Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 36 (2008) 227–240

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

An Armenian English language teacher’spractical theory of communicative language teaching

Anne Feryok *

University of Otago, Department of English, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

Received 15 November 2006; received in revised form 1 August 2007; accepted 12 September 2007

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that teacher cognitions and practices can be inconsistent, particularlywith claims about communicative teaching practices. This article describes the practical theory of astate school EFL teacher in Armenia who claimed to be using a communicative approach to languageteaching by considering her stated cognitions and observed practices and the contextual factors thatinfluenced them. Data included six months of e-mail interviews, two on-site classroom observations,and one on-site interview; this study will focus on the observation of a grade 9 lesson which the teacherdescribed as communicative. Analysis of the interview data shows that the teacher articulated a cohe-sive, coherent practical theory. The observation showed that she implemented many of her stated cog-nitions; however, some cognitions appeared to diverge in practice. Both her cognitions and practiceswere influenced by her understanding of the context in which she worked; meeting different expecta-tions in particular may have contributed to the divergence between cognitions and practices.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher cognitions; Teacher beliefs; Language teaching; English language teaching; Communicativelanguage teaching

1. Introduction

In recent years the importance of teacher cognitions has been increasingly recognized(Borg, 2003; Freeman, 2002). It has also been recognized that cognitions are difficult to

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.004

* Tel.: +64 3 479 8637; fax: +64 3 479 8558.E-mail address: a.feryok@otago.ac.nz

228 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

study: they need to be inferred from statements and behaviour, but these are not alwaysconsistent, as shown in a number of studies, including several of teachers claiming touse communicative language teaching approaches (CLT). This study looks at the statedcognitions and observed practices of an Armenian English language teacher in a stateschool, and how her understanding of the teaching context influenced her practices.

2. Literature review

2.1. Teacher cognitions

Teacher cognitions are not a straightforward construct; a variety of terms address sim-ilar or overlapping concepts (Tsui, 2003; Woods, 1996), including beliefs (Nespor, 1987;Pajares, 1992); practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1983; Golombek, 1998); personal knowledge(Clandinin and Connelly, 1987); and BAK (beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge) (Woods,1996). This may have arisen in part because knowledge and belief are variously under-stood. Tsui describes knowledge as ‘personalized, idiosyncratic, and highly context spe-cific’ (Tsui, 2003: 61), in contrast to Nespor (1987), who identifies these as featureswhich distinguish belief from knowledge. Borg uses ‘cognitions’ inclusively – ‘what teach-ers know, believe, and think’ (2003: 81), and I will do the same.

Another difficulty facing research on cognitions is their inaccessibility to direct obser-vation. Kagan (1992) and Pajares (1992) observe that beliefs must be inferred from wordsand actions. Freeman (1991) discusses the importance of making tacit cognitions explicit.Explicit cognitions may be congruent with practices: Burns (1992) found that teacherscould verbalize how beliefs and decision-making underpinned observed classroompractices.

Words and actions are not always congruent, however. First, individuals may make dif-ferent associations. For example, Mangubhai et al. (2005) found that while teachers’ andresearchers’ understandings of communicative approaches were similar in many ways,they also differed. Breen et al. (2001) discovered that different teachers make different asso-ciations between principles and practices. Differences may be developmental as well: newknowledge can offer new terminology and new understandings of cognitions and practices(Freeman, 1991). Second, an individual may appear to be inconsistent in her practices andcognitions. Freeman and Richards (1993) mention ‘tensions’ between stated intentions andactions because of ‘divergences’ between different elements in a teacher’s understanding.Several studies have indicated that teachers’ claims to be using communicative approachesare often not supported by their practices (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 1993;Nunan, 1987). Mangubhai et al. (2005) suggest that teachers might have two conceptual-izations: a theoretical one based on study, and a practical one based on classroom expe-rience. This study will consider one teacher’s practical theory by focusing on hercognitions about classroom teaching.

2.2. Factors affecting teachers

A number of factors may influence teachers, such that some describe cognition as con-text specific (Tsui, 2003, as noted above). Borg (2006) indicates that context has a majorimpact on both cognitions and practices. Context covers a variety of influences (Borg,2003), as different studies suggest. Golombek (1998) discusses teachers searching for ‘bal-

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 229

ance’ between their ideas and student expectations, while Almarza (1996) found that insti-tutional pressures can cause teachers to use practices that differ from cognitions. Institu-tional pressures include matters as diverse as examinations, the socialization of students,and accountability demands (Crookes, 1997). These are related to teaching situations, andit has been recognized that Western methods (such as CLT) may not readily transfer tonon-Western state school settings (Holliday, 1994b). Thus wider cultural, social, and eco-nomic factors also influence teachers, as Holliday (1994a) has pointed out. Shamim (1996)and Canagarajah (1999) discuss how differing student expectations can impact teacher andclassroom practices. Hu (2005) discusses social and economic factors in his analysis of theuse of CLT in secondary classrooms in China. This study will consider the impact of someof these factors on practices.

3. Methodology

3.1. Context of the study

This is an interpretive study based on a larger study of the practical theories of six EFLteachers in Armenia, a former Republic of the Soviet Union. Armenia is a small, land-locked country with an ancient and troubled history since Hellenistic times (Shnirelman,2001). The break-up of the Soviet Union and conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan led toan economic crisis in the early 90s from which Armenia still struggles to emerge. Althoughstrong ties exist with Russia, the influx of Western organizations has increased the impor-tance of English (Hunter, 1994). These have impacted foreign language teaching, withWestern organizations developing private language schools and language teacher educa-tion programmes.

In the state school sector, education reform began with independence. Early prioritiesaimed at restructuring the Soviet system and laying a foundation for content reform, pri-marily by developing and disseminating Armenian textbooks (Education For All NationalReport, 1999). At the time of this study (early 2000s), the state educational sector wasstruggling, with little funding for infrastructure, underpaid teachers leaving the workforceor working multiple jobs, and reform making little headway, much less instituting sweep-ing policy change such as the formal adoption of CLT in China described by Hu (2005).

This study will consider the practical theory of one teacher who claimed to be using acommunicative approach in her classroom. In doing so it tries to address the hope of Man-gubhai et al. (2004) of further work on practical theories that guide teacher practices. Thisstudy, however, differs from that of Mangubhai et al. in two respects: it is in a non-Wes-tern foreign language setting and it does not seek to compare teacher and researcher con-ceptualizations of CLT. The research questions are:

(1) What were the stated cognitions of the teacher about classroom teaching?(2) Were those cognitions reflected in practice?(3) What contextual factors may have affected practices?

3.1.1. The participantIn the original study from which the data for this study is drawn, the two most recent

cohorts (at the time of the study) of a TEFL programme (approximately 20) were invited

230 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

to participate if they (1) were classroom teachers and (2) had e-mail access. Six agreed toparticipate. This study will focus on one teacher, Nune (a pseudonym), who taught in astate secondary school. In order to preserve her anonymity, some details (including specificdates) will be altered or omitted.

Nune graduated from a Soviet linguistic and pedagogical tertiary institution in the1980s. Nune described her Soviet education as providing a solid foundation in English lin-guistics and literature. In the late 1990s she enrolled in a one year post-graduate TEFLCertificate programme at a Western-sponsored university in Armenia, taught by Wes-tern-educated teachers. Nune described its practical focus on language teaching skills.

I was an academic staff member in the programme for two years ending two years priorto the data collection. I taught Nune in Special Topics in Second Language Acquisitionand Teaching Reading and Writing. I did not teach Methods and Materials nor was INune’s Practicum mentor; these were where Nune attributed knowledge of ‘new’approaches to teaching, including CLT. Although I did not personally espouse any partic-ular approach, it may be possible that the participant claimed certain beliefs because shethought it would please me as a former member of the programme.

When the data was collected, Nune had over ten years of teaching experience, meetingone criterion Tsui (2003) offers for expertise. Nune teaches full-time at a state secondaryschool in a largely working-class district. Unlike the specialist language schools whichArmenia had as a republic of the USSR, with as many as nine hours of language instruc-tion a week (Monk, 1990), at Nune’s school language classes meet for two hours a week.Nune stated that there was no required syllabus, but there was a required locally producedtextbook (creating a de facto syllabus) which Nune supplemented with self-made materials.A grade 3 beginning level and a grade 9 intermediate level class were observed. Nunedescribed how her practices differed with learner age and level and observations confirmedthis, so this study will only focus on the secondary class, the one she described ascommunicative.

The school in which Nune teaches was in a state of disrepair. The neighbourhood hadrunning water for about two hours a day (outside of class hours). Rooms had large win-dows without coverings and high ceilings, making them hot in summer, cold in winter andnoisy all year. The lighting was dim and the blackboard small and worn. Desks, seatingtwo students, were fixed to the floor; some needed repair.

The school appeared to have little in the way of resources. There were some old mag-azines and readers, a few dictionaries, and flip charts for pronunciation and grammar inthe teachers’ common room. There appeared to be only one photocopier and computer,both in the office of the headmistress. Nune said she did not have access to audioequipment.

3.1.2. Data collection

Seven structured question (Spradley, 1979) ‘e-mail interviews’ in English were con-ducted at the participants’ convenience over a six month period. (See Appendix A for rel-evant interview questions.) They were designed to elicit information for the originalresearch questions. Participants were free to write as much as they wished; some partici-pants wrote in a more formal register, while others, such as Nune, wrote in a less formalregister with digressions, elisions, and repetitions more characteristic of spoken style.Some interviews, including those of Nune, involved several exchanges, with the participantalso asking questions. For these reasons I have coined the term ‘e-mail interview’ as the

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 231

data collection instrument addressed some of the limitations associated with question-naires by increasing opportunities for personalization, asking, and probing (Cohenet al., 2000). The nature of e-mail also meant that participants had time to reflect on theiranswers, thus addressing the time pressure of spoken interviews.

A three week on-site visit involving two classroom observations and one semi-struc-tured oral interview in English with each teacher was arranged at their conveniencethrough negotiation in light of the schedules of all six participants. The observations weremeant to collect samples of the teachers’ practices to compare with themes that had arisenin individual e-mail interviews. The observations were digitally audio-recorded when per-mitted, accompanied by note-taking, and transcribed by me.

The semi-structured oral interview (Spradley, 1979) was designed to allow participantsto articulate cognitions based on practices and clarify themes from the initial analysis of e-mail interviews. Individual interview topics were designed for each participant based onthemes from the e-mail interviews and classroom observations (see Appendix A for top-ics). They were digitally audio-recorded, accompanied by note-taking, and transcribedby me.

Participants were provided with transcripts of recorded data and invited to comment.Nune did not offer any comments.

3.1.3. Data analysis

Data were coded, analyzed, and reduced through constant comparison (Glaser andStrauss, 1967), a simultaneous ongoing process conducted throughout data collection(Huberman and Miles, 1998). The process can range along a continuum between deductiveand inductive; in this study, set questions pre-established some categories, making theanalysis deductive in some respects; the open-endedness of questions allowed unantici-pated topics to be introduced, making the analysis inductive in some respects. For exam-ple, communicative approaches lies at neither extreme: while I did not directly ask about it,I expected it might emerge in answers to questions about the influence of the TEFL pro-gramme and in teaching observations.

Categories were organized into themes based on patterns such as frequency and simi-larity of codes (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005.) Some emerged when codes could fit into morethan one theme (see below). The process was performed twice for the e-mail interviews:‘horizontally’ for themes emerging from all the participants’ responses to an interview,and ‘vertically’ within each participant’s corpus of interviews. A rough initial analysisof the classroom observations was made during the on-site visit to guide the oral inter-views. This was based on identifying what I perceived to be evidence in classroom practicesof themes established in the analysis of the e-mail interviews. For example, Nune had saidin e-mail interviews that she believed in encouraging participation, so I looked for evidenceof it in the observations and asked about it in the oral interviews. I also noted possible newthemes. For example, Nune asked students to translate proverbs between English/Arme-nian and English/Russian. She had not discussed translation in her e-mail interviews, andso I asked her about this in the oral interview, enabling her to make explicit what mighthave been a tacit cognition about the value of translation for developing awareness.

In-person interviews were coded once. For example, Nune explained that a chart on theblackboard during a discussion was intended to ‘push them [students] to speak’. This wascoded as encouraging participation and categorized under teaching approaches–communica-

tive and teacher in the classroom.

232 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

Themes relevant to this study have been given in the text in italics with categories also inbold (as above) along with supporting evidence.

Triangulation, which Cohen et al. (2000) describe as a means of enhancing the validityof a study, was achieved through multiple methods as data from the e-mail interviews,classroom observations, and oral interviews were compared. However, this study onlyreflects my understanding of Nune’s perceptions, making it possible that it may not matchother peoples’ perceptions of the situation in which she taught.

Summaries identifying the key issues were written and analyzed for explanatory powerpointing to grounds for tentatively asserting theoretical implications that make sense ofthe data (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005).

3.1.4. Ethical issues

Consent was sought and granted from participants according to the guidelines of myinstitution at the time of the study. I am unaware of any ethical issues that were not dealtwith according to those guidelines.

4. Findings: analysis

This section presents the analysis of the findings in three sub-sections: cognitions, prac-tices, and contextual factors.

4.1. Cognitions

This section answers the first research question: What were the stated cognitions of theteacher about classroom teaching? Analysis of the data relevant to this study yielded threebroad categories: language learning, learners in the classroom, and teachers in the class-

room. Key themes and samples of data from which they were derived will be given.Nune believed that CLT was ‘a better way of teaching’ (OIp7). (See Appendix B for

Data Reference Conventions.) She had three key beliefs concerning language learning,summarized as: ‘The teacher helps the pupils to construct the knowledge and contributesto the process of perception. That is combined with learning through doing’ (I5Q1). Thiscombines the ideas of co-constructing knowledge, developing awareness, and learning

through doing. These implicate students in the classroom, such as students using language:‘the best lessons are ones where students’ speaking time is maximized’ (I3Q4). For thisto occur, Nune felt that students feeling comfortable was important because ‘if a personis afraid to be laughed at, to be mistaken, then he sits very shy and is passive, his anxietyis high, his self-esteem is too low’ (I6Q4/5). Therefore, teachers in the classroom wereinvolved in encouraging participation ‘by turning the lesson into something enjoyable, cre-ating friendly atmosphere’ (I6Q4/5). Nune also spoke of how ‘I don’t want to limit theiractiveness, I want them to be free in their ideas’ (I2Q2). Meeting all students’ needs wasimportant to Nune; she explained how she tried to appeal to different learning stylesand multiple intelligences by using a variety of activities. She also described facilitating

communication, such as when ‘I motivate them to be free and reflective, sometimes the les-son flows with my spontaneous responses which are mixed with the students’ responses’(I7Q1) and being a good listener by taking ‘time to listen to what the student says andthoughtfully respond to their ideas and questions’ (I3Q2). Nune also believed in identifying

objectives and providing positive feedback (I3Q4) and being flexible during planned activi-

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 233

ties (OIp12). Finally, Nune felt that she had responsibility for developing positive values

and developing future Armenians

because every child should remember, every student, that he is one of the represen-tatives of future generation. . . I have something to do with them right now. Andright now is the foundation step for them, how to think, how to overcome the diffi-culties that our country has (OIp6).

4.2. Practices

This section answers the second research question: Were those stated cognitionsreflected in practice?

Nune described the observation as ‘a communicative lesson’ (OIp2), but pointed outthat ‘everything was done in small portions’ (OIp2). She said she had designed the activ-ities and materials based on a topic from the textbook. (See Appendix C for a descriptionof lesson segments and codes for each segment.)

Nune demonstrated her cognitions about language learning throughout the lesson, par-ticularly by co-constructing knowledge with them. One representative exchange occurred inthe whole class review of vocabulary puzzles done in groups:

T: Do you know what is ‘generous’? How can you describe this word? Do you knowthis word?S: A person–T: A person who–S: A person who everybody–T: A person who helps everybody.(O1p3)

Here Nune helps the student construct a phrase by providing prompts, which Nunecompared to making a ‘chain’ that contributes to developing awareness (OIp5) of languagesystems. Other examples of developing awareness included translation and a deductivegrammar presentation, which Nune explained as making use of the ability of older learnersto apply grammar rules. Nune also understood that student participation in creating the‘chain’ showed learning by doing. Learning by doing appeared to occur when students werepushed to actively do something challenging. At the same time, however, as Nune assiststhe student she may be limiting the extent of learning by doing, since assistance may pre-vent the student from giving her own definition.

This exchange is also representative of Nune’s cognitions about students in the class-

room, as Nune felt it addressed students using language and students feeling comfortable,since Nune provided assistance in order to continue student speech whenever studentshad difficulty. Students using language occurred throughout the class, particularly ingroupwork and oral presentations. Oral presentations also addressed students feeling com-

fortable as they were planned in advance so that all students would feel comfortable pre-senting their stories (OIp1).

According to Nune, the role of teachers in the classroom was shown by using a variety ofactivities that allowed for meeting all students’ needs: there were seven different segments(see Appendix C) that integrated different skills and used both visual and aural input, which

234 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

she described as appealing to different learning styles. Encouraging participation and facilitat-

ing communication were shown as Nune ‘mixed’ her responses with those of students, as in theexamples above. Another example is a chart Nune put on the board which was designed toelicit positive and negative qualities from the students in order to ‘push them to speak’ (OIp1).

However, these techniques may not always show Nune in the role of being a good lis-tener. For example, when Nune elicited qualities for the chart she told the students‘And you use should or shouldn’t with these verbs’ (OIp1) as a way of identifying objec-

tives. It led to this exchange:

1. S: To chat with me.2. T: Uh huh, uh huh. If a friend shares his opinion or thoughts with our friend maybe

he—3. S: He can keep our secrets.4. T: Yes, should keep our secrets. Write it down, it’s one of the positive qualities....

(O1p1)

The student’s comment in line 1 appears to be a positive quality, but Nune’s prompt inline 2 redirects it, leading Nune to recast the student’s next comment so it meets the tar-geted grammar point. It is possible that by providing positive feedback in line 3 Nune isacknowledging the student’s ideas, while the recast provides negative feedback on theform. Ultimately, however, the outcome of the exchange does not reflect the student’s ori-ginal clearly communicated spontaneous idea, suggesting that Nune was not being flexible

about the language used in activity nor acting according to her description of being a good

listener. The ‘chain’ discussed above may also suggest Nune was not being a good listener.The discussions also were evidence of Nune’s cognitions about developing positive values

and developing future Armenians. Nune said that one objective of the discussions was to‘try to make the path clear, how to develop criteria that are most important for their futurelives’ (OIp2). Nune also tied the friendship discussion to the future of Armenia:

So this part of the lesson helps me to find out why they really need this English,because they want to have wider larger contacts with other nations. . . Withoutknowing a foreign language one can’t be a so progressive country because you needto have some information. But you don’t know the language. How can you get infor-mation coming from abroad? (OIp3).

This shows how Nune understood language teaching to be a means of opening theworld to her students so they could not only help themselves, but also their country.

4.3. Contextual factors

This section answers the third question: What contextual factors may have affectedpractices?

Nune referred to institutional expectations about classroom activities, pointing out thather supervisors knew from observations that her lessons were ‘a little bit different’ becauseof communicative features such as ‘activities emphasizing the students’ role’ (I2Q1). Oth-ers have described the transmission orientation of Armenian university classrooms (Anto-nian and Davis, 2002), suggesting that student expectations may also have differed.However, Nune described herself as being a popular teacher.

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 235

In fact, Nune spoke of her popularity among students as a means of maintaining good

attendance, which she felt reflected well on her professionally. Thus, as Crookes (1997)suggests, institutional expectations of accountability by maintaining attendance may haveimpacted Nune’s practices. This may touch on Nune’s perception of local conditions, alargely unemployed working class neighborhood. Nune spoke at length about the impor-tance of meeting all students’ needs, including those from what Nune called a ‘not so muchintellectual background’ (OIp8). Nune described many of her practices as providing sup-port to these students; however, she felt she was acting against institutional expectations

even though she was meeting student and parental expectations. This was an area in whichNune hoped she was changing expectations.

Nune may also have been affected by her awareness of institutional and student expec-

tations about preparing for the competitive university entrance exams. She implied her stu-dents were better prepared than those of other teachers. Nune had had great difficultypassing the exams because limited class hours and poorly designed books in her schoolmeant ‘grammar material was lacking’ (OIp9). Although Nune did not discuss thisdirectly, including a form focus in discussions may have been a way of meeting expecta-

tions as she perceived them while also meeting her desire to teach communicatively.Limited resources was another issue that Nune felt she needed to address. The grammar

presentation, for example, had been prepared to cover the point in greater detail than thetextbook. Nune also commented on how ‘the students are in need of listening activities’(I7Q4). Authentic materials were ostensibly available, but in practical terms they weren’t;without equipment, Nune described herself as being the students’ main listening resource.Finally, even with new textbooks, other materials were still a problem, with Nune some-times paying for extras such as photocopies of the vocabulary puzzles she made.

Last, as a teacher in the state school system Nune took her responsibility for socializing

students very seriously, as is suggested by her effort to associate friendship with Armenia’sfuture. Although Nune was keen to expand her students’ horizons, she was also concernedthat they might lose sight of the positive qualities of their country in their fascination withthe West, so it was important to her that in class ‘something should be done without losingyour national features’ (OIp6). Speaking directly to her students about values was one wayof meeting this responsibility.

5. Discussion

This section will discuss the findings about cognitions, practices, and contextual factors.Nune’s cognitions about classroom teaching reflect her practical knowledge of CLT and

general teaching (Mangubhai et al., 2005). They appear to form a cohesive whole withconnections between her cognitions about language learning, learners in the classroom,and teachers in the classroom.

The findings also show that Nune’s practices reflect many of her cognitions, althoughthey show some signs of tension between different elements. For example, Nune’s assis-tance in helping students construct phrases and sentences reflects her cognitions about lan-guage learning, and they can also be understood, as Nune does, as encouragingparticipation and facilitating communication. However, the assistance Nune providescan also be understood as limiting students’ free expression of ideas and independentuse of language. If Nune did not have these understandings, then her understanding ofCLT would simply reflect the difference between teachers’ and researchers’ views that

236 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

Mangubhai et al. (2005) discuss. However, Nune does describe participation in terms offree expression, and she (at least implicitly) hopes that her students become independentusers of English. Thus there appears to be some divergence, as Freeman and Richards(1993) describe, between some of her cognitions and practices.

The tension may also arise between cognitions and practices related to general teachingwhich Nune understands as related to CLT. This may be because of the relatively shortduration of her familiarity with CLT. She may not yet have fully developed practices thatclosely match some of her stated cognitions about CLT, relying instead on familiar rou-tines. Again, Nune’s practice of providing assistance may reflect this. As an experiencedpractitioner, Nune has a wealth of experience with classroom interactions that may emergemore ‘naturally’ than newer interaction patterns where students express themselves morefreely. Student behaviour may also reinforce this, as they also may feel more comfortablewith more guided instruction. By re-interpreting familiar practices as communicative,Nune maintains a consistent view of the classroom in keeping with both familiar generalteaching as well as newer CLT cognitions and practices. This need not be understood neg-atively; by renaming her classroom experiences (Freeman, 1993), Nune may have devel-oped new understandings of familiar practices and new reasons for valuing them.

It is possible that Nune’s practices reflect the complex interplay of multiple cognitionsfrom multiple sources acting as frames (Freeman, 2002). Thus Nune’s shifting understand-ings may be tied to the shifting focus of different frames. Nune’s desire to teach commu-nicatively may be foregrounded when she considers the types of activities a lesson shouldhave, such as discussions, but becomes backgrounded as she facilitates them within theframe of classroom interactions, where both she and her students expect her assistancein constructing utterances.

This underlines the importance of contextual factors, in particular expectations, in cre-ating the frames through which Nune understands her practices. It suggests that theseframes are not an individual construction – that a practical theory is not personal so muchas interpersonal. To illustrate this, Nune understands practices such as making ‘chains’and recasting answers as facilitative because she believes her students also perceive themas facilitative. Without this shared understanding Nune’s practices could be understooddifferently, perhaps as directive. Unfortunately, without data on the students’ views it isnot possible to confirm this, since it is known that teachers and students do not necessarilyshare the same understanding of classroom activities (Barkhuizen, 1998).

6. Implications

This is a descriptive study of a single language teacher in a particular context, usinginformation collected over a limited period of time, particularly with respect to the singleobserved lesson; making any generalizations is tenuous at best. The study does, however,offer a fairly close look at how a teacher in a non-Western state school is able put her cog-nitions about CLT into practice. Her perception of her success in light of limited resourcesand limiting constraints shows how sensitivity to a particular context may provide knowl-edge about implementing and maintaining a balanced approach.

Nune was fortunate in having had a fairly extended period of weekly classroom obser-vations and feedback sessions over 12 weeks in her regular teaching setting as she beganintroducing new practices into her teaching. All too often in-service teachers are exposedto new ideas in brief workshops or short courses without further support in trying out

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 237

those practices. This suggests the value of longer engagements in actual classroom settingsfor in-service teachers.

Another possible implication is that the input of ‘insiders’ like herself-–teachers withsubstantial experience within a setting – could contribute to the education of less expe-rienced colleagues or even be incorporated into educational programmes for pre-serviceand in-service teachers. Their ‘true-life’ tales of forging compromises between conflict-ing cognitions, practices, resources, and constraints could offer hope – as well as a real-ity-check – to others. Nune describes herself as having taken precisely these steps byengaging in dialogue with her colleagues, contributing to local teaching publications,and becoming involved in teaching workshops, not because of her belief in a particularapproach, but because of her desire to help students by helping their teachers. It is thisdesire that has led Nune to both new practices and new understandings of oldpractices.

Appendix A. Relevant e-mail interview questions

Note: For reasons of space, only main prompts have been provided for interviews three,five and six; full prompts have been provided for interview seven.

Interview three:

1. What is the main role of observation?2. What is the role of the teacher?3. What do you mean by making progress as a teacher?4. What is good teaching?

Interview five:

1. Could you describe the role of education?2. Could you describe the role of EFL?3. Could you compare [Western] and Armenian views on education?4. Could you compare student and teacher views on EFL?

Interview six:

1. Could you describe yourself as a teacher?2. Could you describe your own EFL learning experiences?3. Could you describe your EFL learners?4. Could you describe your beliefs about individual factors in language learning?5. Could you discuss yourself as a teacher in terms of individual factors in language

learning?

Interview seven:

1. Could you discuss your teaching practices in general? You may want to discuss: Howdo you plan for the classes you teach? While you are teaching class, what do you do?After you have taught a class, what do you do?

2. Could you briefly describe what you first notice about classes you are teaching (e.g., onthe first day)? What would an ideal class be like? How does reality compare?

3. Which TEFL courses have had the greatest influence on your teaching? How? Why?4. In your teaching, how are theory and practice combined?

238 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

Topics from oral interview:

� Observation 1 (proverbs, homework, moral dimension, discussions, grammar).� Observation 2 (visual and kinaesthetic learners, homework, grammar).� Learning (translation, imitation, memorization, conscious vs.unconscious learning).� Learning to teach (Soviet education, TEFL education, other influences).� Teaching (planning, flexibility, decision-making, reflection).� Changes in education in Armenia (curriculum, syllabus, textbooks, future).

Appendix B. Data reference and transcription conventions

B.1. Data reference conventions

I have referred to the original data in the following ways:

� (InQn) is e-mail interview number and question number; (n/n) is two answers combined.� (OIpn) is oral interview and transcript page number.� (Onpn) is the classroom observation number and transcript page number.

B.2. Transcription conventions

I have transcribed broadly.

[ Overlap(xx) Inaudible(word) Unsure transcription(()) Other details– Interruption

T TeacherS StudentSS More than one studentR Researcher

Where individual speakers are identified, it is noted in the text. Excerpts of the data arenumbered by turns of a stretch of speech by a speaker.

Appendix C. Lesson segment descriptions and codes

1. Whole class with individual oral translation of proverbs on friendsLLDA, LLBD, SUL, TEP, TPPF.

2. Whole class teacher-led discussion on positive/negative qualities of friendsLLCC, LLBD, SUL, SFL, TEP, TFC, TPPF, TIDO, TDPV, TDFA.

3. Whole class with individual oral presentation of written homework on friendsSUL, SFC, TEP, TPPF, TIDO.

A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240 239

4. Group work on vocabulary puzzle with whole class reviewLLCC, SUL, SFC, TEP, TPPF, TIDO.

5. Whole class grammar lecture on ‘so’ and ‘such’ with individual gap-fillLLDA, SUL, TIDO.

6. Whole class teacher-led discussion on making international friendsLLCC, LLBD, SUL, SFC, TEP, TFC, TPPF, TIDO, TDPV, TDFA.

7. Whole class teacher-led summary of ideas about friendshipLLBD, SUL, TIDO, TDPV, TDFA.

Language learning:

� LLCC co-constructing knowledge.� LLDA developing awareness.� LLBD learning by doing.

Students in the classroom:

� SUL using language.� SFC feeling comfortable.

Teachers in the classroom:

� TEP encouraging participation.� TFC facilitating communication.� TPPF providing positive feedback.� TGL being a good listener.� TBF being flexible.� TIDO identifying objectives.� TDPV developing positive values.� TDFA developing future Armenians.� TMSN meeting all students’ needs.� TUVA using a variety of activities.

(Note: The codes TMSN and TUVA were used for the entire lesson, not individualsegments.)

References

Almarza, G.G., 1996. Student foreign language teachers’ knowledge growth. In: Freeman, D., Richards, J.C.

(Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 50–78.

Antonian, L., Davis, A., 2002. Re-claiming Vygotsky: innovation in teaching and learning in post-Soviet

universities. Journal of Eurasian Research 3, 1–4.

Barkhuizen, G.P., 1998. Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a

South African context. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 85–108.

Borg, S., 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think,

know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36 (2), 81–109.

Borg, S., 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. Continuum, London.

Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., Thwaite, A., 2001. Making sense of language teaching: teachers’

principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 22 (4), 470–501.

Burns, A., 1992. Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practices. Prospect 7 (3), 56–66.

Canagarajah, A.S., 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

240 A. Feryok / System 36 (2008) 227–240

Clandinin, D.J., Connelly, F.M., 1987. Teachers’ personal knowledge: what counts as ‘personal’ in studies of the

personal. Curriculum Studies 19 (6), 487–500.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2000. Research Methods in Education, second ed. Routledge Falmer,

London.

Crookes, G., 1997. What influences what and how second and foreign language teachers teach? Modern

Language Journal 81 (1), 67–79.

Education For All National Report, 1999. Republic of Armenia, Yerevan. Downloaded 11.07.07 from

www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/armenia/contents.html.

Elbaz, F., 1983. Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. Croom and Helm, London.

Ellis, R., Barkhuizen, G., 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Freeman, D., 1991. ‘‘To make the tacit explicit”: teacher education, emerging discourse, and conceptions of

teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 7 (5/6), 439–454.

Freeman, D., 1993. Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: developing new understandings of teaching.

Teaching and Teacher Education 9 (5/6), 485–497.

Freeman, D., 2002. The hidden side of work: teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching 35 (1),

1–13.

Freeman, D., Richards, J.C., 1993. Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers.

TESOL Quarterly 27 (2), 193–216.

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldane, Chicago.

Golombek, P.R., 1998. A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly 32 (3),

447–464.

Holliday, A., 1994a. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Holliday, A., 1994b. The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: the special needs of state English

language education. English Language Teaching Journal 48 (1), 3–11.

Hu, G., 2005. Contextual influences on instructional practices: a Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT.

TESOL Quarterly 39 (4), 635–660.

Huberman, A.M., Miles, M.B., 1998. Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.

(Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 179–210.

Hunter, S.T., 1994. The Transcaucasus in Transition. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington

DC.

Kagan, D., 1992. Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist 37 (1), 65–90.

Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative

approach. ELT Journal 50 (3), 187–198.

Kumaravadivelu, B., 1993. Maximizing learner potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal 47 (1),

12–21.

Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., Son, J.-B., 2004. Teaching a foreign language: one teacher’s

practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (3), 291–311.

Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., Son, J.-B., 2005. Similarities and differences in teachers’ and

researchers’ conceptions of communicative language teaching: does the use of an educational model cast a

better light? Language Teaching Research 9 (1), 31–66.

Monk, B., 1990. The specialized language school in the Soviet Union at the time of ‘perestroika’. ELT Journal 44

(1), 38–45.

Nespor, J., 1987. The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Curriculum Studies 19 (4), 317–328.

Nunan, D., 1987. Communicative language teaching: making it work. ELT Journal 41 (2), 136–145.

Pajares, M.F., 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of

Educational Research 62 (3), 307–332.

Shamim, F., 1996. In or out of the action zone: location as a feature of interaction in large ESL classes in

Pakistan. In: Bailey, K.M., Nunan, D. (Eds.), Voces From the Language Classroom. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, pp. 123–144.

Shnirelman, V.A., 2001. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia. National

Museumm of Ethnology, Osaka.

Spradley, J.P., 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Tsui, A.B.M., 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Woods, D., 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.