Reconceptualizations of Practice (ROP) Through Praxis

As well as the other two teachers, this category reflects teacher development in action setting out to advance TA’s teaching practice as she participates in her own teacher inquiry

through the LSC praxis process. See Appendix 2a and 2b for a detailed outline of TA’s five intervention stages. The data under this category were noted in memos taken from stimulated recall sessions after classroom observations of TA’s research lessons. Watching videos of her lessons triggered TA to reflect on her own teaching practice and to develop knowledge as evident in actual classroom events that would guide her practice to be transformative. ROP will be discussed through the following properties of the category:

• CLT activity led to more TETE

• CLT accelerates inductive grammar teaching

• Need for subject matter knowledge of English

• Willingness for co-constructing teaching: Teacher as a learner CLT activity led to more TETE

TA’s use of English had changed through the intervention cycles, especially when she put the students in pairs or groups, in which she worked as facilitator to encourage their work.

At the first cycle of the intervention, professional theoretical knowledge gain in the teaching of TA was evident. The use of an information gap activity associated with CLT was implemented. Students had to ask their classmates for their missing parts of information in English. TA was actively involved in the activity. Among TA’s interactions with students, ‘scaffolding’ was noticeable. “Scaffolding refers to providing contextual supports for meaning through the use of simplified language, teacher modeling, visuals and graphics, cooperative learning and hands-on learning” (Ovando, Collier, & Combs, 2003, p.

345). Throughout the activity, TA naturally used English with students, correcting their errors or encouraging their work and stimulating cooperation among groups.

At the first intervention cycle it was noted that TA’s use of English significantly changed. Before the intervention, she used prescriptive CRE (e.g. non-interactive classroom management directional commands), repetition and reading the text in the course book. She used English to confirm the answer (e.g. ‘Yes, Russia is the largest country in the world’). By reviewing the video, it was found that TA used English for approximately one-third of her instruction at the initial interview:

In my class, I approximately use English 30% or 40% including repetition, however, more than half is in Japanese. (TAN-1)

TA’s self-feedback later after the initial interview at the first stimulated provided an eye opening analysis:

I talked a lot. I kept asking questions in Japanese. I feel I used more English in the class. (TAN-SR1)

She then realized why she used more English when it was pointed out that she helped students ask questions in the information gap activity. She responded:

Oh, did I? I did not want to break the atmosphere of students using English.

(TAN-SR2)

The revealing observation of TA led her to an important realization. From this observation a ROP emerges:

Now that I think what I have been doing such as repetition must have been really boring for students. Actually I was not sure why I ask students to repeat after me sentence by sentence, plus these sentences don't connect in the meaning. Students just automatically follow the direction from me. Something really dry… (TAN-SR2)

Later in the lesson, TA was able to further observe a positive change in her teaching when it was noted (by the author) that she helped facilitate interaction among students in groups to ask each other questions in the information gap activity:

This time, this group work is a challenge for me too, so I asked for feedback from each group. There were comments like, “We used our heads”, “This is not passive so I got tired, but it was interesting.” They also left their [individual]

feedback on their journals, saying that “We could do the activity” and “We had a chance to present our own ideas in English. That was cool.” … I did not break the atmosphere of students’ using English… Yes, they left positive feedback. They responded well when they were involved in tasks. Group work saved some weak students too. (TAN-SR2)

The classroom environment created by TA under a CLT framework provided students chances to use the learned forms with the students who held higher proficiency levels and with the teacher (TA) as well. This outcome is supported in the literature. Celce- Murcia (2015) writes, “When learners encounter new forms, they may be able to produce them accurately only in contexts that provide them with instructional support or scaffolding from the teacher or other peers” (p. 9).

Through the five stages of intervention, more of English-used classroom environment has been created. This means that students had to use the target forms during the activities and this environment accelerated TA’s use of English not to break the active classroom atmosphere and to encourage students’ use of English. TA states:

While students were preparing questions and practicing in the group, I tried to use English as I felt switching to English to Japanese back and forth seemed to make students confused. When they were involved in the activity using their target language [English], using the target same language [English] was natural for me too. (TAN-SR5)

It can be said that CLT can create more English to be used in the classroom environment.

TA has learned that by introducing a variety of activities to focus on target points, students can develop not only accuracy, but fluency as well because students are given more opportunities to create uses of English (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Fotos & Ellis, 1991).

Thus, both students and the teacher are able to use more of the target language.

CLT accelerates integrated inductive grammar teaching

Taking a traditional approach to teaching grammar centered on the yakudoku method causes JTEs to rely on L1 use to deductively explain grammatical structures. Celce-Murcia (2015) takes up the issue over whether grammar should be taught deductively or inductively:

Major issues in teaching grammar have been related to whether grammar should be taught explicitly (i.e., through rules) or implicitly (i.e., through meaningful input without recourse to rules) or whether it should be taught deductively (i.e., through rules which can be applied to produce language) or inductively (i.e., through examples of language use from which rules can be generalized) (p. 3).

TA, although she has tried to find a more effective and retainable way of grammar teaching, seemed to have the belief that ‘grammar should be deductively explained in L1’

as the comment of the initial interview below shows:

I can't explain grammar in English as I don't know how to do it. My students would be confused if I explain grammar in English even if I had the knowledge of how to do it. (TAN-SR1)

However, TA’s belief that ‘grammar should be explained’ gradually changed during the interventions through implementing CLT oriented activities, where students were given chances to communicatively use grammar items in order to complete their information gap task. For example, participial adjective, past–modification, and adjectival modification were targeted grammar structures in the first intervention. In the first 20 minutes, TA cut her time to introduce grammar points using PowerPoint from one slide to the next. In this way, she allowed students to have more time by letting them work in an information gap activity in the class. Later, in two subsequent stimulated recall sessions she recalled:

My explanation of grammar used to make them bored and confused. But this time, [information gap activity] less explanation and more understanding [occurred by] letting them use the targeted sentences. I found that even the dialogues in the textbook could be used to have students involved in the activity.

I noticed that it is important to create the situation or activity to fit what they have learned or have to learn and what they can do in the class. (TAN-SR2)

They can be so active during the class. And they can be really creative. They try to speak and communicate in English. And best of all I don’t have to explain [grammar] a lot. (TAN-SR4)

By seeing positive results of getting students to use grammar structures in a communicative way in the information gap activity, TA has begun to reconceptualize her instruction moving from a heavy reliance on grammar explanations. In doing so, her practice is more aligned with MEXT’s guidelines (2009) that “grammar should be taught in a way to support communication, and in a way that it is integrated into language activities” (p.42), and “grammar instruction should be given as a means to support communication” (p. 7).

Brandl (2007) points out the complexity of grammar teaching if the focus on solely on rules by stating that “[i]n many cases, rules are too complex or language structures are not transparent enough for students to figure out underlying rules, as is the case with many syntactical aspects of the language or with expectations to the rules” (p.112).

Larsen-Freeman writes, that it will be important for language teachers to notice that “[g]

rammar is about much more than form, and its teaching is ill served if students are simply given rules” (2001, p.251). What is emphasized here is that grammatical rules are learned when teachers design learning tasks that allow the students to apply them (rules) in practice, which will make a difference in learning grammar communicatively. TA has come to reconceptualize her teaching with this understanding.

Need for subject matter knowledge of English

TA’s self reflection through LSC has brought her the chance to ‘think back’ about her knowledge of English. “Reflecting determinedly to improve something requires effort and sustained, focused thinking centered on a particular issue or concern you might have about your development as a teacher” (McGregor, 2011, p.1). TA’s reflection of inner questions such as ‘How would I have responded to the unexpected questions?’ or ‘What should I have known before the classes?’ led to thoughts about what is missing and how to improve the situation. At first, TA remarks:

The handouts we usually use in the classes are well organized. Students have to answer the questions in a linear way. To tell the truth, giving them a work sheet for drill is a bit easy for me because we usually have only one right answer and I can prepare for the answers. (TAN-SR2)

TA’s comments above demonstrate why she has relied on a teacher-centered approach that allows her to control student responses. However, embedding CLT into classroom activity was to give TA more chances to be communicative with students and to be more students-centered in her approach, which also provides students chances to ask TA

Nonetheless, taking this approach can be risky for a JTE. From students’ perspectives, an English teacher knows everything and can answer every question as a more knowledgeable authority as TA is well aware of:

During the activity students ask me what to express in English, which didn’t occur to me at all at the time. Before we included the [communicative] activity in the lessons, I prepared all answers for the class and wrote them down.

However, I noticed that I needed to gain more knowledge of English because I found myself not being able to answer their questions immediately and I got confused a little. (TAN-SR3)

On the one hand, TA is expressing a concern and an insight into why JTEs might avoid introducing communicative activities in the classroom because of a lack of target language proficiency. On the other hand, this can be seen as an EPD state where teachers realize they should make a change to gain more teacher knowledge:

However having students engaged in activities requires another energy.

Students have the right to ask questions, which require us to gain more knowledge about English itself. Yes, we need to gain knowledge of English vocabulary, synonym, grammar etc. ... (TAN-SR3)

In Shulman’s well-known teacher development model (1987, 1998; Higgins & Leat 2001;

McGregor 2007), ‘Subject’ knowledge’ is one major component of teacher knowledge needed. (The other three components are ‘Curriculum Knowledge’ ‘Pedagogical Knowledge’ and ‘Acknowledgement of Educational Values’.) TA further shows she is reconceptualizing her instruction through valuing knowledge gain:

They [students] are really critical of the teacher’s faults (laughter) and now I recognize that I have to gain more knowledge of English. (TAN-SR4)

An outcome of TA’s interventions is that it has enabled her to realize that she needs to gain more subject matter knowledge (e.g. language proficiency including syntactic knowledge), which did not happen in her previous to experiencing the LSC process.

Need for pedagogical knowledge of teaching English

In addition to subject matter knowledge of English, what has emerged through LSC is that TA has come to notice that she needs to improve her teaching skills, to know how to organize the class; how subject knowledge ought to be organized effectively and used by the students. In other words TA notices that she needs to know more about ‘How to teach’, which Shulman (1986) refers to as pedagogical content knowledge that:

…embodies the aspects of content most germane to its teachability. Within

the category of pedagogical content knowledge I include, for the most regularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations - in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others. (p. 9)

More specifically, McGregor (2011, p.10) points out that “Pedagogic knowledge, or knowing how to teach, is multi-faceted” and lists three areas:

--Practical teaching knowledge

--Beliefs about teaching (intuitive and experiential understandings of what works) --Understanding of learners and their unique capabilities

With three years experience of teaching, we cannot blame TA for having limited knowledge of teaching. Therefore, it is understandable that she needs pedagogical skills.

Likewise, with subject matter knowledge, language teachers are to be expected to have the knowledge of how students acquire the target language. TA shows ROP in the following response from a SR session at the 4^th intervention stage:

Well, this [implementing activities through LSC] is my study, too. I feel I’m learning how to teach. … I would like to know more about it. I'm now trying to make my English teaching better. Every time I go to class, I have come to think about the class deeper.…They [students] love being involved in activities, which I never imagined before. (TAN-SR4)

These reflective comments that evolved out of several LSCs imply that the co-constructed interventions are awakening in TA a new awareness of teaching and a desire of finding ways to adapt new teaching knowledge. Further, teaching knowledge is gained in responding to the students’ outcomes corresponding to new teaching approaches.

I was really moved to have the experience that meaning [focus-on meaning]

is important and feedback from students motivates me ... Since I have only three years experience, only in this school, it was really difficult to apply new teaching approaches. I think we teachers also learn how to teach and how a subject should be taught taking into consideration students’ feedback into our next class. They [students] are honest. When the class was not so interesting, they show their honest feeling to me. I think we have to accept the students’

outcomes and feedback seriously and reflect on them to the next class to make our teaching skills better. Yes, teaching is not one direction activity [not linear]. (TAN-3)

accuracy-focused (grammar and vocabulary) and less fluency-focused to focusing more on fluency and meaningful activities. However, through adapting new teaching techniques in intervention cycles, TA has recognized why what she used to do did not work so well and why what she challenged worked. Besides, TA conceptualized what teacher and students could do in the classroom environment together and what students are supposed to do by themselves. The following is one example:

But at least I have noticed that what they can do by themselves at home to take time and what they should try in the class. (TAN-SR3)

TA believed that she had to teach and explain drills in her class, though, she has awaken to know what is the value of students learning in the class, that is to say, students can improve language skills with engaging activities and solving problems with the help of the teacher.

So we should keep implementing focusing on keeping the balance of what we can teach in the class, which must be connected to what students can do in the real communication and to what students must do. I mean tests and so on.

(TAN-SR4)

Gudmundsdottir (1987a, b) stated in his view as a science teacher that pedagogical content knowledge is a form of knowledge that makes science teachers rather than scientists and that teachers differ from scientists, which can go for language teachers as well. In other words, how subject knowledge is organized and used in the classroom requires pedagogical skills.

TA shows her awareness of the importance of pedagogical skill development beyond subject matter knowledge by looking at the affective side of learning concerning the characteristics of students:

No student likes to be humiliated in front of the other students, so they will try to do their best. And when they make mistakes, they can be really generous to recognize the mistake of each other. Their humanities are beyond our expectations. They are not passive. It can be that teachers make students passive. (TAN-SR3)

The last comment is particularly revealing showing TA’s ROP. Her observations show that students can work as peers helping in each other in student centered activities. Moreover, if teachers can frame activities that engage students, then the latter are willing to get out of their confined cocoon an take an active role in participation. This willingness can apply to teacher learning as well.

Willingness for co-constructing teaching: Teacher as a learner

TA’s positive view toward collaborating with colleagues to develop her teaching skills was

obviously seen from the initial interview, where she stated that she was willing to ask other teachers including ALTs to let her observe their classes and see what kind of English phrases are used and what kind of approach would be effective in order to avoid boring classes, which often end up seeing students’ unpleasant faces. (see also section 5.2)

John-Steiner & Meehan (2000) write, “Teachers, too, need colleagues in the staff room with whom to talk through the various phases of their inquiries” (p.50). They add that teachers need colleagues to whom they can talk reflectively about what they are learning and how new learning experiences can be put into practice in ways that lead to a change in practice. The fruitfulness of dialog and its relationship to teacher development also plays an important role when constructing teacher workshops.

Through LSC, TA states two beneficial points. One is chronological in that the co-constructive process through LSC helps TA save time for planning lesson. She spent rather much time planning the lesson by herself, still leaving the uncertainness of whether the teaching plan would work or not. However, the co-constructed LSC helped her save time:

This [LSC planning session] helps me a lot. Usually it takes me more than 2or 3 hours to make the teaching plan and still remains ambiguous because I am usually not so confident about what outcomes from students should be expected.

But it[planning] saves me a lot of time and helps me find the direction [for teaching]. (TAN-3)

The other is conceptual in that LSC has stimulated TA’s creativity for making the class more active and her teaching more effective. It is TA that knows her students most. The co-constructive conversation has brought TA to a more student-concerned stage of teaching:

I think that I have come to imagine why the approaches we planed together make my class more interactive and how students learn through the new approaches.

For next class, I will prepare the work sheet. This activity includes listening and speaking and writing. This quiz is great. Advanced version of the ‘picture description’ [students describe missing information in a picture] I will prepare.

Could you check those? (TAN-3)

TA’s last request shows that she is eager to develop her teaching and is seeking guidance.

JTEs are required to TETE to promote the willingness of communication. However, without the clear guidance, it would remain just an ideal policy. TA’s comments below show that she woke up to the value of adapting communicative activities through collaboration, in the co-constructed lesson:

Considering communication, we [JTEs] cannot be so fluent as a native speaker of English, [even though] we need to learn how to encourage students to use English by providing situations without hesitation. Using only simple phrases

such as ‘Did you understand?’ or ‘Got it?’ did work and it never occurred to me that implementing these phrases would work to stimulate classroom activity more communicatively. Students said that today’s class was for reading, but it was fun as they had more chances of speaking and listening. (TAN-SR4)

Maybe this activity could not come to me by myself. We need to talk [dialogue with other teachers]. (TAN-SR6)

Well through the conversations [co-constructed dialogue], we could expect what students could do, what students could achieve through the activity, what skills could be improved and what questions would be expected. (TAN-SR6)

The SR data suggest that seeing some success in her classes has triggered her ROP as we further see below:

I would like to make a copy of framework of lesson plan and I will use it as a reference of planning the lesson. Teaching is not forcing students to receive knowledge from teachers but trying to help students get knowledge and use the knowledge. And knowledge should not be only for getting good scores on the test but for adapting them in the real world. (TAN-SR6)

The above comments show that TA is developing a professional discourse leading to ROP that better will better inform her teaching. It is hard to say that TA has perfectly conceived more effective ways in her teaching; continuing effort for teaching is also required.

Nonetheless, the interventions of putting her through the LSCs have encouraged her to keep working with aspirations. Next, a view of TA’s developmental progress resulting from data presented in the ROP as well as HPM and EPD categories are presented.