Teacher Thinking and Foreign Language Teaching
Jack C. Richards
City Polytechnic of Hong Kong |
In language teaching, the conceptualizations we have
of the nature of teaching have a significant impact on our work. For example,
if teaching is viewed as a science, scientific investigation and empirical
research are seen as the source of valid principles of teaching.
Good teaching involves the application of the findings of research and
the teacher's role is to put research-based principles into practice. Alternatively
teaching may be viewed as accumulated craft knowledge, and the study of
the practices of expert practitioners of their craft may be seen as the
primary data for a theory of teaching (Freeman and Richards, 1993). In recent
years an alternative metaphor has emergedthe notion of teaching as a thinking
activity. This has been characterized as "a common concern with the
ways in which knowledge is actively acquired and used by teachers and the
circumstances that affect its acquisition and employment" (Calderhead,
1987, p. 5).
The teacher-as-thinker metaphor captures the focus on how teachers conceptualize
their work and the kinds of thinking and decision-making which underlies
their practice. Rather than viewing the development of teaching skill as
the mastery of general principles and theories that have been determined
by others, the acquisition of teaching expertise is seen to be a process
which involves the teacher in actively constructing a personal and workable
theory of teaching.
This is the orientation to teaching which I want to explore in this paper,
which seeks to clarify the concept of teaching as thinking, to describe
research on second language teachers which has been carried out from this
perspective, and to examine implications for the field of second language
teacher education (SLTE). In their survey of teachers' thought processes,
Clark and Peterson (1986) focus on three major categories of teachers' thought
processes: a) teachers' theories an-t beliefs; b) teachers' planning or
preactive decision-making; c) teachers' interactive thoughts and decisions.
While research on teachers' theories and beliefs tries to identify the psychological
contexts which underlies teacher thinking and decision-making, research
on teachers' preactive and interactive thinking seeks to identify the thinking
and decision-making employed by teachers before and during teaching.
1: The Nature of Teachers' Belief Systems
A primary source for teachers' classroom practices is teachers' belief
systemsthe information, attitudes, values, theories, and assumptions about
teaching and learning which teachers build up over time and bring with them
to the classroom. Teacher beliefs form a structured set of principles that
are derived from experience, school practice, personality, educational theory,
reading, and other sources. For example, in a questionnaire study of the
beliefs of English teachers in Hong Kong schools, Richards, Tung, and Ng
(1992) found that the 249 teachers sampled held a relatively consistent
set of beliefs relating to such issues as the nature of the ESL curriculum
in Hong Kong, their views of the role of English in society, differences
between English and Chinese, the relevance of theory to practice, the role
of textbooks, and their own role in the classroom. Differences in their
beliefs, however, resulted from the amount of teaching experience they had
and whether they subscribed to a primarily functional or grammar based orientation
to teaching.
A number of studies have also sought to investigate the extent to which
teachers' theoretical beliefs influence their classroom practices. Johnson
(1991) in a study of this kind, used three measures to identify ESL teachers'
beliefs: a descriptive account of what teachers believe to constitute an
ideal ESL classroom context, a lesson plan analysis task, and a Beliefs
Inventory. In the sample of teachers studied she identified three different
methodological positions: a skills-based approach which views language as
consisting of four discrete language skills; a rules-based approach which
views language as a process of rule-governed creativity; and a function-based
approach which focuses on the use of authentic language within situational
contexts and which seeks to provide opportunities for functional and communicative
language use in the classroom. The majority of the teachers in the sample
held clearly defined beliefs which consistently reflected one of these three
methodological approaches. Teachers representing each theoretical orientation
were then observed while teaching, and the majority of their lessons were
found to be consistent with their theoretical orientation. A teacher who
expressed a skill based theoretical orientation generally presented lessons
in which the focus was primarily on skill acquisition. A teacher with the
rule-based orientation tended to employ more activities and exercises which
served to reinforce knowledge of grammatical structures. She constantly
referred to grammar even during reading and writing activities, for example,
by asking students to identify a key ' grammatical structure and to explain
the rule which governed its use. The function-based teachers, on the other
hand, selected activities which typically involved the learners' personal
expression, teaching word meaning and usage through a meaningful context,
reading activities which focused on the concepts or ideas within the text,
and context-rich writing activities where students were encouraged to express
their ideas without attention to grammatical correctness.
Teacher belief systems have also been studied in terms of how they influence
the thinking and practice of novice teachers. The belief systems of novice
teachers as they enter teaching often serve as a lens through which they
view both the content of the teacher development program and their language
teaching experiences. For example, Almarza (1994) studied a group of four
student teachers in a foreign language teacher education program in the
UK, and examined how the relationship between the teachers' internalized
models of teaching, often acquired informally through their experience as
foreign language learners, interacted with the models of teaching they were
introduced to in their teacher education program.
Almarza's study shows that while a teacher education program might be
built around a well-articulated model of teaching, the model is interpreted
in different ways by individual trainee teachers as they deconstruct it
in the light of their teaching experiences, and reconstruct it drawing on
their own beliefs and assumptions about themselves, language, teaching learners,
and learning.
2: Teachers' Preactive Decisions
An issue that has long been of interest in understanding how teachers
conceptualize their work has been the question of teacher planning. Te planning
of a lesson is a complex problem-solving task, involving thinking about
the subject matter, the students, the classroom, and the curriculum, during
which the teacher transforms and modifies an aspect of the curriculum to
fit the unique circumstances of his or her class (Clark and Peterson, 1986).
But how does this process occur and what kinds of thinking are involved?
And do experienced and novice teachers differ in the thinking they bring
to this process?
In an influential paper, Shulman (1987) characterized these processes
as pedagogical reasoning. Shulman describes the process in these terms:
I begin with the assumption that most teaching is initiated by some
form of "text": a textbook, a syllabus, or an actual piece of
material the teacher or student wishes to have understood. The text may
be a vehicle for the accomplishment of other educational purposes, but
some sort of teaching material is almost always involved.
Given a text, educational purposes, and/or a set of ideas, pedagogical
reasoning and action involve a cycle through the activities of comprehension,
transformation, instruction, evaluation, and reflection.
One approach to exploring teachers' pedagogical reasoning is to give
teachers with different degrees of experience and expertise identical tasks
to perform, and then to examine differences in how they go about completing
the tasks (Berliner, 1987). For example, I recently compared two groups
of teachers---a group of student teachers in the second year of a pre-service
TESL degree, and a group of experienced teachers who had several years teaching
experience and Masters degrees in TESL. Their task was to plan a reading
lesson for an ESL class at the lower secondary level around a short story
called "Puppet on a String."
In examining the lesson plans prepared by the two groups, those produced
by the student teachers devoted much of the lesson plan to trying to communicate
the linguistic content of the text to the students. Many used a model format
for a reading lesson studied in a methodology class--- with a sequence of
pre-reading, reading and post reading act;vities built around the story.
The main problems the student teachers anticipated had to do with the vocabulary
load of the story.
The experienced teachers offered a much greater variety of approaches
to developing a lesson around the text. These included dividing the text
in sections and having students predict outcomes, working from titles and
headings to anticipate the story before reading it, small group discussion
of issues in the story, and writing different versions of the conclusion
of the story. Many of the experienced teachers moved quickly beyond the
text to explore issues it raised. They saw a much greater variety of issues
and problems that the text posed for students and how these needed to be
addressed. For example, how the students would see the characters in the
story, what the author was trying to communicate, and getting students engaged
in the moral conflicts the story poses. They dealt with the text at the
level of social meaning rather than at the level of linguistic meaning.
The differences between the two groups of teachers is in line with findings
of a body of research on differences between the knowledge, thinking, and
actions of experts and no,-ices. Experts and novices have been found to
differ in the way they understand and represent problems and in the strategies
they choose to solve them (Livingston and Borko, 1989). They have less fully
developed schemata. In this context schemata are described as abstract knowledge
structures that summarize information about many particular cases and the
relationships among them (Anderson, 1984). Studies of expert teachers have
shown that they are able to move through the agendas of a lesson in a cohesive
and flexible way, compared to the more fragmented efforts of novice teachers:
The cognitive schemata of experts typically are more elaborate, more
complex, more interconnected, and more easily accessible than those of
novices. Therefore, expert teachers have larger, better-integrated stores
of facts, principles, and experiences to draw upon as they engage in planning,
interactive teaching, and reflection. (Livinston and Borko. 1989. o. 36)
3: Teachers' Interactive Decisions
A parallel line of inquiry in the study of teachers' thinking has investigated
the interactive decisions teachers employ while they teach. A metaphor used
to describe this dimension of teaching is "teaching as improvisational
performance." During the process of teaching, the teacher fills out
and adapts his/her lesson outline based on how the students respond to the
lesson.
While the teachers' planning decisions provide a framework with which
he or she approaches a lesson, i,n the course of teaching the lesson that
framework may be substantially revised as the teacher responds to students'
understanding and participation and redirects the lesson in mid-stream.
How does this reshaping and redirection come about? Shavelson and Stern
(1981) introduced the metaphor of "routines" to describe how teachers
manage many of the moment-to-moment processes of teaching. Teachers monitor
instruction looking for cues that the students are following the lesson
satisfactorily. They teach using well-established routines. Berliner has
commented on "the enormously important role played by mental scripts
and behavioral routines in the performance of expert teachers" (1987,
p. 72).
These routines are the shared, scripted, virtually automated pieces of
action that constitute so much of our daily lives [as teachers]. In classrooms,
routines often allow students and teachers to devote their attention to
other, perhaps more important matters inherent in the lesson. In [a study
of] how an opening homework review is conducted, an expert teacher was found
to be brief, taking about one-third less time than a novice. She was able
to pick up information about attendance, and about who did or did not do
the homework, and identified who was oin to et helD in L- bl 1313B
the subsequent lesson. She was able to get all the homework corrected,
and elicited mostly correct answers throughout the activity. And she did
so at a brisk pace and without ever losing control of the lesson. Routines
were used to record attendance, to handle choral responding during the homework
checks, and for hand-raising to get attention. The expert used clear signals
to start and finish lesson segments. Interviews with the expert revealed
how the goals for the lesson, the time constraints, and the curriculum itself
were blended to direct the activity. The expert appeared to have a script
in mind throughout the lesson, and she followed that script very closely.
(Berliner, 1987, p. 72)
Novice teachers by comparison lack a repertoire of routine and scripts,
and mastering their use occupies a major portion of their time during teaching
(Fogerty, Wang, and Creek, 1983).
Decision-making models of teaching propose that when problems arise in
teaching, a teacher may call up an alternative routine or react interactively
to the situation, redirecting the lesson based on his or her understanding
of the nature of the problem and how best to address it. This process has
begun to be examined in the context of second language teaching.
Nunan (1992) studied the interactive decisions of nine ESL teachers in
Australia by examining with teachers a transcription of a lesson they had
taught and discussing it with each teacher. Nunan found that the majority
of the interactive decisions made by the teachers related to classroom management
and organization, but also that the teachers' prior planning decisions provided
a structure and framework for the teachers' interactive decisions. Johnson
(1992) studied six preservice ESL teachers, using videotaped recordings
of lessons they taught and stimulated recall reports of the instructional
decisions and prior knowledge that influenced their teaching. Johnson found
that teachers' most frequently recalled making interactive decisions in
order to promote student understanding, (37% of all interactive decisions
made) or to promote student motivation and involvement: (17%). Johnson comments:
These findings confirm previously held characterizations of pre-service
teachers' instructional decisions as being strongly influenced by student
behavior. In addition, these findings support the notion that pre-service
teachers rely on a limited number of instructional routines and are overwhelmingly
concerned with inappropriate student responses and maintaining the flow
of instructional activity. (Johnson 1992, p. 129)
4: Conclusions
While a focus on cognitive processes is not new in applied linguistics
and TESOL, as seen in a growing literature on learning strategies and the
cognitive processes employed by L2 writers and readers, interest in the
cognitive processes employed by second language teachers is more recent.
At present, the conceptual framework for such research has been borrowed
wholesale from parallel research in general education, and only recently
have attempts been made to incorporate a language or discourse orientation
into that framework tsee Freeman, 1994). The cognitive analysis of second
language teaching is, however, central to our understanding both of how
teachers teach as well as how novice teachers develop teaching expertise.
There is an important message in this research which can be expressed
(with slight overstatement) in the following way: There is no such thing
as good teaching. There are only good teachers.
In other words, teaching is realized only inteachers; it has no
independent existence; Teacher education is hence less involved with transmitting
models of effective teaching practice and more concerned with providing
experiences that facilitate the development of cognitive and interpretive
skills which are used uniquely by every teacher.
References
Almarza, G. (1994). Student foreign language teachers' knowledge growth.
In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Learning to teach: A second language
perspective. In press.
Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge.
Educational Researcher, 13(10), 5-10,
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms
by more and less experienced teachers. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring
teachers' thinking (pp. 60-83). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Calderhead, J. (1987) (Ed.). Exploring teachers' thinking. London:
Cassell.
Clark, C. & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In
M. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edition)
(pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Fogerty, J. L., Wang, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study
of experienced and novice teachers' interactive thoughts and actions. Journal
of Educational Research, 77, 22-32.
Freeman, D. (1994). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing
new understandings of teaching. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.) Learning
to teach: A second language perspective. In press.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and
the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly 27(2),
193-216.
Johnson, K. E. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and
practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83-108.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The instructional decisions of pre-service English
as a second language teachers: New directions for teacher preparation programs.
In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds), Perspectives on second
language teacher education (pp. 115-134). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic
of Hong Kong.
Livingston, C., & Borke, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in
teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications. Journal of Teacher Education
40(4), 36-42.
Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision maker. In J. Flowerdew, M.
Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds), Perspectives on second language teacher education
(pp. 135-165). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Richards, J. C., Tung, P., & Ng, P. (1992). The culture of the English
language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal, 23(1), 81-103.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical
thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research,
51, 455-498.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Education Review 57(1),1-21.
Article
copyright © 1994 by the author.
Document URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/94/aug/richards.html
Last modified: March 31, 2000
Site maintained by TLT
Online Editor
|