Many Possibilities of Friction and TB’s Developmental Process

concept of teaching to the moment and having instructed conversation with her students. In doing so, she is able to make an incremental change in her teaching. In the same manner, the co-constructed, dialogic process of working with TB in the study shows a positive change in her teacher development. When teachers share the same purpose of teaching, such as improving students’ language skills, they can talk about issues together, bringing different opinions, discussing and finding solutions to problems that they encounter in their instruction. This can be achieved by going through LSCs. TB’s comment also shows that teachers need more chances to develop a secondary professional discourse about teaching (see Chapter 2, section 2.4.2). The result leads to further productive conceptualizations of teaching, which are evidenced in practice.

6.4 Many Possibilities of Friction and TB’s Developmental Process

to teaching, it implies that an overly standardized curriculum is given priority over what the individual teacher can bring to the classroom in terms of creativity and innovative skills.

In the case of TB, who showed a high proficiency of English improved by studying abroad, one might expect more English in the classroom. However, TB seemed to stick to a way of teaching that has been underpinned by a belief that what the students needed (and supported by the design of the yearly lesson plan) was grammar-based instruction with many L1 explanations. The data suggest that the design of the curriculum fit her teaching style and demands put on her. Furthermore, her experiences of having limited pedagogical knowledge further anchored her to a HPM state (although as shown in the EPD category, an awareness of lack of skills can be used to stimulate her development). TETE and incorporating communicative activities require time, energy and of course teaching knowledge. These are factors for keeping her in a HPM state. TB claimed to have no time other than focusing on accuracy activities and chasing the clock to keep up with the pre-planned lessons, but there are promising signs in TB’s developmental process reflected in praxis.

The core theme many possibilities of friction in the case of TB shows promise as indicated in the data that were listed in the EPD category. An indication of EPD emerged when she revealed awareness that using L1 bores her students. Experience is a major nutrient that contributes to teacher actions. TB’s recalling of her positive experiences as a learner with English classes and teachers that used more English created in her an awareness that with too much L1, students become inattentive. TB made a noteworthy observation regarding L1 use. In her reflections on actions in the classroom (Schön,, 1983), she found that using L1 is easy to monitor for students, but it also requires less attention and going off-task, especially if the students have heard pattern practice explanations of grammar before. In this case, familiarity and repetition leads to boredom. However, when TB used English, she noticed students became alert because the familiar was suddenly strange as explanations were packaged in a new L2 way. Teacher awareness is a necessary contributor for teacher change. However, change is not an easy task. She also mentions in the same breath that although she wants to create more engaging activities in English because she does not want to bore her students with too much L1, she slips back into a HPM mode when she says there is not enough time to do so.

Following Lortie’s (1975) apprenticeship of observation concept, TB’s own experiences as a student are powerful motivators for her actions and can be informative for teacher development. Even though she consistently points out that a controlled curriculum prevents her from making changes, the EPD state of her instruction causing friction mobilizes in her a willingness to make at least incremental changes. As the proverb says: A small change makes a big difference. Part of that difference is that TB expressed the need

for more teacher development and the willingness to learn from colleagues. As pointed out in Chapter 2, collaboration is beneficial in teacher learning. Teachers need opportunities to participate in co-constructed dialogue about their teaching with colleagues. TB is ready and willing to do so.

An initial sign showing positive development in TB regarded the introduction of a riddle activity. During the initial planning stages of the interventions through praxis, she was showed the principles of CLT (Brown, 2001, Richards 2006) that emphasized the role of the teacher as a facilitator and giving students inductive opportunities to understand the target learning points. Following the literature, instead of explaining what a riddle was, and translating one on the board, she simply wrote the riddle and had students figure out its meaning and what a riddle is on their own. This small incremental change made a difference seeing upon seeing the outcome during the subsequent SR session. TB was amazed at the lively engagement of the students as they negotiated meaning of the riddle with each other and with the questions they asked her as they tried to figure its meaning out. Realizing the success of the activity having seen it work in practice, TB added that she would like to do more interactive activities with her students. TB began to reconstruct her practice. She mentioned that in a following reading activity, where the point is made of looking up to someone in the story using the target phrase ‘be looked up to’ that she would like to do something different, “I would like to ask students to add the reason why [they look up to someone]. Let’s see what will happen in the class” (TAN-5). The dialog as presented above shows that TB successfully interacted with her students and encouraged them to participate in a meaningful way by asking questions creating an ‘instructed conversation’ (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Importantly, the questions she asked them were not assessment type comprehension questions, but ones that assisted them in getting them to form their own thoughts by having them express whom they look up to in their own lives. TB was quite pleased with the outcome and this shows a ROP. This was further achieved when she was able to employ what was discussed previously with the author about the power of teaching to the moment, which prompted the instructional conversation to take place.

The awakening of TB as seen in the ROP category coincides with the process of praxis.

As she takes part in the interventions, she shows more frustration with using the traditional yakudoku style of teaching. In later interviews, she mentions that she is getting tired of explaining; students are tired too, and that interactive activities are underestimated in a teacher centered, transmission model of education. However, through praxis of planning, learning about some principles of CLT and instructed conversation, reflecting and watching her instruction, she stated several times in the study that she lacked and needed more professional knowledge of teaching. Toward the end of the study, TB has come to understand the value of gaining teaching knowledge, to know more, to be able to talk about

it more, to develop a professional discourse that allows the teacher to reconstruct practice so that she can better conceptualize why she is doing what she is doing, as TB said, “Through conversation about teaching, I have come to think about the lesson itself more deeply”

(TAN-SR3).

The many possibilities of friction for TB reveal positive attributes for her teacher development. The data listed and analyzed under HPM, EPD and ROP categories regarding the case of TB substantiate the claim that teaching is a complex activity and that in order to understand pedagogical practices, one must consider the various contexts that surround the classroom contributing to its complexity. TB on the one hand remains adamant that she can only make small changes in her instruction. However, she at least shows willingness to make a change and this shift in thinking was observed over the existence of friction in her teaching state. Thus, the data reflect a teacher who has become more engaged albeit incrementally in participating in teacher development through the process of praxis because of the LSC interventions. Whether or not this process will continue depends on her taking an active role in development through the process of praxis.

However, as with the friction metaphor, there needs to be an instigating force to encourage her to continue with praxis as an ongoing part of her professional development. Here teacher educators and educational institutions can play a role as will be discussed in Chapter 9.