investigating experienced esl teachers’ pedagogical knowledge

Investigating Experienced ESLTeachers’ Pedagogical KnowledgeELIZABETH GATBONTONConcordia UniversityTESL Centre1455 Blvd. de Maisonneuve OuestMontreal, QuebecCanada H3G 1M8Email: [email protected]

This study investigated the hypothesis that it is possible to access the pattern of knowledgeabout teaching and learning (pedagogical knowledge) that experienced teachers utilize whilethey teach. This hypothesis was investigated through qualitative and quantitative analyses ofverbal protocols obtained from teachers who simultaneously watched videotaped segments ofthemselves teaching and reported on thoughts they had as they taught these segments. Twosets of experienced teachers (N57) uniformly reported 20 to 21 categories of pedagogicalthoughts that they claimed were in their minds while teaching. Of these, 7 to 8 were reportedmore frequently than others. The lists of predominant categories for both sets are headed bythoughts concerned with managing both the language the students hear and the languagethey produce (Language Management). Thoughts about students (Knowledge of Students),thoughts about ensuring the smooth transition of activities in the classroom (ProcedureCheck), and assessing student participation in and progress with the classroom tasks (ProgressReview) were also among those that featured highly on both sets of teachers’ predominancelists. In terms of an approach in analyzing the thought processes of ESL teachers, the studysuggests that a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods may be profitable.

INFORMATION ESSENTIAL IN BROADENINGthe theoretical base of programmes preparingprospective teachers of English as a second lan-guage (ESL) today comes primarily from studiesin second language acquisition (Ellis, 1994;Ritchie & Bhatia, 1996), classroom processes(Cazden, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Johnson, 1995),and classroom instruction (Lightbown & Spada,1993; Long, 1983). All these studies together pre-sent a picture of what teachers do in the class-room. They show, among other things, howteachers organize group work (e.g., Long & Por-ter, 1985), what questions they ask (e.g., Long &Sato, 1983; Spada & Lightbown, 1993), how theymanage input and student output (e.g., Krashen& Terrell, 1983; Long, 1996; Swain, 1993, 1998;Wesche, 1994), and how they deal with issuesregarding form-focused teaching (e.g., Doughty

& Williams, 1998) and corrective feedback (e.g.,Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Lyster & Ranta, 1996).It is clear that these studies have contributedgreatly to the current understanding of the teach-ing process, its procedures and methodologies(see, for example, Larsen-Freeman, 1986, 1990;Richards, 1998) and as a result have had an im-pact on teacher training. For a fuller and morecomplete understanding of the teaching process,however, these studies of overt classroom behav-iour need to be complemented with studies of thepedagogical knowledge of teachers (Breen, 1991;Freeman, 1996; Markee, 1997; Richards, 1998).Pedagogical knowledge, or teachers’ constructsof the task of teaching (VanPatten, 1997), is de-fined here as the teacher’s accumulated knowl-edge about the teaching act (e.g., its goals, proce-dures, strategies) that serves as the basis for his orher classroom behaviour and activities (Feinman-Nemser & Flodden, 1986; Shulman, 1986, 1987).

Scholars in general education (Clark & Peter-son, 1986; Grossman, 1992; Kagan, 1991; Shavel-

The Modern Language Journal, 83, i, (1999)0026-7902/99/35–50 $1.50/0©1999 The Modern Language Journal

son & Stern, 1981) have studied the nature ofteachers’ pedagogical knowledge by investigatingmany facets of teacher thinking (Calderhead,1991; Clark & Yinger, 1977; Elbaz, 1991) and be-liefs (Guzkey & Passaro, 1994; Hollingsworth,1989; Kagan, 1992; Reynolds, 1992). The under-lying assumption of these studies is that whenteachers work to promote learning in the class-room they are guided by mental acts that havebeen shaped by the knowledge and beliefs aboutteaching and learning that they have accumu-lated through the years. Thus, if one can ascer-tain what these thoughts are, one can gain in-sights into the knowledge that lies behind them.

A number of studies of teacher cognition in thegeneral education field have focused on howteachers construct their philosophies and theo-ries of teaching (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly,1987; Leinhardt, 1990) and how they understandthe teaching process (e.g., Peterson & Comeaux,1987). Others have examined teachers’ beliefsabout teaching, students, teachers, and the learn-ing process, as well as their own efficacy in induc-ing change in their students (e.g., Hollingsworth,1989; Kagan & Tippins, 1991; Tamir, 1991). Oth-ers still have examined their instructionalthoughts and actions and decision making in theclassroom (e.g., Fogarty, Wang, & Creek, 1983;Magliaro & Borko, 1986). Changes in cognitionthat occur with professional growth and practicehave also been examined (Bullough, 1991; Cal-derhead, 1991; Clift, 1991).

Following the lead of their counterparts in thefield of general education, teachers and scholarsin the field of second language (L2) teaching havealso begun to examine ESL teachers’ pedagogicalknowledge and beliefs (Breen, 1991; Cumming,1993; Freeman & Richards; 1996; Johnson, 1994;Richards, 1998; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Woods,1996) . Here, the focal issues include the contentsof and sources of ESL teachers’ conception of theteaching task (e.g., Almarza, 1996), teachers’ be-liefs (e.g., Johnson, 1994; Woods, 1991), class-room decision making (e.g., Binnie-Smith, 1996;Johnson, 1992), and lesson planning strategies(e.g., Woods, 1996). Breen (1991), for example,conducted a study on 106 experienced ESL teach-ers in order to determine the sources of their ex-planations for why they or their colleagues usedcertain techniques and procedures in the class-room. He found seven categories of explanations,of which learner- focused matters were among themost frequently cited. Binnie-Smith (1996) exam-ined the reports of 9 experienced ESL teachers inorder to understand the nature of their classroomdecisions. She found these teachers’ decisions to

be influenced heavily by their personal constructsof L2 theory and their individual beliefs aboutlearning. In a longitudinal study of several experi-enced ESL teachers in an academic setting, Woods(1996) also identified similar factors affecting theteachers’ choices in planning and implementingtheir lessons.

Other researchers have looked for insights intoESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge by focusingon preservice teachers. Using an instrument shedevised, Beliefs about Language Learning Inven-tory (BALLI) and another devised by Savignon(1976) and her colleagues, the Foreign LanguageAttitude Survey (FLAS), Horwitz (1985) exam-ined the beliefs of preservice teachers and found,among other things, a strong sense of teacherresponsibility to motivate and help students learnas well as strong disagreements about the bestmethods of teaching. Focusing on another issue,Johnson (1992) examined the antecedents of 6preservice ESL teachers’ interactive decisions andfound that they based their decisions primarily onteacher-triggered student behaviours rather thanon student-initiated behaviours. Almarza (1996)examined how 4 ESL preservice teachers’ con-cepts of teaching developed and whether theycould be modified by a course in teacher educa-tion. The findings of her study indicate that suchconcepts are shaped by teachers’ past experiencesas students. These concepts can be modifiedslightly by teacher training, but the influence oftheir learning experiences on the shape of theirclassroom behaviour remains profound.

The study reported here also focuses on ESLteachers’ pedagogical knowledge but from aslightly different perspective. Whereas the abovestudies examined teachers’ pedagogical knowl-edge as they related to one or two facets ofteacher behaviour such as decision making andplanning, this study aimed at discovering (a) whatpatterns of pedagogical knowledge operate whenexperienced ESL teachers teach and (b) whetherthere is consistency among teachers in their useof these patterns.

METHOD

Research Questions

The specific questions asked were the follow-ing: Can we access the set of pedagogicalthoughts (henceforth PTs) that experiencedteachers have while they teach? Of thesethoughts, do certain ones predominate? Is thereconsistency among teachers in the patterns oftheir reported PTs? What domains of pedagogical

36 The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)

knowledge can be inferred from the reportedPTs? These questions were investigated usingdata from two sets of experienced teachers whowere videotaped teaching ESL courses to adultlearners a year apart.

The ESL Courses

Both ESL courses were organized specificallyfor this study. However, they were similar in con-tent and duration to courses offered at local com-munity centres. The first course (Course I) wastaught by a team of three experienced teachers tothree groups of adult learners. The secondcourse (Course II) was taught a year later by ateam of four experienced teachers (and four nov-ice teachers whose data will not be reportedhere1) to four groups of adult learners. Becausethere were unequal numbers of teachers involvedin the two courses, there were differences be-tween them in terms of the length of the lessonsand the duration of the courses. These differ-ences were, however, irrelevant to this study andare therefore not discussed further.

Teachers

The experienced teachers for Course I were allfemale; for Course II, two were female and twowere male. At the time of the study six of theseven participating teachers were teaching at alocal continuing education program. One wasteaching at a university level ESL program. Sixhad completed a Master’s degree in Applied Lin-guistics and one was working on his degree. Eachreported having about 10 years teaching experi-ence, at least 5 of which were in communicativelanguage teaching.

The Students

The three groups of ESL students in Course Iand the four groups in Course II were low inter-mediate level, adult immigrants and refugeesfrom Europe, Middle East, and Asia. Two or threewere French Canadians from Quebec.

Teaching Materials

To rule out any confounding variables arisingfrom unequal familiarity with the materials, theteachers used unfamiliar modules from a text-book unpublished at the time (Gatbonton,1994). Each module began with one major (or aseries of smaller) generic communication activi-ties (e.g., role plays, games) suitable for any level

learner. This was followed by a series of form-focused fluency-oriented and accuracy-orientedactivities highlighting utterances collected fromthe communication phase of the lesson. Prior toteaching, the teachers were briefed on the text-book’s approach (Gatbonton & Segalowitz,1988), but they were encouraged to modify andadapt the materials to suit their teaching styles,student needs, and time allotted per lesson.

Data Collection

The teachers’ lessons were videotaped. At sometime during the course each teacher was asked toview 1 hour of his or her video recorded lessons.Ideally, the teachers should have viewed eachvideotaped lesson right after teaching it, but itwas often not possible to schedule this becausesome had teaching commitments in regular pro-grams. For one or two teachers, the delay in view-ing time ranged from a few days to 3 weeks long.One teacher, interviewed after several weeks, ex-pressed concern before viewing the video thatshe might have forgotten what happened. Never-theless, the moment she saw the lesson, sheseemed to have no problems talking about it.

While viewing, the teachers were asked to rec-ollect aloud (into an ongoing tape recorder)what they were thinking while teaching the par-ticular segment being viewed. Their verbal recol-lections of the first hour of a 1 1/2- or 2-hourmodule provided the Verbal Recall Data in thisstudy.

Data Analysis

Each teacher’s taped recollections were tran-scribed verbatim and then subjected to qualita-tive (content) analysis aimed at identifying thecategories of pedagogical ideas involved. Later,the frequency of occurrence of the categorieswere noted and subjected to appropriate statisti-cal tests.

Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative analysis of the data proceededin two stages. In Stage 1, the Course I teachers’data (n53) were analyzed jointly by the re-searcher (R) and a paid research assistant (RA).In Stage 2, which took place one year later, theCourse II teachers’ data (n54) were analyzed byR and a paid consultant (C) who joined the teamfor this purpose. The qualitative analyses of bothsets of data, whether by R and RA or by R and C,proceeded along the steps originally agreed upon

Elizabeth Gatbonton 37

by R and RA the year before. This procedureconsisted of five steps:2 segmentation and label-ling, categorization, category definition, data se-lection, and abstracting pedagogical knowledgedomains suggested by the categories. The con-sultant familiarized herself with the early analyti-cal procedure by reviewing the analyses of thefirst set of data.

Segmentation and Labelling. The two researchers(R and RA, and later, R and C) first jointly exam-ined a transcribed segment of one teacher’s ver-bal recall interview in order to come to an agree-ment about the units of analysis and labels to beused. For illustrative purposes, a small portion ofthis practice segment is presented below:

1Okay, that’s where I was going with it. 2I mean, firstof all, I think you always have to brainstorm beforeyou start something thematically like this. 3You justhave to sort of get them into a . . . 4we were talkingabout weekends. “What do you do on a weekend. Yougo out for lunch and you go to dinner.” 5But also inthe back of my mind I was pushing “theatre dance”and that, 6because I thought, those were some of thethings that they might remember when they’re plan-ning there. 7Because I didn’t want them to just dosomething mundane. I really pushed for interestingstuff.

This step allowed the researchers to arrive at apreliminary system for segmenting the transcriptsinto small units of instructional thoughts; for ex-ample, Must Brainstorm (2); Were DiscussingWeekend (4); Was Pushing Specific Vocabulary(5); Speculated if Specific Vocabulary is Pushed,Students (Ss) Might Use Vocabulary During Plan-ning (6); Didn’t Want Ss to do Mundane Activi-ties or Pushed for Interesting Stuff (7). Thethought unit in the first statement (1) and thesecond unit in the third statement (3) were la-belled Unclear for obvious reasons.

Once consensus was reached on a suitable seg-menting and labelling system, the researchers in-dependently applied the system to the entire setof data from that same teacher. Later, they wentover each other’s work, checking the areas ofagreement between their analyses. Discrepanciesin segmenting teachers’ utterances into relevantthought units (e.g., Is Statement 4 above made upof one or three units?) were resolved with furtherdiscussions and collaborative practice. Consensuson how to label the thought units took longer toreach especially in cases where the meaning ofthe statement was not too readily evident orwhere there were alternative ways of saying thesame thing (e.g., Statement 6 above was labelledin the two analyses as Unclear, and Ss Will Re-

member Statements in Future). However, inten-sive discussions of possible ways of capturing thisstatement led to a mutually approved choice ofthe label used above. After reaching a consensusabout most of the discrepancies emerging fromthis first teacher’s data, R and RA/C applied thesame process to the other teachers’ data. Thisprocess yielded numerous other thought unitssuch as: Student (S) is Problem (“He’s a prob-lem”), Identify S (“That’s Alexei”), Will ProvideVocabulary (“If a certain amount of time goespast and they’re not providing, then I will givethem to them”), and S Improved (“She got better.She really took off at one point”).

Categorization. After the teacher’s thought unitshave been identified, the researchers organizedthese units into categories based on sharedthemes. Thus, all thought units describing stu-dent personality characteristics (e.g., S is Prob-lem, S is Nice), ability (e.g., S is Good, Ss areBeginners), and needs (e.g., Ss Need Explana-tions) were categorized as Know S-personality,Know S-ability, Know S-needs, respectively. Later,all these small student-focused categories werethemselves further merged into a larger category(e.g., Knowledge of Students). Reports abouthow students reacted (e.g., Ss Were Embar-rassed) and behaved (e.g., S Wrote Everything)were categorized as Note Student Reaction andNote Student Behaviour, respectively. Later, thesetwo mini-categories were collapsed into a largerone called Note Student Behaviour & Reaction.Thought units dealing with language the studentswere exposed to (e.g., Will Provide Vocabulary)were initially categorized as Input and units deal-ing with the language the students produced(e.g., T Corrected Error) were classified as Out-put. Later, both Input and Output thoughts wereplaced under a larger category, Language Man-agement. This procedure of combining and re-combining the reported thoughts resulted in thecompilation of the following shorter list of peda-gogical categories: Affective, Beliefs, Compre-hensibility, Content, Decisions, Group Work, Ir-relevant, Knowledge of Students, LanguageManagement, Level Check, Note Student Behav-iour & Reactions, Past Experience, Planned Acts,Post-active, Problem Check, Probe Prior Knowl-edge, Procedure Check, Progress Review,Prompted Comments, Self Critique, Self Reflec-tion, Time Check, and Unclear.

Defining the Categories. Once the final categorieswere identified, their definitions were tightenedso that they would encompass only certainthought units and not others. Thus, Affective was


defined to include only the teachers’ reportedfeelings towards the students and the lesson (e.g.,“I got a lot of satisfaction with André” or “Youcould see I was starting to get impatient”) andtheir reported attempts to create a positive inter-personal relationship in the classroom (“And Ithought, ‘I don’t want to cut her off because shemay never speak again’”). Defined thus, it ex-cluded teachers’ claimed failings and shortcom-ings (“I couldn’t remember any of my exam-ples”), because these were included in SelfCritique. Self Critique was, in turn, distinguishedfrom Self Reflection which referred only to teach-ers’ comments on their personalities (e.g., “I tendto be thorough”) abilities, likes, and strengths.Planned Acts referred to comments aboutwhether a particular move or activity was plannedor not planned. These were differentiated fromDecisions which included only the teachers’ re-ports on choices they made while teaching andtheir stated or implied reasons for their choices.

Data Selection. Since the aim of the study was toexamine the pedagogical information the teach-ers utilized while teaching, it was imperative tolimit the data only to reported thoughts aboutmatters (a) that were clearly instructional, (b)that were spontaneously offered by the teachers,and (c) that occurred during the act of teaching.Therefore, all comments that clearly did not fitthese criteria were eliminated. These includedcomments such as “I have never been recordedbefore” (Irrelevant), comments comparing thislesson to another (Postactive), comments elicitedthrough the researchers’ leading prompts(Prompted comments), and comments whosemeanings were not clear (Unclear comments).

Of the data remaining, some contained cuesindicating that the thoughts definitely occurredduring the lesson. For example, in the comment“In the back of my mind, I was pushing ‘theatredance,’” the italicized items remove any doubtthat the teacher was reporting a thought ratherthan a behaviour. Her use of the past verb formin “was pushing” indicates that she was reportinga thought that occurred not at the time of viewingbut at some past time, that is, during the lesson.Others, however, contained cues indicating thatthe thoughts occurred while the teachers wereviewing the video. Examples of these cues are“now” and the present tense of the verbs in theitalicized words in “ . . . I realize now and I know heis very demanding and I gave, I gave that to him. Ilet him be.” Other comments were nonspecificabout when the thoughts occurred, for example,“You always have to brainstorm. . . . ” Others such

as ”I’m getting them to interview each other"describe behaviour rather than a thought (com-pare this, for instance, with “So I thought to my-self I would give them a set of questions on theboard.”). For the analyses below, all these datawere included as long as it could be argued thatthey reflected knowledge likely to have been usedduring the teaching act. Thus, although in thevideo viewing comment cited above, the teacherreported realizing only while viewing how she wasbehaving with one student, it was evident that herknowledge of the student ‘s demanding characterwas operative during the lesson and determinedto some extent what she did with him (“I let himbe”). Similarly, although the teacher did notclearly state that she was thinking about brain-storming, her statement implies that she had con-ducted this activity. If she conducted the activity,it could be argued that she would have conductedit with some pedagogical thought — of its bene-fits, for example.

Deriving the Domains of Knowledge from theThought Categories. The last step in the qualitativeanalysis involved summarizing the domains ofpedagogical knowledge that could be inferredfrom the teachers’ reported thoughts. To accom-plish this summary, the researchers examinedclosely again the different thought units classedunder each category and abstracted clusters ofpedagogical references that they contained. Forexample, a few thought units classed under Lan-guage Management (e.g., Felt I Had to SupplyLanguage, Would Give Language if Ss Didn’t,Was Pushing Specific Vocabulary) were found toshare a common concern with supplying input orexposing the learners to input. Later, these sets ofcommon concerns were reclassified into whetherthey dealt with matters related to the central taskof teaching (in the above examples, teaching lan-guage), creating a learning environment, orcharting students’ progress, and so on.

Quantitative Analysis

While the qualitative analysis made it possibleto categorize the data systematically, a quantita-tive analysis of the resulting categories wasneeded to determine if statistically reliable pat-terns had emerged. For this reason, a count wastaken of how frequently the categories (e.g.,Knowledge of Students, Language Management,etc.) occurred in each of the Course I and CourseII teachers’ reports and in the reports of CourseI teachers as a group and the reports of Course IIteachers as a group. These frequency figures


made it possible to determine (a) how the re-ported thought categories ranked in frequency ofoccurrence in the teachers’ reports and (b)whether there were consistent patterns in theserankings across teachers.

RESULTS

The results of the analysis conducted on theCourse I and Course II teachers’ data are re-ported separately first. This is followed by a re-port on the comparisons made between the twogroups. The domains of pedagogical knowledgeinferred from the reported categories of both setsof teachers are summarized last. The decision toreport separate analyses for the Course I andCourse II teachers was taken to allow a discussionof how the teachers within each group comparedto one another in the kinds of pedagogicalthoughts they reported.

Course I Teachers’ Pedagogical Thoughts

Table 1 below presents the categories of PTsreported by the Course I teachers. This tableshows the frequency of occurrence of each cate-gory in each teacher’s report and in the reportsof all 3 Course I teachers combined.

Quantity of Pedagogical Thoughts Reported. Table1 shows that the 3 Course I teachers reported atotal of 627 instructional thoughts during their1-hour lesson. This represents an average ofabout 209 instructional thoughts per hour or 3.48per minute of teaching time. Given that thesefigures represent only what the teachers actuallyreported (there most likely were many thoughtsnot reported), it is clear that instructionalthoughts were quite pervasive during the lessons.This result is, of course, not surprising. It makessense that the teachers would be continuallythinking PTs while engaged in teaching. What isof greater interest is the fact that all the instruc-tional thoughts reported by the teachers could bereduced to a definable set of categories. Table 1shows 20 such categories. All but two of these arerepresented by the occurrence of at least onethought unit in each teacher’s protocol. The ex-ceptions are represented by a thought unit in atleast two of the teachers’ protocols.

Dominant Group Pedagogical Thoughts. Analysisof the total number of pedagogical thoughts re-ported by the 3 teachers combined (Column “AllTeachers”) revealed a clear pattern of thoughtcategory predominance. Language Management(18%), Knowledge of Students (14%), Note Stu-dent Reaction & Behaviour (10%), Decisions

TABLE 1Frequency (and Percentage) of Course I Teachers’ Reported Pedagogical Thoughts

Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 All Teachers

1. Language Management 40 (17%) 1 47 (19%) 1 29 (18%) 1 116 (18%) 1

2. Knowledge of Students 27 (12%) 2 38 (15%) 2 21 (14%) 2 86 (14%) 2

3. Note Behaviour 23 ( 9%) 3 22 ( 9%) 3 9 (12%) 3 54 (10%) 3

4. Decisions 17 ( 7%) 4 17 ( 7%) 5 8 ( 5%) 5 42 ( 7%) 4

5. Progress Review 6 ( 3%) 19 ( 8%) 4 14 ( 9%) 4 39 ( 6%) 5

6. Procedure Check 8 ( 3%) 22 ( 9%) 3 6 ( 4%) 36 ( 6%) 5

7. Beliefs 17 ( 7%) 4 6 ( 2%) 14 ( 9%) 4 37 ( 6%) 5

8. Affective 13 ( 6%) 5 18 ( 7%) 5 5 ( 3%) 36 ( 6%) 5

9. Self Reflection 22 ( 9%) 3 2 (,1%) 8 ( 5%) 5 32 ( 5%)10. Content 11 ( 5%) 11 ( 4%) 2 ( 1%) 24 ( 4%)11. Time Check 11 ( 5%) 4 ( 2%) 6 ( 4%) 21 ( 3%)12. Problem Check 4 ( 2%) 10 ( 4%) 7 ( 5%) 5 21 ( 3%)13. Self Critique 7 ( 3%) 8 ( 3%) 5 ( 3%) 20 ( 3%)14. Past Experience 11 ( 5%) 1 (,1%) 1 (,1%) 13 ( 3%)15. Planned Acts 3 ( 1%) 7 ( 3%) 1 (,1%) 11 ( 2%)16. Group Work 9 ( 4%) 3 ( 1%) 1 (,1%) 13 ( 2%)17. Name Check 0 ( 0%) 5 ( 2%) 4 ( 3%) 9 ( 1%)18. Comprehensibility 3 ( 1%) 3 ( 1%) 3 ( 2%) 9 ( 1%)19. Probe Knowledge 1 (,1%) 4 ( 2%) 0 ( 0%) 5 (,1%)20. Level Check 1 (,1%) 1 (,1%) 1 (,1%) 3 (,1%)Total 234 248 145 627

Note. Superscripts indicate the simple ranks of the teachers’ dominant PT categories (not the tie-adjusted ranksused in the Spearman Correlation Tests). Percentages may not all add to 100% due to rounding.


(7%), and Affective, Beliefs, Procedure Check,and Progress Review (tied at 6%) were among thetop most frequently reported categories. Theseeight categories, henceforth Dominant GroupPedagogical Thoughts (DGPTs), accounted for66% of all the spontaneously reported instruc-tional thoughts in the study.

Examination of the instructional thoughts ofeach teacher shows that five to seven of theseDGPTs were also among the most frequentlymentioned by the individual teachers. For exam-ple, Language Management, Knowledge of Stu-dents, and Note Student Behaviour & Reaction,the three most widely reported DGPTs, retain toppositions in each teacher’s reports; other DGPTswere ranked differently on individual teacher’slists. For example, Progress Review, fifth on thegroup list, was fourth on T2’s and T3’s list. Proce-dure Check, also first on the group list, was thirdon T2’s. Some DGPTs were missing from certainindividual teacher’s lists (e.g., Progress Review,Procedure Check from T1’s list, Beliefs from T2’s,and Affective and Procedure Check from T3’s),while non-DGPTs made it on to these lists (e.g.,Self Reflection for T1 and Problem Check in T3).

Intercorrelations among the Course I Teachers. Totest for consistency in the patterning of the PTs

across teachers, the rankings of the 20 thoughtcategories by each teacher were submitted to aSpearman Rank Correlation test. The analysis re-vealed significant interteacher correlations (T1 &T2, rs 5.51, p , .01; T1 & T3, rs 5.71, p , .01; andT2 & T3, rs 5.71, p , .01). These results indicatethat, although there were clear interteacher dif-ferences (shared variance ranged from 26% to52%), the teachers were nonetheless significantlysimilar to one another in the dominance rank-ings of their reported PTs.

Course II Teachers’ Pedagogical Thoughts

Table 2 presents the results of the analysis onthe Course II experienced teachers’ data. Thisanalysis yielded 21 categories of PTs for this set ofteachers, one category more than yielded in theCourse I analysis. The added category was AidComprehension, found in three of the fourteachers’ protocols but with a frequency of only3% or less.

Quantity of Pedagogical Thoughts Reported. Table2 shows a total of 907 PTs reported by the fourCourse II teachers. This represents an average of227 PTs per hour or 3.77 per minute. This rate ofapproximately three to four PTs per minute is

TABLE 2Frequency (and Percentage) of Course II Teachers’ Reported Pedagogical Thoughts

Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 All Teachers

1. Language Management 65 (22%) 1 51 (23%) 1 40 (24%) 1 42 (19%) 1 198 (22%) 1

2. Procedure Check 31 (10%) 2 26 (12%) 2 24 (15%) 2 14 ( 6%) 95 (11%) 2

3. Progress Review 31 (10%) 2 14 ( 6%) 5 16 (10%) 3 29 (13%) 2 90 (10%) 3

4. Beliefs 47 (15%) 3 2 ( ,1%) 11 ( 7%) 4 11 ( 5%) 71 ( 8%) 4

5. Knowledge of Students 29 (10%) 2 7 ( 3%) 9 ( 5%) 5 16 ( 7%) 5 61 ( 7%) 5

6. Decisions 11 ( 4%) 5 24 (11%) 3 12 ( 7%) 4 6 ( 3%) 53 ( 6%) 6

7. Affective 12 ( 4%) 5 15 ( 7%) 4 8 ( 5%) 5 23 (10%) 3 58 ( 6%) 6

8. Time Check 14 ( 5%) 4 6 ( 3%) 5 ( 3%) 6 ( 3%) 31 ( 3%)9. Note Behaviour 7 ( 2%) 3 ( 1%) 12 ( 7%)4 12 ( 4%) 34 ( 3%)

10. Self Critique 3 ( 1%) 6 ( 3%) 0 ( 0%) 20 ( 9%) 4 29 ( 3%)11. Level Check 12 ( 4%) 5 9 ( 4%) 2 ( 1%) 4 ( 2%) 27 ( 3%)12. Content Check 2 (,1%) 10 ( 5%) 4 ( 2%) 7 ( 3%) 23 ( 3%)13. Self Reflection 5 ( 2%) 8 ( 4%) 2 ( 1%) 14 ( 6%) 29 ( 3%)14. Problem Check 2 (,1%) 12 ( 6%) 5 6 ( 4%) 0 ( 0%) 20 ( 2%)15. Planned Acts 6 ( 2%) 4 ( 2%) 3 ( 2%) 4 ( 2%) 17 ( 2%)16. Past Experiences 5 ( 2%) 6 ( 3%) 5 ( 3%) 3 ( 1%) 19 ( 2%)17. Group Work 10 ( 3%) 2 (,1%) 1 (,1%) 4 ( 2%) 17 ( 2%)18. Comprehensibility 3 ( 1%) 6 ( 3%) 0 ( 0%) 6 ( 3%) 15 ( 2%)19. Aid Comprehension 4 ( 1%) 6 ( 3%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (,1%) 11 ( 1%)20. Name Check 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 4 ( 2%) 3 ( 1%) 6 (,1%)21. Probe Knowledge 1 (,1%) 1 (%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (,1%)Total 300 218 164 225 907

Note. Superscripts indicate simple ranks of the dominant PT categories (not the tie-adjusted ranks used in theSpearman Correlation Tests). Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.


similar to the rate found for the Course Iteachers.

Dominant Group Pedagogical Thoughts. From thedata shown in the column marked “All Teachers,”it is clear that Language Management (22%) wasonce again the most frequently reported. Thiswas followed by Procedure Check (11%), Prog-ress Review (10%), Beliefs (8%), and Knowledgeof Students (7%). Two categories, Decisions andAffective (6%), both fell above the natural breakbetween the seventh (6%) and the eighth (2%)rankings and were thus included in this list.These seven DGPTs accounted for 70% of thereported data.

As was the case with the Course I teachers, mostof the DGPTs in the Course II teachers’ groupdata were also predominant in the individualteachers’ data. Only Beliefs, Decisions, andKnowledge of Students were the DGPTs missingfrom certain individual teacher’s data, whileLevel Check, Note Student Behaviour & Reac-tions, and Self Critique were non-DGPTs found insome teachers’ data. Thoughts classified underthe Language Management category againheaded the predominance list for all teachers.There were interteacher differences in the waythe other DGPTs were ranked in individual teach-ers’ data.

Correlations among the Course II Teachers. To testfor consistency in the patterning of the frequen-cies of the PTs across teachers, the rankings of the21 thought categories were also submitted to aSpearman Rank Correlation test. The resultsshowed significant intercorrelations among theteachers (T1 & T2, rs5.42, p , .05; T1 & T3,rs5.71, p , .01; T1 & T4, rs5.68; p , .01; T2 & T3,rs5.52, p , .01; T2 & T4, rs5.48; p , .05; and T3& T4, rs5.54, p , .01). These significant correla-tions show once again that, although there wereinterteacher differences among the teachers (theshared variances ranged from 18% to 50%), theynevertheless were similar to one another in thefrequency rankings of their PTs.

Course I and Course II Teachers Compared

It has already been pointed out that Course Iand Course II teachers were similar to each otherin terms of the number and kinds of pedagogicalthoughts they reported and in terms of the ratesof occurrence of these thoughts in their reports.An additional Spearman Rank Correlation test,conducted to see whether the 20 categories com-mon to both groups were ranked similarly, pro-vided further confirmation of this similarity. The

test results indicated positive significant correla-tion between the two groups (rs5.85, p , .01).Finally, the list of predominant categories con-tained more or less the same items for eachgroup, although their rank orderings within eachlist may have varied slightly.

Domains of Knowledge Inferred from the Teachers’Reported Thoughts

The main hypothesis of this study was that onecould infer from teachers’ reported thoughts thepedagogical knowledge guiding their teaching.Before discussing the results of the qualitativeand quantitative analyses above, the results of theanalysis identifying the domains of pedagogicalknowledge utilized by the teachers when teachingis first briefly discussed. This analysis yielded thefollowing general domains of pedagogical knowl-edge: (a) knowledge of how to manage specificlanguage items so students can learn them (Han-dling Language Items), (b) knowledge about stu-dents and what they bring into the classroom(Factoring in Student Contributions), (c) knowl-edge about the goals and subject matter of teach-ing (Determining the Contents of Teaching), (d)knowledge about techniques and procedures (Fa-cilitating the Instructional Flow), (e) knowledgeabout appropriate student-teacher relationships(Building Rapport), and (f) knowledge aboutevaluating student task involvement and progressduring the lessons (Monitoring Student Prog-ress). Overall, it seems that knowledge about han-dling language was the most frequently consultedby all the teachers combined. The Appendix liststhese six knowledge domains, the data sourcesfrom which each domain was inferred, and a sum-mary of the teachers’ teaching thoughts reportedin each domain. These domains are each dis-cussed in turn.

Handling Language Items. The teachers’ Lan-guage Management comments revealed theirawareness of the need to provide specific lan-guage items to the students (“I felt I had to supplythe language”). They also conveyed a sense ofhow much to give (“I’m thinking this is toomuch”) and when to give (“If a certain amount oftime goes past and they’re not producing them, Iwill give them to them”). Finally, they impartedan awareness that providing input alone is notsufficient. It has to be highlighted and fine tuned,it has to be written on the board and modelled(“I’m putting the sentences on the board as mod-els”), it has to be made available to all (“it was justput there for everybody to have access to”), and


illustrated with examples (“I just wanted to again,to give as many examples as I could”), to mentiona few.

A great deal of the language management re-ports revealed the teachers’ preoccupation withhandling the language produced by the learners.Their reported teaching acts ranged from notingthat the students talked (“He would answer whenhe was called”), to eliciting from and coaxinglanguage out of the students (“I was trying toelicit from them: ‘the side,’ ‘in the middle’”), towriting these on the board (“. . . she gave me that,so I wrote it on the board. . . .”), to correctingand rephrasing utterances (“. . . she said ‘Theywent to go to a movie’ and I rephrased it, ‘Theywent’”), and to drilling them (“We drilled them.They did it in pairs”).

Factoring in Students’ Contributions. The teach-ers’ comments classified under Knowledge of Stu-dents, Note Student Reaction & Behaviour, LevelCheck, Probe, Affective, and many aspects of Be-liefs and Decisions revealed their sensitivity towhat students bring with them to the classroom.For example, students bring with them their per-sonalities (“He was a big baby”), abilities (“Thisguy is so weak”), needs (“They would need cer-tain forms”), attitudes and reactions (“He feelsmore comfortable with the rules”), backgrounds(“I mean he did have a job in his country”), andindividual learning styles (“And they’re used tolearning facts”). Their comments also reflectedknowledge of learner diversity (“It seemed to methat some of the smarter ones would have it”) andwhat accommodations are made to this diversity(“I wouldn’t have asked somebody who wasn’t asstrong as she”). Other comments also suggestedthat they drew upon their accumulated knowl-edge about students in their teaching (“Ofcourse, with George in the classroom, I felt like Iwas back teaching high school”).

Determining the Contents of Teaching. The teach-ers’ Content comments revealed their awarenessof keeping the goals of the lesson in constantview. These goals include the development of ac-curacy (“I was concerned about the . . . accuracythat they had to develop”), teaching certaingrammatical points (“I think it’s good for them toknow that not all irregular verbs change” or “Iwanted to get the past [tense] introduced”), anduseful utterances (“Again, this is all good, usefullanguage anyway”). The Content thoughts alsosuggested what activities were expected to beused (e.g., role play, question and answer activi-ties, drills).

Facilitating the Instructional Flow. Content com-ments about starting activities, reviewing past les-sons, pushing the students to go on (“I’m tryingto get them going”), directing the students to-wards their intended goals (“Just getting them todo exactly what I’d asked them to do”), managingtime (“Do I have enough time? Is it worth it?”),anticipating future activities (“I wanted to get be-yond . . . because this comes up again”), andrecapping activities (“ . . . just recapping informa-tion . . . teacher cantering to a . . . for one or twopeople, you know”) all indicated a sense of howthe lesson must proceed. Familiarity with certaintechniques and procedures was also evident intheir comments about brainstorming (“You al-ways have to brainstorm”), explaining (I’m goingthrough the questions, just basically to explainwhat they mean”), demonstrating (“Well, Iwanted to show them things”), distributing turns(“You want to get a different person to answer”),and conducting group activities (“I was just tryingto put them face to face”). Some Decision com-ments also revealed time management concerns(“ . . . I’m just thinking should I stop them now,should I give them another thirty seconds, aminute, you know?”). Self critique comments(“Yeah, yeah I think they were, they were, as far as. . . I didn’t have control over everything that washappening in class”) also indicated awareness ofprocedural matters because they showed anawareness of the need to take control of the class-room.

Building Rapport. The teachers’ Affective com-ments revealed both their awareness of the needto make contact with and have a good rapportwith students (“I was trying to develop some kindof communication with them”) and also theirneed to ensure student comfort (“It’s to get themcomfortable to talk with each other”), to protectthem from embarrassment (“ . . . but the firstmeeting you don’t want people to immediatelyget embarrassed”), and to reinforce and encour-age them to go on (“So I start with somethingthey can do and ease them . . . into something”).Knowledge about desirable classroom atmos-phere was also expressed in Beliefs comments(“Putting them at ease is important.” “I find ifthey’re comfortable with the person they’re work-ing with, they’re speaking better English”) andDecision comments (“and, you know, I thought Ishould cut her off because she’s, but I thought Ican’t, you know”). Finally, certain Past Experi-ence and Self Reflection comments indicatedawareness of the appropriate relationship be-tween the teachers and the students (“A lot of my


teaching is through the rapport that I build upwith my students”).

Monitoring Student Progress. The teachers’ com-ments under Progress Review, ComprehensibilityCheck, and Problem Check revealed their preoc-cupation with monitoring student progress. Oneaspect of monitoring involved checking whetherstudents understood the instructions (“So nowbasically I am just walking around going frompair to pair to see if one, that they are doing itright”). Other aspects involved anticipating po-tential difficulties (“I figured . . . it would be hardfor them to pull [ideas] out of nowhere”) andtaking steps to minimize these difficulties (“I hadto get that out of the way in order to free up every. . . for them to go on”). They also involved ensur-ing that students are on task (“Now, . . . they’redoing the activity, they’re okay”), noting theirdifficulties and failures (“She was lost in the lastone”) and recording their successes (“. . . youknow it was slow going but it worked”).

DISCUSSION

The Verbal Recall Procedure

Despite concerns some have raised regardingthe subjectivity and lack of standard procedureassociated with verbal recall as a tool for analyzingteachers’ thoughts (Clark & Peterson, 1986;Davis, 1995), it was used in this study because it isstill one of only a few instruments available forprobing teachers’ knowledge (Ericson & Simon,1987; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Matsumoto,1994). To minimize the subjectivity of the analyticprocedure, measures were taken to: (a) ensurethat at least two persons conducted the contentanalysis, (b) build into the analytical procedure atraining phase in which the analysts could learnto achieve consensus on how to proceed, (c)adopt a cross-checking system for reducing dis-crepancies, and finally (d) use objective guideposts from the protocol itself to refine the catego-ries (e.g., using specific phrasal clues and usingverb tenses to differentiate between thoughts oc-curring during and after teaching).

Categorization

While this procedure could no doubt be re-fined further, it did allow 20 to 21 pedagogicalcategories to emerge from the data. Confidencein the stability of these categories springs fromthe fact that each was confirmed by thought unitsfrom most, if not all, of the seven teachers stud-

ied. The same set of 20 to 21 categories alsoemerged from the verbal protocols of two sets ofteachers even if they taught different groups ayear apart. For both groups, virtually the samesubset of 7 to 8 categories emerged as the mostfrequently reported. Finally, from their recol-lected thoughts it was possible to identify at leastsix domains of pedagogical knowledge that theteachers may have internalized and refer to whileteaching.

Significance of the Similarities and Differences

What significance may there be in the similarityof the two sets of teachers’ data? Does this sup-port the view that there is a particular pedagogi-cal culture acquired by ESL teachers as their ex-periences deepen? Teacher education is based onthe assumption that such a culture exists (Fein-man-Nemser & Flodden, 1986) and that it is as-pects of this culture that are transmitted to pro-spective teachers during training. The results ofthe present study suggest that one such culturemay be shared by experienced ESL teachers. Theissue, however, needs to be explored further withlarger and more varied groups of ESL teachers.Only seven teachers participated in this study andtheir results should be verified with a largernumber of teachers before firm generalizationscan be derived from them. In future studies, onecould address the following questions: Would thesame PTs and patterns of PTs emerge from theprotocols of other populations of experiencedteachers? How would the factors of student char-acteristics, the textbook used, and teacher charac-teristics such as gender, personality, and trainingaffect the outcomes?

The Dominant Thought Categories

At first glance, the fact that Language Manage-ment topped the teachers’ pedagogical concernsmay appear trivial. As language teachers, it mightbe readily assumed that their main concernwould, of course, be fine tuning language. How-ever, this assumption is not always necessarily cor-rect. Many teachers who subscribe to the notionthat comprehensible input alone suffices to pro-mote language acquisition may not agree on fo-cusing on anything but creating genuine commu-nication. They may find that directly focusing onspecific language elements distracts from this aim(Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Thus, these teachersmay be less concerned with promoting the acqui-sition of specific language items than ensuringthat genuine communication occurs (i.e., making


sure that the activities start and end well andencouraging students to participate in the activi-ties).

An examination of the thought units in theAppendix suggests a preoccupation with explicitattention to language. Some examples suggestingthis concern are: Call Ss Attention to CorrectForm of Verbs (“It wasn’t correct so I wanted totell them what the difference was”), Correct Er-rors (“Ronda asked, ‘Wear clothes?’ and I said‘Wore clothes’), and Echo Correct Forms (”Buthere I’ve decided not to, so I just change it andrepeat. What’s that called, echoing?”). Furtherexamination also suggests that although there isinterest in focusing on specific language ele-ments, there is also concern for creating compre-hensible input. Many of the reported thoughtunits were focused on creating situations for lan-guage to be used (Encourage Negotiations toProduce Language), for contextualizing lan-guage (Seize Right Context to Give Input, Con-textualize Utterances), for ensuring the use ofmeaningful language (Sustain Conversations),and for ensuring that students get their messageacross (Check Whether Ss Get Message Across).On the whole, the teachers’ reported thoughtunits in the Language Management category in-dicate a combined concern for both communica-tion and the promotion of specific language ele-ments. The intriguing questions raised by theseresults include the following: Why did the teach-ers have this combined concern? Why were theyso preoccupied with language management?Were their language learning and teacher train-ing experiences responsible for this concern?What implicit theories did they possess about lan-guage acquisition that could explain the pre-dominance of language management? Did theirorientations, background experiences, and teach-ing contexts influence the pattern of PTs theyutilized while teaching?

Sources of Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge

The predominance of concerns with student-related matters, methodological issues, monitor-ing student progress, and building rapport con-firms similar findings reported in the generaleducation literature. Clark & Peterson’s (1986)review paper also lists these same issues as amongthe salient ones for teachers in areas other thanlanguage. One striking difference between theresults of the present study and those from re-search on content teachers, however, is the ab-sence of concern about classroom managementissues in the present teachers’ reports. Classroom

management usually is a major concern. Its ab-sence in the present investigation, nonetheless, iseasy to explain. Adult students are generallyhighly motivated and need no coaxing to concen-trate on their lessons; the students in the presentstudy were no exception.

The Knowledge Domains and Teacher Education

The pedagogical knowledge deduced from theteachers’ verbal recollections reflected many ofthe pedagogical points stressed in teacher educa-tion. This is evident from examining the contentsof articles, books, and manuals on ESL teachertraining and teaching (Harmer, 1991; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Omaggio, 1986). More oftenthan not, these textbooks contain chapters dedi-cated to methodological or procedural issues, toexposing students to good quality input, to im-proving student output, and to evaluating andmonitoring student progress. On the basis of thisfinding, can one assume that teacher educationmust be the source of the pedagogical knowledgehere? Recent studies on the origins of teachers’conceptions of the task of teaching, however, sug-gest other possibilities. Studies conducted in thefield of general education (Calderhead, 1991;Morine-Dershimer, 1989, 1991) and in secondlanguage teaching (Almarza, 1996) attest to thestrong effects on teachers’ views of pedagogy ashaving been shaped by their own teachers (Fein-man-Nemser & Flodden, 1986). For example, us-ing a variety of methods including interviews, ob-servations, and analysis of teacher journals andlesson plans, Almarza (1996) determined that be-haviour (e.g., lesson planning, lesson presenta-tion) was very much influenced by, among otherthings, the kind of learning experiences teachersreceived through their lives. It would be interest-ing to see if there would be strong correlationsbetween patterns of pedagogical knowledge — asdetermined by the techniques employed in thepresent study — and certain aspects of languagelearning experiences, teaching backgrounds, andteacher training experiences.

Experienced Versus Novice Teachers

The study reported here focused on experi-enced teachers. Understanding what experi-enced teachers do is interesting in its own right.However, it would also be interesting to find outwhether the same pattern of results would beobtained with novice teachers. A study comparingnovice and experienced teachers would allow thefollowing questions to be investigated: If one as-


sumes that novice and experienced teachers oc-cupy different stages in a continuum depictingthe development of expertise,3 would novice-experienced differences reveal something aboutthe nature of this continuum? Can teacher train-ing influence the direction and rate of the devel-opment of expertise, and, if so, how? Using theprocedures employed here, a study focusing onnovice teachers at two or more early stages ofexperience can be conducted to find out whetherand where changes occur in their pedagogicalknowledge. Later, intervention studies examin-ing whether and how such changes can be facili-tated by teacher training can then be conducted.

It would also be interesting to investigate therelation between teachers’ pedagogical thoughtsand classroom behaviour. If teachers refer con-stantly to certain ideas about pedagogy as theyteach, how are these thoughts translated into be-haviour? Would modifying the instructionalthoughts be sufficient to induce a change in be-haviour? Data for studies on this issue can comefrom the videotaped lessons of the teachers par-ticipating here. Such recordings can be exam-ined for patterns of behaviour that are correlatedto the teachers’ reported pedagogical thoughts,with the predominance patterns obtained in thisstudy serving as a point of departure.

Finally, the analytical procedure employed inthe present study involved both qualitative andquantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis,conducted without any preconceived notion as towhat would be found, yielded the thought catego-ries whose later quantification revealed the pat-terns of instructional thoughts that underlie theteaching process. These results indicate that sucha two-pronged approach, already employed suc-cessfully in the field of general education (Clark& Peterson, 1986), can be successfully applied tothe study of teacher cognition in ESL and holdsproductive potential for future studies on a rangeof related issues.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by an FRDP grant fromConcordia University. I would like to thank everyonewho helped make the project possible: the teachers, theESL students, and various colleagues. In particular, Iwish to thank Doina Lecca for helping design and carryout the content analysis, Lisa Hitch and Ahlem Ammarfor their help in designing the framework of the analy-sis, and the members of the TESL Centre-McGill re-search group for their useful suggestions at differentstages of the project. I wish to give special thanks to PatsyLightbown, Leila Ranta, Jack Upshur, and Joanna White

for their useful comments on earlier versions of thispaper and to Norman Segalowitz for his editorial andstatistical assistance. Enquiries should be addressed to:TESL Centre, Concordia University, 1455 de Maison-neuve, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8. Email:[email protected]

NOTES

1 For the present investigation, only the data of theexperienced teachers in Course II are discussed here.The results of the comparison between novice and expe-rienced teachers are reported elsewhere (Gatbonton,1998).

2 An anonymous reviewer suggested that another im-portant step in the qualitative analysis would have beento see whether the participating experienced teachersconcurred with the researchers’ categorization of thedata. This excellent suggestion will be taken into ac-count in future studies.

3 Note here that experience and expertise are notbeing equated.

REFERENCES

Almarza, G. G. (1996). Student foreign languageteacher’s knowledge growth. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in languageteaching (pp. 50–78). New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Binnie-Smith, D. (1996). Teacher decision making inthe adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman & J. C.Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teach-ing (pp. 197–216). New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Breen, M. P. (1991). Understanding the languageteacher. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,M. Sharwood-Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/sec-ond language pedagogy research (pp. 213–233). Cleve-don, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bullough, R.V. (1991). Exploring personal teachingmetaphors in preservice teacher education. Jour-nal of Teacher Education, 42, 43–51.

Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowl-edge in student teaching. Teaching & Teacher Edu-cation, 7, 532–535.

Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp.432–463). New York: Macmillan.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Researchon teaching and learning. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’personal knowledge: What counts as “personal” instudies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Stud-ies, 19, 487–500.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thoughtprocesses. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of re-


search in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York:Macmillan.

Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacherthinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 7, 279–394.

Clift, R. (1991). Learning to teach English-maybe: Astudy of knowledge development. Journal of TeacherEducation, 42, 357–372.

Cumming, A. (1993). Teacher’s curriculum planningand accommodations of innovation. Three casestudies of adult ESL instruction. TESL CanadaJournal, 11, 30–51.

Davis, K. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods inapplied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29,427–453.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form inclassroom second language acquisition. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teacher’s knowledge: Theevolution of discourse. Journal of Curriculum Stud-ies, 23, 1–19.

Ericson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Verbal reports onthinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Intro-spection in second language research. Clevedon, Eng-land: Multilingual Matters.

Feinman-Nemser, S., & Flodden, R. E. (1986). The cul-tures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505–526). NewYork: Macmillan.

Fogarty, J. L., Wang, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983). A de-scriptive study of experienced and novice teach-ers’ interactive instructional thoughts and actions.Journal of Educational Research, 77, 22–32.

Freeman, D. (1996). The “unstudied problem”: Re-search on teacher learning in language teaching.In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacherlearning in language teaching (pp. 351–374). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1996). Teacher learning inlanguage teaching. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gatbonton, E. (1994). Bridge to fluency, Speaking 1.Toronto, Canada: Prentice-Hall.

Gatbonton, E. (1998). Thoughts behind the deeds: Nov-ice and experienced teachers’ pedagogical knowl-edge. Manuscript in preparation. Concordia Uni-versity.

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative auto-matization: Principles for promoting fluencywithin a communicative framework. TESOL Quar-terly, 22, 473–492.

Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alter-nate view on professional growth in training. Re-view of Educational Research, 62, 171–179.

Guzkey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy:A study of construct dimensions. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 31, 627–643.

Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teach-ing. New York: Longman.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive

change in learning to teach. American EducationalResearch Journal, 26, 161–189.

Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about lan-guage learning and teaching in the foreign lan-guage methods course. Foreign Language Annals,18, 333–340.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructionalactions and decisions of pre-service ESL teachers.TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507–536.

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and in-structional practices of preservice English as a sec-ond language teachers. Teaching & Teacher Educa-tion, 10, 439–452.

Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication insecond language classrooms. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kagan, D. M. (1991). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers. Review of Educa-tion Research, 62, 129–169.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research onteacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65–90.

Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1991). How teachers’classroom cases express their pedagogical beliefs.Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 281–291.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach.Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Principles and techniques inlanguage teaching. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory oflanguage teaching. In Georgetown University roundtable (pp. 261–270). Washington, D C, George-town University Press.

Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing the craft of knowledgein teaching. Educational Researcher, 2, 18–25.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-formand corrective feedback in communicative lan-guage teaching: Effects on second language learn-ing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12,429–448.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1993). How second lan-guages are learned. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instructionmake a difference? A review of research. TESOLQuarterly, 17, 359–382.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environ-ment in second language acquisition. In W. C.Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, inter-language talk, and second language acquisition.TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–277.

Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talkdiscussion: Forms and function of teachers’ ques-tions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Class-room oriented research in second language acquisition(pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1996). Corrective feedback andlearner uptake: Negotiation of form in communi-


cative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acqui-sition, 19, 37–61.

Magliaro, S. G,. & Borko, H. (1986). A naturalistic inves-tigation of experienced teachers’ and studentteachers’ instructional practices. Teaching &Teacher Education, 2, 127–137.

Markee, N. (1997). Second language acquisition re-search: A resource for changing teachers’ profes-sional culture. Modern Language Journal, 18, 80–93.

Matsumoto, K. (1994). Introspection, verbal reports andsecond language learning strategy research. Cana-dian Modern Language Review, 50, 363–386.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1989). Preservice teachers’ con-ceptions of content and pedagogy: Measuringgrowth in reflective, pedagogical decision-making.Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 46–52.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1991). Learning to think like ateacher. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 159–168.

Omaggio, A. C. (1986). Teaching language in context. Bos-ton, MA: Heinle.

Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1987). Teachers’ sche-mata for classroom events: The mental scaffoldingof teachers’ thinking during classroom instruction.Teaching & Teacher Education, 3, 319–331.

Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginningteaching? A review of the literature. Review of Edu-cational Research, 62, 1–35.

Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second lan-guage teacher education. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Ritchie, W., & Bhatia, T. K. (1996). Handbook of secondlanguage acquisition. New York: Academic Press.

Savignon, S. (1976). On the other side of the desk: Alook at teacher attitude and motivation in second-language learning. Canadian Modern Language Re-view, 32, 295–304.

Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’pedagogical judgments, decisions, and behaviour.Review of Educational Research, 54, 455–498.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15, 4–21.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foun-dations of the new reform. Harvard EducationalReview, 57, 1–22.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and thedevelopment of questions in L2 classrooms. Stud-ies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speakingand writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Lan-guage Review, 50, 158–164.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through consciousreflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledgeof teachers and teacher educators. Teaching &Teacher Education, 7, 263–268.

VanPatten, B. (1997). How language teaching is con-

structed. Introduction to the special issue. ModernLanguage Journal, 18, 1–5.

Wesche, M. B. (1994). Input, interaction and acquisition:The linguistic environment of the languagelearner. In B. Richards & C. Gallaway (Eds.), Inputand interaction in language acquisition (pp. 219–241).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woods, D. (1991). Teachers’ interpretation of secondlanguage teaching curricula. RELC Journal, 22,1–19.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIXDomains of Teachers’ Pedagogical KnowledgeDeduced from the Reported Categories

Domain: Handling Language ItemsSources: Beliefs, Comprehensibility, Decisions, Language

ManagementSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Call Ss’ attention to correct form of verbs2. Check that Ss know vocabulary3. Explain differences between terms4. Explain vocabulary5. Give alternative forms6. Give alternative ways of saying things7. Give examples8. Go over language9. Highlight specific utterances

10. Illustrate vocabulary11. Make sure Ss write utterances12. Make sure right amount is covered13. Model utterances14. Monitor words Ss didn’t know15. Prompt16. Push specific vocabulary17. Sustain practice18. Tell Ss what to write19. Write utterances on board20. Provoke input21. Make sure Ss listen to English22. Provide or supply language23. Give input at right time24. Call Ss’ attention to language25. Create situations for language to be elicited26. Contextualize utterances27. Make input available to all28. Monitor amount of input29. Seize right context to give input

Sources: Beliefs, Decisions, Language ManagementSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Correct errors2. Do choral work3. Drill


4. Echo correct forms5. Elicit forms Ss are supposed to use6. Explain answers Ss should give7. Find another way to get at it8. Give Ss chance to practice9. Give Ss chance to use full utterances

10. Get Ss to say something, to say more, and to saythings correctly

11. Get them to repeat12. Help Ss produce utterances13. Help Ss find alternative expressions14. Listen to see if Ss can use language15. Maximize amount16. Observe what Ss do with language17. Prompt18. Provide practice19. Pull definitions from Ss20. Push Ss to use language21. Recast or rephrase sentences22. Recycle language23. Rework vocabulary24. Show differences between terms25. Tell Ss to use different words26. Wait for Ss to give language27. Write utterances on board28. Elicit language from Ss29. Encourage negotiations to produce language30. Acknowledge what Ss could do31. Ask Ss questions to get desired information32. Brainstorm to see what Ss can do33. Check whether Ss get message across34. Give Ss something to talk about35. Provoke Ss to speak (e.g., pair Ss so they talk)36. Suggest topic37. Sustain conversation38. Use pictures to see what Ss come up with

Domain: Factoring in Students’ ContributionsSources: Affective Beliefs, Know Ss’ Level, Check, Note

Ss’ Behaviour & ReactionsSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Check what Ss can do2. Check Ss’ levels3. Decide if task is appropriate to level4. Know Ss’ abilities, attitudes (e.g., towards class-

mates, group work), interests (e.g., classical music),and feelings (e.g., feels comfortable with rules)

5. Know Ss’ language backgrounds, learning styles,motivations and needs, personal backgrounds(e.g., past jobs), personalities, and expected entrylevels

6. Know Ss’ prior knowledge or lack thereof7. Know what Ss want (e.g., rules)8. Match teaching behaviour to Ss’ levels (e.g., de-

mand more from strong students, elicit or providedepending on level, use stronger students to dem-onstrate)

9. Predict or note Ss reactions (e.g., get defensive, becooperative)

10. Note Ss’ interest in what’s going on

11. Note Ss’ classroom behaviour (e.g., writing, help-ing others, listening)

12. Note Ss’ attendance patterns13. Note Ss’ attitudes14. Probe Ss’ prior knowledge

Domain: Determining the Contents of TeachingSources: Content CheckSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Check what must be covered2. Explain grammatical structures (e.g., get the past

introduced)3. Explain rules of thumb (e.g., meaning usually sig-

nalled at the end of words)4. Get Ss to think about topics (e.g., accidents, re-

quest, leisure activities)5. Give useful information (e.g., about leisure)6. Keep goals in mind (e.g., promote accuracy)7. Introduce grammatical categories (e.g., preposi-

tions)8. Promote ability to use vocabulary

Domain: Facilitating the Instructional FlowSources: Beliefs, Decisions, Group Work, Past Experi-

ence, Procedure Check, Time CheckSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Brainstorm (e.g., weekend activities)2. Conduct classroom activities (interview, interaction

activity, role play, discussion, draw family tree,grammar activity, and question and answer activi-ties)

3. Deal with difficulties and problems4. Anticipate problems (e.g., Ss will lose interest, Ss

will not understand)5. Judge difficulty level of activities (easy, not easy)6. Demonstrate activities7. Distribute turns8. Explain issues9. Get Ss into the topic

10. Give instructions11. Listen to Ss12. Look ahead (e.g., prepare for an upcoming activ-

ity)13. Make decisions (e.g., choose between two options,

choose one option)14. Model an activity15. Monitor timing (e.g., check duration, note dura-

tion, terminate on time, apportion time, adjustpace, judge appropriateness of timing, postponeactivities)

16. Organize group work (form groups or pair work,switch groups, help group get started)

17. Monitor group work18. Present topic19. Recap/wrap-up activities20. Repeat21. Review22. Set the scene23. Start activity24. Teacher centre


25. Use visual aids (e.g., use blackboard, use charts,simplify task),

26. Wait for Ss to answer

Domain: Building Rapport in the ClassroomSources: Affective Beliefs, Decisions, Past Experiences,

Self-ReflectionSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Build self-esteem by acknowledging what Ss cando

2. Check if Ss are comfortable with language3. Develop trust4. Do something to get Ss used to sound of voice5. Don’t discourage Ss6. Don’t embarrass Ss7. Don’t shut up Ss8. Establish good rapport with Ss9. Form good relationships with Ss

10. Establish a relaxed atmosphere11. Get Ss into the spirit of the thing12. Get Ss to feel comfortable talking with one an-

other13. Give Ss something challenging14. Give lots of positive reinforcement15. Let Ss know you recognize their ability16. Make contact17. Personalize the lessons (e.g., draw examples from

own life)18. Push interesting stuff

19. Reassure Ss20. Start with something easy

Domain: Monitoring Student ProgressSources: Comprehensibility Check, Progress Review,

Problem CheckSpecific Examples of Pedagogical Knowledge

1. Check if Ss on task (e.g., move around and see,listen to how they are getting through)

2. Make sure activity goes well3. Make sure Ss are on task4. Make sure Ss start right5. Measure interest6. Note change in Ss (e.g., Ss got better)7. Note difficulties8. Note how Ss doing tasks (e.g., easily, with difficulty)9. Note if Ss are finished with task

10. Note if Ss are on or off task (e.g., Ss are doing it; Sswriting instead of talking)

11. Note if Ss understand task12. Note Ss failure in doing task13. Note Ss involvement in task (e.g., they are getting

into it?)14. Note Ss’ success in doing task (e.g., activity worked,

Ss got it)15. React to how Ss are doing tasks (e.g., be happy, not

happy, concerned)16. See if Ss are ready to do task17. Watch whether grouping works

Questions about Subscriptions

Beginning with this issue, the MLJ is published by Blackwell Publishers. All subscriptions will behonored. Should you have any questions about your subscription, please contact: BlackwellPublishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, ATTN: Subscriber Services Coordinator, Tel:800-835-6770.

Manuscripts and other editorial concerns remain in the office of Editor, Sally Sieloff Magnan,Department of French & Italian, 618 Van Hise, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1558.

Books and other material to review should be directed to the Reviews Editor, Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro, Department of Spanish & Portuguese, University of Iowa, 111 Phillips Hall, Iowa City,IA 52242-1409.


investigating experienced esl teachers’ pedagogical knowledge

Documents