lada smirnova dissertation1 - wordpress.com...9 acknowledgements! i could not have been successful...
TRANSCRIPT
Using Action Research to explore Web 2.0
possibilities with Russian teachers of English
A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester for the
degree of
Master in Educational Technology and Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages in the Faculty of Humanities
2012
Lada Smirnova
School of Education
2
Contents List of tables and figures ............................................................................................ 5
List of abbreviations .................................................................................................. 6
Declaration ................................................................................................................ 7
Intellectual Property Statement ................................................................................. 7
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 8
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 1 Background to the Course Development Project ...................................................... 12
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Ten years without progress to international standards ............................................................. 12 1.2 Education of language teachers in Russia ......................................................................................... 13 1.3 Professional development opportunities for language teachers in Russia ......................... 14 1.3.1 Whether the CELTA (UCLES) fills the gap? .................................................................................... 15 1.3.2 Reflective teaching in Russia ................................................................................................................ 16
1.4 On the bright side ......................................................................................................................................... 16 1.4.1 Motivation for professional development ...................................................................................... 16 1.4.2 Implementing Web 2.0 technology in my Centre ........................................................................ 17
1.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2
Theoretical underpinnings 1: Nature of teacher learning ......................................... 20
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1 Education, training and development ................................................................................................. 20 2.1.2 Education ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3 Training ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 2.1.4 Development vs. training ....................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.5 Why to make a distinction? .................................................................................................................. 22
2.2 Cognition and teachers knowledge bases .......................................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Ways of knowing ....................................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Knowledge base of language teacher education ......................................................................... 26
3
2.2.3 Praxis .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 2.3 Action research as a means for TD ....................................................................................................... 28 2.3.1 Inquiry-Based Approaches to Professional Development ....................................................... 28 2.3.2 The nature of action research ............................................................................................................. 29 2.3.3 AR procedures ............................................................................................................................................ 30 2.3.3.1 Collecting data ........................................................................................................................................ 31
2.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3
Theoretical underpinnings 2: Web 2.0 ...................................................................... 34
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.1 Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 ..................................................................................................................................... 34 3.2 Web 2.0 and the sociocultural perspective ....................................................................................... 35 3.3 Technology training and its choice issue ........................................................................................... 36 3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter 4
Theoretical underpinnings 3: Course Design ............................................................. 39
4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Design principles .......................................................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Coherence ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 4.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 5
The Proposed Course ............................................................................................... 44
5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.1 An overview of the course ........................................................................................................................ 44 5.1.1 Unit 1: Place to stand .............................................................................................................................. 44 5.1.2 Unit 2: What is AR? ................................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.3 Unit 3: Web 2.0 affordances ................................................................................................................. 46
4
5.1.4 Units 4-12: Implementing AR ............................................................................................................... 47 5.1.5 Unit 13 - 15: Presentation preparation and Presentation of an AR cycle ........................ 48
5.2 Six Principles .................................................................................................................................................. 48 5.3 Anticipated problems and solutions .................................................................................................... 51 5.4 Course evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 53 5.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 55
References ............................................................................................................... 57
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 67
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. 68
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................. 69
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................. 71
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................................. 72
Appendix 6 .............................................................................................................. 74
Appendix 7 .............................................................................................................. 78
Appendix 8 .............................................................................................................. 86
FINAL WORD COUNT: 15 684
5
List of tables and figures
Figure 1. Adapted from Freeman’s (1982:27) hierarchy of needs .................................. 24
Figure 2. Teacher cognition, schooling, professional education, and classroom practice (Borg, 1997 in Borg, 2003:82) ................................................................................ 25
Figure 3. Action Research cycles from Burns (2010:36, based on Kemmis and McTaggert, 1998) .................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4. The Successive Approximation Model adapted from Allen (2006:73) ........... 42
6
List of abbreviations AR - Action Research
CD - Cooperative Development
EFL - English as a Foreign Language
EIC - English for Intercultural Communication
EIL - English as an International Language
ICT - Information and Communications Technology
RESPONSE - Russian Education Support Project on Specialist English
RToE - Russian teachers of English
TD - Teacher Development
TE - Teacher Education
TT - Teacher Training
7
Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of
an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other
institute of learning.
Intellectual Property Statement i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has
given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or
electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in
accordance with licensing agreements which the University has entered into. This page
must form part of any such copies made.
iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright
works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may
be described in this dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by
third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be
made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the
relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.
iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP
Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any
relevant Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The
University Library’s regulations (see
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s
Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertations.
8
Abstract
This dissertation reports on the context, theoretical underpinnings and design of a
proposed teacher development course for Russian teachers of English. The stimulus for
this undertaking was my ethnographic observation of cases I have encountered as a
language teacher, a teacher trainer, and an owner of a language school in Russia for
more than 15 years. It became concrete after reading a number of studies of the current
state of the art in language teaching in Russia, in which it was reported that little
improvement occurred in spite of the new opportunities, which opened up after the fall
of the Iron Curtain. My thinking about the design and content of the proposed teacher
development course for Russian teachers of English was informed by the sociocultural
turn in the human sciences (Johnson, 2006) with the main objective being to guide its
participants through the Action Research cycle. The course involves exploration of Web
2.0 tools, which play a twofold role here. First, they seek to enrich a teacher’s repertoire.
Second, they act as ‘mediational tools’ (in Vygotskian terms, 1978) and trigger and
facilitate teacher’s reflection, an inevitable part of a teacher’s development. Increasing
reflective capacity is one of the major undertakings of the proposed course since
reflection is historically neglected and even disapproved of in Russia. The course
project is designed for six months, divided in fifteen units within three modules; each
planned to last three academic hours. For this project to progress, future building of
‘learning communities’, sharing their action research findings would be beneficial for
all stakeholders.
9
Acknowledgements
I could not have been successful without the support of many people.
First and foremost, I am very grateful to my tutor, Dr Richard Fay, whose initial
guidance in academic writing helped me overcome the culture shock from differences
between Russian and British academic cultures and discourse organisation in particular,
and appreciate the values of both. His thoughtful feedback in all stages of the
dissertation was invaluable as well.
I have to voice my gratitude to all the tutors on the Manchester University’s MA in
Educational Technology and TESOL programme, who have worked with me for three
years. I am particularly indebted to Dr Julian Edge for his fair and frank comments,
which acted as a spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down. His courses were a
heaven-sent opportunity to develop critical thinking skills and grow not only
professionally but also personally. Warm acknowledgment is due to Susan Brown for
two outstanding units, which match technology with pedagogy, I did with her. She
provided me with solid base for further development in both areas and their
combination.
I would like to thank my fellow students on the course for the discussions, rather hot at
times, which helped locate my own position in the field. I am lucky to have such a
group of supportive friends all over the world.
I owe special thanks to my colleague Tatiana Grin, who made this study possible, for
her never-ceasing encouragement and professionalism at work we both are engaged in
to promote higher quality language education in Russia.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my husband, a genius photographer Igor
Sivolob, whose love and support, which I received in spite of all his own professional
preoccupation, cannot be expressed in words.
10
Introduction While discussions of whether technology is necessary or not seem to become a thing of
the past, Neil Postman’s (1992) provocative question - ‘What is the problem to which
the technology is the solution?’ – can still trigger debate about the implications of
information and communications technology (ICT) for education.
My present English language teacher-training situation in Russia (see Chapter 1)
involves familiarising and facilitating the empowerment of teacher with ICT tools -
from the more familiar packages such as Word and PowerPoint to packages such as Jing
(an audio/video recording tool), which can be much more complicated for a
technological newbie. Although the majority of the teachers of English with whom I
work embark quite enthusiastically on an exploration of such technologies, when I
reflect on my experience to date of mediating this exploration in relation to the needs of
individual teachers, I realise that this experience has been half-rewarding and half-
disappointing for a number of reasons.
First, when the teachers’ need to choose an appropriate technology emerges, they often
seem to expect me to tell them about ‘the best tool’ in much the same way as they
regularly ask me about ‘the best method’. This response from them challenges my
beliefs that my role, as a teacher educator, is to focus on the teachers’ own development
rather than the provision of best methods and best technologies. In practice, what I
normally do is give a brief presentation of, say, a voice-recording gadget, then open up
a group talk of how it can be implemented; for example, by discussing how the voice-
recording gadget can be used for the recording stage of a Community Language
Learning activity. If this evaluation of a technology and its possibilities fits into a
teacher’s system of values and beliefs about teaching, they, leave the room, I hope, with
some sense of how they might continue exploring the possibilities involved. But I do
not know whether the teacher will try out the new tool or not. If it does not match their
expertise in language teaching, the teacher in question may think, ‘Oh, this won’t work’,
and as a result they may leave the session sceptical about investing their valuable time
in the ideas and possibilities raised through the sessions I organise for them.
Secondly, my own sense of plausibility (Prabhu, 1990) tells me that such a vast
exploration area as new technology needs more systematic approach and as an outcome
of our training sessions the teachers should acquired such a skill that will enable them to
11
work independently from me and investigate ICT on their own in the future. Therefore,
in the study reported in this dissertation, I tried to address these concerns by means of a
course development project.
The project, which is framed using an overall Action Research (hereinafter referred to
as AR) approach (see Chapter 2), sought to help the teachers to develop reflective skills
– i.e. to locate a problem or a point of grow to focus on; and theorise their practice. I
believe that the teachers – armed with a practical AR frame - can:
Ø save ‘trial’ time (important since becoming familiar with a new tool is time
consuming); and
Ø enrich their professional repertoires by adding some more ‘arrows to their
quiver’.
All in all, I hope the course will enrich their own understanding of themselves as
teachers and of how they can become better at what they are trying to do. On
completing the course, I expect them to be able to take a few risks and use AR
framework on their own.
In addition, I am aware that I am asking these teachers to develop their professional
competence within an AR frame. In the Russian context - where, historically, reflection
has tended to be neglected or even disapproved of - this is a major undertaking, and one
which may influence the teachers’ lives not only professionally but also personally.
The dissertation begins by describing different aspects related to my professional
context (in Chapter 1) before the following chapters explore different conceptual
elements, underpinning the course design, specifically Nature of Teacher Learning
(Chapter 2), Web 2.0 (Chapter 3) and Course Design (Chapter 4). In Chapter 5, I
propose the rationale and content for the course as informed by these contextual and
conceptual considerations.
12
Chapter 1
Background to the Course Development Project
1.0 Introduction
The overall aim of the dissertation is to report on a project in which I developed a
rationale and design for a Teacher Development Course introducing Russian teachers of
English (hereinafter referred to as RToE) to Web 2.0 tools. But before doing so, I must
introduce the professional context in which I work. This chapter therefore provides a
‘state of the art’ description of teaching English at tertiary level in Russia. It is divided
into four sections as follows: a) a report on two baseline studies conducted in Russia
within the last 10 years; b) a brief overview of teacher education (TE) system in Russia
– from an emic perspective; c) a discussion of the opportunities for further language
teacher development (TD), and d) teachers’ motivation for this change and in particular
from a technological standpoint in the Centre where I work.
1.1 Ten years without progress to international standards
In 2002, the British Council in Russia, in partnership with the Ministry of Education of
the Russian Federation, conducted a baseline study into the teaching of English in
Russian colleges and universities in non-linguistic faculties. Almabekova (2010:468)
outlines the problems that the abovementioned Winetroube and Kuznetsova (2002)
study revealed:
1. teacher-fronted and teacher-dominated lessons;
2. primarily Russian-medium instruction;
3. ‘little opportunity for students to be involved in planning the learning process’;
4. minimal attention paid to the teaching of writing; and
5. the dominance of grammar translation based on written texts (the most common
activities being reading aloud and translation, answering questions to the text
and grammar drills).
13
Winetroube and Kuznetsova suggest that teachers cling to grammar-translation as this is
‘the least demanding method’ (2002:61).
A similar study (West and Frumina, 2012) reports that the prevalent method used by
ESP teachers is still that of reading and translating specialized texts and that students
struggle with communicative skills, unsurprising given their very limited opportunities
to talk in English with guest professors and students from different countries.
One of the reasons why the results from both studies (Winetroube and Kuznetsova,
2002; West and Frumina, 2012) - is the professional isolation which language teachers
experienced in the Soviet era and this isolation is still apparent (West and Frumina,
2012:19).
Another factor lies in the socio-cultural area. While the top-down approach of
transmitting knowledge from the same materials in the same way is dying out along
with ‘a communist mentality’ (Tudge, 1991:132), there are still parents, authorities, and
teachers who remain committed to the soviet educational system. It has been suggested
that such an attitude is engendered by ‘the imperial character of Russian-Soviet culture’
(Kozulin and Venger, 1994:236) and informed by a long history of high academic
standards and rich educational heritage.
1.2 Education of language teachers in Russia
Third factor of lagging behind the current trends is a system education of language
teachers in Russia, unchanged since Soviet times (Gettys, 2000:2) with only 10% of the
programme devoted to practical component (Ленская [Lenskaya], 2008:93). It adopts ‘a
traditional university-based approach’ (Edge, 2010a:1), i.e. an applied science model
(Wallace, 1991:8), which is defined by Eldridge (2005:7) as ‘teachers are taught
researched-based theories and then apply them’.
Prospective language teachers undertake five years of formal schooling in a pedagogical
university culminating in a degree in teaching English as a foreign language. Linguistics
is considered as a main subject and comprises studies of Theoretical Pedagogy and
Practical Pedagogy, Theoretical Grammar and Practical Grammar, Theoretical
Phonology and Practical Phonology, and Lexicology. There are other theoretical
disciplines such as Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, History of the language, and
14
Theory of education. Even such courses that have ‘Practical’ in their title are delivered
in lectures, have strong theoretical focus and have little to do with classroom practice
(Feryok, 2005:104).
The programme finishes with three or four months of an apprenticeship teaching
programme, which ‘includes observation classes and teaching of two foreign languages
under the supervision of the master teacher at the assigned secondary schools’ (Gettys,
2000:34). However, after that, prospective teachers claim they still do not feel
autonomous (Feryok, 2005).
While the backbone of the academically-rich university curriculum is similar across the
country, there is nether a system of unique certification of new language teachers nor of
what is called as ‘assistant teacher’ training, which gives newbie teachers about a year
to learn from a mentor in the classroom or a kind of ‘internship’ to be approved as a
professional after a year of practice.
What teacher identities are constructed by such educational system? Instructed within
the highly-formal context with mainly didactic teaching methods of the soviet era, they
might at best achieve technical rationality (Schön, 1983; 1987). Postman (1993:3-4)
remembers the Plato reminds of the Thamus's warning from the Egyptian myth of
Thamus and Theuth that ‘they will receive a quantity of information without proper
instruction and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the
most part quite ignorant… filled with the conceit of wisdom, instead of real wisdom,
they will be a burden to society’ and this is still powerful in the situation with education
of RToE.
1.3 Professional development opportunities for language teachers
in Russia
Little has improved in the system of professional development of RToE as well. The
system is highly centralised and traditionally remains a deficit model (Фрумина [Frumina], 2008) with a top-down approach: once every five years, state school teachers
can take a refresher course where they are introduced to, and trained in using the new
course book. Not many seize this opportunity though due to highly academic content
15
which educationists who seemingly never inter the classroom deliver in a lecture form
to them (Ленская [Lenskaya], 2012).
However, due to political and economic transformations in society, RToE have many
more opportunities for professional development in the private sector now but take them
as self-initiated and self-funded enterprise. In two following sections I discuss how two
other Wallace’s (1991:8) models of TD are approached in Russia: craft approach ‘the
apprentice teacher learns watching the master’ and reflective practice ‘teachers learn
through reflection on his/her own experience’; both definitions are taken from Eldridge
(2005:7).
1.3.1 Whether the CELTA (UCLES) fills the gap?
The CELTA, while positioned by UCLES as an initial certification, is quite popular
courses among Russian pedagogical university graduates. This intensive, four-week
course boosts the teachers’ confidence by giving them the feeling that they belong to the
world-wide community of RToE and, more importantly, equips them with the
classroom techniques, mostly of communicative language teaching, which their
university background did not provide. In addition, the course triggers reflective
thinking about lessons and their aims, and it stimulates evaluation of whether or not the
objectives were achieved.
On the negative side, from this top-down training, as from any qualification course,
teachers learn to hide their weaknesses in order to obtain a certificate. Boud and Walker
(1998:193ff) warn that it has negative effect on reflective practice, i.e. on the process
where teachers highlight their weaknesses by thinking critically on their classroom
environment.
To add, as with any craft approach, the CELTA does not prepare the trainees to the
challenges of changing circumstances, i.e. technological interventions like work with
the IWB, for instance.
By and large, the CELTA while effective in training practical skills, so called
'unreflective automatic classroom habits' Ur (1992:56), does not contribute to the
professional development at all.
16
1.3.2 Reflective teaching in Russia
One and the only attempt to promote reflective language teaching in Russia was a year-
long national enterprise, the Russian Education Support Project on Specialist English
(RESPONSE), a certificated TD course, initiated by the Ministry of Education and
developed by a team of British and Russian language specialists from the British
Council and the Volga Foundation (Open Society Institute) in 2005 (Scholey, n.d.).
The main aim of the project was to introduce a reflective approach to the tertiary level
RToE. Almabekova (2010:469) provides an outline of the course. Whilst the Russian
tradition of reflective teaching is not as long as that in the ‘West’ and whilst it has some
dramatic phases over the years, the project has proved successful (Almabekova, 2010;
West and Frumina, 2012). Contrary to expectations of all stakeholders it has not become
sustainable due to the lack of interest in reflective practice on the part of university
teachers (West and Frumina, 2012:21) among other reasons.
In line with this, my ethnographic observations of a post-lesson evaluation stage have
indicated that the majority of teachers I have observed state that reflection is a waste of
time and that it takes so much time from lesson preparation time allocated. All in all, I
would say that reflective practice is underestimated by RToE, perhaps due to traditions,
and has not yet found its way into their teaching.
1.4 On the bright side
1.4.1 Motivation for professional development
Having said that, I hardly remember a colleague who has not been interested in
discovering something new, as learning seems to underlie our basic set of values about
the job.
As far as political motivation is concerned, constant changes in the national educational
system, introduction of the Unified State Exam of English: Ediniy Gosudarstvenniy
Ekzamen as the only form of graduation examinations since 2009 (broadly compatible
to B1 level according to CEFR (Ленская [Lenskaya], 2012)) stimulates teachers to
tweak their teaching to cope with challenges of preparing their learners for a skill-based
or ‘competences’ (Зимняя [Zymnyaya], (2003)) test instead of a declarative knowledge
exam conducted earlier.
17
From a methodological standpoint, they have to scrutinise previously neglected ability
to estimate learners’ progress in skills development. Then, the recent tendency for
repositioning teaching paradigm (see e.g. Smirnova, 2010) or even shift from teaching
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to treating English as an International Language
(EIL) or English for Intercultural Communication (EIC) (Baxter, 1983), makes teachers
revise their teaching methods to make sure they prepare their students for the kind of
future English language usage they expect.
From a socio-cultural viewpoint, since Russia has become a part of a global market, we
all teach from international course books (published by CUP, OUP, Macmillan, Pearson
to name just a few). RToE feel they need professional development in order to be able
to choose from the books the materials that match their views and reject what they feel
at a deep level to be culturally inappropriate, i.e. what Modiano (2001:341) calls
‘McDonaldization’, without losing the opportunities provided for mastering the system
of the language and skills.
With regard to technological perspective, many teachers are motivated to study web 2.0
tools and feel they need training to implement the new skills in their teaching and
thereby meet the needs and expectations of a new generation of learners. I approach this
issue in more detail in the following part.
1.4.2 Implementing Web 2.0 technology in my Centre
Moscow Centre for Language Education and Research, a private school where I work,
is based in Moscow in the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and
Public Administration. We run our own programmes as well as help universities, e.g.
prepare their students for the UCLES series, IELTS, TOEFL exams. The ecology of the
teaching environment in which we work is that of a post-method era. Motteram and
Brown (2008:120) define “ecology” as ‘all of the rich, interacting elements that create
the dynamic of teachers’ teaching contexts including top down societal, curricula and
institutional influences and the bottom up influences, which may stem from teachers’
knowledge of and enthusiasm for Web 2.0’.
I do not insist on the particular ELT method or approach the teachers use. Much more
important for me as a Director of Studies is that they balance Kumaravadivelu’s (2001)
3Ps: particularity practicality and possibility. As a trainer, I address the ‘practicality
18
under some circumstances’ issue in Kumaravadivelu’s terms and invite the trainees to
think to what extent the ideas I promote seem possible with their particular groups they
are currently teaching.
To help the teachers discern the affordances such an ecology allows I run TD seminars
where I always invite the colleagues from both universities and some of them regularly
do. All in all, we have a working group of 15-20 teachers and they have different
attitude to a teacher’s role. For instance, some see themselves as ‘sage on the stage’
while others like to be ‘ghost in the wings’ (both metaphors are from Mazzolini and
Maddison, 2003).
In terms of technology, I would call my working context as low–tech, moving to mid-
tech (Motteram and Brown, 2008). Until recent times, the teachers neither were trained
nor had access to the technologies in their classrooms, which made it difficult to link the
ICT related activities to their everyday teaching. At best, they created Word documents
as handouts.
Last year, I decided to develop our courseware and launched the Wikispaces platform
(wikispaces.com) as an online addition to the regular classes. The teachers seemed quite
enthusiastic about these new possibilities. My rationale for using this Web 2.0
application was threefold. First, to help the teachers organise learning space outside our
classrooms, i.e. move to blended pedagogical approach, which seems paramount for
learners of English, studying it in a non-English speaking country. Second, to create a
new learning community, which is difficult to do with only two lessons a week with
each group in a face-to-face setting. Third, I hoped all of the above would ‘lead to the
formation of a “community of practice”’ (Wenger, 1998) centring on the use of Web 2.0
for language education’ (Motteram and Brown, 2008:128).
Since then, the choice of the software to make the Wikispaces ‘space’ work for learning
has been a constant concern that underpinned our TD sessions. I hope that now majority
perceive new opportunities and the potential of Web 2.0 as ‘smorgasbord’ rather than
‘empty table’ (Motteram and Brown, 2008:126).
In line with Motteram and Brown’s (2008:119) claim that ‘the potential of Web 2.0 is
intimately linked with teachers’ perceptions of their teaching contexts’, I encourage my
19
TD group to think of particularities of their teaching in the light of potential affordances
of Web 2.0 and not to search and rely on one thing that fits all.
1.5 Conclusion
It has been more than 20 years since the fall of the Iron Curtain when the isolation
changed into increased openness to a variety of possibilities in ELT field but it is
disappointing that Russian ELT seems to remain where it was. These other
methodologies could have provoked some reflection on the state of Russian ELT (rather
than simply be models to be copied), but this does not seem to have happened.
I neither blame teachers nor the Ministry of Education authorities for this. Negative
(hidden or demonstrated) attitudes to reflective practice have its roots in the Russian
history where refection was neglected or even disapproved of. The fact that Russian
educational tradition is not one that was informed by a spirit of reflection does have
some influence on the teacher’s identity I think.
To add, as I said above, experienced teachers are rather sceptical about TD in its
traditional forms, which do not address practical issues of their particular context.
Educated by the craft or applied science approach, teachers start noticing the gap
between how they were taught to teach (set of classroom tricks and/or their ‘espoused
theory’ (Edge, 2010a)) and what they are actually doing in the classroom (their theory-
in-practice) and become cynical regarding the worth of any new ‘theory’. On the
contrary, technology might help teachers unlock reflection on pedagogic practices, get
new insight into their classrooms, avoid burn-out or terminal boredom, and boost
teacher’s motivation for professional development in general.
20
Chapter 2
Theoretical underpinnings 1: Nature of teacher learning
2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides the first of three explorations of the conceptual foundations for
my proposed course. A central assumption of this chapter is that both the teaching
English and the teaching of how to teach English have, as part of the ‘socio-cultural turn’
(Johnson, 2006:235) changed in the last few decades. Thus, this new perspective on
human learning has affected not only the way educational research approaches teaching
and teacher learning but also the view of what forms the further professional growth of
language teachers. This chapter outlines basic challenges TD development faces within
this new conceptual framework and proposes its practical realization.
The chapter is, therefore, divided into three sections: the first one addresses to the
nature of TE - it defines three basic terms, then discusses restrictions of the current
system of teacher instruction; the second section is devoted to two of the most
significant issues in contemporary ELT, namely cognition and teacher knowledge base;
and the third one introduces AR and the steps it comprises.
2.1 Education, training and development
There is variety of terminology used to define a taught course, programme, or organised
session. Irujo (1993:22, cited in Edge, 2010b:5) lists them as follows:
Ø professional development;
Ø professional growth;
Ø teacher preparation;
Ø teacher education;
Ø L2 teacher development; and
Ø teacher training.
21
It seems there is no a clear border between them and I agree with Edge (n.d.2:2) who
states that it is more a question of ‘who sets the goals for whose purposes’ than a
course content per se. That is, what for one teacher can be educational, for another one
contains element of development if it they who decides on the kind of learning that they
seek. For instance, some kind of training on how to use a technology tool to capture
emergent language in a lesson can be as much of a developmental goal for me as a
learning goal if I create from the training scenario developmental experiences of my
own.
Having said that, it is necessary here to clarify exactly what is meant by education,
training, and development to prevent possible misunderstanding of the course content,
its aims and objectives, in Chapter 5.
2.1.2 Education
I follow Edge’s (2010b:9) definition of education as increasing teacher’s capacity: to understand the issues that underpin educational options and to improvise new options. It involves teaching people to engage with abstract ideas and to implement their realisation in practice. Conversely, it involves teaching people to analyse their experience in such a way that they can learn from it, both with regard to improving their practice and also to the articulation of abstract ideas.
Widdowson (1983:19) distinguishes training from education regarding language learning in general, which can be applied to language teacher learning as well:
the difference between training and education (at least as far as language teaching is concerned) is … that training seeks to impose a conformity to certain established patterns of knowledge and behaviour, usually in order to carry out a set of clearly defined tasks … Education, however, seeks to provide for creativity whereby what is learned is a set of schemata and procedures for adapting them to cope with problems which do not have a ready-made, formulaic solution. [my italics].
2.1.3 Training
Equally, Freeman (1989), Richard and Farrell (2005), and Eldridge (2005) provide their
definitions of training but Edge’s (2010b) one seems to me to be the most helpful: to see
teacher training (TT) as being about helping people acquire competence in the
implementation of agreed teaching procedures and in making appropriate choices
among them. This involves being enabled to do something:
Ø by being shown how;
Ø by being told at least partly why;
22
Ø by being allowed to practice; and
Ø by being given feedback.
2.1.4 Development vs. training
To add to the above, TT does more with skill learning whereas TD does more with
teacher learning as a cognitive process: ‘understanding of teaching and of themselves as
teachers’ (Richard and Farrell, 2005:4). A number of authors provide comparative
analyses of training and development (Freeman, 1989a:42; Eldridge, 2005:6). While
training is positioned as a top-down process with the goals set and specified by the
institution, the trainer, etc., development is ‘fundamentally a bottom-up, … self-
initiated, self-monitored development of skills, knowledge and attitudes’ (Eldridge,
2005:6). I like Eldridge’s strong emphasis on ‘self’ as it provides a clear idea of
competition in professionalism with ourselves, not each other. Therefore, development
is ‘what I do about myself ‘while training and education are ‘what other people do for
me’ (Edge, 2010b:9).
2.1.5 Why to make a distinction?
Why is it important to be able to separate all three? Being aware of them leaves the
teacher educator with the task of presenting various possibilities and ideas that are
current or deemed important and having the teacher learners consider them in light of
their current state of development and take away what they will.
For instance, Britten (1988) emphasises that the biggest challenge for a new non-native
speaking teacher is to cope with the mismatch of the method adopted via
‘apprenticeship of observation’ (see below in this Chapter). Being successful language
learners themselves, RToE perceive their learning experience as an opinion forming
‘initial education and training course’ and their own language teachers as absolute
models and experts to follow.
It cannot easily be budged since they look sceptically at any methodology interventions
and take any training as ‘nothing more than a source of further tips and techniques’
(Kontra, 1997:244). I suppose it is only ‘developmental’ stance can make them examine
critically their preconceptions.
23
One example resonates with my observation of experienced teachers, who work out
strategies for handling recurring situations in all their variety, e.g. how to open-finish a
lesson, how to drill a collocation in open pairs, how to deal with pronunciation mistakes,
etc. and, throughout the time, apply them automatically, i.e. without conscious thought
and reflections. Everyone seems to have such a set of tricks. When I ask why they used
a particular activity or procedure I often get something like ‘because it works’ or ‘I’m
eclectic’ and, unfortunately, no any more rationale is given. This is a situation where
more training does not help but education does. Widdowson accounts for the answers
like these should mark the beginning of enquiry, not its conclusion and proposes an idea
to ask … why?' and 'on what basis?' because they are theoretical questions which arise from practice, and they need to be answered if practice is to be made more effective. What we need to do in teacher education is to encourage such questions and so simulate the kind of enquiry which naturally follows in quest of the answers. To stifle such questions on the grounds that they are of only theoretical interest is to deny the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, the spirit of investigation which I believe is the main source of incentive in teaching, as it is in learning. (1984:89)
Another case is of teachers established so that they have the feeling that they do not
need any development. How can professional development take place when teachers are
'set in their ways' and do not believe they need to develop? Perhaps, training or
education could trigger an inquiry that will bring about changes in their minds.
One more issue, perhaps, rooted in culture is reluctance on the part of teachers to admit
to oneself professional shortcomings in a fear of losing face. Even critical self-
evaluation seems to be regarded as a form of weakness. Such resistance hinders
engaging teachers in reflective practice and therefore impedes development. What can
be done here is creating an environment of trust, both in the classroom and among
teachers where people, both learners and teachers, are getting aware that criticism they
get or produce themselves is constructive and meant to induce improvement, not bring
about punishment. However, it is easier to say than to deal with this delicate issue in
practice, and training techniques or theoretical input, which might raise teacher’s
awareness in importance of critical thinking (see Chapter 5).
Freeman (1982), writing about three approaches to teacher observation, puts forward the
viewpoint that at different stages of a teaching career and for different purposes
language teachers have different needs and therefore need a different programme (see
Figure 1).
24
Figure 1. Adapted from Freeman’s (1982:27) hierarchy of needs I think this view is much more plausible than that of Richard and Farrell (2005) and
others, who claim that one of three has a superordinate position and all the rest should
serve it.
2.2 Cognition and teachers knowledge bases
2.2.1 Ways of knowing
Mental processes cannot be directly observed, monitored or measured. They inevitably
underpin teacher practice (Richards, 2008; Borg, 2003) and Borg’s (2003:84 ff.)
seminal review lists the studies into various aspects of language teacher cognition.
Historically, ‘cognition’ was considered as a ‘collection of mental possessions’ (Rogoff,
1993:124, cited in McVee et al., 2005:542) including thoughts, schemas, memories,
scripts, plans, etc. Then, due to the epistemological shifts (i.e. changes in how we know
things), it has come to be viewed as ‘the active process of solving mental and other
problems (e.g. by thinking, recounting, remembering, organizing, planning, and
contemplating)’ (ibid), i.e. a cultural, social and political context establishes the norms
of behaviour, values and beliefs to which teachers adhere. It can be illustrated
graphically (see Figure 2).
25
Figure 2. Teacher cognition, schooling, professional education, and classroom practice (Borg, 1997 in Borg, 2003:82)
An important part of language teacher cognition is teachers’ previous learning
experiences, or ‘schooling’ in Figure 2, and language learning experiences in particular.
Borg (2003:86) with reference to Lortie (1975) terms these experiences as an
‘apprenticeship of observation’. It is a specific way of teaching adopted from respected
and even admired former teachers, which influences not only current practice but also
further development (Britten, 1988; Kontra, 1997), (see below in this Chapter).
In addition, teacher cognition cannot be separated from teacher personality or from
teachers’ previous life experiences. Edge (2011:117) refers to these aspects as the unity
of ‘the whole-person-who-teaches'.
Finally, I would add one more factor that influences language teacher cognition. This
can be termed the ‘apprenticeship of knowledge’. It is that set of preconceptions,
notions, theories about teaching and learning that teachers bring into the classroom.
Compared to static ‘collection’ (see above in this Chapter) in the past, Johnson
(2006:239) views teacher cognition from a dynamic perspective as a dialogic and a two-
26
way (community and individual) transformative process, the issues I address in the
following part.
2.2.2 Knowledge base of language teacher education
Thinking about the sociocultural processes, which influence the ways we learn to teach,
we inevitably come to the examining traditional knowledge base of language TE. In
their seminal article, Freeman and Johnson (1998:405) write about its
reconceptualization, arguing that ‘for the purposes of educating teachers, any theory of
SLA, any classroom methodology, or any description of that English language as
content must be understood against the backdrop of teachers’ professional lives’, i.e.
‘who does it, where it is done, and how it is done’.
A rethinking of language TE knowledge base triggered hot debates. The efforts have
been devastatingly critiqued by Yates-Muchinsky (2003-2004), arguing for a traditional
curriculum where SLA and other core courses of Applied Linguistics are transmitted.
This represents a widely spread attitude among educators in Russia, which underpins
the present syllabus (see Chapter 1). I agree with Bartels (2004:130) who, supporting
the Freeman and Johnson’s (1998; 2004) idea of reconceptualization, states that ‘the
procedures applied linguists use to evaluate ideas may not be compatible with the task
of language teaching’.
It resonates with the theory/practice dichotomy discussion of the relationship of
practical teaching skills and academic knowledge, common in applied science model
(see Chapter 1), and how they are represented in the syllabus. Here, theory means
disciplinary knowledge (e.g. SLA, psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics, etc.) and
practice means implication of a method of teaching, a technique, or a technological tool.
‘It’s appealing in theory but useless in practice’ questions the dysfunctional theory/
practice discourse on the grounds that it has ‘harmful effect’ on TE (Kumaravadivelu,
2001:540; Clarke, 1994:18); ‘if something is no good in practice, then it’s no good in
principle, either’ (Edge, 2010c:12). In the 1990s, the issue was approached by
distinguishing TT from TD (Richards, 2008:160), but, as I said above in this chapter,
both frameworks usually overlap in any course. How to resolve this problem?
27
2.2.3 Praxis
To tackle this theory/practice dichotomy crucial issue, Johnson (2006) proposes praxis,
a term introduced by Freire (e.g. 1970:21), meaning action that is informed and linked
to the values of a theory and vice versa. She regards it as a kind of two-way, mutually
informative, transformative dialogue between 'authentic experience' and 'legitimate
argument', the terms coined by Edge (personal communication). In his work (2006:XV),
Edge aptly formulates two basic questions practitioners have to ask themselves to lead
to praxis:
1. ‘If this principle appears convincing, what is it that I must actually do in terms of my
own actions?’
2. ‘If this action appears fitting, what beliefs, values and principles am I thereby
bringing into play?’
I think this gives hope to teachers to be able to reflect on their practice and apply
whatever method or technique they think is best for them and their learners and not to
feel guilty that it is not something they were told to do according to a theory as their
unique practical experience has been legitimised as knowledge (Johnson, 2006). Such
illustration of teacher’s praxis can be found in Richard and Farrell (2005:177, with
reference to Burns, 2002:14ff).
Thinking about what system of values the chosen approach, method or procedures
represents and why the things are way they are, i.e. everything that comprises teacher’s
cognition stimulates a language teacher to revise their knowledge base (see above)
against examining teaching experiences and such critical thinking, an inevitable part of
praxis triggers a deeper understanding of teaching.
Since praxis as a process of building knowledge base differs for different teachers and
‘their ways of knowing and their ways of coming to know may take [the multiple
forms]’ (Johnson, 2006:242), I, with a course in mind, had to think of a framework,
which enables me to create such an ecology where such praxis can emerge. My
pragmatic task as a teacher educator is to help teachers make prudent informed choices
of technology for their particular context, in the context where teachers are rather
reluctant to reflective practice (see Chapter 1). Then, I have to think of the requirements
to any classroom research conducted by teachers be legitimated as the knowledge base:
28
1. [It] must be public;
2. it must be represented in a form that enables it to be accumulated and shared
with other members of the profession; and
3. it must be continually verified and improved.
(Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler, 2002:4)
2.3 Action research as a means for TD
2.3.1 Inquiry-‐Based Approaches to Professional Development
Freeman and Johnson (1998:248) with reference to Dewey (1933) state that ‘it is
through the attitudes of open-mindedness (seeking alternatives), responsibility
(recognizing consequences), and wholeheartedness (continual self-examination) that
teachers come to recognize their own assumptions about themselves as teachers, about
their students, about the curriculum they teach, and about the nature and impact of their
teaching practices’, but how to create the proper ‘ecology’ to help all of the above
emerge? What makes teachers aware of, say, their own shortcomings and start acting
upon that awareness?
Johnson (2006:248ff) responds to the questions above, arguing that ‘when teachers
inquire into their experiences through these attitudes, the intellectual tools of inquiry
enable them to confront the taken-for-granted assumptions about what is and is not
possible within the context in which they teach, systematically problematize their own
everyday practices, and regularly ask the broader questions of not just whether their
practices work, but for whom, in what ways, and why’. Such classroom research helps
notice a gap between what is taught and what is learned (Richards and Lockhart, 1994)
and to evaluate new tools or approaches they experiment with. Borg (2010:393)
overviews different forms teacher research can take: action research, practitioner
research, collaborative inquiry, critical inquiry, self study, and teacher research.
The only one, which implies direct interventions into classroom teaching is AR, i.e. the
action in AR, mediated by various means, aiming at bringing about some improvements
(Burns, 2009), can act as a tremendous motivator for teachers to take the course.
The other inquiry-based approaches might be not less effective in other contexts
whereas in mine, by choosing self study or critical or collaborative inquiry, I can put the
29
whole project at risk, as it happened with RESPONSE (see Chapter 1) due to lack of
reflective capacity of the participants.
In addition, a small-scale AR projects by language teachers in their classrooms does not
require investing extra time compared to journal or lesson report writing as in case of
practitioner or teacher research, which can be crucial.
2.3.2 The nature of action research
Lewin, (e.g.1946) is often credited as a creator of AR notion. As a social psychologist
he experimented with his students on the basis that ‘action research was one way to
apply some of the psychological ideas to a practical endeavour’ (Adelman, 1993:7). For
the purpose of this work I am not taking AR as a widely used general research method,
and narrowing my scope to the small scale classroom research only and base my work
on Van Lier (1994), Wallace (1998), Edge (2001), Richards and Farrell (2005), Burns
(1999, 2005, 2010a,b).
Some authors (Cohen and Manion, 1994:186; Burns, 2005:59-60; Richards and Farrell,
2005:171) emphasise two dimensions of activity in AR by splitting it up the phrase into
‘action’ and ‘research’, Cohen and Manion (1994:186) added that the two words seem
joined together “as uneasy bedfellows”. Edge (n.d.1:2) calls it ‘reductionist approach to
this definition’ and his version seems the most plausible: ‘The research itself is a form
of interventionist action, and the actions involved constitute the research’ (ibid).
Richards and Farrell (2005:172) define the nature of AR as a ‘cycle of observing,
analyzing, acting, and reviewing’. A number of authors (Van Lier, 1994:34; Richards
and Farrell, 2005:183) provide quite a similar graphic representation of AR cycles to the
one below: the steps involved are built on cyclical ideas of intellectual and experiential
learning and contain four stages (see Figure 3):
30
Figure 3. Action Research cycles from Burns (2010a:36, based on Kemmis and McTaggert, 1998)
All in all, AR reflects trinity of Aristotelian three intellectual virtues: techne (or the
exercising of skill vs episteme), phronesis, and nous as ways of knowing (OECD
2000:14; Edge, 2006a:XV). The second element, namely practical wisdom, is a concept
opposite to the Plato’s theory. This kind of wisdom of teaching is perhaps to be found in
a form of a teacher’s account of an AR cycle but might be lost by the processes of
abstraction and generalization.
2.3.3 AR procedures
In terms of a number of AR procedures, Burns (1999:35) says that exploring and
identifying should come before planning and writes about ‘a series of interrelated
experiences involving the following phases:
1. exploring;
2. identifying;
3. planning;
4. collecting data;
5. analysing;
6. reflecting;
7. hypothesising/speculating;
8. intervening;
31
9. observing;
10. reporting;
11. writing; and
12. presenting
To sum up, the processes of doing AR should be outlined as the following:
I. Find out what the actual state of affairs is (observation, exploration, and
identification);
II. Design something to improve it;
III. Observe what happens; and
IV. Theorize (if possible, see above) and present it.
Stages 1-3 comprise reflective practice and along with the last stage, i.e. communicating
the results, aim to enhance classroom instruction.
2.3.3.1 Collecting data
Burns (1999:79), Richards and Lockhart (1994:6), Richard and Farrell’s (2005:180ff.)
provide a list of data collection methods:
Ø Teaching journals;
Ø Lesson reports;
Ø Surveys and questionnaires;
Ø Audio and video recordings;
Ø Observation;
Ø Notes; and
Ø Transcripts.
With reference to Sagor (1992:144) Richard and Farrell’s (2005:181) highlight a useful
notion of three different perspectives, triangulation, and the suggestion that if all three
give us the same picture, it can be viewed as a valid one.
2.3.3.2 Searching for a unit of Inquiry
Burns (2010b:1) defines the unit of inquiry as ‘a critical gap or dilemma between
current practice and their more ideal view of practice. The gap or dilemma may relate to
32
something they have been puzzled, uncertain or dissatisfied with for a while, a ‘burning
question’ or issue they have always wanted to experiment with, a change they would
like to see happening in themselves or their learners, or a desire to make a difference in
the way things are generally organized in their classrooms’.
In order to scaffold the above teacher’s thinking process it seems a good idea to turn
Richards’s (1996:287ff.) interacting maxims into the issues to think of:
Ø The maxim of involvement: Follow the learners’ interests to maintain student
involvement.
Ø The maxim of planning: Plan your teaching and try to follow your plan.
Ø The maxim of order: Maintain order and discipline throughout the lesson.
Ø The maxim of encouragement: Seek ways to encourage student learning.
Ø The maxim of accuracy: Work for accurate student output.
Ø The maxim of efficiency: Make the most efficient use of classroom time.
Ø The maxim of conformity: Make sure your teaching follows the prescribed
method.
Ø The maxim of empowerment: Give the learners control.
Each of the topics seems to trigger a good deal of several other subtopics emerge from
each, e.g. ‘How much control are my learners usually given? Are they able to work
independently to, say, work out a grammar rule in an inductive presentation of it?’
Another idea comes from Edge (2010c:6): to make a list of things that ‘get in your way’.
They might be:
Ø The students don’t do their homework.
Ø The room I teach in is too noisy.
Ø The reading passages in the textbook are boring.
Edge suggests rephrasing them starting with I, for instance:
Ø I can’t find a way to motivate the students to do the homework that I set them.
Ø I can’t arrange to work in a different room.
Ø I can’t provide more appropriate reading passages.
33
2.4 Conclusion
Having multiple ways of knowing (see above), we teachers are never all on the same
page. As a teacher educator, my goal in the proposed course is to try to help other
teacher realise which page they are on, what they want to work on themselves and then
facilitate their ongoing development.
AR seems quite practical in terms of the application of socio-cultural theory, discussed
above, possible for the practitioners in Russia and particular in Kumaravadivelu’s
(2001) terms. The course comprises a number of practical steps: to search for a problem,
a point of grow, something of interest or even something outstanding like a significant
success which might be improved with technology help, to collect data before and after
taking action and to present it. Reflection underpins each stage and leads to a new
course of action.
34
Chapter 3
Theoretical underpinnings 2: Web 2.0
3.0 Introduction
This chapter continues TD theme of the previous one in relation to ICT. Discerning the
affordances of Web 2.0 for the particular context and the particular learner’s needs
redraws the boundaries of professional development (Johnson, 2006:244; Salaberry,
2001; Blake, 2007). However, acting as a catalyst that stimulates a teacher's reflection,
technology does not make the difference on its own and this chapter approaches
implementing Web 2.0 from a pedagogical standpoint. It is divided into three sections:
the first section compares and contrasts Web 1.0 and Web 2.0; Section Two considers
Web 2.0 tools through the lens of socio-cultural theory I mentioned in Chapter 2, in
Section Three, I discuss formal and informal technology training opportunities for
teachers to make informed choices of the proper tools.
3.1 Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 In the last twenty years or so, the Internet has changed dramatically, evolving from a
read-only Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 - a read-write web. The term Web 2.0 is generally
attributed to O’Reilly (2005), but is admitted to have a rather ‘cryptic nature’ (Motteram
and Brown, 2008:123). Some estimate its technological possibilities as a ‘qualitative
leap’ (Albion, 2008:181) rather than simply a new version (Warschauer and Grimes,
2007). I echo Motteram and Brown’s (2008:124) who see Web 2.0 as ‘an extension of
Web 1.0’.
While Web 1.0 tools (e.g. Power Point) are suitable for lecturing or any other mode of
knowledge transmission and accumulation, Web 2.0 can be adapted for learner-centred
collaborative tasks providing affordances for salient authentic language input and output
(opportunities for interaction) in SLA terms (Chapelle, 1998). Whereas creation of a
learning environment with Web 1.0 requires a high level of technical expertise, Web 2.0
35
allows teachers and learners generate materials themselves (Motteram and Brown,
2008:124) regardless of their technical know how. Finally, the latter is more mobile:
technologies emerge from a distributed network that has no centre or hub and allow for
interactivity by all from any place.
3.2 Web 2.0 and the sociocultural perspective
Thus, exploiting recourses of the Internet beyond the production-oriented activities of
Web 1.0 opens up vast language teaching possibilities viewed through the prism of
socio-cultural theory (Motteram and Brown, 2008:123), attributed to Vygotsky (1978,
1986). According to his cultural-historical theory a unit of speech is a social action,
where language acts as any other mediated cultural ‘tool’- распредметить [to
desobjectivate] artefacts, i.e. to convert them from material to the notional plan – to
shape thinking. Бахтин (1979) [Bakhtin, 2004] develops the Vygotskian idea of
language learning as a social interaction, emphasising dialogism of language use1.
There are a number of studies, influenced by the socio-cultural theory, which explore
using technology (McCloughlin and Oliver, 1999; Taylor et al., 2005; Hall, 2007) and
Web 2.0 tools in particular (e.g. Thorne, 2003) for face-to-face, blended and online
language learning. First, since ‘social media is a prominent part of the current digital
landscape’ (Selwyn, 2010:2), equated with Web 2.0 (Brown, n.d.:2), the platforms like
blogs, wikis, social media (e.g. Vkontfkte2 a very popular in Russia social network) can
be used for social interaction, where students discern learning affordances in
collaboration with the teacher and the peers.
For instance, Lund examines a wiki platform in a notion of ‘collective and dynamic
view of the ZPD’ (2008:40), where ZPD stands for Zone of Proximal Development - a
concept, introduced in Vygotsky (1978). According to the socio-cultural theory of mind,
learning is essentially an osmotic process (Van Lier, 2000) and takes place via the
process of ‘scaffolding’ (Jerome Bruner is credited to having coined the term (Foley,
1994) from the ‘more capable peers’ or the teacher. Similarly, Ertmer et al. (2007)
1 ‘Я живу в мире чужих слов. И вся моя жизнь является ориентацией в этом мире, реакцией на чужие слова’ (Бахтин, 1979:347) [I live in a world of others’ words and my entire life is an orientation in this world’, McGee, Translation (2004:143)] 2 http://vk.com
36
narrow the focus and research into the effectiveness of peer correction in student online
discussions for language learning and finally highlight it as a key component.
Second, in line with the Vygotskian cultural-historical theory we can ‘consider the role
of these technologies [social media] as developing cultural artefacts’ Motteram (2009:3).
As a sample of the course design (see Appendix 7) I provide a ‘Vocabulary activation
Unit’, underpinned by this notion, where I explore with the teachers some Mind
Mapping and making Word Clouds Web 2.0 tools. In addition, Saricoban and Kùrùm’s
(2011:173ff.) ideas, while surprisingly to me drawn mostly to the Krashen’s Natural
Approach (e.g. 1982) can be adapted for successful classroom use.
Having said that, I am aware that the teachers I design the course for have different
values and believes about their role in the classroom and its ecology in whole (see
Chapter 1) as well as different knowledge base (see Chapter 2). All this will inevitably
influence not only what ICT they will finally decide to incorporate into their teaching
but also the way they will use it. I hope to get a new insight observing how some of my
experiences colleagues, who adhere to the Grammar Translation Approach (see Chapter
1), for instance, will evaluate new opportunities social media offers.
3.3 Technology training and its choice issue
As I said in Chapter 1, for most of the teachers I work with the inclusion of technology
in their ‘box of tricks’ is more of a ‘Why not?’ rather than ‘Why?’, and they are ready to
invest their time and effort into both – formal and informal learning to use it. The
former type of learning is listed in Kay (2006:387) with pre-service teacher education
focus in USA and the latter type is referred to as self-study with or without help from
the staff (Reinders, 2009:233).
From my experience, any formal teacher training (see Chapter 2) on how to use
technology is not as effective (in terms of the return on the time invested) as informal
learning like participation in the annual Electronic Village Online project1 where
teachers can choose an area of their professional interest among seven – ten proposed,
and are expected to practice Web 2.0 tools, share ideas about how to use them, theorise;
it is all voluntary and free.
1 e.g. in http://evosessions.pbworks.com/w/page/10708567/FrontPage
37
Alternatively, as far as self-study is concerned, there are quite a number of sources
where a comprehensive list of Web 2.0 applications can be found: e.g. in Carrasco
(2006), McLoughlin and Lee (2007:665), Hart (2009), Son (2011), Peachey (n.d.),
Picardo (n.d.), Pergrum (n.d.), or straight in the Web1. In Appendix 5, I provide the Web
2.0 tools set in a form of a mind map: an overall spidergram and its two extensions for
vocabulary training. In addition, Nik Peachey’s blog2 contains invaluable ideas for
technology novices in terms of classroom ideas.
However, a growing number of Web 2.0 tools, which come and go, make the problem
of their choice nearly hopeless even for very enthusiastic teachers. It is my belief that
contextual factors should play a crucial part in making decision. Motteram and Brown
(2008:126) point out that teachers might consider their context in the light of
application of technology in terms of considerations, challenges and constraints.
For example, considerations, would include whether the learners’ command of English
lets them use the chosen Web 2.0 tool effectively, challenges might include whether the
scaffolding helps learners overcome obstacles to the use of ICT, and constraints, in
low-tech contexts such as mine (see Chapter 1) would consider which factors might
hinder effective use of the Web 2.0 tool, e.g. slow internet connection (Schmid,
2008:494). All in all, Motteram and Brown’s idea resonates with me: While discussion of the literature relating to the use of such technology can give the participant a general sense of the possible value of Web 2.0, it does not seem to lead to those moments of recognition and connection when a participant “visualizes” themselves using the technology in a way that will beneficially address issues they have in their context or come to a keen understanding of why a particular Web 2.0 tool is not useful. A decision that a Web 2.0 tool cannot offer useful affordances for a specific context should be an informed decision coming from strong critical engagement with, and analysis of, the tool. (2008:127)
3.4 Conclusion Among aforementioned challenges and constraints, there can be teachers’ and pupils’
levels of media literacy and teacher’s experience with the technology. It is my
experience that most of teachers come to the initial technology training assuming that
ICT means simply e-mail, Word, PPT and online search engines and nothing else. Thus,
1 e.g. in: http://www.web20searchengine.com/web20/web-2.0-list.htm 2 http://nikpeachey.blogspot.com/
38
there is a risk of me ‘preaching’ technology to fill their gaps in knowledge about
technology. It is a rather misguided approach and more than a waste of time as it would
drive teachers in the wrong direction and therefore act like a burden of theories, the
issue I addressed in Chapter 2.
On the contrary, the course I design implies that the participants start practising new
tools straight from the beginning and I am going to fill the gaps by scaffolding them in
learning of technology skills (Malderez, 2009). Then, to avoid slipping into training
teachers to use technology for its own sake as a ‘box of tricks’, I am planning to involve
the participants in the discussion why and what classroom problems the chosen tool
solves, what pedagogy might arise from this experience straight after its brief
presentation.
39
Chapter 4
Theoretical underpinnings 3: Course Design
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is the third and final part of the conceptualisation of my topic and material
development project. As a newbie in AR, I am aware that there are many directions in
which the course might go that are beyond my knowledge and experience. Equally, as I
stated in previous chapters, it is the course participants who decide what classroom
situation they would like to explore in more detail and my task is to help make their
focus manageable and then assist them when they go through the AR stages. Therefore,
the path each teacher will go will be unique and it cannot be planned in advance.
This unpredictability inevitably influences the decisions I make in designing the course,
which I discuss in this chapter. It consists of three sections: Section 4.1 discuss the
common design principles; Section 4.2 explores some possible Design Models and
provides a rationale and an explanation how the chosen model works in the context; and
Section 4.3 addresses the issue of the design coherence of the course elements.
4.1 Design principles What is design? Every material thing has its design. The term design, as Smith and
Ragan (1999) so aptly state, ‘implies a systematic or intensive planning and ideation
process prior to the development of something or the execution of some plan in order to
solve a problem’ (1999:4). Norman (1990:188) sums up the designer’s role in two
‘commandments’ - to make sure that:
1. ‘the user [participant in my case] can figure out what to do’; and
2. ‘the user can tell what is going on’.
What principles should inform the process I am involved in as a course designer?
Design principles, as Sharp (2007:29) notices ‘are derived from a mix of theory-based
knowledge, experience, and common sense’. Norman (1988) provides five common
40
principles that inform the way I design and develop the course: visibility, feedback,
constraints, affordance and consistency. Below are some examples how I apply them.
As far as Visibility is concerned I equip the teachers with a graphic representation of an
AR cycle (see Figure 3) and a mind map of Web 2.0 tools available (see Appendix 5).
Feedback slots are incorporated in the Units in a form of group discussions or
individual tutorials onsite and online via out online platform (see Chapter 5 for a
practical realisation of this principle in the proposed course).
With regard to constraints principle – the AR framework dictates that all the steps are
approached gradually, so every teacher acts in a definite part of the framework in every
time period of the course.
While the concept of affordance in Norman’s terms differs from that of Van Lier (e.g.
in 2000) commonly used in the ELT field, I apply this principle in a sense that provide
the participants with hand on techniques and ideas (see Chapter 5 for more detail),
which they can easily transfer to their own classrooms and use with their learners.
One of the crux points in the course is to find a manageable focus for AR, which needs
a serious reflective effort from the teachers. To facilitate this process, I apply the
consistency principle and design the input sessions in Module 2 quite similarly in terms
of their layout, so that the participants get used to the interactions with the material and
their provider (me). I hope that the same staging of the Units will alleviate the problem
and make their thinking process effective.
Apart from the principles that guide the design process, the right choice of the most
appropriate Instructional Design Model seems to influence directly the quality of
learning experiences.
4.2 Instructional Design Model There is a number of Instructional Design Models1. In order to choose the most
appropriate one, I have considered two of them, one linear and one iterative, both
1 http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/index.html
41
applicable to a TD course from the first glance. First, an ADDIE Model is considered
(Cennamo and Debi, 2005:4), which stands for Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation, Evaluation, a traditional model for multimedia based courses1.
The biggest challenge, however, of ADDIE as well as of any other linear approach is
that it presumes the designer knows all the content of the course in advance. In my case,
that is where teachers choose a focus themselves and the Web 2.0 software themselves,
I will have to tailor the unit design according to their chosen focus.
Another drawback is that the ADDIE model does not have space for teacher-generated
content – an inevitable part of the proposed course: participants share their ideas via our
online platform (see Chapter 5).
So, as an ongoing iterative process my course design should be underpinned by an
approach ‘of incrementally developing and refining a design based on feedback and
evaluation’2, e.g. as in Figure 4.
The following is a succession of steps in Rapid Prototyping (spiral) Model3:
Ø Concept definition;
Ø Implementation of a skeletal system;
Ø User evaluation and concept refinement;
Ø Implementation of refined requirements;
Ø User evaluation and concept refinement;
Ø Implementation of refined requirements; and
Ø (etc., etc., in a continuous cycle).
Among two iterative cycles, namely Spiral and Rapid Prototyping, I have chosen the
latter as the former is more appropriate for a system design (Motteram and Brown
(n.d.)) . It comprises an iterative refinement of the course through prototyping (Tripp
and Bichelmeyer, 1990). Prototype in my case is any of the fifteen units of the proposed
course (see Chapter 5), which has its initial design (see Chapter 5), but which can be
fine-tuned as the course proceeds (see Figure 4 below).
1 http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/addie_weaknesses.html 2 http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/iterative_design.html 3 http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/rapid_prototyping.html
42
Figure 4. The Successive Approximation Model1 adapted from Allen (2006:73)
Figure 4 represents one of the frames of Rapid Prototyping approach - the Successive
Approximation Model. Therefore, the process of my course design consists of three
major steps. First, in the Preparation Stage (see Figure 4) as in any traditional model, I
took into consideration the context factors and RToE’s needs (see Chapter 1). Then, in
the first Design Stage I created the skeleton of the content (see Chapter 2 and 3) and
stated tentative objectives for each Unit (see Chapter 5); both steps are mirrored in
Figure 4 as Savvy Start and Project Planning.
As the course proceeds, as a parallel process I will be constantly revising and refining
the Units, e.g. by modifying input sessions according to the teachers’ responses and
their progress through the AR steps, which I will thoroughly monitor and scaffold
where necessary. The scaffolding itself will influence the process of utilisation of new
‘prototypes’. For instance, if I notice that the majority of my teachers need assistance in
technological skills, for instance, how to upload a file from the Internet, I will include
such skill training in Unit 2 (see Chapter 5), etc. Such a parallel process is displayed in
Figure 4 as Iterative Development Phase, which informs the Review stage and
consequently influences the design (see Figure 4). This modification allows improving
the course since ‘full understanding of needs, content, and objectives is a result of the
design process and not an input into it’ (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990:37).
All in all, as Cennamo et al. (2005: 4) aptly states, ‘instructional deign is not merely
about following a model. It is about using a systematic, collaborative planning process 1 Taken from: http://info.alleninteractions.com/bid/86482/It-s-an-ICE-Time-to-Leave-ADDIE-Behind the alternative link is: http://bryantanner.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/replacement-for-addie/
43
to convert ideas into effective instructional products’. The effectiveness of the course
depends on a number of factors, not the latest among them is coherence, which I discuss
in the next part.
4.3 Coherence
Sequential Coherence Wallace (1991:153) highlights the importance of how different elements of a course fit
together. In my case, those elements are: short input sessions, discussions to assist the
teachers in selecting a teaching episode that they might enhance through technology, etc.
I arranged the course into three modules:
Ø Module 1: Units 1-3 – induction;
Ø Module 2: Units 4-12 - practice; and
Ø Module 3: Units 13-15 - presentation.
Each module acts as a preliminary stage for the following one to achieve Sequential
Coherence.
Synchronous Coherence
In Appendix 7, I provide an overview of the input sessions. The topic and the follow-up
discussions are complementary to one another; both stimulate teacher’s reflection and
inquiry into a particular situation to improve with AR. In a sample unit, I exemplify this
by a number of activities (see Stages 1-6 in the Lesson Plan in the Appendix 7), all
having a common focus, namely to revise and activate vocabulary.
To add, coherence is achieved by a common outcome – a presentation of the AR and all
the above course elements contribute to it.
4.4 Conclusion
As I stated in the Conclusion to the Chapter 2, my main course aim is to assist in the
participant teachers’ exploration to where they are in their journey and help reveal
‘points of growth’ within the AR framework. I believe that iterative manner of the
course design will allow me to build a programme that responds the language teachers’
needs and will enable me to realise all those principles discussed above.
44
Chapter 5
The Proposed Course
5.0 Introduction
When I initially thought about such a course, its skeleton seemed quite obvious to me:
the cyclical or spiral nature of AR in a fixed step-by-step sequence (see Chapter 2)
would dictate the course framework. However, having reflected on my personal
experience with AR and having read about similar insights (Burns, 2010b; Edge, 2010a),
I came to realise that all steps are intertwined while interacting dynamically, so that it is
difficult to separate them.
Therefore, I had to revise my initial idea and in Section 5.1 below I report my final
course organisation, rationale and educational content. Having done that, in Section 5.2
I move on to the basic principles underpinning the course. In Section 5.3, I outline some
possible problems and propose solutions to them and Section 5.4 is devoted to the
evaluation of the course.
5.1 An overview of the course
The planned course is designed for six months, with two or three Units per month, and
with more intensive face-to-face group work at the beginning of the course and more
personalised study at the end. For the teachers’ convenience, I am going to work with
the participants asynchronously online once the participants have chosen (via our group
wikispaces platform1) their focus for the AR cycle. The course is divided in three
modules, comprises 15 units, each planned to last three academic hours, as follows.
5.1.1 Unit 1: Place to stand
To borrow Clarke's (2003a, b) phrase, my first intention is to establish common
1 http://actionresearchelt.wikispaces.com/
45
ground with the participants with regard to the issues I discussed in Chapter 2. To put it
another way, by this ice-breaking session I am aiming at raising the teachers’ awareness
about multiple sources of knowledge. In Appendix 1 I provide an example of such a
Unit with the main objectives:
Ø to raise teachers’ awareness of how educative their experience could be;
Ø to raise teachers’ awareness that only they can relate any theory, i.e. any external
principles, to their practice.
In addition, I am planning some time in the Unit to create an ecology (Van Lier, 2000),
where developmental affordances for a teacher might emerge. For instance, one of them
is a discussion based on an interaction with the input the participants have during the
course. Edge (2010c:2) suggests four levels of challenge in terms of difficulty of the
input for the participants:
Ø Level 1: evaluate what the tutor says as right or wrong, useful or not useful, ‘it
works’ or ‘it doesn’t work’, presuming that the latter is the beginning of the
conversation, not the end;
Ø Level 2: ask yourself ‘What can I learn from this taking into account what I
already know’;
Ø Level 3: answer the question, ‘If I was going to say something useful in this area,
what exactly would it be?’; and
Ø Level 4: answer the question: ‘So what? What am I going to do?’.
Obviously, Level 4 gives much richer opportunities for teachers to develop but this is
what everyone will choose for themselves. Such an affordance helps teachers be better
placed in an unusual course such is this one and to make the most of it.
5.1.2 Unit 2: What is AR?
Overall, this is an induction Unit in AR aiming at discussing the procedure matter. It is
educational in its nature (see Chapter 2). In Appendix 2 I provide a rough introduction
plan to this Unit. Since the teachers are expected to obtain the initial information about
AR and what it comprises prior to this Unit (from Anne Burn’s video in our wikispaces
space), I am going to give them an AR awareness-raising task, where they match the
46
stages of AR (see Appendix 4) to the particular examples of their realisation in one or
two teacher’s accounts of how they did AR (see Appendix 3).
After that, a ‘Questions and Answers’ session follows, triggered by the examples of
teachers’ accounts of AR from Richard and Farrell’s (2005:173ff.), or examples from
their own practice. My idea is to facilitate our discussion so that the teachers finally
come to see the effectiveness of AR in everyday practice, for instance: due to the
cyclical nature of language teaching the similar issues that get in the way of learning
come around again and again. If to try and learn something about them this time, it will
help next time. During this stage I exemplify the concepts of ‘trying’ and ‘undergoing’,
using an example of this TD course, i.e. how teacher development ‘works’ within the
AR framework.
The most important goal of this and the following Units is to have clear and agreed
outcomes for all phases of work within the AR cycle, e.g. an articulated issue, a
research plan, a presentation of the whole cycle, etc. work toward it and be aware when
we are there (see the design principles in Chapter 4).
Burns (2009:290ff.) emphasises, that in order to implement AR successfully, teachers
need training (see Chapter 2) in the procedures. I address this by outlining the principles
in this Chapter below, which I hope will help tackle it.
5.1.3 Unit 3: Web 2.0 affordances
This Unit is a combination of education and training sessions (see Chapter 2) informed
by the ideas discussed in Chapter 3. Its aim is to explore ICT (see three mindmaps of
Web 2.0 tools in Appendix 5) in language learning. I start from the potential
affordances of an ICT tool, evaluate them for their contexts; for instance, think of
organising a wiki space due to:
Ø ‘a lack of time to develop process writing skills in face-to-face language lessons’
Motteram and Brown (2008:128);
Ø a lack of time to revise vocabulary in face-to-face language lessons.
47
On the whole, this is the most trainee-initiated unit, which content will depend on the
responses I will get in from the previous unit (See Appendix 2, Stage 3). Therefore, I
am going to develop this Unit through later iterations of the course (See Chapter 4).
5.1.4 Units 4-‐12: Implementing AR
Units 4-12 uncover some main areas in ELT (see Appendix 6) based on the Wallace’s
(1998: 19) suggestion of the areas to focus for action in language teaching:
a. classroom management;
b. resources;
c. teaching areas (language and skills);
d. student behaviour, achievement or motivation; and
e. personal management issues (e.g. time management, relationships with
colleagues/higher management).
As I stated in Chapter 4, the course design employs iterative cycles and has a negotiated
element incorporated. That is, the content and the succession of topics is a matter of
discussions with the participants.
All short input sessions play a twofold role: first, according to the affordance principle
(see Chapter 4), they equip the teachers with new ideas they can try in the classroom
(see Appendix 7, Stages 2, 5 in the Lesson Plan) and second, they act as a springboard
for the search to find a focus of the inquiry process. A paramount motivational issue is
to make sure that the focus chosen by the teachers themselves, i.e. they actually want to
work on it themselves.
As soon as the participants identify an area of their interest, check with me whether they
have chosen a manageable focus, narrow it down if necessary, they start working on
the issue on their own by:
1. collecting data by investigating the chosen issue (see Chapter 2 for the means
how to do it);
2. choosing a Web 2.0 tool;
3. formulating investigative action and designing a plan how to implement the
ICT;
48
4. thinking about what evidence provided might signify whether the interventions
were successful or not;
5. thinking how to collect, analyse and interpret (i.e. theorise – see Chapter 2)
collected data; and
6. implementing and observing what happens.
I aim to facilitate the teachers’ finding of a focus and then scaffold their research
process according to the principles below. All the teachers are expected to participate in
the rest of the Units even if they have already found an aspect to work on. In Appendix
7, I provide a sample of the course unit that comprises all three components of teacher
learning I discussed in Chapter 2: TE (see Stage 1 in the Lesson Plan), TT (Stages 2 and
5 in the Lesson Plan) and TD (see Stages 3, 4 and 6). However, as I stated in Chapter 2,
different participants can take these aspects differently; the crucial point is that all three
of these are present in the unit.
5.1.5 Unit 13 -‐ 15: Presentation preparation and Presentation of an AR cycle
Edge’s (2008: 238) highlights the role of presentation, i.e. articulation in AR:
A rigorous investigation which sets out to improve the quality of experience and outcome available to participants in a given situation, while also enhancing their ability to articulate an understanding of what they have learned, and thus their potential to continue to develop in this and other situations, as well as their potential to contribute to the creation of knowledge.
I think this is the most important stage of the programme, which forms the teacher’s
knowledge base (see Chapter 2). However, as I stated in Chapter 4, since teachers
follow their chosen path, it is impossible to plan in advance this part of the programme.
5.2 Six Principles
There are some principles I, as a teacher educator, am going to follow throughout the
course.
Principle 1: ‘Plants grow towards the light’.
For Units 4-12 mostly.
From my experience as an observer of how others teach, I have noticed that teachers
are usually reluctant to speak about problems but quite enthusiastically discuss
something of which they can be proud. Widdowson (1984:87) notes that an inability to
focus on possible problems ‘derives from a sense of self-protection on the part of the
teacher rather than from a desire to act in the learners' best interests’. To respond to the
49
issue, Edge (2010c) proposes the heliocentric principle, meaning that ‘we can develop
at least equally well by working towards our aspirations, rather than seeking to solve
our problems’. It is based on Yballe and O’Connor’s (2000) Appreciative pedagogy.
Teachers might not reach that ideal state but will be growing towards the light.
Looking at the process of searching for a focus for AR from this angle allows us to see
each problem as an affordance that our environment provides. It can be a problem-
oriented as well but does not need to be. In any case, as Edge (2010c) points out it
should be seen as ‘aspiration-focused’.
I see my major role in this course being able to encourage teachers to notice their
success, monitor their strengths, and to obtain some insights from this experience and
spread them to the other aspects of their teaching. It does not mean that there should not
be any failures the participants pursue; everything either positive or negative that
interests them can become a focus of their observation to work on.
Principle 2: ‘If you do not know what you do, how can you plan changes in it?’
For Units 4-12 mostly.
It is very hard to initiate the developmental process if you are not aware where you are
now. I agree with Edge (2010c), who speaks about values of our profession: It depends on each of us, alone and together, taking responsibility for finding out just what it is that we do now, and for deciding what the next step is going to be. The key to development is not to be found in some external model to copy. The key to development is believing that the best way for me to teach is exactly the way that I do teach, as long as I remain committed to the principle and to the practices of raising my awareness of what it is that I do, exploring alternatives, and looking to grow through my work.
There is a variety of means to facilitate an observation process, e.g. make a recording
(audio or video) or invite a colleague you trust, to observe your lesson.
Principle 3: Encourage forming teacher support groups
While appreciating earlier problem-solving models of AR, Burns (1999) puts forward
the idea of building a ‘community of inquiry’. From a wider horizon, a number of
authors appreciate mutual support as a vital part of teacher development (Richards and
Farrell, 2005; Edge, 2007; Motteram and Brown, 2008). Oliphant (1996:79) lists a
number of ideas and practical suggestions on how to establish the goals, group
structures and activities.
50
From my practice, forging real collegial ties through impromptu or ad hoc or
spontaneous collaboration and dialogue on site is more productive and lasting than
those set up from the outside. I hope, this will help us build a ‘community of practice’
(Wenger, 2001), where all members are ‘serious about collaborating and willing to
follow the group conventions and practices’ (Godwin-Jones, 2003:14).
Schwartz et al., (2004:2) propose Wikis as a tool to create such communities as it has
the following fundamental elements: a virtual presence, a variety of interactions, easy participation, valuable content, connections to a broader subject field, personal and community identity and interaction, democratic participation, and evolution over time … Many wikis also have a core group or individual that takes active responsibility for directing the community. They provide a forum for learners to discuss topics and obtain information relating to courses, extra curricular activities and associations in their fields of interest. Personal home pages and discussion areas help to humanize the learning experience, and to provide social interaction among students.
Godwin-Jones (2003:4) argues that ‘the goal of Wiki sites is to become a shared
repository of knowledge, with the knowledge base growing over time’ so we can use it
for the following group of teachers as a ‘knowledge base’ (see Chapter 2).
Taking all above into account, I have organised a wiki platform (see this chapter above)
where all the participants are be encouraged to participate by a set of learning principles,
necessary for the community to stay vibrant (Wubbels, 2007).
Principle 4: Use Vygotskian perspective on learning
Sociocultural theory, ZPD, mediation, scaffolding, dialogicality (see Chapter 3) can
serve the feedback principle I introduced in Chapter 4. One of the practical realisations
of the theories is Cooperative Development (CD) (Edge, 1992; 2003; 2004; 2006; Edge
and Malderez, 2003), a teacher development framework, based on the idea of the non-
judgemental discourse (Edge, 2006b:205 with reference to Rogers, 1969; 1980) and
built on three underlying principles: respect, empathy and sincerity. This combination of
awareness-raising and disciplined discourse lets those in the Speaker's shoes articulate
their thoughts in order to find a focus for their AR work, for instance.
Principle 5: Try new ideas instead of just talking about them
For Units 4-12 mostly.
Focus on the practicality, as one of the Kumaravadivelu’s (2001) triad (see Chapter 1),
51
is very important, not only in terms of action itself but as a chance to try something, and
then reflect on it and theorise more developed understanding of what happens in a
language classroom.
Aim: to inform oneself as to ‘whether things have improved or not from the various
perspectives of the people involved, and whether one understands more’ Edge
(2008:238).
Principles 6: Allocate enough time for discussion
This principle concerns ‘apprenticeship of knowledge’ I have pointed out in Chapter 2.
This is what Edge (personal communication with reference to Tony Wright) mentions
as follows: ‘Teachers come along with their cases pretty full, and if I want them to take
away something different, then I have to give them chance to unpack what they have
brought along’. However, it is impossible to avoid problems when people get together,
because people are what they are (Richards and Farrell, 2005) and in what follows I
address some of the issues.
5.3 Anticipated problems and solutions
Problem 1 A session as a moaning-shop
Oliphant (1996) speaks on how not to make a session a moaning-shop. For instance,
teachers might complain when they remember an issue during the lesson but then it
vanishes. Exploration needs training for teaching practice to remain mindful, i.e. a skill
to keep all those things that emerge during a lesson. Screen capture tools might help
here.
Problem 2 Different values and attitudes
I find it hard to be optimistic about sharing similar basic values with the participants.
Affordances of Web 2.0 tools, viewed through the lens of socio-cultural theory (see
Chapter 3) can be kept to a minimum if a teacher is obsessed with teacher-fronted,
teacher-centred ideas (see Chapter 1). A solution is accepting teachers - ‘understanding
does not mean agreeing’, using a non-judgemental positive attitude or ‘unconditional
positive regard’ as Rogers (1961: 283-84) first put it, within a CD framework.
Problem 3 Perception of technology
52
Some teachers view using technology as inappropriate in a very deep level. Negative
attitudes in teachers might be caused by technophobia. Although I have never
encountered with such a case in its extreme form, I think I should be ready for this.
Before the course starts, I am going to ask the teachers to fill in a self-evaluation
Teacher Technology Proficiency Checklist (see Appendix 8) and use results of this
survey in the planning of the units.
While there are people who still object to the use of technology in teaching, there are
those who think that introducing Web 2.0 automatically will do all the work for them or
think that there exists such a thing as ‘a direct unmediated link between Web 2.0 and
socio cultural pedagogical approaches, and that the introduction of Web 2.0
automatically engenders greater learner participation and interaction’ (Motteram and
Brown, 2008:124).
A solution to both issues seems to be a strong emphasis on praxis (see Chapter 2) and
facilitation of ‘theorizing’ slots (e.g. as in the sample Lesson in Appendix 7 – see Stages
1 and 4).
Problem 4 Lack of command of English
I am planning to conduct the sessions in English, but there are might be teachers whose
lack of command of English will impede their active participation. Kolesnikova (2005)
conducted a comparative study of two teacher training courses one run in Russian and
on in English and concludes that an integrated approach, where both languages are
combined, is better.
Problem 5 ‘Losing face’ issue
Face, an important aspect of identity (see Chapter 2), is defined by Scollon and Scollon
(2001: 45) as ‘the negotiated public image, mutually granted each other by participants
in a communicative event’. Since AR is an active and collaborative process, it might
cause a teacher to reveal ignorance or incompetence and therefore, lose face when
participants share their views, ideas, findings, etc. That is, losing face in front of
colleagues seems like a humiliating experience in any culture, and sense of insecurity
about getting things wrong may accompany the teachers throughout the course and
inevitably influence negatively their performance.
53
To deal with this issue, I have found Sfard’s (1998) metaphors of learning, namely
‘acquisition’ and ‘participation’, to be helpful in my thinking (albeit I redirect the terms
to suit my purpose rather than following her lead exactly). Here, acquisition, a private,
non-observable process, refers to the short ‘input’ sessions that every TD seminar has
(e.g. see Appendix 7, Lesson Plan, Stages 1 and 2) and the group talks (e.g. see
Appendix 7, Lesson Plan, Stage 3), presentations, etc., i.e. any lesson stage where
everyone can take only a listener role if they feel that they are not competent enough in
what is discussed. All in all, my feeling is that there are always those who are eager to
be active, who feel less pressure about losing face, e.g. Western-trained teachers (see
Chapter 1) in open reflection, and those for whom, say, to make a language mistake is to
lose face.
5.4 Course evaluation
Richard and Farrell’s (2005:3) point out that for teacher development opportunities to
take place, they need to be planned, supported and rewarded. In order to estimate each
course it is necessary to ask ourselves:
Ø How well is it planned?
Ø How well is it supported?
Ø How well is it rewarded?
Edge (2010c:4) proposes questions to be answered concerning each of three:
1. Will there be dedicated, paid time in the teacher’s workload?
2. Can timetables be adjusted?
3. Can a room be made available?
4. Refreshments?
5. Can speakers be invited?
6. Can attendance at conferences be funded?
7. Can secretarial or administrative support be provided?
There are a number of criteria to use to answer each question:
1) Teacher engagement;
2) How well can I see them through;
54
3) Classroom change;
4) Articulating results;
5) How a presentation draws more teachers in.
I believe that teachers’ feedback and my reflections on all of the above issues will
inform later iterations of the course according to the Successive Approximation Model
within Rapid Prototyping approach (see Chapter 4 and Figure 4 in particular) and
contribute to the development of the courseware.
5.5 Conclusion
This course is a major undertaking for me as a newbie researcher and I am going to do it
along with my teachers for the first time. It will be very interesting to observe how a
very specific response to an issue from a very specific context will or will not become
an enlightening experience for the others in the programme. Irrespective of the outcome,
teachers will experience how AR works, so that they can decide to what extent they
want to apply it to their teaching.
55
Conclusion
Theoretically, all people look positively on the notion of development, the idea that
such a development course will help them be better placed to deal with the new tools
and will contribute to restoring their self-esteem. I hope that my learner teachers will
reshape their discourses of ‘the best method’ and ‘the best tool’ (see Introduction) and
then take more global contextual changes and go on developing both personally and
professionally. Technology here plays a role of a Trojan Horse in a positive sense of
this historical concept.
To consider a wider horizon, I follow Edge (2010b:4) that ‘the purpose of teacher
education is to pass on to the next generation those values that we value most highly’.
Passing is implied to not only what we say but also more significantly the ways we act
(Edge, 2005:184). I hope, this course will truly realise my intention to base educational
procedures on the same ground as those implied in a truly democratic society. Арабов
[Arabov] (2012:1) with reference to a Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili
points out that in order to bear democracy a society needs muscles the same way as a
woman needs muscles to give birth to a child. I believe my course, pursuing principles
of liberty, equality and community, will be one of those tiny muscles.
Equality is ‘in the sense of a mutual respect for the various traditions that feed into
different educational cultures’ (Edge, 2005:185). Russian educational culture has very
deep roots (see Chapter 1) and language teachers come into the profession with the
baggage of the work of such scholars as Vygotsky, Luria, Leontiev, Galperin, Bakhtin,
among others. The crux of the issue is how not to turn this baggage into burden of
declarative knowledge and this is where praxis (see Chapter 2) comes into play where
educational heritage helps theorize their practice and get new insight into.
Liberty, in the sense that teachers’ individual responsibility for their teaching, is to
become the best teacher for their students that they can be. If a teacher applies the
grammar translation method (see Chapter 1) and its principles are rooted in their own
value system, there is no sense in asserting that they will easily change it once being
told (see Chapter 2). On the contrary, the teachers choose a focus of their own and their
own deepened understanding of what is going on around them by the means of AR will
56
equip them with clear understanding of what needs changing. To paraphrase Boldwin
(1964, in Edge, 2005:185): it is a teacher who takes the freedom, which cannot be given.
As far as I am concerned, this course design turned out to be an AR project for me as a
teacher educator as well. To add, I believe that my work will influence positively the
learning of students through the work of the course participants. Although what I
accomplished is grounded on my understanding of Russian reality, it can have
resonance for other practitioners here in Russia, owing to the strategic planning in my
country, where English Language Education has been given a priority (Каспржак
[Kasprjak], 2012) and in relatable settings worldwide.
57
References Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research 1/1: 7-24. Albion, P.R. (2008). Web 2.0 in Teacher Education: Two Imperatives for Action. Computers in the Schools 25/3: 181-198. Allen, M. (2006). Creating successful e-learning: A rapid system for getting it right first time, every time. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Almabekova, O. (2010). Reflective Teaching in ESP. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 3: 462-475. Bartels, N. (2004). Linguistics imperialism. TESOL Quarterly 38/1:128-132. Bakhtin, M. M. (2004). Speech Genres & Other Late Essays. McGee, V. W. Trans., 9 ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Baxter, J. (1983). English for Intercultural Competence: An approach to Intercultural Communication Training. In Landis, D. and Brislin, R.W. (eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Communication Training (Vol. II). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 290-324. Blake, R. J. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. ARAL 27: 76-97. Borg, S. (1997). Unifying concepts in the study of teachers’ cognitive structures. Unpublished manuscript. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language teaching 36: 81–109. Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language teaching 43/4: 391–429 Boud, D. and Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education. 23/2: 191-206. Britten, D. (1988). Three stages in teacher training. ELT Journal 42/1: 3-8. Brown, S (n.d.). Putting social software into context: approaches in the field of language teacher training. University of Manchester. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://www.education.manchester.ac.uk/research/centres/lta/ltaresearch/socioculturaltheoryinterestgroupsctig/socioculturaltheoryineducationconference2007/conferencepapers/grouponepapers/_files/fileuploadmax10mb,135129,en.pdf Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2002). Teachers’ voices: Exploring action research in Australia. New Routes Magazine [Sa ̃o Paulo] 18: 12–15.
58
Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching 38/2: 57–74. Burns, A. (2009). Action research in Second Language Teacher Education. in Burns, A. and Richards, J. (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2010a). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge. Burns, A (2010b). Doing action research – what’s in it for teachers and institutions? IH Journal of Education and Development № 29, Retrieved June 25.2012 from http://ihjournal.com/doing-action-research-%E2%80%93-what%E2%80%99s-in-it-for-teachers-and-institutions-by-anne-burns/doing-action-research2 Burns, A. and Richards, J. (eds.) (2009). The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carrasco, M. (2006). Software development in the real world: Best of the best Web 2.0 web sites. Retrieved 2 July 2012 from http://www.realsoftwaredevelopment.com/2006/10/best_of_the_bes.html Cennamo, K. and Kalk, D. (2005). Introduction to Instructional Design. In Cennamo, K and Kalk, D., Real World Instructional Design. California: Belmont. 1-19. Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia call: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology 2: 22-34. Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly 2/8: 9-26. Clarke, M. (2003a). A systems perspective of changing, teaching and learning. In Clarke, M. A place to stand: essays for educators in troubled times. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 31-63. Clarke, M. (2003b). Finding a place to stand. In Clarke, M. A place to stand: essays for educators in troubled times. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 187-232. Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative Development. ELT Journal. 46/1: 62-70. Edge, J. (2001). Search and re-search: An attitude to life, action and theory. English Teaching Professional 20: 5-7.
Edge, J. (2003). Collegial self-development. English Teaching Professional 27: 58-60.
Edge, J. (2004). Professional Development among the Troops. Essential Teacher 1/3: 46-48.
59
Edge, J. (2005). Build it and they will come: Realising values in ESOL teacher education. In D. Tedick (ed.) Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 181-198. Edge, J (ed.) (2006a). (Re)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Edge, J. (2006b). Computer-mediated Cooperative Development: Non-judgemental discourse in online environments. Language Teaching Research 10/2: 205-227. Edge, J. (2007). Developing the community of practice in the AMEP. Prospect 22/1: 3-18. Edge, J. (2008). Discourses in search of coherence. In Garton, S. and Richards, K. (eds.) Professional Encounters in TESOL: Discourses of Teachers in Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 232-247. Edge, J. (2010a). Teaching Text 2. Education of Language Teachers. Manchester: MA TESOL course materials. Edge, J. (2010b). Teaching Text 1. Education of Language Teachers. Manchester: MA TESOL course materials. Edge, J. (2010c). Teacher development: Some principles in practice. ABLA ELT Conference Teachers as Learners. 31 July 2010. Cali, Colombia. Edge, J. (2011). The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL. Roots and wings. New York and London: Routledge. Edge, J. (n.d.1). Professional Development for Language Teachers Jack Richards and Thomas Farrell Cambridge University Press (2005). Commentaries. Chapter 12 Action Research. Education of Language Teachers. Manchester: MA TESOL course materials. Edge, J. (n.d.2) Professional Development for Language Teachers. Jack Richards and Thomas Farrell. Cambridge University Press (2005). Commentaries. Chapter 1 The Nature of Teacher Education. Education of Language Teachers. Manchester: MA TESOL course materials. Edge, J. and Malderez, A. (2003). Alternative Discourses. ELT Journal 57/4: 386-394. Eldridge, J. (2005). Rendering unto Caesar: the ambivalent case of in-service teacher training. In TD SIG Newsletter 1/05: 6-10. Ertmer, P. A, Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2) Retrieved August 22.2012 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html Feryok, A. (2005). Personal practical theories: exploring the role of language teacher experiences and beliefs in the integration of theory and practice. PhD Thesis. University of Auckland. Foley, J. (1994). Key concepts: Scaffolding. ELT Journal 48/1: 101-102.
60
Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: three approaches to in-service training and development. TESOL Quarterly 16/1: 21-8. Freeman, D (1989). Teacher Training, Development, and Decision Making: A Model of Teaching and Related Strategies for Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly 23/1: 27 - 45. Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualising the knowledge-base of English Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly 32: 397–417 Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. (2004). Common misconceptions about the “quiet revolution”: A response to Yates and Muchisky. TESOL Quarterly 38/1: 119-127. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gettys, S. (2000). Foreign Language Education and Teacher Preparation in Russia and the United States: The Etic Perspective. ADFL Bulletin 31/3: 33–38 Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. [Electronic Version]. Language, Learning and Technology, 7/2: 12 – 16. Hall, A. (2007). Vygotsky Goes Online: Learning Design from a Socio-cultural Perspective. Learning and Socio-cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives. International Workshop 2007. Retrieved August 22.2012 from http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/vol1/iss1/6 Hart, J. (2009). The Top 100 Tools for Learning. Retrieved August 02.2012 from http://www.slideshare.net/janehart/top-100-tools-for-learning-2009-2509241 Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., and Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: Whatwould it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher 31/5: 3–15. Irujo, S. (1993). Letter to the Editor. TESOL Matters 3/4: 22. Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 40/1: 235-257. Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: a review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38/4: 383–408. Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggert (eds) (1998). The action research planner. (3rd edn). Victoria: Deakin University. Kolesnikova, I. L. (2005). English or Russian? English language teacher training and education. World Englishes 24: 471–476 Kontra, E. (1997). Reflections on the purpose of methodology training. ELT Journal 51/3: 242-250. Kozulin, A and Venger, A (1994). Immigration without adaptation: The psychological
61
world of Russian immigrants in Israel. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1/4: 230-238. Krashen, S., (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-Hall, New York. Retrieved August 22.2012 from http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35/4: 537-560. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lund, A. (2008) Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL 20/1: 35-54. Malderez, A. (2009). Mentoring. In Burns, A. and Richards, J. (eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 259-268. Mazzolini, M., and Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers and Education 40/ 237-253. McCloughlin, C., Oliver,R. (1999). Maximising the language and learning link in computer learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology 29/2: 125-136. McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007. 664-675. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research 75/4: 531–566. Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal 55/4: 339–346. Motteram, G. (2009). Social computing and teacher education: an agenda for course development.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3/1. Motteram, G. and Brown, S. (2008). A context-based approach to Web 2.0 and language education. In Thomas, M. Hershey, Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. PA: ISI Global. Motteram, G. and Brown, S (n.d.). Design Models. Evaluation and Design of Educational Software. Manchester: MA Educational Technology and TESOL course materials. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://web-basededucationalmaterials.wikispaces.com/Design+Models
62
Norman, D. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday. OECD (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. OECD Publications Service, Paris. Oliphant, K. (1996). Teacher development groups: Growth through cooperation. ÍKALA 1: 67- 86. Retrieved July 5.2012 from http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ikala/issue/view/840 O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Peachey, N. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Tools for Teachers. E-book. Retrieved August 02.08.2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/19576895/Web-20-Tools-for-Teachers Pergrum, M. (n.d.). E-tools. Retrieved August 02.08.2012 from http://e-language.wikispaces.com/e-tools Picardo, J (n.d.). Resources A – Z. Retrieved August 02.08.2012 from http://www.boxoftricks.net/internet-resouces-for-education/ Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method – why?. TESOL Quarterly 24/2: 161–176. Postman, N. (1992). What is the Problem to which Headlamp Washer-wipers are the Solution? Keynote Address given at the annual Educom Conference, Baltimore, MD. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books. An extract retrieved June 22.2012 from http://dl1.yukoncollege.yk.ca/SOCI209/stories/storyReader$421 Reinders, H. (2009). Technology and second language teacher education. In Burns, A. and Richards, J. C. (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press, 230-237. Richards, J.C. (1996). Teachers’ Maxims in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30/2: 281-96. Richards, J.C. (2008). Second Language Teacher Education Today. RELC 39/2: 158-177. Richards, J. C., and Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and Farrell, T.S. (eds) (2005). Professional Development For Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming A Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Merrill.
63
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston:Houghton Mifflin. Rogoff, B. (1993). Children’s participation and participatory appropriation in socio- cultural activity. In R. H. Wozniak and K. W. Fischer (Eds.). Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 121–153. Sagor, R. (1992). Howto conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Salaberry, R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. Modern Language Journal 84/4: 537-554. Saricoban, A., Kùrùm, E. Y (2011). The implementation of collaborative Web 2.0 tools in ELT classrooms. 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7, 2011. Sarajevo. Schmid, E.C. (2008). The Pedagogical Potential of Interactive Whiteboards 2.0. In Thomas, M. Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition Technologies: Web 2.0 Transformation of Learning. University of Education Heidelberg. Scholey, M. (n.d.). Case Study: ESP Trainer Training Materials in Russia: A Distance Management of the Materials Writing Process. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://www.marjon.ac.uk/mobile/courses/international/internationalprofile/ourworkworldwide/anthology/RussiaMikeScholey.pdf Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Schwartz,L., Clark, S., Cossarin, M. & Rudolph, J. (2004). Technical Evaluation Report 27. Educational Wikis: features and selection criteria. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5/1: 1-6. Retrieved August 24.2012 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/163/244 Scollon, R., and Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Selwyn, N. (2010) The educational significance of social media – a critical perspective. Keynote debate at Ed-Media conference. Toronto, 28th June to 2nd July. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27/2: 4-13. Sharp, H. (2007). What is interaction design? In Sharp, H. Interaction design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1-42. Smirnova, L. (2010). Exploring newer post-TEFL teaching paradigms: TELF and TEIC. An assignment for EDUC70040 Language Education as Intercultural Practice. MA Educational Technology and TESOL. Manchester University.
64
Smith, P., and T. Ragan. (1999). Instructional design. 2nd ed. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Son J-B. (2011). Online Tools for Language Teaching. TESL-EJ 15/1: 21-25. Taylor, A., Lazarusb, E. and Cole, R. (2005). Putting languages on the (drop down) menu: innovative writing frames in modern foreign language teaching, Educational Review 57/4: 435-455. Thorne, S. (2003). Artefacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology 7/2: 38-67. Tripp, S.D. and Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid proto- typing: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Developmen, 38/1: 31-44. Tudge, J. R .H. (1991). Education of young children in the Soviet Union: current practice in historical perspective. Elementary School Journal 92/1: 121–133. Ur, P. (1992). Teacher learning. English Language Teaching Journal 46: 56–61. Van Lier, L. (1994). Action research. Sintagma 6: 31–37. Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: social interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. (ed). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245-59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warschauer, M., and Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: the emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27: 1-23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E (2001). Supporting communities of practice: a survey of community-oriented technologies. Self-published report. Retrieved August 24.2012 from www.ewenger.com/tech West, R and Frumina, E. (2012). Baseline Study – Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education – the English Language Component. British Council.
65
Widdowson, H. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1984). The incentive value of theory in teacher education. ELT Journal
38/2: 86-90. Winetroube, S. and Kuznetsova, L. (Eds) (2002). Specialist English Teaching and Learning — The State of the Art in Russia: Baseline Study Report . Moscow, The British Council. Publishing House ‘Petropolis’. Wubbels, T. (2007). Do we know a community of practice when we see one? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 225–233. Yates, R. and Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualising teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 37/1: 135-147. Yates, R. and Muchisky, D. (2004). Defending the discipline, field and profession. TESOL Quarterly 38/1: 134-140. Yballe, L. & O’Connor, D. (2000). Appreciative pedagogy: Constructing positive models for learning. Journal of Management Education 24/4: 474–483. *** Арабов, [Arabov, Y.] Ю. (2012). Дифирамб [Difiramb/ Dithyramb]. Интервью Эхо Москвы [Interview to Echo Moscow]. Retrieved August 28.2012 from http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/dithyramb/908499-echo/ Бахтин, [Bakhtin] М.М. (1979). Эстетика словесного творчества [Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva/ The aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Москва, Искусство, 2-е издание. [Moscow, Iskysstvo, 2nd ed] Зимняя, [Zymnyaya, I. S.] И.А. (2003). Ключевые компетенции – новая парадигма результата образования. [ Kiychevie kompetensii – novaia paradigm obrazovania / Key Competencies Are a New Paradigm of Educational Results]. Высшее образование сегодня [Vischee obrazovanie segodnia / Higher Rducation today]. 5. Каспржак, [Kasprjak, A.G.] А.Г. (2012). Стратегия-2020: основные подходы [Strategia-2020: Osnovnie podchodi / Strategy- 2020: Key Approaches]. Основной доклад конференции: Тенденции развития образования. 17-18 февраля [Keynote address at the Conference: Tendencies of education development, February, 17-18]. Ленская, [Lenskaya] Е.А. (2008). Качество образования и качество подготовки учителя [Kachestvo obrazovaniia i kachestvo podgotovki ychitelia / Quality of Education and Quality of Teacher Education]. Вопросы образования [Voprosi obrazovania / Journal of Educational Studies] 4:81-95. Ленская, [Lenskaya] Е.А (2012). Ленская: учитель искренне верит, что только он знает правильный ответ [Lenskaia: ychitel iskrenne verit chto tolko on znaet pravilnii otvet / Lenskaya: A teacher truly believes that it is only them who know the right answer]. Retrieved August 02.2012 from http://www.ria.ru/edu_analysis/20120301/582437622.html
66
Фрумина, [Frumina, E. L.] Е.Л. (2008). Непрерывное образование для педагогов: модели и особенности [Neprerivnoe obrazovanie dlia pedagogov / Continuous education for teachers: models and specifics]. Ключарев, Г.А. (отв. ред). Непрерывное образование в политическом и экономическом контекстах [In Klucharev, G.A.(ed.). Continuous education in the political and economic contexts]. Москва, РАН [Moscow, RAE], 274-292.
67
Appendix 1 Unit 1 Aims and objectives: To get to know each other, reflect on trainees’ own English learning experience, to establish common ground with the trainer.
1. Warm-Up1: Recall one of your English lessons as a language learner, think
about:
Ø Your feelings;
Ø Your expectations;
Ø Your fears; and
Ø The other learners.
2. Lead-in2: Write two lists: one of the positive things and the other of the negative
aspects.
3. To what extent does your language learning experience influences you when you
teach? Could you give an example?
4. Now think about your first lesson with a new group. What kind of first
impression would you like to make on your learners? Share your ideas3.
5. Follow-up: To what extent do you agree with the following statements:
a. ‘practitioner research, in addition to traditional educational research, can
build the knowledge base for teaching’ (Schulte (2004:710);
b. ‘Is collecting and using a folder full of teaching recipes the same as
learning how to teach?’ (Kontra 1997:242).
We might finally come up with the idea that while copying recipes might result in
someone being able to teach English, they would not be able to teach the learners:
'teaching is not flipping burgers or any other skill, but creating learning opportunities'
Freeman (1995).
Hold a plenary to share ideas.
1 Adapted from: Tanner, R. & Green, C. (1998). Tasks for Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P 1 2 ibid 3 ibid
68
Appendix 2 Unit 2 A rough introduction plan
1. An awareness-raising task (see Appendices 3 and 4)
2. Q and A session, introduction of ‘trying and undergoing concept’ Edge (2010c:1ff.):
‘I take this also directly from John Dewey, what I mean by ‘experience’ here, is something more that just the general happenstance of getting by. What I mean by ‘experience’ is a two-way interaction between what Dewey called trying and undergoing — and which I think of as shaping and being shaped. I reach out to try to do something, and what I do has its effect, in turn, on me — I undergo change. I shape my environment in a certain way, and that changed environment reaches back to shape me. When we work consciously not only to try, not only to shape, but also to work on our awareness of what we have undergone, how we are being shaped, then we engage as active, mindful agents in our own development’.
3. A very small-scale Action Research cycle:
The idea is to give the teachers enough time to talk about it, perhaps even spread it from
face to face interaction to online discussion in the wikispaces1.
Example: The possible topics for the session on using resources:
1. Using the coursebook;
2. Adapting the coursebook;
3. Technological aids;
4. Using the Internet;
5. Out-of-class activities; and
6. Teaching without printed materials
1 http://actionresearchelt.wikispaces.com/
69
Appendix 3 Unit 2. The task: Read the vignette and match the Action Research stages (see Appendix 4) to their realisation in Jake’s account1 Vignette My first experience with action research was quite positive, dare I say enlightening? Two questions prompted my investigation. The topics were homework and student-teacher interaction. Both issues were problems at the time. Students often did not complete their homework. They claimed they hadn’t enough time to complete their work, as they were busy with other classes and homework. The second issue dealt with teacher complaints that students were reluctant to interact during class. Teachers frequently complained that students were one-sided and lacked individual character and personality. The solution? Write up a questionnaire investigating students’ extracurricular activities, schedules, and free-time activities (and a number of related questions as well). The questionnaires were written in the students’ L1 in order to accommodate less proficient students. The survey was given to 150 students at a private institute. They ranged in age from 8 years old through 17 years old. Additionally, 180 middle school students at a public school answered the survey. The results of the survey were enlightening. When shared with other staff members, the results were put to use, again with positive results that even dispelled cultural misperceptions. The results of the survey went against current perceptions by students, parents, and teachers. Often parents claim that their children study constantly and have little time for extracurricular activities. Teachers, especially Western teachers, cling to the belief that their students attend private institutes continuously from after school until late at night, often till midnight, which naturally led to the conclusion that students were tired, bored, and unmotivated. However, students reported having sufficient time for excessive computer game playing, TV and video watching, sleeping, soccer, attending church, visiting downtown on weekends, chatting on the Internet with friends and strangers until 2 to 3 a.m., listening to music, and generally “killing time.” Only three respondents claimed to have a full schedule of private institutes or private lessons, thereby making my school’s homework a difficult task to complete. It seems the others were “crying wolf.” As a result, a homework policy was instituted. Within 6 months, homework completion rates were
1 adapted from Richard and Farrell’s (2005:173ff.)
70
over 90 percent. The few who do not complete their homework prefer to stay after classes to do their homework regardless of penalties. The other positive effect from this action research project was the introduction of cultural/age-based workshops in teacher-training meetings. The student interest reports were shown to teachers. Teachers then worked together to learn about topics of interest to students. This information was used by teachers in the class to promote student-teacher or student-student interaction, especially in times of silence caused by reluctant students or restrictive textbooks. Student motivation and participation increased. I no longer hear many teacher complaints that students lack character or are dull and apathetic. On the contrary, teachers now talk with enthusiasm about students’ personal anecdotes in the teachers’ room. Why the positive results? Perhaps because the questionnaire, in L1, prompted the children and teenagers to feel important; perhaps because we, the school and teachers, were truly interested in them as real people and not as robotic students. That was my first experience with action research. The results may not be applicable to all young learner classes in every country, but in my context, the results are applicable. I have used the information to inform teachers to be more sensitive to young learner interests. Action research has also given me a sense of professionalism and a desire to continue researching. Jake Kimball Reflection
Ø What sort of demands did Jake’s research involve?
Ø What are the main benefits of the research (a) for the teacher and (b) for the
learners?
71
Appendix 4
Unit 2. Action Research Cycle
Stage 1 • Data Collection (Qualitative Data) (student survey, test results, observation,
lesson report) • Data triangulation • Analysis of data • Reflection
Stage 2 • Intervening • Data Collection (triangulation of data); student survey, test results, observation,
lesson report • Analysis • Reflection
Stage 3 • Writing • Presentation
72
Appendix 5 Unit 3: Introduction of ICT A mindmap of Web 2.01
A part of the mindmap above for vocabulary practice:
1 Retrieved August 16.2012 from: http://ow.ly/10cgL
73
Word cloud tools
74
Appendix 6
Units 4-12: Possible areas for discussion1 Session 1 Activating vocabulary
• Word manipulations activities
• Designing a sequence of tasks
Classroom management 1: Asking questions
• Types of question
• Questioning strategies: eliciting
• Student questions
Session 2 Focus on grammar
• The PPP lesson
• Presenting meaning
• Highlighting form
• Checking understanding
• Contrasting forms
• Text-‐base presentation
Classroom management 2: Using the board
• Organising a board
• Using an interactive WB
• Using presentation tools
Session 3 Practising structures
• Controlled practice
1 Adapted from: http://itdi.pro/courseTD.html Last accessed 30.06.2012
75
• Meaningful practice
• Personalisation
• Written practice activities
Classroom management 3: Using the board
• Using visual aids
• Using real objects
• Charts and diagrams
• Using video-‐clips
Session 4 Planning a lesson
• Stages of a lesson
• Aims of a lesson
• Using a teacher’s guide
• Writing a lesson plan
• Different lesson shapes
Classroom management 4: Pair and groupwork
• Pair and groupwork activities
• Teacher’s role in pair and groupwork
• Lockstep activities
• Other kind of groups
Session 5 Teaching pronunciation
• Focusing on sounds
• Highlighting word stress
• Stress rhythm and intonation
• Using a phonetic chart
• Using audio aids
Writing activities
• Writing lesson
• Controlled writing activities
76
• Using a model text
• Freer practice
• Correcting writing
Classroom management 5: Correcting errors
• Correction techniques
• Self-‐correction
• Using learners’ errors
Session 6 Reading lesson
• Using a text in class
• Pre-‐reading activities
• While reading tasks
• Checking comprehension
• Responding to a text
• Using literary tests
• Extensive reading
• Looking at text difficulty
Classroom management 6: Learner autonomy
• Self-‐directed learning
• Learner training
Session 7 Listening lesson
• A listening lesson
• Pre-‐listening tasks
• While-‐listening tasks
• Checking understanding
• Using audio-‐recording and podcasts
• Follow-‐up tasks
• Real life listening
Classroom management 7: Communicative activities
77
• Information gap activities
• Guessing games
• Surveys and questionnaires
Session 8 Speaking lesson
• Dialogues
• Role plays
• Discussions
Classroom management 8: Using English in class
• Encouraging English use
• Social language
• Management language
• Explanation
• Using the students’ L1
Session 9 Classroom tests
• Types of tests
• Informal testing
• Testing receptive skills
• Testing grammar and vocabulary
• Testing oral skills
• Student designed tests
Classroom management 9: Motivating students
• Types of motivation
• Motivational strategies
• Dealing with unmotivated
78
Appendix 7 Sample Unit 4 Activating vocabulary1 Aims and objectives:
1. Review some of the principles underlying the activation of vocabulary.
2. Experience a sequence of tasks designed to activate vocabulary.
3. Theorise activity sequences from the point of view of vocabulary learning
principles.
4. Practise Word clouds and Mindmapping Web 2.0 tools
5. Choose a focus for AR.
Session plan:
Stage
Timing,
min
Interaction
Materials
1. Warm-Up or Pre-sessional:
matching task
10–15
individuals; pairs; open class report
Worksheet (w/s) for stage 1
2. Lead – In: experiential task (see
the Trainer’s notes below)
25–30
open class; groups of 3-4
w/s for stage 2
3. Post-task reflection
15–20
pairs; open class
w/s for stage 3
4. Follow-Up: theorizing of their
experience with word manipulations activities, e.g. using the notions from Stage 1
5-10
pairs / small groups; open class report
w/s for stage 1
5. Functions and affordances of Word
clouds (+ comparative analysis), Mind maps and/or Concordance-like software and/or some other tools (see the list below) if time permits
5-10
trainer
w/s 4
1 Ideas and materials for stages 1-4 of the session are adapted from: Thornbury, S. (2004). How to activate vocabulary. Natural English Teacher Development Series. Oxford University Press
79
6. Practice of the chosen Web 2.0
tools (see the Trainer’s notes below)
10 – 15 open class
7. Discussion around possible focuses for the Action Research
45 – 60 open class
8. HW: Post your thoughts on Stage 6 in the Discussion Space1
_
Trainer’s notes2:
For stage 2:
1) Write the following Maori words on the board along with their English equivalents:
kereru = pigeon
makimaki = monkey
hipi = sheep
kaka = parrot
tuna = eel
kiwi = kiwi
kuri = dog
ruru = owl
mako = shark
wheke = octopus
poaka = pig
tohora = whale
2) Ask the trainees first to repeat the words as you read them from the list.
3) Ask the trainees, working individually and silently, to try to learn as many of the
words as they can in five minutes. Then, with your hand or a piece of card, cover the
English equivalents of individual words, in a random order, and see if trainees can
tell you what its Maori equivalent means.
4) Do the same in reverse, i.e. cover individual Maori words in random order, until
satisfied that most of the class can recall most of the words.
5) One by one, erase the English words, checking each time that the class knows what
1 http://actionresearchelt.wikispaces.com/ 2 Thornbury, S. (2004). How to activate vocabulary. Detailed Plan. Natural English Teacher Development Series. Oxford University Press. P.1-2
80
its Maori equivalent means. Do the same with the Maori words, until the board is
clear.
6) Theorising: ask them how well they think they have learned the words, and what
kinds of memory techniques they used to help them learn the words (e.g. similarity
with the English [Russian] equivalent, word associations e.g. hipi – hippie, etc.).
7) Divide the class into groups of four. Hand out the sets of word cards you have
prepared in advance, one set per group. Ask the trainees to work together, and to do
the following tasks one by one, checking in open class the results of each task in
turn as the groups complete them. (First point out that they learned twelve words but
that there are fifteen in the set of word cards).
1. Eliminate the three words that weren’t included at the learning stage.
2. Put the remaining words in the order that they were originally presented on
the board.
3. Match any pairs that rhyme.
4. Group the twelve words into three sets of four words each, so that each word
in the set has something in common.
5. Decide which could be the odd-one-out in each set of four – and why.
6. Choose one member of each set of four that the group agrees would make a
good pet – and why.
7. Choose one set of four and rank the four according to the probable results of
a race i.e. Who would win, come second, etc.?
8. Then, individual members of the group take turns to either draw or imitate
the sound or gait of one of the items, while the others try to guess which one
it is – using its Maori name.
9. Finally, each group member chooses one of the 12 words and writes a true /
false sentence (in English, but using the relevant Maori), which he or she
then reads out to the group, who decide if it is true or false.
81
For stage 5
Word clouds
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
https://bubbl.us/
www.wordle.com
http://www.wordsift.com/
http://www.abcya.com/word_clouds.htm
http://tagul.com/
Mindmapping
http://www.mindmeister.com
http://www.visuwords.com/
Instead of concordances:
http://www.wordandphrase.info/frequencyList.asp
http://www.just-the-word.com/
http://www.wordsearchmaker.net
Miscellaneous
http://www.lextutor.ca/ My words (free trial): http://mws.ust.hk
http://www.jigzone.com/puzzles/
82
Photocopiable © Oxford University Press 2004 how to … activate vocabulary worksheet for stage 1
worksheet for stage 1
how to …activate vocabulary
naturalEnglishteacher developmentby Scott Thornbury
Try to match the first half (1–5) and second half (A–E) of each extract. They are all on the subject of learningvocabulary.
Then, think about the implications of any or all of these statements in terms of teaching vocabulary. Be prepared toshare your ideas with the rest of the class.
1 ‘The human lexicon is believed to be a network A ‘That is, if the words occur in new sentence contexts inof associations, a web-like structure of the reading text, learning will be helped. Similarly,interconnected links.’ having to use the word to say new things will add
to learning.’Nation, I.S.P. (2001)
2 ‘The act of successfully recalling an item B ‘In the case of vocabulary, the more one engages withincreases the chance that the item will be a word (deeper processing), the more likely the wordremembered.’ will be remembered for later use.’
Schmitt, N. (2000)
3 ‘The more one manipulates, thinks about, and C ‘When students are asked to manipulate words, relate uses mental information, the more likely it is them to other words and to their own experiences, andthat one will retain that information.’ then to justify their choices, these word associations
are reinforced.’Sökmen, A.J. (1997)
4 ‘When words are met in reading and listening D ‘That is, learners might be able to recognize a givenor used in speaking and writing, the lexical item when it is presented to them or they may begenerativeness of the context will influence able to infer its meaning, but this is not at all the samelearning.’ thing as recalling items for use.’
Carter, R. (1998)
5 ‘A learner’s active/productive vocabulary is E ‘It appears that the retrieval route to that item is in somealways smaller than his or her passive/receptive way strengthened by being successfully used.vocabulary.’ Baddeley, A. (1997)
References:
Baddeley, A., Human Memory: Theory and Practice (Revised edition) (1997) p.112.Reproduced by permission of Psychology Press.
Carter, R., Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives (Second Edition) (1998) p.213.Reproduced by permission of Routledge.
Nation, I.S.P., Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (2001) p.80 Reproduced bypermission of Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., Vocabulary in Language Teaching (2000) p.120. Reproduced bypermission of Cambridge University Press.
Sökmen, A.J., in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description,Acquisition and Pedagogy (1997) pp.241–242. Reproduced by permission ofCambridge University Press.
83
Photocopiable © Oxford University Press 2004 how to … activate vocabulary worksheet for stage 2
worksheet for stage 2
how to…activate vocabulary
naturalEnglishteacher developmentby Scott Thornbury
kereru
moko
hipi
makimaki
tuna
poaka
wheke
mako
ikakaka
ruru
kuri
kiwi
kiore
tohora
84
Think back on the activities you have just done, and complete this table as best you can.
activity activity type: cognitive depth: focus on form recognitionordering / ranking, high, medium, or meaning? or production?matching, selecting, low?sorting, or guessing?
eliminate 3 words
original order
rhyming pairs
3 categories
odd-one-out
a good pet?
race results?
guess the word
true / false (sentence writing)
Photocopiable © Oxford University Press 2004 how to … activate vocabulary worksheet for stage 3
worksheet for stage 3
how to…activate vocabulary
naturalEnglishteacher developmentby Scott Thornbury
Worksheet 4 A comparison table of seven word clouds web 2.0 tools1 Wordle Word it
out Wordsift Word Mosaic Tagul Word
Clouds Beta
Tagxedo
Selection of words to include
Automatic selection of most frequent
words; possible to pre-edit text and
repeat words; adding ~ between
words allows phrases to
appear. Right-clicking on word
gives you “remove word” option
Word cloud is editable from the
settings tab you get ‘remove
word” option
Yes, through the
‘Workspace’ funtion; click on this and then drag
words out of cloud
Yes, by pre-editing test, although words are repeated to fill shapeBy deleting them from original
text which is always visible next to cloud
As for WordleBy clicking on cloud, text
is made available
for editing
By pre-editing
textLater when the cloud is
ready you can right-click on a
word and are given the option of deleting
Tagxedo makes an initial
selection of words and you can later edit
the cloud from the Words menu by clicking on
“keep” you actually “Skip”!!
Highlighting of specific
words
Done automatically by frequency of words in text but
you can affect this by repeating words you want to make
stand out
Yes, allows words to be
larger or made smaller
This is done automatically but you can repeat words you want to
highlight
Not possible – random words appear larger
Yes, by frequency
as in Wordle
This is very random but
you may randomize the shape again and again; if
lucky, your key concept may appear
larger
As for Word Cloud Beta
Shape of word cloud
Various options available
More limited options
Standard linear but workspace allows drag & drop to make
new cloud plus pictures from
page
Choice of shapes to fill; more options
available to registered users
Choice of shapes
Limited options, e.g. all vertical,
all horizontal or half and half
Tagxedo has some nice pre-set shapes you can fill with
words but it is very difficult to constrain them
within the shape boundaries
Colour scheme
Yes, many options available; can customize colours
Yes, many options available
No Yes Yes Yes Yes a large variety available
Choice of fonts
Yes Yes fewer No Yes a few Yes Yes limited Yes but not standard fonts although you
can upload your own
Phrases Yes by joining words you want to show as a phrase
with ~
No No No No Yes if a hyphen is
inserted but hyphen
appears in cloud
As for wordle
Saving word cloud
Yes – available from Wordle
site. Can be saved by screen capture as an image which can
then be edited
Yes can be saved and embedding allowed but will show
only if link back to
Word it out included
with cloud.
No but can be saved by
screen capture
Allows embedding in website or blog
Allows embedding
Saves as a jpeg image into your hard drive
Word clouds can be saved as
jpeg or ping images but
animation is lost. Embedding
is quite difficult; to date
I have not managed it but
will keep trying!
1 Adapted from Constantinides, M. (n.d.). Word clouds. A blog entry from http://marisaconstantinides.edublogs.org/wiki/word-clouds/#.UC5qgERC8eM Last assessed: 16/08/201
86
Appendix 8 Teacher Technology Proficiency Checklist1
1Retrieved August 20.2012 from http://ascscomputers.wikispaces.com/file/view/TechProfCklst.pdf
Teacher Technology Proficiency Checklist Information Access, Evaluation, Processing, and Application I am able to: � Navigate the World Wide Web effectively � Access newsgroups, databases, and search tools � Use the Internet to research lesson plan extensions � Manipulate a variety of file types (e.g. text, sound,
graphics) � Use standard application features (e.g. cut, copy, paste,
save, spell check) � Judge the credibility of online resources � Inform students of methods to search for and evaluate
website content � Determine the suitability of online content for
instructional use � Utilize technology to create folders, directories, and
archives � Employ storage methods (CD, Zip disks, thumb drives) to
archive data � Organize website bookmarks on a document or drag
website shortcuts into folders for student use � Troubleshoot software or hardware issues � Use technology to identify reasons for test score
performance disparities among students Communication I am able to: � Utilize an email distribution list for communication with
parents � Apply regular use of email for faculty and peer
communication � Read, post, and reply to messages in electronic discussion
groups � Understand the strengths and weaknesses of various
devices and programs
� Use presentation tools, including video, PowerPoint, interactive white boards, and projectors
� Utilize ToolboxPro, or another similar program, to inform students and parents about classroom activities and assignments
� Use Mail Merge in MS Word to quickly draft a form letter for parents
� Create, manipulate, and display text and graphics effectively
� Use a web-based grading system, allowing parents to securely access their children’s grade information
� Develop a course website with resources and information � Import images, animations, video, and sound into a
finished product Legal, Ethical, and Social Issues I am able to: � Obtain a working knowledge of, and follow, copyright laws
and Fair Use Guidelines � Model proper computer usage etiquette � Incorporate knowledge of technology-use issues into
classroom instruction � Inform students of the school system's Acceptable Use
Policy � Display and enforce computer usage regulations � Incorporate proper copyright use in all aspects of
teaching and learning � Discuss with students the importance of password and
account security � Arrange classroom layout to facilitate monitoring and safe
technology use � Attend to basic technology health and safety issues � Encourage students to ask questions and explore
technology
87
Gathering & Evaluating Data I am able to: � Store grade data in spreadsheets, databases, or web-
based management programs � Make comparisons and set goals using technology tools � Manipulate and display data in a table format � Produce charts, figures, graphs, and other formats to
present data � Summarize and present test score results to a resource
teacher or administrator � Use data to help improve student learning Integrating Technology into Instruction I am able to: � Compare and contrast technologies to determine the most
suitable technology for certain projects � Facilitate use of a wide array of technologies in the
classroom � Work with the school Library-Media Specialist, colleagues,
and other technology personnel to locate appropriate integration materials
� Explore proprietary online resources (i.e., CultureGrams, UnitedStreaming) provided by the school and/or district
� Utilize research-based technology practices for improving instruction
� Access online resources and databases to support research activities
� Employ knowledge obtained from technology training courses
� Collaborate with colleagues to understand effective methods of technology integration
� Set up bookmarks of appropriate websites � Utilize existing WebQuests or other types of online
lessons � Develop your own WebQuests � Enable students to explore appropriate online resources � Create rubrics to evaluate student understanding
� Use online assessment tools � Integrate technology and content with teaching and
learning theories � Evaluate the effectiveness of technology use in the
classroom setting Assistive Technology I am able to: � Understand Individualized Educational Plans and ways
technology can be used to support a variety of learning disabilities
� Identify issues related to equitable access to technology in school, community, and home environments
� Operate portable word processors, accessible computer hardware and software, adapted keyboards, screen magnifiers, and other devices
� Identify devices that help meet the needs of different students
Professional Growth I am able to: � Identify areas for improvement with regards to
technological ability � Consider a range of resources for improving technological
ability � Participate in educational technology training courses � Access websites of professional organizations � Collaborate with people in my district who support the
use of instructional technology � Use the National Educational Technology Standards,
district technology benchmarks, and other applicable resources to develop technology-infused lessons
Source: http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/technology/techstandards/checklist/
88
Technology Action Plan
1. Overall, how would you rate your technology comfort level in the following areas (based on the Teacher Technology Proficiency Checklist):
Information Access, Evaluation, Processing, and Application
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention Communication
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention
Legal, Ethical, and Social Issues
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention Gathering & Evaluating Data
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention Integrating Technology into Instruction
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention
Assistive Technology
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention Professional Growth
1 – Entry 2 – Adoption 3 – Adaptation 4 - Appropriation 5 - Invention
2. How often do you use technology in your classroom for instruction?
never rarely sometimes often
3. How often do you use technology to improve your personal productivity?
never rarely sometimes often
89
4. What motivates you to use technology?
5. What prevents you from using technology in your classroom? How might you overcome the obstacles?
6. Have you ever collaborated with anyone to develop technology integration materials?
� If so, was it a positive or negative experience? Why? � If not, would you consider working with someone on technology integration
materials?
7. Develop at least two goals for improving your use of educational technology, based on the information from the questions above. Think about:
� Who can you ask for support along the way? � What areas do you consider most in need of improvement? � What professional development opportunities are there to help you achieve
your goals? � What else do you need to help you accomplish your goals (with the
technology you have available to you)?
Use the back of this sheet to complete your plan…