Keywords
teacher cognition
methodological principles
contextual factors
othering
How to Cite
Number of views: 660
Number of downloads: 450
Abstract
Teachers in various contexts worldwide are sometimes unfairly criticized for not putting teaching methods developed for the well-resourced classrooms of Western countries into practice. Factors such as the teachers’ “misconceptualizations” of “imported” methods, including Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), are often blamed, though the challenges imposed by “contextual demands,” such as large class sizes, are sometimes recognised. Meanwhile, there is sometimes an assumption that in the West there is a happy congruence between policy supportive of CLT or Task-Based Language Teaching, teacher education and supervision, and curriculum design with teachers’ cognitions and their practices. Our case study of three EFL teachers at a UK adult education college is motivated by a wish to question this assumption. Findings from observational and interview data suggest the practices of two teachers were largely consistent with their methodological principles, relating to stronger and weaker forms of CLT respectively, as well as to more general educational principles, such as a concern for learners; the supportive environment seemed to help. The third teacher appeared to put “difficult” contextual factors, for example, tests, ahead of methodological principles without, however, obviously benefiting. Implications highlight the important role of teacher cognition research in challenging cultural assumptions.
References
Andon, N., & Leung, C. (2014). The role of approaches and methods in second language teacher education. In S. B. Said & L. J. Zhang (Eds.), Language teachers and teaching: Global perspectives, local initiatives (pp. 59-73). New York: Routledge.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278-287.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System 39, 370-380.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500.
Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16, 1-18.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 349-367.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Bennis, K. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study. RELC Journal, 44(2), 163-176.
Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal, 57, 288-294.
Hiep, P. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61, 193-201.
Holliday, A. (1994). The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: The special needs of state English language education. ELT Journal, 48, 3-11.
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60, 385-387.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, D. (2013). Context as solution: A step too far? ELT Journal, 67, 475-481.
Hunter, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Unpackaging the past: ‘CLT’ through ELTJ keywords. ELT Journal, 66, 430-439.
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235-257.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187-198.
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39, 591-598.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 309-322.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. B. (2004). Teaching a foreign language: One teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 291-311.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold.
Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37, 243-253.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language. TESOL Quarterly 23, 589-618.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Pennington, M. (1998). The first year of teaching. In J. Richards (Ed.), Beyond training (pp. 173-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. (1999). Communicative language teaching: Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 494-517.
Thornbury, S. (2004). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson
UCLES (2014). CELTA – Cambridge English. Retrieved from: http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-qualifications/celta/.
Ur, P. (2013). Language-teaching method revisited. ELT Journal, 67, 468-474.
Waters, A. (2013, April). “Orwellian” professional discourse in ELT: A threat to diversity. Paper presented at the 47th IATEFL Conference, Liverpool, UK.
Wedell, M. (2008). Developing a capacity to make "English for Everyone" worthwhile: Reconsidering outcomes and how to start achieving them. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 628-39.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Wyatt, M. (2009). Practical knowledge growth in communicative language teaching. TESL-EJ, 13(2), 1-23.
Wyatt, M., & Borg, S. (2011). Development in the practical knowledge of language teachers: A comparative study of three teachers designing and using communicative tasks on an in-service BA TESOL programme in the Middle East. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 233-252.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.