre of experience: ‘an individual’s experience of
language and its cultural contexts expands from the language of the home to that of the society
at large and then to languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by
direct experience).’ (p. 4).
Plurilingualism
As a situated definition of language use, plurilingualism differs from the conventional
additive view of multilingualism in which widening exposure to different languages leads to
greater use. The plurilingual conception of language learning argues that … [the learner]
‘does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separate mental compartments, but
rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of
language contributes and in which all languages interrelate and interact’ (CEFR, p. 4). As a
statement of language policy, the subversive aspect of this definition comes from conceiving
of language learning and use as open-ended or always partial. Competence is not a state of
mastery that a language speaker has or can attain; it is a pattern of ongoing use in situations
usually of escalating complexity.
Knowing in situations
Narrative 5.1: Knowing in situations—Japan, Part I
After I completed my post-graduate teaching degree, I took a job in Japan, teaching at an
experimental language institute. The core program was residential in which adult students
immersed themselves in English for a month of intensive study and living. The philosophy
was that language involved cultural understanding, which came through using the
language in many ways simultaneously—in the classroom, in extra-curricular activities, at
meals and at social events. The learning environment was meant to support new forms of
participation and to encourage students in developing new language selves. The whole
environment was different from what I was accustomed to. I was new to Japan and was
making my own cultural adjustments. As a teacher, it was the first time I was teaching my
own language—English—and was using the language in a myriad of residential
interactions with students on a daily basis. As a high school French teacher, I was the user
of the language through my teaching identity and what I did in the classroom. In this
situation in Japan, English permeated the learning environment. It was in the curriculum,
as French had been in my high school teaching, but English was also supposed to be all
around—in hallway chats, in the dining hall, playing volleyball, taking weekend
excursions. I say ‘supposed to be’ because it was and it wasn’t. Certainly we teachers used
English exclusively with each other and most of the time with students. But there was an
artificiality to the process as we kept to our language and gently insisted that the students
honor the social contract that made English the medium of the month-long residential
experience.
Immersion language programs like the one in which I was teaching in Japan embody the ideas
of how knowing in situations contributes to new identities (see Table 5.1). But they raise the
question of how to define the content students are supposed to learn and teachers are
supposed to teach, or more accurately put, where (in which situations) to locate that content.
Is it in the classroom, at the dinner table, at parties, or field trips? Or more likely is the
content located in all of these situations, which then brings up the problem of how to define
that content in teachable terms. The CEFR has set out an approach for doing so on the level of
language policy. Much has been (and could be) written about the CEFR, how it is used and
abused, as well as the many companion policy statements (e.g. the Vietnamese English
Teaching Competency Framework, the Chilean Initial Teacher Preparation Standards for
English teachers) and implementation documents (for example, the English Profile, 2015, and
the European profile for language teacher education, Kelly, 2004) it has generated around the
world. In the context of situated learning however, this discussion focuses on two aspects in
particular—the goals of the Framework and the processes by which it was developed—both
of which underscore the idea of how knowing in situations can contribute to new identities.
The resulting statements might be, as North characterized them, user friendly; however, in
terms of situating language content for learning and teaching, the process was more than that.
Engaging classroom teachers in the framework’s articulation (some as developers and others
as potential users), drew directly on their situated knowledge and expertise. Although this
type of development process is used for some policy documents (such as the European Profile
for Language Teacher Education 2004; the Vietnam English Teaching Competency
Framework), it is not the norm. These processes of participatory development are meant to
integrate teachers’ understandings of practice. In the case of the CEFR, the ‘can do’ statements
are supposed to reflect two types of situation, those in which the speaker uses the language
and, indirectly, those classroom situations in which the language is taught and hopefully
learned. North (2007) talks about this second classroom situation in the second purpose of the
CEFR, ‘To encourage practitioners … to reflect on their current practice, particularly in
relation to learners’ practical language learning needs, the setting of suitable objectives,
and the tracking of learner progress’ (p. 1; italics added).
When seen from the perspective of situated learning theory, the CEFR has accomplished
several things. It expresses language content as situated in terms of learner aims (albeit
generically stated). Although it is disappointing and perhaps to be expected, as the CEFR has
been taken up, these ‘can do’ statements have in some contexts become reified as learning
outcomes, often in order to serve as the basis for large-scale interventions in language teacher
assessment and teacher training. This is contrary to intentions in creating the document. As
one commentator observed, ‘it is not the function of the CEFR to lay down the objectives that
users should pursue or the methods they should employ, it has to provide decision makers
with options and reference points … for their specific educational context’ (Schaerer, 2007,
p. 11). But he continues, reification happens, ‘Tools and documents once published lead their
own lives. They tend to be interpreted, used or not used, applauded or criticized out of a
wide variety of perspectives’ (ibid.).
The second important accomplishment is to expose the complicated relation between
learning language in the classroom and using it in the world. It is almost as if the CEFR were
a policy-level response to the criticism of language learning in school that Haycraft makes to
Arthur, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, ‘What most [foreign teachers] need is to speak
and understand English—which most of them, like us with French, can’t do when they leave
school!’ This complication frames the second part of the Haycraft dilemma—situated teacher
preparation.
Thornbury and Watkins’ list (on the right) implements the theoretical features of situatedness
(on the left). Read together the two lists show how learning-in-place foregrounds the
collective and social context as central in learning to teach. As a form of pedagogical
simplification, practice designs support the idea of making teacher learning closer to, and in
some senses contiguous to, the actual work of classroom teaching, which is the aim of situated
teacher preparation.
The chapter argument revisited
Situated learning theory helps to understand two dilemmas in second language teacher
education. The dilemma of the subject matter lies in how to make language as classroom
content more like language as it is used in the world. Situating content, as the CEFR
describes, addresses this dilemma, though it leads to other issues. The other dilemma is how
to prepare people to teach that content. Here the ideas of pedagogical simplification and
collective learning from situated learning theory are useful in analyzing practice teaching as
the centerpiece of situated teacher preparation. Situating language as content and teacher
preparation together make-up the Haycraft dilemma: how to create what Dewey called an
educative environment in learning to teach languages.
6
Socio-cultural views: understanding sense making and what travels
in learning to teach languages
The chapter argument
Two ideas are interwoven in this chapter: sense making, how teachers (or people generally
for that matter) make meaning in and from what they are doing, and transfer, or what travels
in learning from one context to others. Both ideas can open up in many directions; to narrow
the focus this argument is about what each one contributes to understanding how people learn
to teach languages. Socio-cultural views of learning provide the broader foundation for this
discussion. They form a comprehensive theory that connects what is being learned and how,
with who, why, where (under what circumstances) the learning is happening. Socio-cultural
theory is fundamentally important in developing these ideas of sense making and what travels
because it reorients the relationship among the learner (here a teacher), the contexts of the
learning (from training rooms to classrooms), and the process.
Sense making
Narrative 6.1: ‘Popular’ or ‘being avoided’?
Early in my first year of teaching, I noticed that my first-year class was especially eager.
When the bell rang, they would crowd into the classroom, vying to sit at the front. The
desks were set up in a large U-shape with my desk in the center, and it seemed the places at
either end of the U were particularly prized, so much so that students would fight to sit
there. As a new teacher, I found this attention gratifying; I thought was evidence that my
students liked the class so much that they wanted to sit as close to the teacher as possible.
Then one Monday morning, the classroom set-up seemed a bit different. It must have been
cleaned the afternoon before, and when the desks were put back in the U, my desk was
positioned at the very front of the room so that I was now able to take in everyone,
including those at either end of the U. Suddenly it seemed my ‘popularity’ plummeted.
Instead of fighting to sit nearby, students now wanted to sit in the desks at the bottom of
the U, which were the farthest from my desk. A while later, I put it all together. The nearby
desks had been in my blind spot, so I must not have called on those students. With the
inadvertent rearrangement however, I could see every seat so any student was fair game.
This story of the cluelessness of a first-year teacher distills the process of sense making—
how meanings arise from a situation of activity and how time contributes in the process.
Without the change between the previous and present versions of seating (time), which
triggered a difference in student response (activity), I might not have reconsidered why
students were trying to sit close (the meaning). Making sense of all this could be seen as a
process of interpretation in which one explanation (the students liked me …) was supplanted
by another (if they sit close, they’d be out of my line of sight), but the process is more
complex and nuanced than that. My original explanation arose from several sources; it had a
social history from my own experiences—in school, with people generally, and in a present
context—my being a new teacher, close in age to these high school students, presenting
lessons actively. These sources shaped my perceptions of the social situation of the
classroom. When the seating was inadvertently altered, the social situation changed and with
it the scaffolds for my explanation that ‘sitting close means liking the class.’ This interplay of
past and present, of social and individual, of the setting and people’s actions in it coalesce in
how sense gets made; this is what socio-cultural theory—and CHAT in particular—helps to
unpack.
Tennis as an example
Using a tennis game as an example has the advantage of putting specific names on the five
elements in the activity system. (The sixth element—the object—is to win the match; it is a
constant.) The players (called the subjects of the system) use the ball, the net, and the lines on
the court etc. as tools of the activity to play the game. They use some of these tools actively—
like their rackets and the ball; others—like the net, and the lines on the court—are passive
tools, though they are equally important to the game. (‘Important’ here means the activity
wouldn’t be a tennis game without them.) Interestingly, these passive tools carry a lot of the
meaning; the lines on the court mark what is in or out, which has implications for the scoring.
These implications are part of the rules that make tennis, tennis. Rules go beyond the game
itself, though. They also include norms about what to say (how the score is announced for
instance), what to do (players usually shake hands before and after they play), and even what
to wear (tennis whites in certain tennis contexts).
The subjects (players) have roles that divide the activity up and define who does what,
when. For instance, one player serves and the other returns the serve. To carry out this
division of labor according to their roles, they follow the rules and norms. Putting this
together, the meaningfulness of the activity system comes from the tools being used ‘properly’
for tennis, the rules and norms for tennis being followed, and the roles being done
appropriately for tennis. This meaningfulness depends on being recognized by a reference
group or community that makes sense of the activity as playing tennis; and that these elements
are working meaningfully together to be a tennis game. Breakdowns within an element, or in
the connections between them, affect the meaning of the activity. So a player (subject) may
play ‘poorly’ (do a ‘poor job’ of the role) or be ‘unsportsmanlike’ (contradict norms); or
certain tennis shots may not be ‘ruled out’ (not applying the rules), or the tennis balls may not
be ‘regulation’ (tools), and so on. The point being that these words in quotation marks are
ways in which the community judges the meaningfulness of the activity.
Figure 6.2 Walking through a science methods lesson (from Benedict-Chambers, 2014)
The teacher educator begins the feedback on the walk-though lesson with a question:
TEACHER Yeah, I was wondering about that a little bit. You did such a nice job on the
EDUCATOR: process but then on the actual sense-making of the scientific content … I
wonder if it would work to stop the kids in the middle of the observations and
say, “Okay, remember our investigation question … can we have some initial
ideas—answers to this investigation question based on our observations?”
NOELLE: Yeah and that would be a good way for them to notice because when I was
looking through the [EEE Framework] rubric I didn’t really provide an
opportunity at all for them to make a prediction about the outcome (ibid.).
When she responds, Noelle again uses the tools from the elementary science methods course,
in italics, this time to paraphrase the teacher educator’s suggestion, in italics just above. The
rules and norms here are complex. The most evident is the norm of tool using, working with
science methods terms to unpack the lesson. There is also a norm of invoking the elementary
classroom as the referent community, when the teacher educator says (also in italics above),
‘Okay, remember our investigation question … can we have some initial ideas—answers to
this investigation question based on our observations?’ Interestingly, in her statement the
science methods terms seem to travel as tools, so that the same words can potentially work in
the lesson and they can be used to talk about it. The teacher educator’s suggestion also
confirms a subtle division of labor in the peer teaching, to orient the feedback within the
lesson and to bridge the lesson to full teaching in the referent community.
From the standpoint of meaning, the incident is complexly layered. The trainees have two
roles in the activity system. As ‘elementary students’, they are supposed to use the common
misconceptions children have about the topic, which they have studied, to play their roles in
the lesson. Then afterwards in the discussion reproduced here, they become teachers-in-
training to discuss what happened. Their main tools are the EEE framework they have been
studying, and the terms from the science methods course, which is the context of the peer
teaching. In the course, peer teaching is a lesson within a lesson, which established the
division of labor between the teacher educator and the trainees, who can say and do what is
in their roles. These layered roles—as students, as trainees, and as future teachers; as teacher
educator and as fellow elementary teacher—are meaningful (which makes them roles worth
playing) because of the different communities they invoke. The trainees are taught and
evaluated by the teacher educator within the university course, which is one community. They
also listen to her as a fellow teacher, in their roles as future teachers in an elementary school
context.
Transfer
The notion of traveling is referred to in educational psychology as ‘transfer of learning’. It is
beyond the scope of this discussion to review the history and the literature of the concept,
which is done elsewhere (for example, Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999/2004); the main
point here is the term itself. ‘Transfer’ implies something that is being moved from one
context to another. It is defined as ‘… the ability to extend what has been learned in one
context to new contexts’ (Bransford et al., 1999/2004, p. 51). The emphasis is on the thing
itself and how it does or doesn’t change in being taken from one setting to another. Think of
bringing something perishable, maybe fish or milk, home from the supermarket on a hot day;
does it survive in edible form or does it spoil? ‘Transfer of learning’ has a similar sense;
does what is learned in one place survive in its initial form when taken from where it is
learned to where it is used?
There are several issues with this view of transfer from the perspective of a social practice
theory (see Sfard, 1998). The aim is assumed to be that the thing being transferred continues
to be the same regardless of context (see Reddy, 1979). Context is taken as the backdrop, as a
place where things happen. In a social practice view, what is being transferred is (re)defined
within each context so stability is not the aim. Context is dynamic, as in the tennis game or the
peer-teaching examples; it is part of what makes meaning. The idea of time works differently
as well. Studies of transfer of learning measure elapsed time between contexts (near versus
far transfer) to see how long an idea or a skill survives in the form in which it was learned. In
social practice theory, time is part of the context; as discussed earlier, past time defines how
things are in the present, and future time anticipates how the activity may be used.
Table 6.1 summarizes these differences in the two views. At the most basic, the idea of
transfer differentiates between learning something and using it later. In social practice theory
learning and using are intertwined. Learning is a way of talking about using that describes
getting more and more like those who are fluent or proficient.
Transferring Traveling
What is being moved Stays stable Is (re)defined in context
Context Is the backdrop, setting Is a dynamic social environment
Time Measures how long what has Is part of context—the past
been learned is preserved shapes the present activity, which
anticipates future uses.
Table 6.1 Transfer vs. traveling
Traveling
Transfer is one way of describing how ideas move; traveling is another. It focuses on what
happens as things move in time. In teacher education things travel—techniques in the training
room move to the practice lesson; concepts from the seminar show up in the school
practicum; all of this travels from preparation or in-service contexts into classrooms. To
tackle this question of how things travel, we need to better understand the social practice
view of tools, what they are and how they work.
Tools
In cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), tools are one element of an activity system.
They can be physical things, like the racket or the ball in the tennis example; they can also be
symbolic, like the terms from the science methods class in the peer-teaching example. While
physical tools usually vary depending on the activity, the most common symbolic tool in doing
activities is language. Physical and symbolic tools are often combined in an activity, such as
when a teacher explains while pointing to the board or using a worksheet. Tools also come
with a past, a history that creates norms for how they are to be used. This history is not
something separate; in social practice theory the history is part of the tool. It makes the tool
meaningful in the activity.
Narrative 6.3: Rod story II: the tool takes on different meanings
During my graduate training, the Cuisenaire rods and I crossed paths many times. I was
fascinated by the seemingly endless ways in which they could be used. We used them
literally to teach numbers and colors (‘One black rod; five orange ones’) and in applied
linguistics we talked about using them to teach prepositions (The white rod is on top of the
orange one), and verb tenses (First, I took two white rods, now I’m taking an orange one.),
and so on. In methodology courses, I saw how these pieces of wood could trigger meanings
in the new language, which changed the rods from equipment to tools for particular forms
of teaching. In the Silent Way, the teacher could combine silence (not-speaking) with
visible situations using the rods to prompt students to use the new language (Stevick, 1980,
p.44). In the Counseling-Learning methodology, there were metaphorical uses: these
colored wooden sticks could be members of a family, or buildings in a city, or a map of a
memory (Stevick, 1980, 139).
As we worked with the rods that year, I got completely immersed in the ways they might
function in the language classroom. While they were familiar from mathematics in Grade
3, now they seemed a tool of a different sort. Or maybe they were the same tool, but now
used differently. It was akin to meeting a person a for the second time and finding they’ve
changed. In Grade 3, the rods had seemed boring; now, when used to these new ends in
language teaching, they seemed dynamic and engaging.
Levels of contradiction
Contradictions within an activity
This story illustrates the interplay or tension between the object of an activity system and its
outcome, and highlights several points about that dynamic. Different participants can (and do)
have different goals or objects: I wanted to randomize seating; some students wanted to
manage where they sat. These tensions in one element of the activity system are called
primary contradictions. At any given moment, either color or length (or both) could be the
salient feature that made the rods meaningful in a particular situation. I manipulated this
primary contradiction in the tool towards the object I wanted (randomized seating). Over
time students got to know the drill and learned to manipulate the tool to achieve their own
goals (sitting with whom they chose). This tension between elements within an activity system
—here the tool and the object—is called a secondary contradiction. In any activity,
participants are bound to have differing agendas; secondary contradictions describe how
they use elements—the tools, the rules and norms, the division of labor—to meet their own
ends.
Primary and secondary contradictions describe how the activity system works, where its
dynamism comes from. The idea that the alignment among elements of the system is by nature
contentious, is central to the theory. Activity systems are always unstable as the story above
shows. When some students recognized how I was using the rods (as a tool to reseat people),
they then could use the tool to their own ends (sitting where they wanted to). I altered the
aspect of the tool that was salient (to be length not color), which changed what happened in
the activity. The levels of primary and secondary contradiction happen within an activity
system; in this case characterized by its dynamism and instability.
Language teaching, like any form of teaching, is usually described in terms of the classroom
work that we can see. We introduce teaching methods and techniques as things the teacher
does; we observe and comment on lessons as activity that we can talk about. But this public
side of teaching has a hidden side (Freeman, 2002), the mental work that makes it happen.
Part Three is about that mental work, and three processes in particular: thinking, knowing,
and reflecting.
How Part Three is organized
The first two chapters in the section examine teacher thinking in language teaching and
second language teacher education. Chapter 7 outlines how ideas about teacher thinking in the
field have developed since the 1950s; Chapter 8 looks at four seminal ways the process has
been represented, two from general educational research and two from second language
teacher education. The next two chapters present a similar analysis of knowing. Chapter 9
follows the development of ideas about language teaching knowledge through four
generations, and Chapter 10 looks at ways in which those ideas are organized socio-
professionally into the ELT knowledge-base. The four chapters balance internal and external
perspectives. Chapter 7 and Chapter 9 look at how the field of ELT has defined thinking and
knowing internally; the companion Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 look at many of the same issues
from the outside in.
Generations as a scaffold
There are accounts of the history of language teaching generally (for example, Kelly, 1969)
and English language teaching specifically (for example, Howatt, 1984; Howatt & Smith,
2014). The concept of generations differs from these histories, however. The aim is to define
patterns in how ideas about thinking and about knowledge in language teaching have been
understood. Shifts in these definitional patterns are important in understanding how language
teaching as a field has defined itself, the ideas about thinking and about the knowledge it has
valued, how these ideas have come about and, when they are perceived as incomplete, what
gaps push the next generational view.
The chapters about the field-internal perspectives are organized chronologically. Each uses
the idea of generations to frame the development of ideas about teacher thinking and
knowledge. These generations loosely characterize time periods during which prevailing
ideas in the field shared a common general focus and set of concerns. Since thinking and
knowing are closely connected, it makes sense that the generations parallel and intertwine
with each other as they concentrate on similar issues and concerns. In fact, this generational
history could be an account of how understandings and definitions of teacher thinking and
teacher knowledge in language teaching have converged. The table below gives a snapshot of
how the concerns have coincided.
As with any snapshot however, this table will likely raise more questions than it answers. It
is introduced here at the beginning of the section to orient the reader—fuller consideration of
the parallels is left to you.
As companion perspectives, Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 are meant as a balance to the field-
internal examinations; each offers a particular external view. Chapter 8 describes how second
language teacher education brought two generative conceptions of teacher thinking from
general educational research into the field, where each was seminal. Chapter 10 looks at the
socio-professional dynamics that have shaped how the ELT knowledge-base has developed.
These two chapters argue that second language teacher education transforms ideas in unique
ways to suit the nature of language as subject-matter and classrooms as where it is taught.
Side-by-side, the two chapters on thinking and the two on knowing present what the field
itself has done and how it takes the same ideas from elsewhere and does them differently.
The final chapter in this section is on reflecting, which is defined as thinking and knowing
in particular situations. The discussion uses two ideas—situations of practice and action-
present—that are part of Schon’s writing about reflection to build connections between the
discussions of thinking and knowing and second language teacher education.
7
How teacher thinking got to be part of language teaching
It is rather pointless to ask the teacher, after a routine decision has been made, what were
the contents of his [sic] mind at the time of the decision. For in a very real sense, there is
little he can report of any substance except that ‘It seemed like the right thing to do under
the circumstances’ or ‘I did it almost without thinking.’
(David Hargreaves, 1977, p. 13)
The chapter argument
Clearly language teachers think and always have; there has always been a hidden side to the
work (Freeman, 2002), but how it became formally recognized by the field of language
teaching is an interesting story. This chapter uses the device of generations to outline the
movement in conceptions of thinking in the field. As explained in the Introduction to Part
Three, these generations represent patterns of ideas; they follow a historical progression, but
are not meant to be a history per se. Each generation is associated with a broad shift in the
teaching methodologies considered current, the rationales and explanations for those ways of
teaching, and the teacher’s role in relation to them. This evolution in definitions of thinking is
in many ways specific to language teaching. It is driven in part by the fact that language,
which is inherently fungible, has always been susceptible to modification as classroom
content. This reinvention has taken place through methodologies, and the different ways in
which language as content has been taught. The changes in teaching have catalyzed
redefinitions of what and how language teachers think as they teach.
Table 7.1 Teaching pronunciation: Three contrasting practices and their underlying reasoning
What is interesting, as others have also observed (for example, Larsen-Freeman, 1986;
Stevick, 1980), is how differently these three methods approached the same goal, in this case
the goal of developing students’ pronunciation in the target language. The visible classroom
practices above are so distinctive that an observer would be unlikely to confuse one form of
teaching with another. Each set of practices is based on a specific ideological way of
thinking. Anchored in a specific view of language learning and the learner, these views are as
distinct and incompatible as the public practices they foster. In the example, ALDM teaching
promotes automaticity in language production leading to fluency; Community Language
Learning aims to create a new language self, based on the learner’s interests, concerns, and
priorities. The Silent Way focuses on learner independence, which is realized through
autonomous practice using the target language sounds to express what the learner perceives
and wants to say. From this vantage point, it seems like a riddle: Are these three means to the
same end of fluently acceptable pronunciation? Or, given the different ways they define the
goal, is each method actually a uniquely distinctive means of its own?
Methodological independence
The continued spread of innovative methods during the 1980s fed the notion of thinking
methodologically. Teaching behavior, to use the ALDM frame, expressed distinct ways of
thinking about language, learning, and teaching. This first recognition of thinking as part of
language teaching was not explicit, however. Since the teachers’ thinking was directly linked
to—or even embodied in—the form of practice itself, thinking methodologically was not
distinguishable as an element of the teaching. Lessons could be described, for example, as
‘Silent Way teaching’ or ‘Suggestopedia classrooms’, or a teacher might be called (or refer to
herself) as a ‘CLL teacher’ or as using the ‘Natural Approach’, and so on. When language
teaching had been equated to ALDM, there was no need for such distinctions; indeed there
was basically no way to make them. Classroom teaching looked largely the same and there
was no need to identify different forms of thinking to distinguish it. That changed in the 1980s,
when thinking differently and teaching differently became synonymous.
The independence of innovative methods blossomed organizationally throughout the 1980s.
The first generation promoted the notion of practitioner through teaching materials, books, and
newsletters that were published independentlyNOTE 1 by the methods proponents (for
example, Counseling-Learning Publications for CLL/Counseling-Learning; Educational
Solutions for the Silent Way; and Alemany Press, for the Natural Approach). The methods
offered training opportunities, often outside conventional academic settings, usually by their
leading practitioners, that established separate communities of practitioners. And each had its
own language of practice.
Distinct languages of practice
The ideological distinctiveness became more evident as innovative methods developed their
particular social facts and idiosyncratic ways of talking and writing. Through demonstrations,
publications, workshops, and training, the methods fostered specific communities of practice
that developed and promulgated their own particular language of practice. Users identified
themselves, and were recognizable to others, through the ways in which they described what
they did in their classrooms. The teaching pronunciation comparison in Table 7.1 illustrates
these languages of practice. In ALDM teaching, for instance, student mistakes are
characterized as potentially ‘bad language habits’, but Silent Way teachers would distinguish
between student ‘mistakes’ and ‘errors’. Underlying the difference in the two explanations is
a way of thinking about how people learn languages. In ALDM as we have said, students are
forming automatic language responses, so mistakes in pronunciation indicate imperfect
mastery of the habit. In the Silent Way, the goal was to learn autonomously so when a student
produced an unacceptable pronunciation, one of two things might be happening. The student
may be making a mistake, the result of mis-taking one sound or word for another, although the
student knew or had access to both. Or the student may be making an error, which in Silent
Way thinking is the inevitable result of facing the unknown. As explained in the Educational
Solutions Newsletter (Gattegno, 1976b, p. 2), ‘Errors underline the matter with which they
are linked; mistakes, the person involved in the activities … Indeed, errors happen, while
mistakes are made.’
These different languages of practice connect to different ways of acting and thinking in the
classroom. In Table 7.2, ALDM and the Silent Way use different social facts to explain why a
teacher would act in a particular way in correcting students’ pronunciation. The social facts
abbreviate the explanations in providing different ways of thinking about the teaching
problem, and support different ways of responding to it. In ALDM teaching (Table 7.2), in
order to avoid bad language habits the teacher would orally correct the student when she
heard an utterance that was wrong. In Silent Way teaching, the teacher would try to distinguish
whether what the student had said resulted from an error or a mistake, which would then
guide different ways of responding. With mistakes, the teacher might let students sort out the
correction themselves, usually with minimal support, whereas with errors she would likely
intervene to show what was different or new in the target language that may have led to the
error. Thus in thinking methodologically the teacher had packaged a way to explain what was
happening in lessons and to respond to it.
Towards the next generation
Each of these innovative methods was a system of thinking and acting unto itself. The specific
training each offered, supported by its classroom materials and teacher publications, created
communities of explanation in which teachers would exchange ideas and develop their
thinking using the social facts of the method. This way of thinking methodologically placed
language teachers in an interesting position, however. On the one hand, each innovative
method clearly depended on thinking and its language of practice. On the other, teachers faced
a sort of Hobson’s choice: either learn to use a particular method as it was conceived and
thus to the exclusion of other methods, or teach a-methodologically.
A-methodological teaching
A-methodological teaching, which was called eclectic, meant blending techniques and
practices, which led to a contradiction: since each method embodied an ideological stance
towards teaching and learning, a teacher could not simultaneously use a particular method and
at the same time combine elements from various other sources. Doing so would violate the
thinking and explanations that undergirded the techniques. For its practitioners, the specific
method served them to do, think, and talk about their teaching; they enacted its practices and
drew on its social facts to explain what they did. They could participate in its language of
practice in conversations and writing about their classroom teaching experiences. This form
of teaching depended on methodological fidelity. In contrast, those who taught eclectically
blurred lines of methodological thinking.
Gaps in methodological fidelity
The contrast between teaching within a single method and the notion of eclectic teaching led
to arguments, which were couched as which method was ‘best’ (for example, Prabhu, 1990).
Proponents of eclecticism argued that since there was no way to determine which method
worked best, it was incumbent upon teachers to consider ‘their students, [when] searching for
proof that the methods worked. This, they argued, led teachers to … [find] ways to pick and
choose elements of multiple methods to increase student engagement, language use, and
communicative capacity’ (Cushing-Leubner & Bigelow, 2014, p. 247, 248). But teaching in
this way entailed a new conception of thinking. Innovative methods supported sophisticated,
if singular, thinking about the specifics of language learning and teaching. Eclectic teaching, in
contrast, with its central notion of choice, offered the possibility of independence in how the
teacher worked in the language classroom. Ironically perhaps, the very exclusivity and
singularity of each innovative method, expressed in its own language of practice, sustained
deeper thinking about teaching and learning and made the method susceptible to challenge.
Logically, if innovative methods offered mutually exclusive explanations of language
learning, through their particular social facts, and claimed to be effective on that basis, it was
not possible to compare them. To compare methods to determine which one was best would
require shared explanations of learning, along with common social facts and a lingua franca
of practice to express them.
Eclectic teaching
Eclectic teaching became the label for teachers who combined classroom activities from
different methodologies, but there was little agreement on what it meant for a language
teacher to be eclectic, and the definition remained superficial. Rivers (1968) offered one of
the first definitions of eclectic teaching as ‘try[ing] to absorb the best techniques of all the
well-known language-teaching methods into classroom procedures, using them for the
purpose for which they are most appropriate’ (p. 21). This view made eclectic teaching a
smorgasbord of activity and reasoning, a sort of combinatorial pedagogy. The view had
critics, however, who argued that the alternative to thinking methodologically had to be more
than simply choosing among classroom activities. In outlining what he called informed
eclecticism, Deyes (1982) emphasized the thinking involved. He warned that such teaching
was not ‘an ad hoc use of techniques, simply because they are … fun, or because they give
clear right or wrong answers… [nor is it to] … be seen in any sense as an easy way out’
(p.16). Instead, Deyes set out the core challenge to thinking methodologically when he argued
that the point of eclectic teaching was that ‘techniques need not derive from any one theory of
language, of learning, or of education, but should be related to the overall nature and
objectives of particular courses.’ In other words, eclectic teaching could marry techniques
from various methods in a synthetic process that focused on the particulars of the teacher’s
setting. This, however, entailed detailing the thought processes underlying these choices.
CLT thinking
The appeal to disciplinary knowledge distinguished CLT as an approach, using Anthony’s
term, from the roiling variety of innovative methods, and in a sense lent it academic credence.
As it took on a pre-eminence similar to ALDM teaching in the 1960s, CLT offered a
straightforward rationale for action that collapsed the vying ideas of eclectic teaching into a
single line of thinking. Thinking in CLT had an almost syllogistic character: The purpose of
language was communication therefore the language classroom should mimic the world by
creating communicative tasks. To do so, the teacher would organize these tasks, providing
language input and communicative practice, and where needed negotiate correction so that the
language students produced was intelligible. CLT thinking seemed largely like following a
recipe of steps similar to the pattern practice of ALDM teaching, albeit ones that were mental
rather than strictly behavioral. Thinking in this way seemed more complex than following a
method; for the teacher it was a matter of aligning the interactive, and therefore potentially
less manageable classroom activity, with axiomatic communicative principles.
Like ALDM of the 1960s, the ease of this homogeneous reasoning seemed to contribute to
CLT’s rapid expansion. Based on the curricular innovations of the Council of Europe’s work
on language syllabi (for example, van Ek, 1975), CLT offered a generic formulation of
language teaching that fit the expansion of ELT during the 1990s. The classroom practices of
CLT were somewhat amorphous, certainly in comparison to the strict definitions of the
various innovative methods, making them more flexible to adopt and adapt. From a teacher
education standpoint, CLT teaching became the successor to eclectic teaching; it offered a
similarly combinatorial pedagogy that encouraged teachers to work synthetically using a
variety of classroom activities. Pragmatically, CLT was embedded in programs of
commercially published classroom materials and assessment designs, which helped to make
it widely available in classroom materials and their curricular supports. In terms of thinking
however, CLT represented a non-partisan view of teaching founded on disciplinary
definitions, which needed a common language. This is what Anthony’s categorization, through
Richards and Rodgers, supplied.
A methodological metalanguage
Anthony’s (1963) terms, which were expanded by Richards and Rodgers (1986) and other
writers (for example, Brown, 1994; Larsen-Freeman, 1986) into a common methodological
metalanguage, described language-teaching practices in seemingly neutral, methodologically
agnostic terms. The common terminology was usually introduced through initial teacher
education in pedagogy courses. New teachers would then find it supported and amplified in
the major, communicatively based textbook programs from which they were often expected to
teach. What was actually meant by teaching communicatively, and whether teachers were
actually doing so, was largely beside the point; what became centrally important was that
there was a way to conceptualize and describe teaching independently of any particular
axiomatic methodological approach. Using the synthetic language of CLT and methodological
metalanguage, the world of classroom practices was independent of the teacher, a world that
she could orchestrate through choice and informed decision-making.
Thinking exposed
A loose assemblage of factors came together in the second generation to expose the private
realm of language teacher thinking and make it an operational part of the public classroom
work. These factors are summarized in Table 7.3 below:
Common language Anthony’s (1963) original framework outlined a basic set of terms for language
teaching.
Common language Used comparatively to examine innovative methods in various methodology
texts, the terms function as a common language to distinguish internal private belief from publicly
observable behavior.
Shared view of teaching The spread of CLT as the dominant methodology supported the use of this
common language.
Shared view of teaching Based on disciplinary knowledge and social facts from applied linguistics,
anthropology, and subsequently second language acquisition, CLT prescribed a homogenous way of
thinking (phrased as ‘teaching communicatively’) that supported a heterogeneous set of classroom
practices (loosely called ‘communicative techniques’).
Shared view of teaching The central premise of thinking as choice and decision-making was
instantiated through shared practices ranging from teacher education programs to curricular teachers’
guides.
These factors contributed in redefining the mental work of teaching as the notion that teachers would
choose or decide what to do, a notion that embodied thinking as a function that was separable from
the public classroom practice.
Table 7.3 The second generation summarized
By the mid 1990s, this perspective had helped to establish a synthetic view of language
teaching, in which the public classroom work became a bricolage of techniques, practices,
and materials bound together by the teacher’s reasoning. The synthetic view anticipated and
ultimately supported a more heuristic view of practice in the next generation. By exposing the
world of thinking, synthetic views also opened language teacher education to
conceptualizations and research in general teacher education as discussed in the next chapter.
These transitions were carried through in a group of discussions about the post-method
condition.
while the other seven are expressed in terms that are subject-matter neutral, for example:
Half of the strategies could apply to most teaching, indicating how far the discourse of
language teaching had moved from its disciplinary roots and the strictly methodological basis
of previous generations.
To do the activity, trainees need to be able to talk about normative practices using the terms
on the chart. As a teacher-learning activity, the aim is essentially to practice professional
discourse in a way that is ‘iconoclastic and fun’ so that ‘the terminology may become less
threatening’ (Woodward, 1992, p. 84). The activity illustrates the two dimensions of a
common language about teaching: It allows participants to agree on what to concentrate on,
but it also underlines the specialization of that language, here called ‘jargon’.
The interrelation between the conception of teacher thinking and forms of response in teacher
education is interesting. The alignment can be viewed reading left to right, that since thinking
is conceptualized this way, the teacher education response would follow. Or the information
can be read from right to left, that since the teacher education intervention is aimed at better
training in the particular methodology for example, the underlying assumption must be a first-
generation one, that teachers are thinking methodologically. The two ways of reading this
alignment show the core challenge of the third generation, how to treat teacher thinking as a
heuristic process.
Arriving at the heuristic argument
The analysis that Nunan offered is solidly third generation. While acknowledging the
pessimism that the gap might trigger from a second-generation perspective—’It is not
necessary to be totally pessimistic about the chances of making the classroom more
communicative’, he wrote. Nunan argued that the gap actually reveals the powerful role of
context and socialization in shaping how the teachers think (and say) they are teaching.
[P]owerful constraints exist, as do conditioned classroom reflexes on the part of teachers and
learners. These will not necessarily change because of the published pronouncements of
applied linguists. The essential first step in promoting change is to acknowledge and
document present realities through classroom-based research.
(Nunan, 1987, p. 142)
Three features of the idea of thinking heuristically are important to note in Nunan’s analysis.
The first is the way that ‘making the classroom more communicative’ is set out as the goal,
which illustrates how CLT is the predominantly accepted classroom practice. Second is the
acknowledgement that socialization, which he calls conditioned classroom reflexes, of both
teacher and students are part of what shape how teachers are teaching and students are
responding in lessons. These two points together change how teaching is described. Nunan
does not explain the lack of teaching in these classrooms as a matter of teachers’ resistance or
ineptitude in teaching communicatively. Instead he takes the dissonance as evidence of
patterns of socialization and studenting in the larger fabric of schooling into which language
classrooms, like all classrooms, fit. These two points pave the way for the third point, which
is the heuristic argument. To engage with what is actually happening in lessons—’to
acknowledge and document present realities’—as Nunan puts it, teachers need to learn
through classroom-based research.
With these successive generations the separation between the private, individual realm,
called teacher thinking, and the public world of the classroom (variously called behavior,
teaching methodology, or classroom practice) has increased. The separation has created the
possibility of choice, which has matured into definitions of teacher thinking as individual
agency. This redefinition in the third generation has opened up the possibility of key ideas
from general education to take hold and to assume a central place in second language teacher
education, a process which is described in the next chapter.
Note
1 With the exception of Newbury House Publishers, a small publisher founded to specialize
in English language teaching in 1969 and acquired by foreign language publisher Heinle &
Heinle in 1991, established American and British publishing houses did not enter directly
into this methodological thicket, preferring instead to publish synthetic accounts of teaching
methodologies (for example, Brown, 1994; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Richards & Rodgers,
1986).
8
Four representations of teacher thinking
The chapter argument
Chapter 7 outlined how thinking as mental work came to be seen as integral to language
teaching, presenting an examination from within the field. This chapter looks from the
outside-in at how seminal ideas from research in general education migrated into language
teaching to fundamentally reshape our conceptions of thinking. This migration of ideas is
reflected in four graphic representations of thinking. These diagrams distill their writers’
arguments and can reveal their assumptions; thus each offers a visual way into what is central
to the ideas, what is peripheral, and what is not even mentioned.
Shavelson’s representation of decision-making (1973) (see Figure 8.1), and Clark and
Peterson’s representation of thought processes (1986) (see Figure 8.2) were both seminal in
work on teacher thinking in general educational research in the 1980s. These representations
are connected to Woods’ view of decision-making (1996) (see Figure 8.3) and Borg’s of
teacher cognition(s) (2003) (see Figure 8.4), two key conceptualizations of thinking important
in language teaching.
The argument begins with the horizontal connections between decision-making and thought
processes, using Shavelson and Clark and Peterson as points of reference. It then looks at the
vertical connections—how these two ideas were taken up in language teaching—how
decision-making became Beliefs-Assumptions-Knowledge (BAK) for Woods and how
thought processes were reinterpreted as cognition(s) by Borg. These re-conceptualizations
proved to be highly influential in the field, exemplary instances of ‘the same things’ (ideas
from general educational research) ‘done differently’ (in language teaching). The four
representations are not intended to summarize the full sweep of ideas from general
educational research that have shaped work on language teacher thinking. The point is not a
comprehensive review, but rather a close examination of how seminal ideas migrated.
A unit of thinking
Shavelson’s proposal did several important things. It effectively located where thinking
happened: in the teacher’s judgments of ‘congruity’. It defined how thinking happened: by the
teacher matching intention with action. Politically it underscored what should have been self-
evident, the teacher as the person thinking was centrally important in classroom teaching.
Most basically, however, Shavelson was proposing a unit of thinking that could be studied in
research and could be designed for in teacher education. From a research perspective, there
were many aspects of teachers’ decisions that could be documented (for example, Lowyck,
1986): what the decisions were about (the content); when they occurred (which situations
triggered which decisions, etc.); how they might change over time (the role of the teacher’s
experience); if decisions were generic or idiosyncratic (the place of individuality in
decision-making); and so on. From the standpoint of teacher education, activities could be
designed to focus on trainees’ decisions. Prescriptive interventions, for instance, when a
trainer might use directive feedback to supervise a trainee, could focus on changing trainees’
decision-making; while reflective activities, for example, when trainees might evaluate the
impact of particular teaching moves, could focus on self-improvement.
It is difficult to overestimate the impact of labeling decisions as a unit of thinking. In effect
the construct opened up a cognitive world, and did so in a descriptive way. Arguments about
‘good or bad’ or ‘skilled or unskilled’ decisions aimed at prescribing ways to think that were
common in the second generation of thinking methodologically could be recast as empirical
questions, open to documentation and research. Part of this utilitarian genius lay in two
aspects: that as a unit of thinking, the scale of decisions was inherently flexible, and as label
for thinking, it was content-neutral. One always had to specify, decisions about what? In
terms of scale and content, a teacher made decisions about which student to call on or who
worked with whom in a particular exercise, but she also decided how to order activities in
the lesson, if and how to use technological aids, or often how to sequence the curriculum, and
so on. In this inherent flexibility of definition lay the enduring strength of the construct.
Conceptual problems
The fluidity of scale and content in defining what constituted a decision was also a source of
conceptual confusion. The strength came from acknowledging that there could not be a
standard measure of thinking; instead the question was one of impact—how the teacher’s
thinking connected to actions in the classroom. Decisions could only be understood through
how what happened played out in the external world. This led to two conceptual problems.
First, in its flexibility, decision-making could potentially encompass all thinking, which
would make a rather blunt, over-generalized construct. Second, it was anchored in cognitive
theory and psychology, which left aside the social world. Since teaching and learning are
inherently social activities, this focus on the individual teacher’s thinking as decision-making
left unexplored many dimensions of what teacher thinking might entail.
The circle on the left, which actually represents teachers’ thinking, reflects elements in the
terms of the day: ‘pre-active and interactive thoughts and decisions’ as well as ‘beliefs and
theories’. The circle on the right represents elements of the social world in the ‘actions and
observable effects’ of the teacher and students. Connecting the two is a simple, unlabeled
arrow, which leaves unlabeled the unit of thinking. Instead the diagram emphasizes this
interplay of the inner cognitive world and the outer world of actions and effects. Perhaps the
most intriguing aspect of the diagram is the acknowledgment of a loose grouping of social
factors labeled ‘constraints and opportunities’. These remain unspecified, except for their
potential influence—as negative limitations (‘constraints’) or positive possibilities
(‘opportunities’).
The phases—action/event (at the top of the diagram), understanding/interpretation (to the
right), and planning/expectation (to the left)—follow on each other sequentially. Woods chose
to represent the sequence iteratively as a circle (or a line connected to itself). This visual was
similar to Clark and Peterson’s (1986) two circles and arrows, but different from Shavelson’s
(1973) linear, flow-chart diagram. It is interesting that when time is represented in this way, it
actually becomes part of the thinking process rather than a backdrop for it. In Woods’
diagram, the temporal sequence of decision-making seems to drive the thinking and to
reconnect it to itself. It seems to suggest how decisions might build into experience through
time.
From the research standpoint, Woods (1996) put his view of decision-making within the
process–product framework of the day (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Freeman, 1996), although his
study was actually more hermeneutically oriented. He wrote that ‘Classroom discourse can
be considered the product of the decision-making process that creates it’, again showcasing
the role of language in the process. In fact, he seemed to be co-opting the terms ‘process’ and
‘product’ from their usual sense of cause leading to effect, and using them to describe the fluid
meaning-making central in language teaching. Woods’ (1996) description of a process–
product-like distinction ‘between the structure of the course—the events and actions … and
the structuring of the course—the process of decision-making which results in the above
product’ (p. 13; original italics) is a similar example of this looser meaning of terms.
Time
The explanatory language, which wraps around the outside of the diagram (Figure 8.4) to
elaborate each category, forms a narrative statement, which when read together suggests a
left-to-right, top-to-bottom ordering in time. In the framework, two types of time—past and
present—are interwoven in language teacher thinking. The factors that shape cognition move
from ‘schooling … which defines early cognitions’ to ‘professional coursework … which
may affect existing cognitions’, to ‘contextual factors … which influence practice’. These
three factors culminate in ‘classroom practice’, which is ‘defined by the interaction of
cognitions and contextual factors’ (2003, p. 82; italics added). In the left-to-right sequence
at the top of the diagram, time progresses from early to existing cognitions. The bottom of the
diagram is about present time in which contextual factors and classroom practice come
together in the particular lesson, unit, and curricular year. This Z-like movement in the
explanatory text connects past and present in a way that Clark and Peterson’s representation
only alluded to. It reflects a progression in thinking over time as teachers learn through what
they experience.
The chapter argument revisited
When put side-by-side (Figure 8.5) these four representations of thinking in teaching show an
evolution, which, although it was not likely conscious on the part of these scholars, is
emblematic of how understanding of teachers’ thinking has moved.
Woods’ view of decision-making and Borg’s of cognition, together with the research
drawing on their ideas, played a major role in defining thinking in language teaching. The
evolution from decision-making, to thought processes, to BAK and language teacher
cognition(s) has shifted how thinking is conceptualized from an individual, internalized
process to an interactive, socially grounded one. Each conceptualization describes a unit of
the thinking, the foundation of that unit, and suggests—diagrammatically at least—what the
thinking process involves.
This shift from decisions to cognition(s) as the primary way of conceiving thinking suited
language teaching, given the nature of classroom activity as highly interactive, and the subject
matter as enacted through those interactions.
9
Knowledge generations in language teaching
We live not in a settled or finished world, but in one that is going on, and where our main
task is prospective. Where [the task is] retrospective … it is of value in [what] it affords
our dealings with the future.
(John Dewey, 1916, p. 178)
The chapter argument
This chapter, like Chapter 7, uses the idea of generations—as patterns of ideas rather than as
history—to describe the development of ideas about language teaching knowledge, starting in
the 1950s. Similar to ideas about thinking (Chapter 7), each of these successive generations
responded to a loose group of precipitating factors. Table 9.1 summarizes the generations and
the key issues that separated them.
Table 9.1 Four generations in language teaching knowledge: Focus and key issues
The first two generations were largely focused internally on language teaching, however
the third generation, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, was marked by the importation of
ideas about teaching knowledge from general educational research, which proved to be
seminal in many ways. Like the evolution in definitions of thinking, these external ideas
helped to refine the ways in which language teaching knowledge was understood. And like
the ideas about thinking, they were modified—or done differently—as they came into the
field.
Pedagogical choices
During the 1980s, the view of knowledge-as-pedagogy began to assume a second meaning, as
the knowledge entailed in making pedagogical choices. Competing views of methods gave
rise inevitably to debates over effectiveness and which was the best, thus introducing the idea
of choice into teaching knowledge. In the first generation, a teacher could know the what as it
was defined through the disciplines. In the second generation, however, she had also to know
the how of various methodologies and more crucially have (or find) a basis on which to
choose among these different ‘how’s. This meant an increasingly plural view of teaching
knowledge-as-pedagogy, which included the teacher both knowing different methodologies
and potentially making choices about them for her classroom setting.
Krashen as an example of pedagogical choice
The idea of making pedagogical choices flourished in a period that was rife with competing
explanations of how languages were learned. Responses to the work of Stephen Krashen
were an example of this tension between the budding field of SLA research and classroom
language teaching. His proposals for language learning (for example, Krashen, 1981) had
enormous intuitive appeal and popularity among teachers, although they were widely
challenged by SLA researchers of the period (Gregg, 1986; McLaughlin, 1987). Looking at
the situation retrospectively, Wheeler (2003) attributes the controversy to a conflict between
what he calls ‘art’ and ‘science’ in defining language teaching knowledge. He quotes an SLA
scholar, Gregg, writing a negative review of Krashen’s book, The Input Hypothesis: Issues
and Implications in 1986, ‘It is very disturbing to see how well-received the theory [the
input hypothesis] seems to be. ‘The fundamental message of Krashen’s theory is that you do
not have to know very much to be a good language teacher’ (p. 121). Of this conflict between
methodologist and SLA researchers, Wheeler (2003) concludes, ‘Krashen’s theory threatens
to expose, it is feared, that science and language teaching do not always mix. It shifts the
balance away from science and technology back toward teaching as an art. It strengthens that
age-old, exasperating belief that anyone with an education can teach’ (p. 98).
First generation nostalgia
The debate exemplifies a maturing of teaching knowledge in the second generation. Gregg’s
criticism, which Wheeler (2003) refers to as the ‘science’ position, seems almost nostalgic
for the first generation with its certainty grounded in disciplinary sources of knowledge.
When SLA theorists of the day like Gregg disagreed, in some cases vehemently, with
Krashen’s (1981) ideas about the ‘acquisition/learning’ distinction or the ‘input hypothesis of
I + 1’, they appealed to the ‘science’ of their version of psychology to challenge these
comfortably intuitive formulations of how languages were learned. To their point of view, the
alternative, ‘art’ position, as Wheeler (2003) calls it, seemed non-professional. How could
language teaching depend on any particular knowledge if ‘science were discounted’? As
Gregg put it, ‘anyone could teach.’ When anyone could propose a learning theory, as the
‘innovative’ methodologists like Krashen were doing, the socio-professional consensus
around scientifically developed knowledge was discounted.
Theoretical anarchy?
Although reaction to Krashen’s work remained unsettled as professional knowledge
throughout the 1980s, the arguments always seemed to return to the language classroom and
the work of the teacher (for example, Stevick, 1980). The proposals in favor of
methodological diversity, and the debates about them, at the core of the second generation,
changed the nature of teacher knowledge by expressing it as an individual matter. Wheeler’s
debate between art and science and Gregg’s concern that anyone can teach could be read in
this new way: that teaching knowledge could be the province of the individual teacher and not
of the sponsoring discipline. There seemed to be a fork in the road: thinking as pedagogical
choice could lead either to a sort of theoretical anarchy or to the individual teacher’s freedom
and agency. Or, a third possibility: that theory could be found to explain choice and agency.
Articulating a common language—a truce in the methodology wars
The advent of pedagogical choice as a form of thinking created the need for a shared way of
describing language teaching that could facilitate choosing among teaching options. A
common language for classroom teaching could function as a common denominator across the
different methodologies, fostering a disinterested set of social facts that articulated a neutral
form of teaching knowledge. In contrast to the partisan directives of the various innovative
methods, this language was almost comfortingly descriptive. It could be used to talk about
classroom teaching without assuming the distinctive views about language and learning that
were the hallmark of the innovative methods. A common language could bring a sort of
theoretical truce in the methodology wars, like the arguments of the second generation
between Gregg (1986) and Krashen (1981).
The emerging common language
The Teaching Practice Handbook by Gower and Walters (1987) is an illustration of this
truce through the articulation of a common language for classroom language teaching. The
Table of Contents (reproduced in Figure 9.1) of the book, which was written to prepare
trainees on certificate courses for the practice teaching component, divides the content into
categories and sub-headings. The five categories, excluding the first and last sections which
are about the practice teaching, include ‘teacher, classroom management, teaching strategies
and teaching techniques’. None of them are particularly about language teaching (although a
few of the sub-headings are).
Figure 9.1 A language of practice: Table of contents from The Teaching Practice Handbook (Gower
& Walters, 1987)
The sub-headings detail a language of practice which includes classroom behaviors (for
example, 2.1—eye contact; 3.5—using students’ names), teaching skills (for example, 3.3—
setting up pair and group work; 4.1—writing lesson plans), and what would now be called
‘dispositions’ (for example, 2.7—rapport; 3.8—the group: its dynamics and the needs of
individuals within it). Altogether the Table of Contents gives the sense that this is what one
needs to do in order to teach a language.
This model of knowledge-for-teaching resembles its antecedent PCK, with two major
differences. First, the model uses content as the bridge to connect the what of content on the
left side of the diagram and the how of pedagogy on the right. This explicitness, one could
argue, draws attention to the transformation process of pedagogical reasoning with content
that was central in Shulman’s definition of PCK. Second, in the category of horizon content
knowledge in the model (see A, Figure 9.2) Ball (1993) embeds time in how the content is
conceived, which previous versions of teaching knowledge did not do. Ball et al. (2008)
define horizon content knowledge as ‘an awareness of how mathematical topics are related
over the span of mathematics included in the curriculum … It also includes the vision useful
in seeing connections to much later mathematical ideas’ (p. 403). Including this category
broadens conventional ideas of knowledge to include this notion of ‘horizonal’ understanding
as ‘awareness’ and ‘vision’ of where learners are heading with the content, ‘First grade
teachers, for example, may need to know how the mathematics they teach is related to the
mathematics students will learn in third grade to be able to set the mathematical foundation
for what will come later’ (Ball et al., 2008, p. 403).
Knowledge-for-teaching languages
A model of knowledge-for-teaching languages needs to address the problem of horizon, and
particularly how to represent the dynamic of language that both creates and conveys the
subject-matter in the classroom. It needs to capture another aspect of this dynamic, that the
language that is used to teach language can also be the professional language of language
teaching. When mathematics teachers meet professionally to discuss their work, they use the
local language appropriate to the setting. However, when language teachers meet, there is a
premium put on using the language they teach to talk about how they teach it. Professional
meetjngs of ELT teachers often take place in English; teachers of Mandarin discuss their
teaching in Mandarin, and so on. This makes the fourth generational knowledge-for-teaching
languages a hybrid.
English-for-teaching
It turns out that this interplay of language in teaching is fairly predictably organized in
classrooms (see for example, Freeman, Katz, Garcia Gomez & Burns, 2015). It is highly
scaffolded in two ways which overlap: by tasks that teachers do regularly in teaching, such as
calling the role, giving instructions for activities, correcting student output, etc. and by the
curriculum they are expected to teach.
Figure 9.4 represents how this interaction between language as content and as means of
teaching plays out in the case of English-for-teaching (Freeman, Katz, LeDrean, Burns &
Hauck, 2013). It shows how the teacher’s language knowledge is deployed in her classroom
(on the left side of the diagram) and within the content she is teaching (on the right). These
two contexts of use situate the teacher’s language knowledge so she can accomplish particular
things with the content via certain interactions. The tasks—for instance, encouraging students,
asking them to speak louder, assign them homework, etc.—organize her instruction and
scaffold doing these things in English as the target language. The performance of these tasks
can connect this classroom work to the other dimension of knowledge-for-teaching languages,
the professional world, as shown in Figure 9.3 and the earlier ‘pair-work’ example.
The third generation drew on two key ideas about the nature of teaching knowledge from
research in general education, PPK and PCK. These ideas focused language teaching on how
knowledge could be a function of individual teachers and their experiences in context and
over time. With knowledge-for-teaching, the current generation continues that path. Coming
from outside of language teaching, these ideas have also revealed what is unique about
teaching language as content, which has contributed to the same things done differently
conceptual dynamic in second language teacher education.
Notes
1 Kelly’s (1969) work proved to be truly seminal in two senses. It presented a
comprehensive, historical view of language teaching, including both classical and modern
languages and it helped to launch Newbury House Publishers that was to articulate key
positions in American ELT through the work of Earl Stevick and others through the 1970s
and 1980s.
2 Regarding the persistent issue of pronoun use in writing about teachers and teaching, Elbaz
notes ‘my solution to the dilemma is to use [pronouns of] both [genders]; female pronouns
will predominate, however, just as women tend to predominate in the field of teaching’
(1983, p. 27).
3 Shulman’s proposal for PCK became immensely popular both in researching teacher
knowledge (for example, in science: Abell, Park Rogers, Hanuscin, Lee, & Gagnon (2009),
Van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos (1998); in mathematics: An, Kulm, & Wu (2004); in English
language arts: Dudley-Marling, Abt-Perkins, Sato, & Selfe (2006); in social studies:
Monte-Sano (2011), Harris & Bain (2010)) and in designing pre-service teacher education
programs and activities (for example, Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004). It has also been
extended to English language teaching (for example, Liu, 2013) and technology (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006).
10
Knowledge-geographies: a socio-professional view of what is
worth knowing in ELT
The chapter argument
The previous chapter looked at how definitions of knowledge and knowing have evolved
within the field of language teaching. The perspective was internal to the field itself, tracing a
definitional arc from knowledge as something that is learned and held to knowing as
something that is enacted. This chapter examines these ideas from the perspective of how that
knowledge is formed and promoted socio-professionally. Using the notion of knowledge-
geographies, the argument outlines three metaphorical maps. The structural map describes
the primary structural features shaping the ELT knowledge-base: the parallel teacher-
preparation pathways offered by national educational systems and so-called alternative
routes. The implementational map describes common features of how ELT teaching
knowledge is organized and delivered, and the human map looks at the various ELT teaching
knowledge communities in professional associations and how these have diversified since the
1970s. Together these maps overlay three perspectives on the socio-professional landscape
of ELT teaching knowledge and how that landscape shapes and reinforces how it is defined.
A knowledge-geography
Defining what teachers know has always been a conceptually elusive, politically fraught
endeavor; writing about it can be even messier. As a metaphorical device for these
discussions, the idea of a knowledge-geography lays out the terrain in terms of what people
take as worth knowing, in this case in English language teaching. This can be mapped
according to what knowledge is valued and the role this knowledge plays in teaching. The
metaphor also suggests that people—the groups or communities that share these views of the
value and role of the knowledge—are centrally important. And it suggests different ways of
organizing the features of each map that highlight certain aspects.
Borderless expertise
As a key topographical feature of the ELT knowledge-geography, these two pathways into
teaching create a tension in the knowledge base. National systems concentrate on the goals
and needs of their school systems, in other words they are geographically focused on teaching
knowledge. Alternative route designs do the opposite. They focus on a sort of ‘borderless
expertise’, a knowledge base that works across teaching settings, with the goal of producing
teachers who are certified transnationally. In historically English-medium countries, some
post-graduate MA-level training can have a similar focus on borderless expertise. This
contrast between the geographic boundedness in national teacher preparation and the lack of
geographic boundaries in alternative route preparation is a basic feature of the structure of
ELT knowledge-geography. Teachers of most other school subjects do not experience the
same level of internationally portable recognition for their professional knowledge and skills
as do ELT teachers. The geographic boundedness works in favor of knowledge bases that are
locally articulated and recognized.
Borderless expertise, which is a key feature of English language teaching has had
implications for the knowledge base. In terms of employment, the portable certifications
earned in the alternative route pathway are meant to translate into teaching opportunities that
are open and unbounded geographically. This form of preparation has created a class of
English language teacher who can travel the world as what Johnston (1999) called the ‘post-
modern paladins’ (euphemistically comparing them to 10th century crusaders). In contrast,
most credentials that are earned through tertiary education are bounded in terms of
recognition and employment. This preparation inducts teachers into national education
systems, which in turn translates into teaching opportunities that are local. This localness can
be pronounced even within countries. In the United States for example, teacher certification
operates through the fifty individual states so that a new teacher who is qualified in one state
has to apply to transfer credentials in order to be able to take a teaching job in another state.
While there are reciprocity arrangements among many states, this state-level control of
certification persists as bedrock in the American teacher preparation system.
National education systems, with their geographically bounded focus, quite rightly
emphasize local relevance and needs. The link between teaching credentials and subsequent
employment depends on that relevance. In alternative route preparation, the emphasis is the
opposite. The central purpose is to credential teachers with a commonly recognized set of
knowledge and classroom skills. This sets up a certain level of standardization in order to
allow teachers to travel globally so that their certifications are portable from one institution
to another. The two pathways, in spite of differences, show the fundamental dynamic of the
knowledge-base: the connection between how teaching knowledge is valued and how it is
used in teaching. This difference points to a second version of the ELT knowledge-geography,
the implementational map.
IATEFL’s growth
The patterns of geographical expansion in IATEFL were completely different. Founded as an
association focused on English as a foreign language, IATEFL-affiliated organizations were
exclusively outside of Britain. Between 1990 and 1994, IATEFL had three associated
organizations; from 1995 to 1999, 42 organizations became affiliated. As of 2004, 13 more
organizations had joined as associates. Between 2010 and 2015, 55 additional organizations
became affiliated, including seven in 2015 alone. In gross, both associations experienced
dramatic growth in their geographical footprints, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s.
IATEFL’s expansion has continued at a striking rate in the first half of this decade. Figure 10.2
shows the number of affiliates that joined each association in each decade. (The data is based
on the year the organization affiliated with TESOL or IATEFL, not when it was founded).
These numbers, although displayed side-by-side, should not be read comparatively, since they
do not show total numbers of affiliated members. The chart shows an expansion across both
associations, which reflects the diversification of geo-professional opportunities to access
and participate in the ELT knowledge base through events and conferences, publications, and
other forms of localized dissemination.
Figure 10.2 The number of teachers’ associations that have affiliated with TESOL or IATEFL by
decade in which they affiliated (1970–2015)
Unfolding pluralization
From the standpoint of knowledge dissemination, the areas around which professional work
and interests have coalesced reflect concretely the pedagogical concerns and identifications
of teachers and others as association members. This unfolding pluralization shows which
areas have been emphasized and the order in which those interests have been collectively
recognized. These topics of interest have reflected a level of professional momentum of sub-
groups within the ELT world that could position themselves as a specialized community of
explanation, usually with a particular language of practice to differentiate them from the
general ELT public. During the 1970s, eight Interest Sections were organized in TESOL of
which only one—Applied Linguistics—directly concerned the content of language teaching.
Interestingly, IATEFL has not had a similar SIG, perhaps because the British Association for
Applied Linguistics had been started with this focus in 1967. (The US counterpart, the
American Association for Applied Linguistics was begun a decade later in 1977.) The other
seven addressed teaching particular types of language learners, who were distinguished by
grade-level or age (for example, elementary, secondary, or adult education) or by setting (for
example, intensive English programs, bilingual education, or English as a Foreign Language,
EFL). The concerns of these initial groups set out the core of the ELT knowledge base as
pedagogy under particular teaching circumstances. Thus, for example, teaching students who
were English language learners in English-medium elementary classrooms (elementary
education) was differentiated from teaching students in intensive English programs housed at
English-medium, usually American, universities (Intensive English programs).
During the 1980s, expressions of teaching knowledge extended to pedagogy and to
professional roles in both associations. New pedagogical knowledge focused on the use of
technologies, computers, and video mentioned above, and also on aspects of learning (for
example, IATEFL’s Learner Independence SIG, 1986). In IATEFL, interests in content
extended beyond applied linguistics to include Literature and Cultural Studies and Business
English, though the latter SIG focused on the role of ELT teachers working in corporate
settings as well. IATEFL’s Pronunciation SIG was also started during this period (1986), but
sustained attention to pedagogy and particular teaching skills happened later in TESOL, with
the creation of the Speech Pronunciation and Listening (1996) and Second Language Writing
(2005) Interest Sections.
One major difference in how the knowledge base has unfolded in the two associations has
had to do with the focus on learners and settings. As mentioned above, the first decade in
TESOL was largely taken up with distinguishing among different groups of English learners.
In IATEFL, by way of contrast, only three SIGs have been created with foci on specific types
or ages of learners: Young Learners (1983), Business English (1986), and English for
Speakers of Other Languages (2001); otherwise the default seems to be teaching adults
general English. There could be many reasons for this difference but the attention to
borderless expertise seems more evident in the organizational structure of interests in
IATEFL, while TESOL’s interest structure has continued to reflect and to wrestle with this
geographical hybridity of focus. Teacher credentialing functions at the state level in the United
States and this has created a patchwork of definitions and expectations particularly in ESOL.
Because of this, TESOL has taken on a sociopolitical role as an advocate of the ELT
knowledgebase within the US national educational system.
Teacher education
In many ways, the most intriguing new groups to emerge in the differentiation of general ELT
knowledge of the 1980s were those focused on teacher education (TESOL’s Teacher
Education Interest Section in 1982, followed by IATEFL’s Teacher Development SIG in
1985, and Teacher Training and Education SIG in 1988). Unlike the other groups
concentrating on learners in specific settings, these interests were concerned with a
completely different constituency, with language teachers, and only indirectly with their
students. Like program administrators, testers, or materials writers, language teacher
educators had a distinctive professional brief in the ecosystem of language teaching. As the
focus of language teaching knowledge shifted from applying disciplinary knowledge, concern
for specialized training increased with it, and teacher education took on a distinct role. The
specialized interest of the teacher education community was also unique in another regard: it
created an overlay on the existing knowledge base, a meta-discourse about how people
learned and used knowledge in teaching. This evolution was taking place as language
teachers’ thinking was becoming understood as a process of synthesizing ideas and combining
pedagogies (thinking synthetically as discussed in Chapter 7) and teaching knowledge was
being defined in the person of the teacher and the classroom (as knowledge in-person, in-
place, discussed in Chapter 9). The two associations provided venues and communities to
propose, argue, and affirm these emerging ideas.
Using these categories, a synopsis of this information shows learners and setting as the
major focus (nine groups across the two associations, of which three align. The categories of
content, pedagogy, and professional role, with four, five, and five groups each respectively,
show a higher degree of alignment. This would make sense given that the knowledge base has
generally been defined by what (content) and how (pedagogy and role), as argued in Chapter
9. The last category, teachers, is in some ways the most intriguing. It highlights two aspects of
the ELT knowledge base: one (educating teachers) links to general education and other forms
of teaching; the other (non-native teachers/international teaching assistants) showcases
teachers’ geo-political identities—a concern unique to language teaching.
A caveat
This analysis does not attempt to be definitive in any sense. There are certainly other ways
these interests could be parsed and subdivided; some might cluster groups under different
names, or might place specific groups in different categories. The point here is to show the
topography of this human map, how interests have coalesced around certain foci, which has
created features of the ELT knowledge base. Like any features of a landscape, these
distinctions in the ELT knowledge base are now accepted and even taken for granted. But it is
worth remembering it was not always this way. In reaching into language teaching contexts
that were increasingly diverse (in terms of ages, cultures, politics, and social issues), the
singular one-size-fits-all version of teaching knowledge anchored in behaviorism could not
accommodate the work to be done. This expanding demand led to new and specialized
knowledge, to address learners’ needs and expectations, to incorporate new pedagogical
tools and technologies, and to specify roles teachers were assuming beyond the classroom, all
of which redefined how the work of teaching itself was done.
The chapter argument revisited
The geography-map metaphor, which organizes this chapter, is a somewhat incongruous one.
Human geographer Diarmid Finnegan (2013) points out that the phrase, ‘geography of
knowledge’, which is the basis of the chapter’s title, ‘is, at first glance, an unexpected
combination of terms. ‘Geography’ suggests descriptions of the Earth. ‘Knowledge’, on the
other hand, implies an immaterial realm of ideas and human cognition’ (n. p.). This
combination of two seemingly incompatible terms can serve an important function in
reminding us of the interplay of people and ideas in creating and sustaining definitions of
what is worth knowing. Tracing the socio-professional face of knowledge is complicated
particularly in English language teaching, given the two pathways through which people
prepare to teach. The metaphor of knowledge-geographies is meant to help tease apart some
of the complexity. Each of the three maps highlights particular features of the overall ELT
knowledge landscape. The basic structure of dual pathways divides teacher preparation
between national education systems, focused on geographically bounded needs and outcomes,
and alternative routes, which credential a borderless version of teaching expertise. The map
of implementation shows features common to both pathways that shape how ELT teaching
knowledge is presented to new teachers. The human map lays out the socio-professional
dynamics of the knowledge base through the development of TESOL and IATEFL as the
leading ELT teachers’ associations.
Overlaying the perspectives of these three maps shows that things are not neat, that one
single map cannot really match the territory, and it highlights some of the dynamics which
make the knowledge base of ELT unique. As the geographer Finnegan (2013) says of this
process, ‘Locating knowledge or tracing its migrations unsettles these common perceptions
and points to the material and social nature of knowing’ (n. p.).
Note
1 While Grabe et al. (2000) include education as a discipline, others—particularly in the
field of education itself (for example, Shulman, 1996) have argued otherwise. (See also
Chapter 4.)
11
Reflecting: thinking and knowing in teaching situations
When we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions of everyday life,
we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. Often we cannot say what it is we
know. We try to describe it, we find ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are
obviously inappropriate.
(Schon, 1983, p. 49)
The chapter argument
Reflecting, a mental activity that teachers do as they think in teaching situations, is examined
here from two dimensions. The chapter looks at how reflection has been conceptualized by
Schon (1983, 1987) in the key ideas of ‘situations of practice’ and ‘action-present’ and how
second language teacher education practices have implemented these ideas. In using these
concepts, teacher education has translated concepts of reflecting into a professional notion of
reflection-as-repair that can be managed in teacher education. The idea of reflecting has been
turned into a ‘Technical Rational solution’ for the problem of thinking and knowing in
teaching situations. In narrowing the concept to reflection-as-repair, much is lost that can help
to better understand how reflecting, thinking, and knowing interrelate in teaching.
Problem setting
Problem setting is using professional knowledge in practice, as Schon describes it, ‘In order
to convert a problematic situation to a problem, a practitioner must do a certain kind of work.
He [sic] must make sense of an uncertain situation that initially makes no sense.’ He outlines
the steps in the process: ‘When we set the problem, we select what we will treat as the
“things” of the situation, we set the boundaries of our attention to it, and we impose upon it a
coherence which allows us to say what is wrong and in what directions the situation needs to
be changed’ (Schon, 1983, p. 40; italics added).
Schon argues that professionals think in different ways depending on the problem they are
facing. They can see a situation as a problem, which then connects it to a solution, or they can
see the situation as a problematic, which opens it to possible avenues of action. In other
words, that the situation shapes—and indeed drives—the thinking as a problem or as
problematic, rather than the reverse. Professional thinking is not simply applying what is
known to the problem at hand; it involves determining the parameters of the situation, what is
and is not problematic.
The problem and the problematic
In distinguishing between perceiving a situation as a problem and as problematic, Schon
offers a different way of characterizing how people think and use what they know in
situations. The noun ‘problem’ represents a fixed version of a more fluid situation; that
reification allows for—and supports—the Technical Rational approach of problem solving.
The adjective ‘problematic’ describes an orientation to the situation, perceiving that the
habitual response does not (or may not) work under the circumstances. The distinction also
brings with it different verbs. A situation may be ‘seen or perceived’ as problematic, but it is
‘defined or understood’ as a problem. Both terms describe the person in the situation, but with
different emphases. Calling a situation a ‘problem’ focuses on the situation itself and potential
ways to address it, whereas calling it ‘problematic’ allows for how the person thinks about
the situation. This distinction led Schon to argue that the main work of the professional lies in
reframing the situation from problem to problematic, which he calls ‘construct[ing] a new
way of setting the problem.’
Problem setting is triggered by curiosity, by the professional’s perceptions of certain
attributes of the situation, which Schon identifies as ‘complexity, uncertainty, instability,
uniqueness, and value conflict’ (p. 18). In other words, there is in the situation something that
the person feels does not fit or feel right, that is working differently (better or worse) than
expected. In the classroom seating example, the intelligent action for the student of finding a
new seat might be triggered by seeing the usual seat is taken, or by wanting a change of scene,
or choosing to sit with someone different. The point being that these triggering circumstances
may be small, even trivial, but more often they arise, as Schon notes, from more serious value
conflicts.
CONTEXT: Linda is asking the children to tell her words that start with the letter ‘D’.
Some of the children are having a difficult time thinking of words. Linda is
giving clues to one boy, ‘Your sister, she is your mom and dad’s … what …?
Not a son but a …’ Then Cameron helps out and answers ‘daughter’. A third
child says, ‘I thought it was a sister.’
LINDA: ‘… I said, “It’s Mom and Dad’s [leaves a blank space]” because they didn’t
know that word. That was a hard concept for them. But I try to explain it and
engage them so that they can distinguish between the different words and
thoughts and classifying them. Because I’m a teacher.’
(Schachter, 2014, p. 123)
Linda explains the confusion she saw happening in the situation as these three-year olds were
prompted to come up with ‘daughter’ as a word beginning with ‘D’. She frames the
problematic aspect between ‘sister’ and ‘daughter’ as ‘distinguish[ing] between the different
words and thoughts and classifying them’, and she acts immediately to remedy it. Among the
many explanations she might give for focusing on the difference, Linda mentions her role ‘as a
teacher’. As complex as the specifics of her reasoning may be, Linda’s explanation goes to a
social fact essential to her thinking, that the teacher’s work is to make sure children grasp
categorical meanings of words.
Languaging reflection-on-action
Language offers a way into reflection-on-action in the public realm, as the accounts given by
Linda and Beth illustrate. As users of professional knowledge, Linda and Beth share a
common aim—to support their children’s learning—and each works with that aim in mind.
The incidents might have gone unremarked, but for Schachter’s involvement as a researcher.
Through the use of the stimulated recall procedure, we gain access to how the teachers
explain what they do and thus their private thinking becomes public. Language is the means.
As they watch the videos and talk about what they see, Schachter plays the role of interlocutor
as each teacher reflects on what happened. This private-into-public process, which is often
connected to reflection-on-action, creates a sort of voyeuristic access, as Schachter remarks
about the incident with the misshapen 2, ‘An observer of this moment of practice would not
be able to see the complex process of pedagogical reasoning informing this teacher’s
decision to erase the number and rewrite it. She is using various strands of information to
reason about this moment of practice’ (p. 47).
Implementing reflection
Reflecting, as a process of thinking and using knowledge in situations, became an established
practice in second language teacher education for reasons having to do with the nature of the
relationship between thinking and languaging an event. Since live-action data collection
measures are largely impractical in the context of a highly interactive, social activity like
teaching, the accounts generated by the reflective process are ‘on’, rather than ‘in’, action.
The ‘relative tranquility of a postmortem’ of reflection-on-action, as Schon called it, lends
itself directly to talking and writing. When people use language about an activity they are
involved in, they tend to narrate it, which creates a separation between the lived present and a
languaged past. In the two excerpts from Schachter’s study, Linda and Beth attach language to
the specifics of the incident as they narrate what they did. Languaging the incidents gives
reasoning a certain ‘postmortem’ quality that makes reflection-on-action amenable to
designing activities in teacher education, and to researching how they work.
Inquiry
Inquiry-oriented teacher education strategies range from the primarily individual (for
example, Farrell, 2013) to collaborative work among peers (for example, Farrell, 2004;
Richards & Lockhart, 1994). Across this spectrum, however, Schon’s framing of inquiry has
been lost or shortchanged. The reflective process, Schon argued, is triggered by problem-
posing, which he defines as a gap or lack of alignment between how the practitioner is seeing
the situation and the usual actions taken to deal with it. But in teacher education activities, this
dissonance in perception can often be reduced to problem-solving; to prompting the teacher to
respond to some discomfort over what is not working in the classroom and to fix it rather than
to figure out what is happening.
Reflection-as-repair
Second language teacher education builds this version of reflection-as-repair into many
designs: in clinical teaching arrangements like peer and practice teaching, in planning and
evaluating lessons, in portfolio assessments of practice, and so on. These activities make the
ex post facto analyses of reflection-on-action part of learning to be a professional. There is a
premise that, as a form of teacher education pedagogy, learning to think reflectively
professionalizes teaching by aligning thought processes with those in other lines of work
(such as clinical psychologists and architects in Schon’s (1983) examples). In this push to
teach reflection, with the accompanying assumption that it will professionalize teachers’
thinking, the underlying mechanics of the process are often lost, which is the point of this
close reading and analysis.
Reflection as perceiving
Focusing on reflection as perceiving introduces questions of where to look, which
reintroduces the overlooked ideas of ‘situation of practice’ and ‘action-present’ discussed
earlier. If reflecting is understood as thinking and using knowledge in situations, as I have
said, then the central question becomes how ‘situation’ is defined in space (as a ‘situation of
practice’) and in time (as ‘action-present’). In terms of space, Schon outlines three parts of
the situation: the person’s role in it [A], which is related to how he or she is perceiving what
is problematic [B], and the values [C—E] that seem to be dissonant. These values include,
according to Schon, the norms [C] for what ‘usually happens’, ideas about why it may be
happening [D], and affective reactions [E]. Together these elements can reframe the situation
of practice as well as action-present as the time horizon for taking action. As Schon
summarizes, ‘Conscious of the dilemma, [the practitioner] may attribute it to the way he [sic]
has set his problem, or even the way he has framed his role. He may then find a way of
integrating, or choosing among, the values at stake in the situation’ (p. 63).
Figure 11.1 Elements of a situation of practice that shape the action-present
An example from peer teaching: ‘You mean in the lesson? Or next time?’
To put these terms in a context, let us suppose a trainee is ‘teaching’ a practice lesson. The
norms [C] associated with role [A] of teacher assume the trainee is in charge of what happens
in the lesson [D], and there are feelings associated with what it means to do so ‘effectively’
[E]. How the trainee has played the role of teacher ‘sets the problem’ [B] and becomes the
focus of the feedback discussion as the group ‘reflects on’ how the lesson went. Imagine the
following exchange:
‘At the beginning,’ one trainee might comment to the peer who taught, ‘you seemed really
nervous [feelings], at least from the way you were talking … But then you got into it and
looked more like a teacher [norms] when you were assigning the groups [strategies], and I
think that part went really well.’
‘What does “really well” mean in this context?’, the trainer might ask, reframing the
situation of practice.
‘Well, the students were working well in their groups’ [norms], another trainee might say.
‘Except for the threesome in the corner; they were off task [problem setting] … looking at
their mobile phones’.
‘What could you have done to get them back into the activity?’, the trainer might say
opening up the action-present.
‘You mean in this lesson or next time?’, asks the trainee teacher looking for a definition of
action-present.
This type of feedback session, which seems fairly typical of reflective activities in second
language teacher education, asks the trainees to reflect-on-action by framing problems in the
practice teaching situation, the solutions to which are meant to apply beyond the specific
situation. This ambiguity in the time horizon—caught in the trainee’s query, ‘You mean in this
lesson or next time?’—removes the individual’s ability to act from the idea of action-present.
The comment that ‘the threesome in the corner were off task’ is taken as a fact—not a
perception—of the situation, which makes it a ‘problem’. Then, when it is reframed by the
trainer as hypothetical with the question, ‘What could you have done to get them back into the
activity?’, the trainee has to imagine a course of action that might apply sometime in the
future.
Languaging experience
The device of separating the present and future is endemic in reflective teacher education
activities, with at least two potential consequences. It makes reflecting a post hoc form of
thinking and it removes agency—the teacher’s potential to act—from the immediate equation.
In designing activities to use or ‘stimulate’ reflection, teacher educators will usually situate
the work in the present while asking trainees to comment on past actions. Language provides,
as we have said, the mechanism for this repositioning. Farrell (2013) notes this temporal gap
as he outlines how to use writing as a reflective activity for teachers: ‘When writing, a person
must pause for a short time … in order to organize thoughts somewhat before putting them on
paper … This pausing is the first step in reflective writing because it is the launching pad for
what is to follow’ (p. 57; original italics). The pause punctuates what is happening in the
immediate present to provide the space to put it into words. In the peer teaching example, the
pause comes when the lesson ends and the talk of the feedback session starts. These acts of
languaging have the effect of converting a messy present into what can sound like a more
ordered, reasoned past.
Audience
Farrell goes on to contrast the ‘pausing’ that occurs in writing with what he calls the
‘spontaneous nature of speaking’. This way of languaging experience can seem more
immediate and closer to the messiness of what is happening in the lesson. He explains, ‘When
people talk, most just say what is on their mind within reason and with a slight bit of prior
thought … Speaking is typically relatively instantaneous and interactive with another person
or persons …’ (p. 57). Any time we use language, we assume an audience to whom what we
say or write will make sense. In writing, that audience might only be the teacher writer
herself or it could include others, but in speaking the audience is obvious: They are the others
who are present. In the peer teaching example, the audience is the group; they are the people
who are trying to make sense of what happened in the lesson, and the trainer’s voice is
privileged by his position. Farrell concludes by contrasting these two forms of languaging and
underscoring the implicit formula in which reflection is equated with reflection-on-action:
‘The time needed to write is a natural check on these tendencies of spontaneous speech. The
act of writing (as reflective practice) has a built-in reflective mechanism that makes it an
ideal tool for helping teachers pause and thus engage in systematic reflections of the practice’
(p. 57).
The two chapters in this final part of the book introduce a design theory for teacher education.
As a ‘theory’, the statement outlines a social learning process, which is based on the notion of
social facts that circulate through two forms of community—of activity and of explanation.
The central premise is a socio-cultural one: (discussed in Chapter 6) that as teachers use the
social facts of their professional community, they are ‘renaming’ their experiences, which
allows then to ‘reconstruct’ what they are doing in practice. The renaming involves using the
social facts of the community in place of their usual way of talking and thinking. The
reconstruction can be as subtle as understanding something in a different way, or as major as
doing something differently. Renaming is the semiotic version of reconstructing; it addresses
the hidden side of teaching, while reconstructing alters the public side.
The statement can also serve as a blueprint for organizing, evaluating, and studying what
happens in pre- and in-service teacher education, which is what makes it a ‘design’ theory.
While it is derived from my work as a second language teacher educator, the fundamentals are
applicable to teacher education or other forms of professional preparation and learning.
There are seeds of this design theory, starting in Chapter 1, where the core idea of social facts
is first introduced. In both Parts Two and Three, the use of social facts as a form of
professional explanation is mentioned, particularly in the context of evolving understanding of
thinking (Chapter 7) and knowing (Chapter 9). The full theory is laid out here, at the end of
the book, to help unify these preceding arguments and to provide a bridge to the use of the
ideas.
How Part Four is organized
The last two chapters describe the two parts of the theory. Chapter 12 lays out the elements—
social facts and communities—and Chapter 13 discusses how these elements work together in
learning and change. Readers may find the summary figures (Figure 12.1 and Figure 13.1)
helpful as maps of the overall argument, as well as the diagrammatic representations in
Figure 13.2 and Figure 13.3.
The three appendices outline uses of the theory in designing language teacher education at
the level of activities (Appendix A) and programs (Appendix B), as well as thoughts about
how the theory explains teacher education assessment practices (Appendix C). The
discussion is in generic terms (rather than in specific case studies) in order to hopefully
broaden its potential applicability and usefulness.
12
A design theory—Part one: social facts and communities
Design problems are usually among the most complex and ill-structured kinds of problems
… encountered in practice … because they have ambiguous specification of goals, no
determined solution path, and need to integrate multiple knowledge domains.
(Jonassen, 2000, p. 80)
The chapter argument
This chapter resumes the argument, begun in Chapter One, that second language teacher
education has been largely defined by prescriptive ideas about what the content should be and
how it should be taught. An alternative, based on a social practice theory (discussed in
Chapter 6), is proposed as a design theory that supports organizing as well as studying
teacher education activities and programs. The theory starts from social facts and how these
developed and circulate among participants to establish communities.
The annotations in Figure 12.1 and Figure 13.1, refer to the sections that follow in which
that element is developed.
Communities [D]
Orientation to the lived texture of situated experience
The term ‘community’ is widely used in education, but it is usually not unpacked, perhaps
because the definition can seem self-evident. Groups loosely referred to as ‘communities’
exist on two levels, the actual and the virtual. Communities can be—and usually are—seen or
observed; they are also encountered through what they say and do. Rampton (1998) captures
this overlay of visible and semiotic when he refers to the term ‘community’ [as an] orientation
to the lived texture of situated experience (p. 12). The term brings up issues that are both
definitional and functional, however. The complication is that a group’s purpose or function
contributes to—and indeed even circumscribes—how it is defined. So is a group a
‘community’ because of what it is or because of what is does?
Communities of practice
In educational writing, most definitions draw from situated learning theory, which describes a
community as ‘a set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation
to other tangential and overlapping communities …’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98). This
statement describes a group as a ‘community of practice.’ But rather than clarifying the
definition, the term—’community of practice’—actually compounds ambiguities. Rock (2005,
pp. 77–78) points out, ‘Clearly the term [community of practice] involves communities—
collectives of people—and practices—frameworks for doing… [A]s a whole, [it] presents a
particular combination of practice and community … being defined simultaneously by each
and underpinned by social negotiation’ (original italics). These two elements combine to
describe a group of people doing something with some sort of interaction. The function of the
group is glossed as a ‘practice’: ‘shared “behaviors” or shared “ways of doing things”
through talk, convictions, or norms’ (Rock, 2005, p. 78).
Working together
As a term, ‘community of practice’ suggests shared reasons for working together; these are
referred to by Wenger (1998) as ‘mutual engagement’ and ‘joint enterprise’. There is also a
commonly accepted means, or ‘shared repertoire’, to accomplish what they are meant to do.
In this instance, the social facts used by a group are its shared repertoire. In the ‘PPP’
example, the group of trainees are jointly ‘engaged’ in the ‘enterprise’ of practice teaching (to
use Wenger’s words) using the ‘shared repertoire’ of terms about teaching, such as ‘PPP’.
These three attributes make them—for that period of that activity—a community of practice.
This definition introduces two points that are worth emphasizing. First, communities are not
permanent entities, as the conventional sense of the word suggests; they exist in and for a
particular activity. Second, intention and purpose are key. A group comes about as a
community because they have something (the joint enterprise) they want to do together (their
mutual engagement). Thus in this analysis, a group of students in a classroom may—but
doesn’t necessarily have to—be a community of practice.
Simply being together in time and space doesn’t make the group a community; they need to
have a reason to work together and they need to be involved in that shared work. Language
teaching methodologies are, in this view, ways of attempting to generate mutual engagement
and joint enterprise among students as they go about doing particular activities. Doing a
substitution drill as a joint enterprise in an ALDM classroom may engage students
behaviorally, but not mentally, whereas doing gap-fill, problem-solving activity in a
communicative lesson may strengthen their fuller mutual engagement. In the first activity, the
shared repertoire is limited to the language patterns they are using; in the second, it expands
to include students’ experiences and knowledge related to the gap-fill.
Purpose and cross purpose
In social practice theory, as discussed in Chapter 6, purpose is key; it is how meaning comes
about in doing the activity. Learning teaching is a complex process. It can involve diverse
purposes—the teacher educator has one intention, which the participants may share,
collectively or individually, and they may have their own purposes. Simply saying that
trainees working together are a community of practice begs the question of how these
purposes coincide or diverge. As Little put it:
If we theorize about the significance of professional community, or make claims [about them].
we must be able to demonstrate how communities achieve their effects. This will require
examining the specific interactions and dynamics by which professional communities
constitute a resource for teacher learning and the formation of teaching practice.
(Little, 2003, p. 917)
To understand how purpose works, we need to look more closely at how social facts get used
by participants to gain entry into and become full members of a community that is learning to
teach. This is the subject of the next chapter, which continues the design theory.
The chapter argument revisited
To my way of thinking, a design theory serves as a descriptive representation of what is going
on, in this case as people are learning to teach. It represents the processes at work, how these
processes are orchestrated, and it proposes elements and relationships between them that can
describe current practices as well as ones that might be developed.
13
A design theory—Part two: renaming experience to reconstruct
practice
Things like words, artifacts, gestures, and routines are useful … because they are
recognizable in their relation to a history of mutual engagement [and] also because they
can be re-engaged in new situations … All have well-established interpretations, which
can be re-utilized to new effect …
(Wenger, 1998, p. 83)
The chapter argument
This chapter continues the discussion of the design theory for language teacher education by
examining how individuals participate in the activity. There are two aspects to participation:
joining the group and being a full member. The theory differentiates between two forms of the
group, as a community of activity and a community of explanation, which interact in how
individuals use social facts to enter and participate in activity. It argues that these two
communities have distinct functions, but use one set of facts, which leads to tensions and
misalignments in social explanations. These tensions, like the levels of contradictions in
socio-cultural theory (detailed in Chapter 6), are productive; they create learning and the
possibility of change.
In one sense, this is a story about the common language that developed in this learning
community. But the terms ‘common language’ and ‘learning community’ disguise the
complexity of the process, and particularly how language and community develop in relation
to each other.
Terms of reference
Social facts function referentially in two ways. They circulate within a community as its
shared repertoire to define what is and can be talked about; as argued in Chapter 12, they
‘prescribe and proscribe’ a world. ‘World’ is used here in the sense of Stevick’s often quoted
(1982, p. 6) ‘world of meaningful action’ (see Arnold & Murphey, 2013). Without language,
and without the social facts it expresses, the group literally has no way to refer to what is
happening. This language in the community is how the group refers to what it does; it is how
the group works together to take actions that are (or can be) ‘meaningful’.
Social facts can be referential in another way, however, when the language is about what
the community does. This form of reference doesn’t always show up as talking about what the
community does; in other words it can be more than linguistic. Language about the community
can manifest as humor, as happened with the two epigrammatic social facts that were
parodied in the closing skits. Joking, humor, sarcasm, parody all depend on knowing the
reference, which is what the social fact provides. These forms of language play anchor the
group in and to itself by including those who ‘get the joke’ and understand its reference. They
can also leave others outside that world of meaning and action, although not necessarily
intentionally.
C/a—Community of activity[D]
Conventionally, as we have said, communities are defined in terms of what they do. ‘Doing’
here means more than physical activity; in Wenger’s (1998) definition of community of
practice, it includes sharing purposes, ways of working, and tools and resources. In the
design theory, this form of observable collective work is referred to as a community of
activity, which coincides with conventional uses of ‘community of practice’ in much of the
educational research literature.
A community of activity (C/a) is a group of people who are doing a recognized or
recognizable activity—for example, queuing in line, having a classroom discussion, square-
dancing, or ordering a meal in a restaurant. The particular form of activity has a past or
heritage, which is what makes it recognizable; because we have seen others do the activity in
a similar fashion, we can give it a shared meaning, as when we might say, ‘Oh, I wonder what
they’re queuing for?’ or ‘We’re not discussing that right now.’ This recognition also allows
us to make value judgments about how the activity is being done, as in ‘You dance well; I
enjoyed being your partner’, and to disagree about another participant’s judgment, as in ‘That
waiter was really slow when he took our order’ …’Really, I thought he was fine … Just very
attentive.’
‘Recognizable’ here means that others in the community of activity know what is going on,
while ‘sensible’ means they can understand—or make sense of—why the actions are
happening. These two aspects—being recognizable and making sense—are closely
intertwined, but heuristically it is useful to separate them. For instance, the first time I
observed a Japanese classroom in which students stood to answer the teacher’s question, I
recognized the action must have something to do with nominated turn-taking in combination
with showing respect for the teacher’s role. But given my own cultural background and
perspective, it did not strike me as a sensible way to manage participation. In a similar vein,
a trainee may recognize an activity, say putting students in groups, from socialization as a
student and the apprenticeship of observation, but may not be able to make sense of it from
the perspective of being the teacher.
These elements of visibility and recognition are in a sense tautological, which is how they
are meant to be: the actions are recognized as meaningful by those who know what they are.
As Vygotsky (1963) and other socio-culturalists (for example, Wertsch, 1985) have argued in
outlining the idea of the zone of proximal development, this tautology is a basic learning
mechanism that provides entry into the community. Individuals who are new to the group can
exercise their potential for membership by taking part in the activity—by doing what others
do—even though they may not yet make sense of it completely. Acting ‘as if’ is actually a
common experience in everyday situations such as a new job or social settings, as well as
more obvious ones like cross-cultural encounters. Practice teaching designs, for example, are,
in essence, performances in which trainees are supposed to act visibly as teachers so that they
can make sense of what they are doing.
C/e—Community of explanation[D]
There is a parallel form of collective life in the group, how the participants make meaning
together, which is where social facts live. This form of the group is a community of
explanation, a group of people that share common ways of reasoning about the world, or
particular aspects of it. The design theory hinges on the interrelation between this virtual
community, which makes and uses meanings, and its visible counterpart, the community of
activity.
The most recognizable instance of a community of explanation are speakers of a language.
The notion of ‘speech community’, developed by Hymes (1974) and Gumpertz (1982), shifted
the focus from language to ‘the situations, uses, patterns, and functions of speaking as an
activity in its own right’ (Hymes, 1968, p. 101). As Rampton (1998) pointed out, the term
‘postulates the basis of description as a social rather than a linguistic entity’ (p. 3). A
community of explanation, as one form of speech community, uses a common language, which
shows up in and as social facts just as in the program orientation example (Narrative 13.1).
Linguistic analysis can examine and document how language does this work of making social
facts for a community of explanation, but the point here is that communities of explanation can
be located in and through the language they use about what they do (although it is not the sole
means of documenting them).
Articulation[E]
Participating in activities through using certain symbolic tools is central to theories of
situated learning, as discussed in Chapter 5. The process, which has been described as an
‘apprenticeship’ (for example, Rogoff, 1998) or ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave &
Wenger, 1991), is about achieving membership or belonging. This idea is central to how
communities of practice operate. Individuals can come into a community that is new to them
through what they do, through how they participate in the particular social practices of that
community of activity. They try, in effect, to ‘walk the walk’ of the new community. In this
design theory, the process of negotiating entry to a community of activity and explanation is
called articulation.
Explanation[F]
Explanation is a parallel process to articulation. It occurs when what the individual does and
says is no longer remarked on by others in the community. When participants are using social
facts in ways appropriate to that community of explanation, they fit in and belong. The
explanations are unmarked in the community of activity because they are ‘walking the talk’.
As Fleck (1979), cited in Chapter 1 explained about social facts, ‘The explanation given …
can survive and develop within a given society only if this explanation is stylized in
conformity with the prevailing thought style’ (p. 2). Striving to gain this fit is key to how
newcomers use social facts; first they articulate the community’s activity and then as they
become full participants, they are able to explain it.
Figure 13.2 Entering into activity through articulation and explanation: Aligning community of
activity (C/a) with community of explanation (C/e)
As newcomers participate in the activity of the community (C/a), they articulate its principal
activities using the social facts of that community of explanation (C/e) to others in the
community (C/a). This process of articulation is how they can make sense of what is going on
to themselves for the rest of those involved. The process moves into explanation as
participants use the semiotic resources—social facts—according to the conventions and
norms of the community of explanation (C/e). The orientation fishbowl (Narrative 13.1) was
an instance of launching social facts—the two principles, ‘learning tells you how to teach’
and ‘you are your own best resource’—into a new community of activity (the teacher
education program) as a fledgling community of explanation.
The words used to describe this process of gaining membership (articulation) and
achieving full participation (explanation) in the community—to notice/noticeable; to remark
on/remarkable; and to recognize/be recognized or recognizable—outline a rough progression
through which a newcomer to a community of activity moves towards full participation. The
orientation fishbowl was designed to make the students as participants aware of the program
principles as key social facts. Socio-cultural theorists (for example, Vygotsky, 1963; Wertsch,
1991) described this same progression in the use of signs as tools. Initial attempts to use the
community’s social facts—its words, discourse, gestures, and ways of acting and being—may
get noticed by participants because the attempts do not conform with the ways in which the
collective uses those facts. The lack of alignment, which is noticeable, may not be remarked
on unless community members recognize what the newcomer is trying to do, in other words
unless the community’s participants can see how the newcomer is trying to use its social facts.
So recognition marks an acknowledgement that this use of social facts makes sense to the
community within its framework of explanation.
Re-balancing order
Explanations have the effect of restoring the social order and meaning within the community
of explanation. The following illustrates the process of rebalancing social norms by using an
acceptable explanation. It comes from a study of professional development in which Lillge
(2015, p. 146) documented how teachers’ thinking was impacted by a literacy training
intervention. How to convey to students the notion of purpose in writing arose as a major
concern: should their teaching focus directly on the formulaic elements of various written
genres that embody different purposes? Or should teachers work in more organically
responsive ways to help students learn to identify how audience and purpose connect through
choices of writing genre?
In one interview, a teacher talks about a student called Damien, who had graduated from
high school and was now enrolled in a pre-session academic program before beginning at
university.
TEACHER: In the summer, Damien had to take an English class, and he would e-mail me
his papers, [but] in college your professor’s not going to give all this instruction
on format. And that’s why to me it’s so important that my kids can format any
essay prompt that they’re given.
The essay topic involved describing an event that ‘had had an impact’, which seemed
relatively straightforward. The teacher explained:
T: Damien was so lost; he sent me this paper … He started off … : ‘Hi, my name
is Damien Brown.’ His professor didn’t say, ‘This is an argument essay. And
this is a synthesis essay. And this is a compare-and-contrast essay.’
The teacher concluded when Damien wasn’t given a format to follow, he reverted back to
middle-school writing.
The speaker, his former teacher, reconciles Damien’s essay writing misstep (‘he wasn’t
given a format to follow’) by using the social fact of ‘he reverted back to middle-school
writing’. The explanation resolves a noticeable misalignment in what he had to do by
describing how what did/did not make sense to him and why. She explains teachers know that
students rely on the names of essay genres (‘formats’) in the process of maturing as writers
through high school. In other words, these formats—’argument essay … synthesis essay …
compare-and-contrast essay’—were social facts in this community of activity teaching high
school writing, but they aren’t used explicitly as facts in the university writing class. Damien,
as a writer new to the university setting and not finding the familiar facts to cue him, writes a
self-introduction.
Her comments show how a group uses social facts to create explanations that are
meaningful to them. This circular quality of belonging—that explanations are meaningful to
those who recognize them—is the central dynamic of social learning and participation. It is
like watching the world go around from the carousel: you have to get on it and once you’re on
the carousel, you see the world from that perspective and what was static now goes around.
The circularity of articulation and explanation is central to the design theory. It suggests that
what makes teacher education activities work (or not work) hinges on this dynamic of
belonging and alignment (see Appendix A). Participants will have multiple ways to explain
what is happening, so the challenge is to establish the social facts of the teacher education
community as the accepted ones. When working on spelling with adult learners in literacy for
example, the explanation that a student ‘hasn’t yet mastered sound–symbol correspondence’
supplants the explanation that he ‘is a bad speller’.
An individual [X] is doing an activity [f], which is typically explained under the
circumstances in the setting using social fact SFf1; the solid line connects a community of
activity [C/a1] with a particular community of explanation [C/e1]. Facing an essay without a
prompt, Damien writes a self-introduction, which would fit with his high school essay
writing experiences. However, the person [X] can also draw on explanatory resources
[Explanation–SF#], the dotted line, connects other communities of practice [C/a# …] and of
explanation [C/e# …] for the activity [f’]. Damien emails his high school teacher the draft,
seeking confirmation that he is writing the appropriate essay, which suggests he is
noticing a potential misalignment in the genre. The two activities [f] and [f’] may be
similar, but they can be explained differently because they each invoke distinct social facts
[SF1 versus SF#]. Essay writing is essay writing, except that it isn’t. In high school there
are scaffolds available in the prompts; in university there may not be. These alternate forms
of explanation will be in tension with each other because they offer different ways of making
sense of the same activity [f]. The tension in explanation hinges on whether the activity is
seen as ‘the same’ or as ‘different’.
Three points are worth underscoring here. First, the new social facts are offered in the
situation; it would be impossible to separate them from it since that is how they are
meaningful. Second, belonging and identity are what drive the use of the new facts. This
offers an alternative way to look at the dynamics of power and role. It emphasizes the
postulant’s motivation (the student or new teacher in these examples), which is generally
implicit in belonging, that ‘I want (or need) to sound and be like you’. Third, all explanatory
resources continue to be available. The student can still refer to smoking as ‘an –ing word’
and the new teacher can still feel ‘disorganized by the choppiness of the lesson’. But now
each of them has two ways to explain it.
These multiple forms of explanation allow social facts to travel, to be portable, and to
have currency across situations, circumstances, and activities. And to endure, which I
realized was happening in the case of the program principles in Narrative 13.1.
In Table A.2, the pathway in the left-hand column [Ai, A-2, A-3] is a basic reflective activity
with a partner discussion; the one in the middle column [B-1, B-2, B-3] increases trainees’
interaction, though somewhat randomly. The pathway on the right [C-1, C-2, C-3] involves
more interaction, which is scaffolded by a metric (talking to at least three people).
Set-up: Trainees recall experiences learning other languages formally and informally and write briefly
about them.
Activity Design A B C
Circulating [A-1] Talk with a [B-1] Talk in a cocktail [C-1] Talk to at least
partner. party. three people.
Using tools [A-2] Two-column [B-2] Two-column [C-2] Different colored
worksheet before. worksheet while. rods to show who talks
to whom.
Reporting [A-3] Trainees reread [B-3] Trainer collects [C-3] Trainees look at
and annotate own lists. observations on who has which rods,
a) poster paper or and talk about what this
b) the whiteboard. data means.
Circulating
This phase in each pathway sets up slightly different assumptions about participation:
exchanging ideas with one specified person in column A, with several other people in column
B, or with a defined number of unspecified people in column C. From a trainee’s standpoint,
it is tacitly underscored that knowing what other people think, and what their experiences are,
matters [column A], that there is likely variety in those opinions and experiences [column B],
and/or that the variety matters and should be consciously harvested [column C].
Using tools
Two different physical tools are interwoven into these pathways: the two-column worksheet
and the Cuisenaire rods. The first tool records a distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’
learning; the second creates a visible trace of who has talked to whom. These tools are
combined differently in each pathway. If the trainees write before talking with peers [A-2],
the worksheet is a tool to record their own ideas. If they write while they are circulating [B-
2], it becomes an impromptu record of their conversations. As in the way the circulating is
organized in the activity, there are assumptions implicit in the different ways of using the
same tool. Writing first [A-2] underscores individual experience; writing during the activity
[B-2] turns the worksheet into a social record.
Reporting
The trainer’s decision (whether planned or spontaneous) about timing turns the worksheet into
a slightly different tool when it comes to the reporting phase of the activity. If the trainees
write about their own experiences before they circulate [A-2], the tool can be used
comparatively when they return to the worksheet afterwards to annotate what they have
written in relation to what they have heard [A-3]. If the trainees record ideas while they are
circulating, the worksheet becomes a collective record.
The reporting, when the trainer collects their thoughts [B-3], can substantiate this
collective value. Using poster paper [B-3 (a)] versus the whiteboard [B-3 (b)] in the general
discussion sets up different assumptions and values about the collective record. The poster as
a record may survive the activity to be brought back at a later time. (The whiteboard, which
is most likely erased at the end of the session, is an evanescent record.)
As a tool, the Cuisenaire rods also focus the activity differently. Using them to track who is
talking to whom while they exchange experiences [C-2] makes participation patterns visible.
The trainer might have different motivations for using this tool. Perhaps participation has
been uneven and some trainees have tended to dominate or to avoid working with others. Or
perhaps the trainer wants the activity to serve two purposes, as a discussion of language
learning and also to set up subsequent study of participation patterns. As the trainee hands out
the three rods, the tool can track a path through the social space, of the ‘cocktail party’ [B-1],
with a specific metric of talking to three people [C-1]. In reporting on the activity, the trainer
uses this visible record as a basis for discussion [C-3].
Discussion
This example illustrates several aspects of social facts and how they are created in and
through communities of activity.
A social fact is an indivisible unit of meaning used within the community of explanation.
A fact is an abbreviation that the community uses and accepts; it works as shorthand for
complex thinking. For example, people talk about ‘getting sick with the flu’, but the
medical community has a different social fact for the same phenomenon. The common flu is
around every winter during ‘flu season’; the medical social fact is distinguished by ‘strains
of flu’ that are circulating at a particular time.
It is misleading to think of social facts in solely linguistic terms; they exist in many
semiotic forms. It is a social fact of teaching, for example, that in most classroom
environments, the students will sit facing the teacher. The specific form of address for the
teacher is another social fact of teaching: in some classrooms, teachers are called by their
family names, in others by their given name, in others by their title. The social fact is that
there is a way to address the teacher; it is manifested through different ways of doing so.
Social facts are not always reducible to particular terms or words. This irreducibility is
part of their power, usefulness, and their emblematic importance in furnishing social
explanations that connect a community of activity to a community of explanation.
A social fact is either right (and unremarkable) or wrong (and stands out). However, the
boundaries of a particular fact may be negotiated. For example, would reading aloud to a
child be an instance of instructed language learning? Would that depend if it happened in a
classroom? At home before bedtime? Negotiating what is and is not part of a particular fact
is part of the meaning-making process.
Social facts are referenced and used, but they are rarely defined directly or explicitly. They
come up and are meaningful in what the community is doing, through its activities.
The distinction between articulation and explanation (described in Chapter 13) hinges on the
appropriacy of use of the facts of the community. The following scenario from the training
example illustrates how that process can work.
When the fact is used appropriately, it goes unremarked within the community; this is the
process of explanation. When it is used inappropriately, the use may be corrected or more
likely just ignored; this attempted use is articulation. But to the degree that the use attracts
attention, it can help those who are new to the community to sort out the parameters of
meaning.
Appendix B
Designing in explanations
The central process in the design theory is how articulation becomes explanation, in other
words, how newcomers become part of a community of explanation by taking on its
discourse. This process is clearly located at the level of program design. The twin processes
of articulation and explanation happen in the sequence of programmatic learning opportunities
offered by the teacher education program. This sequence is usually organized into input and
practice followed by application of those inputs. This trajectory generally holds both within
individual lessons and modules, as well as across the course or program. As social processes
of joining and belonging, articulation and explanation happen; they can be taken for granted or
more explicitly planned. The more the opportunities are engineered (as in the example in
Appendix A), the more likely it is that articulation can catalyze into explanation, thus
converting newcomers to the discourse into fuller members of the community. If this
conversion process is left to happen untended, individuals may or may not successfully
engage with the new community of explanation.
The conversion from articulation to explanation may be catalyzed depending on how the
trainer manages this phase of the activity. The more the trainer puts the studenting experience
and the language learning experience at odds (see Figure A.1), the more these two
communities of explanation will surface and vie with each other. Consider the following
vignette.
In the closing training activity, the trainer divides a poster into three columns: ‘formal
language learning’, a blank middle column, and ‘informal language learning’. In the first
column are written: ‘took tests’, ‘studied from a book’, ‘asked questions of the teacher’. In
the third, there might be: ‘listened a lot’, ‘tried things out’, ‘pointed to show what I meant’.
Then a trainee comments:
Within-course designs
The challenge is that the course itself is a community of activity, usually with a predominant
community of explanation from the course topic. For example, courses in second language
acquisition or in methodology are each associated with particular facts and explanatory
resources; these would be instantiated in particular ways of studenting within the topic. In a
second language acquisition course, trainees might be expected to participate by listening to
teacher-led input and by reading more extensively from certain genres (such as accounts of
research studies). In a methodology course, they might also be expected to take part as
learners in demonstration lessons and to peer teach. In both instances, there are certainly
ways to organize the input so that it is presented through participatory pathways that ‘walk the
talk’ to align with the new community of activity of classroom language teaching. The
language-learning biography example in Appendix A outlines an activity that could be used
appropriately in either course.
The challenge is engineering tensions within the explanatory resources. This generally
means setting up explicit comparisons either via sub-group experiences with the larger
community of activity (as in the three pathways in the example in Appendix A), or within
individual participants over time (as happens with reflective activities).
Table B.2 Using sub-groups to bring both emic and etic views to a learning experience
The same demonstration lesson could generate different social facts depending on the
course, as a community of explanation, that was housing it, as shown in Table B.3.
In a methodology course
Individual learning experiences within a
method
Fidelity of the methods implementation
Table B.3 Different course; different social facts with same demonstration lesson
The perspectives as a learner and as an observer, as well as the levels of individual and
shared experiences in these roles, establish reference points that are catalyzed through the
activity of comparative analysis. In this process, trainees articulate the new facts; it is
important to understand that this articulation is not simply verbal and language-based; it is
more broadly semiotic. The learner and observer roles create temporary identities that
articulate different perspectives—emic and etic—on what is happening. Organized in this
way, the class as a community of activity actually instantiates the structure of the social fact.
In contrast, consider how having the entire class watch a video of the demonstration lesson
would create a different community of activity with little catalytic opportunity to articulate
these facts. Everyone, trainees and trainer, would be observing a demonstration at a remove
so their common experience would be as viewer of the video. The discussion could only be
descriptive, with no first-hand personal referents.
In this example, in the live demonstration, trainees participate in the activity of either learning
a new language or observing that language learning, whereas in the video-taped
demonstration, everyone watches the lesson. The topic is the same but the participation
pathways are very different, which leads to distinct experiences and thus to using different
explanatory resources.
The design principle can be summarized as experiences create explanatory resources
within an activity.
Across-course designs
Across-course designs bring a level of complexity and coordination, which is both a strength
but can also make them harder to organize. Most university based pre-service teacher
preparation takes places in a socio-professional culture that emphasizes individual teacher
educators and their teaching. While programmatic collaboration in planning and delivering
teacher education programs is now fairly common, these efforts exist against the backdrop of
‘the academy’ as the community of activity. Decisions and functions from staffing to
scheduling, from assignments to grading, from student admissions to student advisement, all
contribute to this community and the way it does business. These views are very rarely fully
shared across teacher education faculties, with the consequence that building robust new
communities of explanation in these programs is harder to do.
Alternative route training programs often differ markedly in this regard. They are generally
cohort-based and intensive, which means that participants become socially invested in the
group. They usually set their own schedules, which are often separate from the timetabling of
the larger institution. Evaluation often differs from the conventional grading paradigm, and
trainers or teacher educators usually work in teams. These organizational features, which are
found in professional schools (see Mertz, 2007; Philips, 1998), increase opportunities for
across-course design.
Terms Elaborations
Community of activity [C/a] 1 Activities happen in time and place.
2 Recognizable activity defines the participants
doing it.
3 Norms make an activity recognizable to
participants and to others.
4 A community of activity is recognizable
through the shared activity and its norms.
Community of explanation [C/e] 5 Doing the activity, and expressing norms
about it, involves making sense of it.
6 A community of explanation is identifiable in
its use of shared meanings to make sense of
activity.
7 Participants use shared meanings to explain
the activity.
8 Newcomers try to use shared meanings to
articulate activity in noticeably inappropriate
ways for that community.
Social Fact(s) [SF] 9 Are commonly used meanings shared by the
community of explanation.
Tensions/contradictions [T/C] 10 Tensions occur when various social facts
are/can be used to explain the same activity.
The contrast in explanations highlights the
different communities that hold those facts.
Thoughts on assessment
The ways in which explanatory resources play out in teaching experiences are probably most
evident in the assessment process.
Three scenarios
A In a short-term intensive alternative route program, the trainee’s performance during the
series of practice teaching sessions is evaluated by peers and by the trainer, drawing on
expectations and practices from the training curriculum. At the end of the course, an
assessor (who also trains using the same curriculum but in another institution) visits the
course, meets with trainees and reviews samples of their work to corroborate the trainer’s
evaluations, and notes outlying judgments and procedural anomalies.
B In a residency teacher preparation program, trainees spend a full academic year in
various forms of scaffolded apprenticeships in the school. The trainee, classroom teacher,
and the residency supervisor meet periodically to evaluate the trainee’s performance using
school and residency program goals, which are laid out in the detailed rubric for
classroom practice.
C university-based pre-service teacher preparation program culminates in the trainee
spending several months working full time in one classroom. The university supervisor
observes the teaching periodically and meets with the trainee, and sometimes with the
classroom teacher, to evaluate the trainee’s performance in terms of teacher preparation
program standards.
These scenarios position the worlds of teacher education and of classroom teaching
differently. From the vantage point of the design theory, the differences surface clearly in how
the assessment practices depend on—and indeed promote—a common professional language
among participants. How do the teacher education and teaching worlds as communities of
activity structure the use of their respective social facts and explanatory resources?
Analyses
Scenario A: the alternative route program
In scenario A, the alternative route program is designed as a community of activity
(C/aCERT) to promote to a single set of facts and explanatory resources through the training
curriculum, which provides a common language of teaching and learning (C/eCERT).
The assessment of practice teaching is local and intra-mural by the trainer. It is
corroborated by the external assessor, who uses the same social facts (C/eCERT) to validate
these judgments.
The primacy of a single, overarching community of explanation (C/eCERT) arguably focuses
trainees’ participation on using those explanations.
Articulation with the social facts of the curriculum happens continually in the course. The
teaching experience is another setting with its new subcommunity of activity (C/aPT) (of
trainees-as-teachers, trainers, and students) in which those facts are used to talk about the
teaching that is happening there.
As they learn to articulate what ‘is going well’ and what ‘needs improvement’, trainees use
the facts of the alternative route program as a community of explanation (C/eCERT>PT).
The visit of the assessor provides an opportunity for trainees to glimpse the explanatory
import of the facts beyond the local setting. It is somewhat like a visit by a fluent ‘native’
speaker to a school language class, which lets students ‘really’ use the target language.
Summary
These three scenarios illustrate the complex ecologies of participation and meaning that
underlie teacher education designs. Activities call for explanations, which is simply to say
that, in doing things, trainees talk. In talking, they use language to make sense of what they’re
doing, to others in the activity and to themselves. Trainees explain what is happening to each
other and in that process to themselves. This becomes the basis for assessing what they do.
References
Abell, S. K., Park Rogers, M. A., Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Gagnon, M. J. (2009).
Preparing the next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK
for teaching science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–93. doi:
10.1007/s10972-008-9115-6
Alatis, J. (Ed.). (1990). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics, 1990. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Alatis, J. (Ed.). (1991). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
1991. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Alatis, J. (Ed.). (1994). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
1994. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Alatis, J., Stern, H., & Strevens, P. (Eds.). (1983). Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics, 1983. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to
classroom-research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to
exploratory practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages. (2014). Standards for foreign
language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Retrieved from www.actfl.org
An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school
mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
7(2), 145–172. doi: 10.1023/B:JMTE.0000021943.35739.1c
Anthony, E. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. English Language Teaching Journal,
17(2), 63–67. doi: 10.1093/elt/XVII.2.63
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3–42.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179509
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. doi:
10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Arnold, J., & Murphey, T. (2013). (Eds.) Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s influence on
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. Cambridge,
UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching
elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397. Retrieved
from https://www.mathematik.tu-dortmund.de/ieem/cms/media/BzMU/BzMU2009/
Beitraege/Hauptvortraege/BALL_Deborah_BASS_Hyman_2009_Horizon.pdf
Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5). 389–407. 10.1177/0022487108324554
Barahona, M. (2015). English language teacher education in Chile: A cultural historical
activity theory perspective, New York, NY: Routledge.
Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (Eds.). (2012). Researching language teacher cognition and
practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the
experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Benedict-Chambers, A. (2014). Developing professional vision for practice: Preservice
teachers using students’ scientific ideas in simulations of practice. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/107187
Blair, R. (Ed.). 1982. Innovative approaches. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Bligh, R. (2012, November 13). Are teachers born and raised (not trained)? The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2012/11/13/are-teachers-born-not-made/
Bolster, A. (1983).Toward a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard
Educational Review, 53(3), 294308. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3.0105420v41776340
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of the research on what
teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition in language teaching. London: Continuum.
Borg, S., & Albery, D. (2015). Good practice in INSET: An analysis of the DELTA. In R.
Wilson & M. Poulter (Eds.). Assessing language teachers’ professional skills and
knowledge (pp. 37–61). Cambridge: Cambridge English Language Assessment.
http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/teaching-english/cambridge-english-teaching-
framework/Retrieved June 2015.
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative English speaker teachers: Research, pedagogy, and
professional growth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999/2004). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
British Association for Applied Linguistics. (1997). Notes on the History of the British
Association for Applied Linguistics—1967–1997. Produced on the occasion of the 30th
BAAL annual meeting, University of Birmingham. Retrieved from
http://www.baal.org.uk/dox/history_of_baal.pdf
Brooks, N. (1964). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace.
Brown, H. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
Brumfit, C., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language-
teaching mind: Mapping of research on language teacher cognition. Modern Language
Journal, 99(3), 585–601.
Burton, R. R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1984). Skiing as a model of instruction. In B.
Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp.
139–150). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Cambridge Teacher Development Scheme. (2015). Cambridge English Teaching
Framework. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/teaching-
english/cambridge-english-teachingframework/
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan
relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cazden, C. (1982). Contexts for literacy: In the mind and in the classroom. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 14(4). 413–427. Retrieved from
http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/14/4/413.full.pdf
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chacón, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language
teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257–
272.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures. Walter de Gruyter: Amsterdam.
Chvany, C. (1995). Alexander Lipson—Contributions for him and by him. The Slavic and
East European Journal, 39(4), 609–613. doi: 10.2307/309111
Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer
Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1986). Rhythms in teaching: The narrative study of
teachers’ personal practical knowledge of classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,
2(4), 377–87. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(86)90030-2
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock, (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clarke, M. (1994). Dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1).
9–26. doi: 10.2307/3587196
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
doi:10.3102/01623737025002119
Coleman, H. (2011). Developing countries and the English language: Rhetoric, risks, roles
and recommendations. Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English
language, 9–21.
Coleman, H. (Ed.). (2011). Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English
language. London: British Council.
Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. Cambridge,
MA: Bolt, Beranek, & Newman Consulting Technical Report.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Criado, R. (2013). A critical review of the presentation-practice-production model (PPP) in
foreign language teaching. In R. Monroy, (Ed.), Homenaje a Francisco Gutiérrez Díez (pp.
97–115). Murcia, Spain: Edit.um.
Cross, R. (2010). Language Teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language teacher
practice. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 434–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2010.01058.x
Curran, C. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages. Apple River, IL: Apple
River Press.
Cushing-Leubner, J., & Bigelow, M. (2014). Principled eclecticism and the holistic
approach to language teaching and learning. In S. Çelik (Ed.), Approaches and principles
in English as a foreign language (EFL) education (pp. 254–263). Ankara, Turkey: Egiten.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer
Press.
de Saussure, F. (1913/1983). A course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth
Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
Deyes, T. (1982). Eclecticism in language teaching. World Englishes, 2(1), 15–18. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00512.x
Diller, K. (1977). The language teaching controversy Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Dudley-Marling, C., Abt-Perkins, D., Sato, K., & Selfe, R. (2006). Teacher quality: The
perspectives of NCTE members. English Education, 38(3), 167–193. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40173336
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croome Helm
Publishing.
Ellis. R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd. ed. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engestrom, R. Miettenin, & R. Punamaki (Eds.). Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–
38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity theoretical
transformation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
English Opens Doors (EOD). (2014). Program Information. Retrieved from
http://www.centrodevoluntarios.cl
English Profile. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.englishprofile.org/
English Program in Korea (EPIK). (2014). Program information. Retrieved from
http://www.epik.go.kr
Farr, F. (2010). The discourse of teaching practice feedback: A corpus-based investigation
of spoken and written modes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Farrell, T. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflective breaks for busy teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Farrell, T. (2007). Reflective language teaching. London: Continuum Publishers.
Farrell, T. (2013). Reflective writing for language teachers. Sheffield England: Equinox
Publishing.
Fernsten, L., & Fernsten, J. (2005). Portfolio assessment and reflection: enhancing learning
through effective practice. Reflective Practice, 6(2), 303–309. doi:
10.1080/14623940500106542
Finnegan, D. (2013). Geography of knowledge. Oxford Bibliographies. doi:
10.1093/obo/9780199874002-0057
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Fleck, L. (1935/1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of
science understanding. Science and Education, 17(2–3), 147–177. doi: 10.1007/s11191-
006-9045-7
Ford, M. & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts.
Review of Educational Research in Education, 30, 1–32. doi:
10.3102/0091732X030001001
Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and
development. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 21–28 doi: 10.2307/3586560
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of
teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1),
27–45. doi: 10.2307/358750
Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: How teachers develop
their conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (5/6), 485–
497.
Freeman. D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know.
In K. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.). Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative
research in second language education (pp. 88–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Freeman. D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach.
Language Teaching, 35(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1017/S0261444801001720
Freeman, D., Coolican, M., & Graves, K. (2011). Learning to teach Spanish: Identifying,
inducting, and supporting apprentice teachers in the Ann Arbor Languages Partnership. In J.
Macalister and I. S. P. Nation (Eds.). Case Studies in Language Curriculum Design (pp.
129–146). New York, NY: Routledge.
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Re-conceptualizing the knowledge-base of language
teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. doi: 10.2307/3588114
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. E. (2005). Response to Tarone and Allwright. In D. Teddick
(Ed.). Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 25–32). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Freeman, D., Katz, A., Garcia Gomez, P., & Burns, A. (2015). English-for-teaching:
Rethinking teacher language proficiency for the classroom. English Language Teaching
Journal, 69(2), 129–139. doi: 0.1093/elt/ccu074
Freeman, D., Katz, A., LeDrean, L., Burns A., & Hauck, M. (2013). The ELTeach Project
—Report on the Global Pilot, 2012. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.elteach.com/elteach/media/documents/elteach_gpr_9-20-
13.pdf
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Freudenstein, R. (1985). The influence of Robert Lado on language teaching in Europe. In D.
Tannen & J. Alatis (Eds.). Languages and linguistics: The interdependence of theory,
data, and application (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gattegno. C. (1976a). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New York, NY:
Educational Solutions Worldwide.
Gattegno, C. (1976b). On mistakes. Educational Solutions Newsletter, 6(2 & 3), 2–4.
Retrieved from http://issuu.com/eswi/docs/1104_-2_-3-on-mistakes-december-1976-
february-19
Gattegno, C. (1987). The Science of Education –Part One Theoretical Considerations.
New York, NY: Educational Solutions.
Gebhard, J. G. (1984). Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 501–514.
doi: 10.2307/3586717
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Philadelphia, PA:
Falmer Press.
Gee, J. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. Moss. (Ed.).
Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Georgetown University Round Tables on Languages and Linguistics. (2014). General
Information. Retrieved from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu
Gilbert, M. (1992). On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goldin, S. (2010). Studenting: An historical and sociological study. Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/78856
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464. doi: 10.2307/3588117
Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space:
Examining cognitive and emotional dissonance in second language teachers’ development.
Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 10(3), 307–327. doi:
10.1080/1354060042000204388
Gottlieb, M., Katz, A., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2009). Paper to practice: Using the TESOL
ELP Standards in preK–12. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Gower, R., & Walters, S. (1987). The teaching practice handbook. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Grabe, W., Stoller, F., & Tardy, C. (2000). Disciplinary knowledge as a foundation for
teacher preparation. In. J. K. Hall & W. Eggington. (Eds.). The sociopolitics of English
language teaching (pp. 178–204). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the
English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: The British Council
http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/books-english-next.pdf
Gregg, K. (1986). Review of The input hypothesis: Issues and implications, by S. Krashen.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 116–122. doi: 10.2307/3586392
Gumpertz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hargreaves, D. (1977). A phenomenological approach to classroom decision making.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 7(1), 12–20. doi:10.1080/0305764770070103
Harmer, J. (1996). Is PPP dead? Modern English Teacher, 5(2), 7–14. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143089649/Is-PPP-dead-Harmer#scribd
Harris, L. M., & Bain, R. B. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge for world history
teachers: What is it? How might teachers develop it? Social Studies, 102(1), 9–17. doi:
10.1080/00377996.2011.532724
Hawkins, D. (1974). I, Thou, It. In The informed vision: Essays on learning and human
nature (pp. 48–62). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Haycraft, J. (1965). Babel in London. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Haycraft, J. (1998). Adventures of a language traveller. London: Constable.
Hayes, D. (Ed.). (2015). Innovations in continuing professional development of English
language teachers. London: The British Council.
Higgs, T. (Ed.). (1984). Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle. Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook Company.
Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Holliday, A. (1994a). The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: The special
needs of state English language education. English Language Teaching Journal, 48(1), 3–
11. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.1.3
Holliday, A. (1994b). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Howatt, A., & Smith, R. (2014). The history of teaching English as a foreign language, from
a British and European perspective. Language and History, 57(1), 75–95. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1759753614Z.00000000028
Hubbard, R., & Power, B. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher-
researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hutton, C. (2010). Who owns language? Mother tongue as intellectual property and the
conceptualization of linguistic diversity. Language Sciences, 32(6), 638–647. doi:
10.1016/j.langsci.2010.06.001
Hymes, D. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In Fishman, J. (Ed). Readings in the
sociology of language (pp. 99–138). The Hague: Mouton.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program. (2014a). Program Information. Retrieved
from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/introduction/index.html
Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program. (2014b). Frequently Asked Questions 2.7–
2.10. Retrieved from www.jetprogramme.org/e/faq/faq02elig.html#2-7.
Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes,
28(2), 200–207. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01582.x
Johnson, J., & Poulter, M. (2015). Teachers’ language competence. Studies in Language
Testing, 42, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice
ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 507–535. doi: 10.2307/3587176
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for L2 teacher education.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257. doi: 10.2307/40264518
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. (2002). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional
development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek P. (Eds.). (2011). Research on second language teacher
education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Johnston, B. (1999). The expatriate teacher as post-modern paladin. Research in the
Teaching of English, 34(2), 255–280. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171475
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi: 10.1007/BF02300500
Kelly, L. G. (1969). Twenty-five centuries of language teaching: 500 BC to 1969. Boston,
MA: Newbury House.
Kelly, M. (2004). European profile for language teacher education: A frame of reference.
Southampton: University of Southampton.
Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to
empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures: Foreign language teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 373–383. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(93)90004-Z
Knapp, J. (2012, September 11). Op-ed: Good teachers are made, not born. Seattle Times.
(September 11, 2012).
Krakowski, M. (1961). Review of Language and language learning: Theory and practice
by Nelson Brook. The German Quarterly, 34(3), 305–307. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/402042
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (e)merging strategies for
second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–48. doi:10.2307/3587197
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching, a scientific approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Lampert, M. (2009). Learning Teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean?
Journal of Teacher Education. 61(1/2), 21–34. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347321
Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational resources in the service of
school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113 (7), 1361–1400.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development (Vol. 398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and principles of language teaching. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Freeman, D. (2008). Language moves: The place of ‘foreign’
languages in classroom teaching and learning. In J. Greene, G. Kelly, & A. Luke. (Eds.).
Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 147–186. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07309426
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific
facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A progress report. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(3), 455–472. doi:10.2307/3588071
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. (M. Hall, trans.).
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lillge, D. (2015). When Does Literacy Professional Development Work? Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lipson A., & Molinsky, S. (1977). A Russian Course. Columbus OH: Slavica Publishers.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice.
Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00273
Liu, S. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of ESL teacher educator.
English Language Teaching, 6(7), 128–138. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n7p128
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge
in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391. doi: 10.1002/tea.20007
Lowyck, J. (1986). Post-interactive reflections of teachers: A critical appraisal. In M. Ben-
Peretz, R. Bromme, & R. Halkes. (Eds.). Advances in research in teacher thinking (pp.
172–187). Lisse, Netherlands: Swetz and Zeitlinger.
Lozanov, G. (1978). Outlines of suggestology and suggestopedy. London: Gordon and
Breach.
Malderez, A., & Wedell, M. (2007). Teaching teachers. London: Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. doi: 0.1007/BF00132516
Mauger, G. (1953). Cours de langue et de civilisation françaises 1er et 2e degrés. (1st ed.)
Paris: Hachette.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language
teaching. Surrey, England: DELTA Publishing.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340–
349. doi: 10.1093/elt/46.4.340
Mertz, E. (2007). The language of law school: Learning to ‘think like a lawyer’. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017–1054.
Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-
tcr2006.pdf
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the
literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.
Retrieved from http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/DevelopingSociallyJustSubjectMatterInstruction.pdf
Monteiro, C. (2013, July 31). The making of an effective teacher: born or made? [Web log
post] Retrieved from http://www.newteachercenter.org/blog/making-effective-teacher-
born-or-made
Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Learning to open up history for students: Pre-service teachers’
emerging pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 260–272.
doi: 10.1177/0022487110397842
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
North, B. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference: Development,
theoretical and practical issues. Babylonia, 1(7), 22–29. Retrieved from
http://www.nationaalcongresengels.nl/cgi-bin/North-Ede-Wagingen%202007-paper.pdf
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. English Language
Teaching Journal, 41(2), 136–145. doi: 10.1093/elt/41.2.136
Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroom. In J. Richards, & D. Nunan.
(Eds.). Second language teacher education (pp. 62–81). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision-maker. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia.
(Eds.). Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 135–65). Hong Kong:
City Polytechnic.
Nunan, D. (1996). Hidden voices: insider perspectives on classroom interaction. In K.
Bailey, & D. Nunan. (Eds.). Voices from the language classroom (pp. 41–56). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589–618. doi: 10.2307/3587534
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Pettis, J. (2003). A question of definitions: An investigation through the definitions and
practices of communicative and task-based approaches. TESL-EJ, 7(3). Retrieved from
http://tesl-ej.org/ej27/f1.html
Philips, S. U. (1998). Ideology in the language of judges: How judges practice law,
politics, and courtroom control. Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pierce, B. N. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method–why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176.
doi:10.2307/3586897
Pulverness, A. (2015). A brief history of Cambridge English Language Teaching
Qualifications. Studies in Language Testing, 42, 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rampton, B. (1998). Speech communities. In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman, J. Blommaert, & C.
Bulcaen. (Eds). Handbook of Pragmatics (p. 134). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Read, C. (1985). Presentation, practice and production at a glance. In A. Matthews, M.
Spratt, & L. Dangerfield. (Eds.), At the chalkface: Practical techniques in language
teaching, 17. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about
language. In A. Ortony. (Ed.). Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-
image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353–367. doi: 10.1016/0346-
251X(94)90021-3
Richards, J., & Hino, N. (1983). Training ESOL teachers: The need for needs assessment. In
J. Alatis, H. Stern, & P. Strevens. (Eds.). Applied linguistics and the preparation of
second language teachers: Towards a rationale (pp. 312–326). Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Rock, F. (2005). ‘I’ve picked some up from a colleague’: Language, sharing, and
communities of practice in an institutional setting. In D. Barton & K. Tusting. (Eds.).
Beyond communities of practice (pp. 77–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez.
(Eds.). Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler. (Eds.).
Cognition, perception and language. Vol. 2, Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.), (pp.
679–744), New York: Wiley.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1988). Schools, social organization and the building of a technical
culture. New York, NY: Longman.
Ryle, G. (1949/2009). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
Saljo, R. (1982). Learning and understanding: A study of differences in the construction of
meaning of a text. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly,
25(2), 261–277. doi: 10.2307/3587463
Schachter, R. (2014). Early childhood teachers’ use of information to reason about and
enact moment-to-moment instruction. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/110370
Schachter, R., & Freeman, D. (2015). Using stimulated recall interviews to study teachers
and teaching: A brief introduction to the research methodology. In L. Patricia, & R.
Rodrigues. (Eds.). Temas e Rumos nas Pesquisas em Linguística (Aplicada): Questões
empíricas, éticas e práticas (pp. 223–243). Campinas: Editora Pontes.
Schaerer, R. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Multi-
faceted and intriguing. Babylonia, 1(7), 7–11. Retrieved from
http://babylonia.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/2007-1/schaerer.pdf
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in practice. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X027002004
Shavelson R. (1973). What is the basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, 24,
144–151. doi: 10.1177/002248717302400213
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her-
home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-57,-issue-1/herarticle/foundations-of-
the-new-reform_461
Shulman, L. (1996). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. Jager (Ed.),
Complementary methods for researchers in education (pp. 3–19). Washington DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by
teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singh, R. (Ed.). (1998). The native speaker: Multilingual perspectives. New Delhi: Sage.
Stenhouse, L. (1985). How research can improve teaching. In J. Rudduck, & D. Hopkins.
(Eds.). Research as a basis for teaching–Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse
(pp. 49–51). London: Heinemann.
Stevick, E. (1976). Memory, meaning, and method: Some psychological perspectives on
language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Stevick, E. (1982). Teaching and learning languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Storer, N. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin
of the Medical Library Association, 55(1), 75–84. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC198502/
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language
education: An introduction through narratives. 2nd edn. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Swan, M. (1985a). A critical look at the communicative approach (1). ELT Journal, 39(1),
2–12. doi: 10.1093/elt/39.1.2
Swan, M. (1985b). A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal, 39(2),
76–87. doi: 10.1093/elt/39.2.76
Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Second language teacher learning and student second
language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D. Teddick. (Ed.). Second language
teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 5–24). New York, NY: Routledge.
Thornbury, S., & Watkins, P. (2007). The Certificate of English Language Teaching to
Adults [CELTA] course trainer’s manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thuleen, N. (1996, October). The grammar-translation method. Website article. Retrieved
from http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.html
Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A., & Law, D. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in a school–university
partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289–1301.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.003
Ur, P. (1996). A course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
US Peace Corps. (2015). History. Retrieved from
http://www.peacecorps.gov/about/history/
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–
695. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6
van Ek, J. A. (1975). Systems development in adult language learning: The threshold level
in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Brussels:
Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED108482.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1963). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1998). Telling it like it isn’t—exploring an instance of pragmatic ambivalence
in supervisory discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(5), 531–544. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00076-3
Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weingart, P. (2010). A short history of knowledge formations. In R. Frodeman, J. Klein, &
C. Mitcham. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–14). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and
cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. Wertsch, P. del Rio,
& A. Alvarez (Eds.). Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56–74). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wheeler, G. (2003). Krashen–A victim of history. TESOL Canada Journal/ Revue TESL du
Canada, 20(2), 92–99.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1985). Against dogma: a reply to Michael Swan. ELT Journal, 39(3),
158–161. doi: 10.1093/elt/39.3.158
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2012). Reading like a historian: Teaching
literacy in middle and high school history classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Wong Filmore, L. & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/wong-fill-snow.html
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition and language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Woodward, T. (1992). Ways of training. Canterbury: Longman.
Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses: Designing sequences of work for the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zakeri, A., & Alavi, M. (2011). English language teachers’ knowledge and their self-
efficacy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 413–419.
Index
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V
W X Y Z
(Page numbers annotated with ‘t’, ‘f’ or ‘n’ refer to tables, figures, or notes, respectively.)
A
academic language
184n
across-course designs
263
266–7
ACTFL see American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages
action research
143–4
action-present
211–13
217–21
activity theory
93–4
95–101
105–12
agency
138–44
148
176
Alatis, J.
64–5
194
Allwright, D.
143
alternative route training
73–4
90–2
168–70
185–205
269–70
American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
58–9
a-methodological (eclectic) teaching
127
128–30
166–70
Anthony, E.
131–3
134
135
137
anthropology
57
59
applied linguistics
57
61
Arnold, J.
239
assessment
10
269–71
Audio-lingual Direct Method
25
119–23
124
125–6
164–5
Australian Migrant Education Program
141
authenticity
87
88–9
134–5
automaticity
121
122
124
autonomy (learner autonomy)
124
166
background knowledge
5–7
41–2
43–54
BAK model
147–8
154–8
161–2
Bailey, K.
143
Ball, D.
12–13
176–7
179
Barahona, M.
99
Barnard, R.
149
Bazerman, C.
63–4
68
behaviorism
120–1
164–5
Benedict-Chambers, A.
99–103
Biddle, B.
157
Bigelow, M.
127
Blair, R.
122
Bligh, R.
44–5
53t
70t
Boerst, T.
82
Bolster, A.
35
borderless expertise
187–8
189t
197
200
205
Borg, S.
147
149
153t
154
158–60
161–2
193
‘born expertise’
41
42
43–54
70
bounded activity systems
97–9
Bransford, J. D.
104
British Association for Applied Linguistics
190–1
Brooks, N.
120–1
Brown, A. L.
104
Brown, J.
74–5
86
90
91–2
Brumfit, C.
26
Burns, A.
149
C
C/a (community of activity)
240–4
245
248–51
257–9
Canagarajah, S.
77
Cazden, C.
25
150
C/e (community of explanation)
242–3
244–5
248–51
257–9
261–7
Centro de Voluntarios (Chile)
49
50
52
Certificate of English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA)
90
186
190
193
Chacón, C. T.
181
CHAT see cultural-historical activity theory
Chile, educational policy
49
50
52
208
Chomsky, N.
132
165
Clandinin, D. J.
171
175
Clark, C.
147
149
152–4
157
158–9
160–1
Clarke, M.
170–1
classroom talk
Inquiry-Response-Feedback structure (IRF)
22–3
25
31–3
Teacher–student interaction
29–33
88–9
141
155–62
180–2
classrooms
7
21–7
174–5
seating arrangements
94–5
108–9
cognitions
147–8
158–60
161–2
Cohen, D.
12–13
collective learning
90–2
collegiality
82
Collins, A.
74–5
90
91–2
Common European Framework
22
59
77–8
79–81
communicative language teaching (CLT)
24
25–7
128
130–6
148
communities
18
193–204
234–52
of explanation
60–1
63–71
126–7
194
234
242–3
244–5
248–51
257–9
261–7
of practice
194
234–6
240–4
245
248–51
257–9
Community Language Learning
122–4
166
conferences
64–71
179
Connelly, F. M.
171
172
content
xi–xii
7
20–9
78–9
82–3
180–2
228–9
form vs. use
28–9
purpose-as-use
20–4
27
reflexivity
27–9
55–9
reification
33
111–12
situated content
76–81
171–5
theoretical models
172–5
176–82
context
21–4
26
74–5
immersion programs
78–9
82–3
180–2
and teachers’ thinking
152–62
and time
104–5
156–8
160
continuous professional development
7
8
9
45–6
192–204
Coulthard, M.
25
Council of Europe
22
77
79
134
course content see content
course design
xii
225
227–36
237–52
Cross, R.
29–31
Cuisenaire rods
103–4
107–9
110–12
255
256
cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)
93–4
95–101
105–12
Curran, C.
122
124
Cushing-Leubner, J.
127
D
Day, C.
9
10
de Saussure, F.
243
decision-making
149–52
154–8
161
DELTA see Diploma of English Language Teaching to Adults
design theory
xii
225
227–36
237–52
Dewey, J.
47
49
82
83
87
163
208–9
210
212
217
220–1
Deyes, T.
128–9
Diller, K.
85
Diploma of English Language Teaching to Adults (DELTA)
186
193
disciplinary communities
60–1
63–71
126–7
194
234
disciplinary knowledge
9–10
55–71
115–16
139–43
163–5
190–2
diversification
194
195–7
202–4
Duguid, P.
74–5
90
91–2
Dunkin, M.
157
F
Farrell, T.
208
220
feedback
88–9
123t–4t
125–6
219–20
Finnegan, D.
204
205
Fleck, L.
16–17
244
Ford, M.
56
Forman, E.
56
Freeman, D.
8–9
32–3
71
115
119
141
143
149
157
170
174–5
251
French language teaching
5
22–3
48
59–60
Freudenstein, R.
56
59
63
Frost, Robert
6
7
games
98–9
Gattegno, C.
122
124
125
256
Gee, J.
34
56
234
generations
115–16
119–45
145t
163–83
generative grammar
120
132
165
Georgetown University Roundtables on Languages and Linguistics
64–8
83–6
German language teaching
27
28f
Goldin, S.
35
Golombek, P.
172
Gottlieb, M.
208
Gower, R.
168–9f
Grabe, W.
191
205n
grammar translation method
25
27
Graziani, F.
82
Gregg, K.
166
167
168
group work
90–2
Gumpertz, J.
242
GURT Roundtables see Georgetown University Roundtables on Languages and Linguistics
H
habitual action
208–9
220–1
Hanks, J.
143
Hargreaves, D.
119
Hawkins, D.
11–12
13
Haycraft, J.
73–4
76–7
81
83
87–9
90
Hayes, D.
8
heuristic space
139–43
higher education institutions
60–1
186
269
270–1
Hino, N.
83–6
historical perspectives, second language teaching
xi
115–16
119–45
145t
163–83
history
57
59
Hoban, G.
141
Holliday, A.
66
186
Hong Kong Conferences on Second Language Teacher Education
64
68–70
Hubbard, R.
143
hybrid disciplines
55–71
179
Hymes, D.
242
J
Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT)
84
Japan English Teaching (JET Program)
49–51
52
Japanese language teaching
29–31
82–3
Jargon Generator (training activity)
139
140f
job interviews
5–6
Johnson, J.
190
Johnson, K.
26
Johnson, K. E.
71
174–5
Johnston, B.
187
K
Katz, A.
208
Kelly, L. G.
164
184n
Kincheloe, J.
143
Kleinsasser, R. C.
31
Knapp, J.
45–6
‘know-how made over time’
9–10
41
42
43
45–54
knowledge
background knowledge
5–7
41–2
43–54
147–8
154–8
161–2
BAK model
147–8
154–8
161–2
borderless expertise
187–8
189t
197
200
205
disciplinary knowledge
9–10
55–71
115–16
139–43
163–5
190–2
ELT knowledge-base
185–205
horizon content knowledge
176–8
knowledge-as-pedagogy
165–70
knowledge-for-teaching
176–82
knowledge-geographies
185–205
and reflecting
207–13
situated knowledge
73–5
78–9
84–5
170–5
184n
social facts
16–17
35–6
56
57
60
63–4
125–6
158
230
231–3
234
236
238–40
244–52
253
257–9
transmission and construction of
61–2
93
101–5
107–8
132
163–83
194–204
253–9
Korea, educational policy
51–2
Krakowski, M.
120
121
Krashen, S.
122
166–7
168
Kumaravadivelu, B.
136–8
157
170
174
L
Lado, R.
56
63
Lampert, M.
82
176
language, definition
20
language as content
xi–xii
7
20–9
78–9
82–3
180–2
form vs. use
28–9
purpose-as-use
20–4
27
reflexivity
27–9
55–9
reification
33
111–12
situated content
76–81
171–5
theoretical models
172–5
176–82
language classrooms
7
21–7
174–5
seating arrangements
94–5
108–9
language ideology
49
language pedagogy
Audio-lingual Direct Method
25
119–23
124
125–6
164–5
communicative language teaching (CLT)
24
25–7
128
130–6
148
Community Language Learning
122–4
166
eclectic teaching
127
128–30
166–70
grammar translation method
25
27
macro-strategies
137–8
pedagogical simplification
86–9
Silent Way
104
107
122–3
124
125–6
166
and teaching knowledge
165–70
language policy
22
49–52
59
77–8
79–81
language proficiency, measurement of
50–2
121–2
190
232–3
language socialization
35
60
142–3
language teachers see second language teachers
language uses, theoretical models
179–82
language-learning biographies
253–4
languages of practice
125–6
148–9
167–70
languaging
77–8
220
Larsen-Freeman, D.
32–3
133
179
Lave, J.
76
80
95
97
234
243
Lazarton, A.
149
learner autonomy
124
166
learner errors
123t–4t
125–6
learners
10
11f
learning activities
86–9
245–7
253–9
261–3
authenticity
87
88–9
134–5
patterned practice
120–1
122
sense making
93
94–103
107–8
tools
105–12
learning outcomes
52
62
81
121–2
learning-in-place
41
42
73–92
170–5
184n
234–5
243–4
learning-in-practice
41
42
93–112
227
230–43
learn-then-apply design
189–90
192–3
Lee, W.
194
Leont’ev, A. N.
95–6
lesson planning
17
18
139
142t
155
156
Lillge, D.
245
linguistics
57
132
164–5
Lipson, A.
121
literature
57
59
Little, J. W.
236
local languages
233–4
Lockhart, C.
208
216
Lortie, D.
35
46
60
89
192
Lozanov, G.
122
M
macro-strategies
137–8
mainstreaming
22
Malderez, A.
10–11
17
Marton, F.
15–16
mathematics
176–7
179
Mauger, G.
60
McLaughlin, B.
166
meaningfulness
23–4
26
mentoring
10
11f
metalanguage
27–9
55–9
131–3
148–9
167–70
232–3
method
132–6
micro-worlds
86–7
modules, design of
263–7
Molinsky, S.
121
monolingualism
77
motivation
58–9
Murphey, T.
239
N
narratives
xi
5–6
22–3
34
47–8
59–60
78–9
82–3
94–5
103–4
107–9
110–12
238
251
nativeness
48–52
121–2
188
Natural Approach
122–3
Newbury House Publishers
145n
184n
nominal view, teacher education
12–17
North, B.
79
80
Nunan, D.
32
141
142–3
O
outer vs. inner worlds
220–1
outside-in view, teacher education see nominal view, teacher education
P
part/whole relationships
175
patterned practice
120–1
122
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
172–5
183
184n
pedagogical simplification
86–9
peer teaching
99–101
102–3
104
105
219
220
Pennycook, A.
174
personal practical knowledge (PPK)
171–2
173–4
175
Peterson, P.
147
149
152–4
157
158–9
160–1
Phelps, G.
176
phenomenography
15–16
Philips, S. U.
267
Piaget, J.
62
Pinker, S.
165
pluralization
194
197–201
202–4
plurilingualism
77–8
243
249
Polanyi, M.
171
Polkinghorne, D.
164
‘post-method’ condition
136–8
Poulter, M.
190
PPK see personal practical knowledge
PPP framework see Presentation-Practice-Production framework
Prabhu, N. S.
129–30
157
practice teaching
15
73
85–90
269–71
practice-based teacher education
81–2
prescriptive vs. descriptive approaches
6–7
Presentation-Practice-Production framework (PPP)
17
231
pre-service teacher education
7
10
185–205
269
270–1
see also qualifications
primary contradictions
109
111t
problem setting
210–11
218f
219
professional associations
194–204
234–6
professional development
7
8
9
35–6
45–6
60–1
139–41
192–204
conferences
64–71
179
professional languages
56–9
63
233–4
239
240f
250
261
269
270
pronominal view, teacher education
11–12
14–17
pronouns
27
28f
184n
psychology
57
59
164–5
Pulverness, A.
186
pupils
10
11f
purpose-as-use
20–4
27
Q
qualifications
5–7
48–52
121–2
186–9
international recognition of
187–8
short-term certificates
73–4
90–2
168–70
186–8
269–70
quaternary contradictions
109
110
111t
Rampton, B.
234
242
Raudenbush, S.
12–13
recruitment
5–6
43
122
Reddy, M. J.
104
reflecting
117
130
207–21
reflexivity
27–9
55–9
reification
33
111–12
reporting
254t
255–6
research-practice relationship
141–4
147–62
residency teacher preparation programs
269
270
Richards, J.
66
68
83–6
133–4
135
149
208
216
Rivers, W.
128
Rock, F.
234–5
Rodgers, T.
133–4
135
Rogoff, B.
82
243
Rosenholtz, S. J.
31
Ryle, G.
171
S
Saljo, R.
105–7
109
Saussure, F. de
243
Savignon, S.
29
31
scaffolding
75
86–90
115
181–2
249
254
269
270
Schachter, R.
213–16
Schon, D. A.
207
208
209–13
216
217
218–19
221
science, teaching of
99–101
seating arrangements
94–5
108–9
second language acquisition
57
61
second language teacher education
alternative route training
73–4
90–2
168–70
185–205
269–70
assessment
10
269–71
‘born or made’ debate
41–2
43–54
design theory
xii
225
227–36
237–52
historical perspectives
xi
115–16
119–45
145t
163–83
inquiry-oriented teacher education
217
isomorphic relationships
11–16
242–3
learning-in-place
41
42
73–92
170–5
184n
234–5
243–4
learning-in-practice
41
42
93–112
227
230–43
peer teaching
99–101
102–3
104
105
220
practice teaching
15
73
85–90
practice-based teacher education
81–2
program design
x
53–4
189–93
225
227–36
237–52
reflecting
117
130
216–21
research-practice relationship
141–4
147–62
teacher thinking
115
119–45
145t
147–62
173
terminology
8–11t
55–9
125–6
131–3
148–9
167–70
232–3
second language teachers
identity
33–6
60
170–5
179
251
native-speaker teachers
48–52
121–2
188
recruitment
5–6
43
47–52
122
role diversification and pluralization
194–204
technical cultures
29–33
35
179
secondary contradictions
109
111t
sense making
93
94–103
107–8
257–9
Sfard, A.
104
Shavelson, R.
147
149
150–2
153–4
155
160–1
short-term certificates
73–4
90–2
168–70
186–8
269–70
Shulman, L.
55
57
121
171
172–3
175
176
184n
Silent Way
104
107
122–3
124
125–6
166
Sinclair, J.
25
situated learning theory
41
42
73–6
80–1
86
90
91–2
170–5
184n
234–5
243–4
situations of practice
209–11
212
217–21
Snow, C.
61
social environments
82–3
104–5
229
see also context
social facts
16–17
35–6
56
57
60
63–4
125–6
158
230
231–3
234
236
238–40
244–52
253
257–9
social practice theory
41
42
77
95–112
227
230–1
235–6
240f
socialization
xi
35–6
60–1
139–41
142–3
socio-cultural theory
93–4
sociology
57
59
Stenhouse, L.
144
Stern, H.
65
Strevens, P.
65
Stevick, E.
20
21
28
107
124
150
184n
239
Stoller, F.
191
structural linguistics
120
132
164–5
students, motivation
58–9
subject-languages, definition
32–3
Swan, M.
26
27
28
teacher education
xi–xii
11–17
62
‘born or made’ debate
41–2
43–8
see also second language teacher education; teacher training
teacher talk
22–3
29–33
139–41
155
179
180–2
feedback
88–9
123t–4t
125–6
219–20
teacher thinking
115
147–62
173
decision-making
149–52
154–8
and pedagogical methods
119–45
145t
reflecting
117
130
207–21
teacher training
8
9
185–205
269–71
teacher-learning activities
18
99–101
139–41
219–21
245–7
253–9
261–3
teacher-led research
143–4
teachers
identity
33–6
60
170–5
179
251
native-speaker teachers
48–52
121–2
188
recruitment
5–6
43
47–52
122
role diversification and pluralization
194–204
technical cultures
29–33
179
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
64–5
194–204
teaching methods
Audio-lingual Direct Method
25
119–23
124
125–6
164–5
communicative language teaching (CLT)
24
25–7
128
130–6
148
Community Language Learning
122–4
166
eclectic teaching
127
128–30
166–70
grammar translation method
25
27
macro-strategies
137–8
scaffolding
75
86–90
115
181–2
249
254
269
270
Silent Way
104
107
122–3
124
125–6
166
and teaching knowledge
165–70
team work
90–2
235
267
technical cultures
29–33
35
179
technical rationality
209–13
terminology
8–11t
55–9
125–6
131–3
148–9
167–70
232–3
tertiary contradictions
109–10
111t
textbooks
59–60
135
139
180
Thames, M.
176
theories
147–62
261–7
BAK model
147–8
154–8
161–2
behaviorism
120–1
164–5
generative grammar
120
132
165
input hypothesis
166–7
language teacher cognition(s)
158–60
161–2
situated learning theory
41
42
73–6
80–1
86
90
91–2
184n
234–5
243–4
social practice theory
41
42
77
95–112
227
230–1
235–6
240f
teacher thinking
147–62
theory-practice relationship
xi
53–4
TOTE model
150–2
153
161
Thornbury, S.
90–2
thought collectives
17
18
thought processes see teacher thinking
time
101–5
107–8
132
153
156–7
160
232–3
256–7
tools
75
105–12
231–3
243–4
254t
255
256
calculators
105–6
107
Cuisenaire rods
103–4
107–9
110–12
255
256
micro-worlds
86–7
textbooks
59–60
135
139
180
worksheets
105
254t
255
256–7
262t
TOTE model
150–2
153
161
ToTing
10
11f
transfer (knowledge transmission)
61–2
93
101–5
trans-linguistic language use
77–81
Trim, J.
190–1
Tsui, A.
99
US Peace Corps
121
Vygotsky, L. S.
241
Wallace, M.
189
208
216–17
Walters, S.
168
169f
Watkins, P.
90–2
Wedell, M.
10–11
17
Weingart, P.
61
63
Wenger, E.
33
76
80
86
87
95
97
112
234
235
237
238–9
240–1
243
257
Wertsch, J.
96–7
112
241
244
Wheeler, G.
166–7
Widdowson, H. G.
26–7
28
36
Wilkins, D.
26
within-course designs
263
264–6
Wong-Filmore, L.
61
Woods, D.
147
153t
154–8
160–2
Woodward, T.
139
140f
worksheets
105
254t
255
256–7
262t