international journal of language studies 94 journal of language studies, 11(1), 63-94 65 on the...

International Journal of Language Studies Volume 11, Number 1, January 2017, pp. 63-94

ISSN: 2157-4898; EISSN: 2157-4901 © 2017 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.

Second language teacher education: Preparing teachers for the needs of second language learners

Aseel KANAKRI, Kent State University, USA

This paper discusses the emerging themes on second language teacher education (SLTE) between 1960s-2010s. It seeks to answer the following question: What does the literature on second language teacher language education tell us about teacher preparation to teach English as a second language students and address their needs and challenges? The review focuses particularly on the influence of practice changes because of the shifts in the SLTE landscape and theoretical bases from the 1960s to 2010. It also aims at getting an in-depth understanding of how language teaching is learned in formal preparation programs. Moreover, it shows the gaps and the methodological changes in the research over this period, and suggests some implications for future research.

Key words: Behavioral Approach; Communicative Approach; English as Second Language Students; Sociocultural Approach; Second Language Teacher Education

1. Introduction

The vast interest in second language teaching in the United States can be traced back to the middle of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century when millions of immigrants flocked to the United States in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. This interest came into existence especially when those immigrants aggressively held onto their ancestors’ way of life while living and participating in the civil life in the new nation (Havighurst, 1978) which made it necessary to provide bilingual or non-English education to immigrant children in public and private schools as a form of linguistic assimilation. However, in the first half of the 20th century, the notion of homogeneity and national unity pushed the Bureau of Naturalization and the Bureau of Education of the United States to “provide for substantial federal aid to states, on a dollar-matching basis, to finance the teaching of English to aliens and native illiterates” (Higham, 1992, p. 82). This suggests English-only instruction and the necessity of designing language classes for these immigrants or “language minority students” (Ovando, 2003) to prepare students to be able to join mainstream classes and assimilate in American

64 A. Kanakri

society. Not only did this apply to schools, it also applied to students at the college level. Many universities around the United States implemented English as a Second Language (ESL) centers in an attempt to address “the academic, linguistic, sociocultural, and emotional needs of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds” (Ovando, 2003, p. 8).

There are many factors that influenced bilingual education and therefore second language education especially after the failure to nurture students’ linguistic diversity (Ovando, 2003). The educational system started to change slowly in the 1960s as a result of the civil rights movement and the 1964 Civil Right Act which led in turn to the creation of the Office for Civil Rights. Another impact on the rebirth of language teaching is the change in immigration rules especially the 1965 Immigration Act which led more minority students from different regions in the world, specifically Asians and Latinos, to appear in U.S. classrooms, where bilingual instruction was needed (Molesky, 1988). Second language education was enriched when the Bilingual Education Act was passed in the 1960s as a federal law to meet foreign students’ academic needs (Ovando, 2003). Bilingual education started to become “a household” term in the US educational system; as a result, many elementary and some secondary bilingual and ESL programs were implemented throughout the United States. These programs sought to address students’ academic, cultural, linguistic, and emotional needs. The following review seeks to get a clear picture of the main shifts in perspectives and approaches regarding second language teacher education (SLTE) between the 1960s and 2010. The review starts specifically with the 1960s because this era represents a huge interest by researchers and theorists in language education, and hence teacher preparation, although it was guided more by good will and intuition than by clear specific pedagogical practice drawn from empirical research.

The paper seeks to answer the following question: What does the literature in second language teacher language education tell us about teacher preparation to teach ESL students? The review focuses particularly on the influence of practice changes because of the shifts in the SLTE landscape and theoretical bases from the 1960s to 2010. It also aims at getting an in-depth understanding of how language teaching is learned in formal preparation programs.

An emerging theme within the literature is the change in the way researchers look at how knowledge is constructed and the way institutions are shaped to deliver instruction to meet the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students (Vygotsky, 1978). These needs include sociocultural, linguistic, and academic needs. Sociocultural approaches to learning and development by Vygotsky (1978) and other constructivist theories (Bruner, 1986) are based

65 International Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 63-94

on the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts and are mediated by language and other symbols (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2016; Salmani Nodoushan & Pashapour, 2016). The interdependence between individual and social processes plays a major role in the construction of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework (1978) regarding social interaction in human development.

Studying second language teacher education in depth reveals that many has changed since academic and research interest in the field began in the 1960’s. Each decade or so was represented by new trends and patterns in research and practice; however, as we see in the following review, as new emerging areas of interest appear, other focus areas have not completely disappeared. Sometimes these trends seem to overlap while one or more trends gain more attention and focus than others.

2. Behaviorist approach to second language teacher education

In the 1960’s till mid-1970’s, there was a rapid expansion of teacher preparation programs for Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), and attention during the 1970’s was increasingly focused on the quality of teacher preparation and the certification of TESOL teachers (Allen, 1996; Anthony & Crymes, 1977; Freeman, 2009; Norris, 1972; Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a).

2.1. Personal qualities and professional competencies

Most research in this period sought to describe teaching as a set of behaviors, routines, or scripts drawn from investigations of what effective teachers should do in practice (Salmani Nodoushan, 2006). The bulk of research was classroom-based research on language teaching aiming to describe effective teaching behaviors, effective learner performance, and teacher-student interactions (see Chaudron, 1988 and Salmani Nodoushan, 2006). Richards and Nunan (1990) noted that the intent of second language teacher education must be to “provide opportunities for the novice to acquire the skills and competencies of effective teachers and to discover the working rules that effective teachers use” (p.15)—See also Salmani Nodoushan (2006b; 2008a; 2011).

This discrete kind of knowledge, mostly in the form of general theories and methods, was assumed to apply to any teaching context. It focused specifically on teaching behaviors that came as a result of particular learning outcomes, which would yield better learning results among students if implemented effectively on a larger scale. (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a). “Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English” and “Guidelines for Teacher Education in Modern Foreign Languages” are considered important publications that represent the consensus of a number

66 A. Kanakri

of leaders in the field, drawn from all levels of instruction and supervision and representing a broad range of experience and points of view regarding second language teacher education. They all agree that second language teachers should have personal qualities which contribute to their success as classroom teachers and show an understanding and respect to students’ cultures and make them involved members of their communities (Allen, 1966; Anthony & Crymes, 1977; Norris, 1972). It is imperative that teachers demonstrate proficiency in English, both in speaking and writing, at a level that would serve as a model to language learners. Teachers also need to pay close attention to the fluency and accuracy of the language they use in the classroom.

Another essential point raised in these articles is that it can be of great significance if language teachers have experienced learning a foreign language themselves, which gives them a better perception of a different cultural system, especially if that culture is of the students they teach. It is important for language teachers to have a deep understanding of different language varieties—social, regional, and functional; the way English language systems are built and developed; and the culture of the native speakers of the language (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a, b). Teachers’ understanding of the process of language and the effects of different socio-cultural valuables on language learning, their awareness of the principles of language pedagogy, and their application of these principles through actual teaching experience can also be of great significance. Finally, teachers need to use efficient techniques in their assessment of student progress and their interpretation of results after conducting these assessments in order to ensure the effectiveness of teaching materials.

2.2. Teacher professional preparation

Anthony and Crymes (1977) in “Recommendations of the teacher preparation committee at a 1966 conference on Teaching English to non-native speakers in the United States” summarized what second language programs should provide student teachers in order to prepare them to teach in second language settings and acquire the qualities and competencies mentioned earlier. Second language teacher programs were viewed as having four main components with overlapping competency objectives. First, there should be an academic specialization course that aims at helping students understand language learning, English language system, and language in culture. Students should take classes on linguistics, psycholinguistics, culture and society. Second, pedagogy, especially foundations, methods and practicum, was an important aspect of teacher education because it provided students with the theoretical and methodological foundations and practical experiences that help them acquire the competencies needed to survive and succeed in actual


teaching situations. Third, all students should have the experience of learning a second language themselves, and if not these programs should provide special arrangements. The main purpose of this experience was for teachers to get an understanding of the linguistic features of the language of the population with which the teacher would work. Finally, evaluation of candidates should be an integral and systematic part of teacher education in all its stages. These guidelines reported by Anthony and Crymes (1977) imply what teachers should know, but they do not specify behaviors or even the methods to be followed to help teachers acquire the characteristics, knowledge and skills recommended.

Some researchers proposed approaches and called for reform in second language teacher education. Smith, Cohen & Pearl (1969) proposed another perspective on teacher education which described what they should know and be able to do. They believed that, in addition to studying books, those student teachers should study their own behavior; “it is the trainees’ performance that will be observed, analyzed and modified” (p. 71). In "Teacher Education as Perennial," Smith (2004) advocates that teacher training should begin with a diagnosis of teacher behavior and that the training should improve that. Smith is a strong supporter of Competency Based Teacher Education (CBTE). He believes that teacher education is a lifelong journey, a continuum of preparation that evolves through the entire profession.

This involves solving problems/deficiencies arising from the initial training, advancing the teacher's skills and pedagogical knowledge required for new teaching roles, an advancing and updating of teacher's knowledge of subject matter. Moreover, Fanselow (1977) in "An Approach to Competency-Based Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching," has identified teacher competencies necessary to facilitate student goals. He also stressed that teachers’ behavior should be geared towards goals like communicating survival skills, cultural convention, general knowledge, personal feelings, etc. He also lists the problems critical to this approach: setting standards (how many competencies are sufficient) and assessment (what instruments are valid). One main challenge to this approach to teaching is that it measures a teacher's effectiveness based on test grades/standardized tests because Competency Based Teacher Education relies on the establishment of criteria of teaching behavior that are both measurable and testable.

Lee (1973) also provides some examples of criterion-based objectives for teacher behaviors and the conditions under which these behaviors are to be performed and the criteria by which they are to be evaluated. He noted,

Measuring teacher effectiveness by measuring change in pupils is

68 A. Kanakri

probably only feasible for simpler, lower level objectives. For the attainment of higher level objectives, or more slowly developing objectives, the more appropriate procedure appears to be to measure the behavior of the teacher and compare it to behavior which is thought to be related to the development of higher level objectives in pupils. Such a procedure appears feasible, both for the assessment of competence of individual teachers and for the certification of programs.

(Lee, 1973, p. 237)

During the 1960s and 1970s research was neglected, and the focus was mainly on descriptive or theoretical pieces. There wasn’t a definitive and detailed position on teacher preparation either. Scholars cited some major problems regarding language teacher education at that time which influenced both foreign and second language teacher education. They pointed out that there was a lack of a clear understanding of the common purpose of the courses in the language teacher education and in-depth analysis of the teachers’ performance (Banathy, 1968; Bernhardt & Hammadou, 1987; Freeman, 1989; Richards, 1987; Richards & Nunan, 1990). Their common recommendations were that objectives regarding teacher training be stated in both measurable and operational terms, specifying the circumstances for teacher practices, the observable teacher behavior, and the level of accuracy expected from the teacher performance. However, this period presents many efforts to move from prescriptive course requirements to the requirement that focuses on measurable competencies for teacher certification, and there was some indication that teacher education was emerging and shifting as a field for empirical research rather than descriptive studies.

Another observation is that teacher education programs generally operated based on assumptions driven from the behaviorist transmission, or product-oriented theories. These theories involved top-down approaches which provide teachers with best practices to understand and then imitate in their classrooms (Richards & Nunan, 1990; Widdowson, 1997). This suggests that teachers are viewed as passive recipients of knowledge and don’t have any role in constructing knowledge or being part of this learning process (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a,b; 2008a). In addition, this also suggests that the real learning happens when teachers teach in their first year of practice and not in the process of teacher education. They also assume that these theories and methods can be applicable to any teaching context. This period devalues the individual experiences and perspectives of teachers because teachers’ knowledge is determined by theorists and not by teachers themselves (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Wood, 1987) and that effective teaching is not simply determined by a set of behaviors (see Prabhu, 1990 and Salmani


Nodoushan, 2009, 2011). It also creates a decontextualized set of knowledge that underestimates the complexities of interaction and reduces teaching to a limited quantifiable set of behaviors (Smyth, 1987).

3. Communicative approach to second language teacher education

The globalization of English as an International Language (EIL) and its importance for trade and communication has brought the demand by national educational authorities for a change in teaching and teacher education (Brown & Salmani Nodoushan, 2015; Burns & Richards, 2009; Salmani Nodoushan & Daftarifard, 2011). The communicative approach was developed during the early 1970s and influenced teachers’ practices in their classrooms (Widdowson, 1978). This approach seeks to recreate real-life social and functional situations in the classroom to guide students toward communicative competence (Taber, 2006). This suggests that teaching grammar, for example, is not a mere focus. Actually, teachers should avoid asking students to locate and learn grammatical structures such as verbs, nouns, and adjectives; instead teachers should focus on helping students acquire second language proficiency by employing the three Ps: presentation, practice, and production.

This approach was evaluated with mixed responses. Some school administrators and university department chairs were in favor of this approach in terms of its theoretical underpinnings; however, they never taught in classrooms to test the practicality of the approach. On the other hand, teachers criticized it and found this approach superficial, uninspiring, unorganized and without structure. They had to supplement their teaching with mini-grammar lessons before each lesson and then present “the target language via everyday situations; they give students time to practice the language via structured situational dialogues; and, finally, they step aside for students’ production of the language—the phase in which they are able to function independently in the target language” (Taber, 2006). Teachers should create an optimal language learning environment for students to enhance their ‘creative construction’ of the new language and increase their comprehension level and the learners’ participation that is attuned to their stage of SL development (Burt & Dulay, 1983).

4. Re-conceptualizing the field

In the mid-1970s, a new perspective on research began to emerge that crystallized the role of the teacher as an active participant in the learning process where teachers can develop their own theories and become aware of their learning of the teaching processes (Richards & Nunan, 1990; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Salmani Nodoushan, 2011). This new perspective focused on

70 A. Kanakri

teachers' thoughts, judgments, and decisions as cognitive processes that shaped their behaviors (see Jackson, 1968; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Researchers started to realize that in order to understand how second language teachers learn to teach and how their professional lives and identities establish and evolve, we should understand their cognitive worlds and personal teaching practices (Freeman, 1996a; Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Teachers along with the learners are seen as the center of education (Richardson, 1996) and are considered as thoughtful people who make rational decisions about what to do in their classrooms; these decisions are based on many sources of contextual information as well as on principles of learning and teaching.

4.1. Personal practical knowledge

Conceptualizing teacher cognition is regarded as “behaviors associated with a teacher’s pre-active (before teaching) and post-active (after teaching) mental processes” (Andrews, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2003a, 2003b; Borg, 2009; Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). In addition, many researchers have tried to broaden our understanding of teachers’ mental processes by examining what teachers know, where their knowledge comes from, and how they integrate it in the classroom. For example, Elbaz (1983) and Clandinin (1986) show that their practical knowledge was constructed from rich, thick descriptive case studies that provided holistic understanding of teachers’ practices in classrooms. Golombek (1998) examined the personal practical knowledge by studying the cases of two ESL teachers at an American university. The main focus of this research was to understand the tensions these teachers face in their classrooms. The researcher articulated these teachers’ personal practical knowledge through narratives which helped to understand the tensions in depth in a particular teaching context. This research found out that both teachers were worried emotionally and morally about their teaching practices. For example, Jane explained the pressure she perceived from her institution to correct students and get both fluency and accuracy in order to improve their oral comprehension. The researcher argues that personal practical knowledge “filters experience so that teachers reconstruct it and respond to the exigencies of a teaching situation [. . .] In this way, L2 teachers’ personal practical knowledge shapes and is shaped by understanding of teaching and learning” (Golombek 1998, p. 459). The researcher noted that the teachers’ concerns for the emotional and moral well-being of the student’s action is a clear evidence of a “consequential way of knowing”.

4.2. Teacher beliefs

Another theme that emerged from the research is the focus on teachers’


beliefs. Studying the teacher’s thought process helped teachers to plan and manage their classrooms and assess their student’s understanding (McDonal & Elias, 1976; Schulman, 1986). There was a great interest in finding out the origin of teacher beliefs. Lortie (1975) and Zeichner (1981) stated that most teaching is an imitation of how the teachers were taught. They further explain that the great amount of time student teachers spend in class shape their beliefs. And these beliefs will be the basis for teachers when they start teaching in their own classrooms. Clark and Peterson (1986) investigated teacher beliefs in more depth. They categorized the construction of teacher’s thoughts and decisions into three fundamental types: (1) teacher planning, (2) teachers’ interactive thoughts and decisions, and (3) teachers’ theories and beliefs. Furthermore, research on ESL reading showed how teachers’ theoretical orientations (i.e., top-down, bottom-up, or interactive process) shaped their ways of instruction and the way they perceive second language Reading (Harste & Burke, 1977; Kamil & Pearson, 1979). In a later study, Johnson (1992) conducted research seeking to understand the relationship between second language teachers’ perception of content knowledge and their actual teaching practices. The researcher recruited 30 ESL teachers, who held different theoretical orientations on second language learning and teaching, and then she studied their practices represented by skill-based, rule-based and function-based methodologies. Results indicated that teacher’s theoretical beliefs definitely affected their methodological approaches (Johnson, 1992).

At that time researchers’ attention shifted from asking what teachers did, and what knowledge shaped what they did to asking teachers why they did what they did; however; teachers themselves, their individual perspectives and experiences, remained secondary in the process (Freeman, 1996b). The focus of the research continued to lie in uncovering conceptual models of teacher thinking that could be used to educate novice teachers "to perceive, analyze, and transform their perceptions of classroom events in ways similar to those used by effective teachers" (Clark & Peterson, 1986, p. 281).

In the late 1970s, this field of research, which had become known as teacher cognition, began to explore the actual thought processes that teachers engaged in as they planned and created their lessons. Therefore, there was a focus on teacher cognition (Johnson, 1999; Kleinfeld, 1992; Richards & Lockhart, 1994), the importance of reflection in teacher development (Bartlett, 1990), and the role of teacher inquiry and research throughout teacher education (Crandall, 1993; Freeman, 1998; Wright, 1992). Interestingly, researchers found that teaching is not simply a combination of behaviors that were linked to thinking done before and during the activity but rather a complex cognitive process included in a much wider and richer mental context. Instead, their investigations in actual classrooms revealed

72 A. Kanakri

how teachers constructed explanations of their own teaching practices and highlighted a certain amount of messiness or challenges that seemed inherent in the ways in which they thought about and carried out their work (Elbaz, 1983; Lampert, 1985). A number of studies were conducted in a quasi-laboratory condition in which the teachers were asked to respond to video recordings of authentic classroom teaching or to perform stimulated pedagogical tasks (see Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein & Berliner, 1988). These studies that focused on the cognitive process on teachers’ decision making found out that, compared to novice teachers, expert teachers were better able to make pedagogical decisions for problems in a very principled manner because they had acquired very organized knowledge structures, self-observed their practices, and had metacognitive skills (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2008b).

Because of this perspective shift, research seemed to lean more toward qualitatively-oriented approaches which seek to explore an in-depth understanding of the participants’ perspectives and experiences. Methods such as case studies, narratives, ethnographies, and action research were the most frequent methods used in research and seemed well suited to this new perspective (Crookes, 1997; Freeman, 1996b; Salmani Nodoushan, 2009).

4.3. Analytic/intuitive approach to teacher education

Some researchers who favor the cognitive approach call for adopting the Analytical/Intuitive approach to teacher education. They see that intuition and analysis complement each other and enable us to make good decisions, to solve problems, and to categorize the world around us. Sternberg and Davidson (1982) found that “'insight'—making inductive leaps beyond the given data—is an indispensable factor of what we call 'intelligence', much of which is traditionally defined in terms of analysis” (p. 37). Beebe (1983) also demonstrated the need for language teachers to take ‘intuitive risks’, to risk techniques, methods and assessments. Teachers face daily situations in language teaching that they don’t have enough data to analyze. This is where intuition fills the gap. Moreover, Rubin (1975) noted that, among other characteristics, a 'good' language learner is 'a willing and accurate guesser'. We can apply this saying that the teacher too must be a willing and accurate guesser—a user of intuition. Brown (1983) for example asked ESL teachers to predict the TOEFL scores that each of their students would attain when taking the TOEFL tests. Each teacher taught the students for only one semester, yet the correlation between their prediction and the actual scores were the highest in the study. This study showed that these ESL teachers developed many cognitive skills, and that good intuition was one of them. One finding that emerged from this study is the importance of encouraging an attitude of risk-taking among teachers-in-training because, as experts and


professionals, we need the creativity to flow among teachers and therefore students.

4.4. Applied linguistics perspective on teacher education

The field of language learning and teaching finally has become a discipline in its own right instead of relying on other disciplines to find relevant theory in LTE. Also, ESL teacher training is no longer 'general’; instead, we started to see training of ESL teachers of elementary schools, secondary schools, universities, adult education programs, refugees, immigrants, ESL, EFL, etc.

There was a call to adopt an applied linguistics approach to language teacher education. Researchers that support this approach believe that applied linguistics can be the sole source of language teaching. They favor applied linguistics because it differs from linguistics in being problem-based and consequently interdisciplinary, and, as such, provides one of the most important sources of understanding for language teachers.

This approach came along after language teacher programs failed to prepare teachers for how to deal with unpredictable situations that they might in their classrooms. Therefore, there was a call for adapting a problem-solving approach to LTE that teachers should not expect ready-made solutions but should approach every aspect of teacher training as independent individuals trying to discover their own solutions—what Salmani Nodoushan (2006a) called teacher plausibility. Thus, there was a focus on teachers’ cognition and practice (Bruner 1986; Lave 1988) in an attempt to fill the gap and create a relevant linkage between theory and practice throughout the teacher education program. Brumfit (1983) argued that teacher training should be to teach teaching, not about teaching. The focus before seemed to be on theory, not practice. There should be a balance of the right combinations between theory and practice in SLTE programs. Brumfit emphasized this point:

There is a place for researchers who refuse to depart from the position of practicing teachers. That is to say that they must be concerned with providing a model of interpretation of evidence from theory and experiment, related to the solution of the practical problems which immediately present themselves to classroom teachers.

(Brumfit, 1983, p.62)

However, since 1985 there have been significant changes in teacher education and the professional development of English language teachers. A new agenda of professional practices has emerged to challenge the applied linguistics SLTE approach to language training, language content knowledge, and teaching skills Examples include classroom observation (see Wajnryb, 1992),

74 A. Kanakri

action research (Wallace, 1998), mentoring (Malderez & Bodoczky, 1999), language awareness (Thornbury 1997; Arndt, Harvey & Nuttall, 2000), and supervision (Randall with Thornton, 2001).

5. Sociocultural approach to Second language education

By mid 1980s, a new perspective on teaching had emerged. It sought to focus on the complex ways teachers think about their practices and how these practices were influenced by their prior experiences as students, their personal practical knowledge, and their values and beliefs (See Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992). This shift of focus makes it evident that teacher educators started to realize that teachers don’t come empty-handed to classes needed to be filled with theoretical and pedagogical skills; rather, they come with huge and rich background knowledge, prior experience, and personal values and beliefs that shape these students’ perspectives and practices in their classrooms. Teachers’ knowledge of teaching is constructed by social negotiation through experiences with students, other teachers, administrators and any party involved in the teaching profession in a social context (Johnson, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The pre-service teacher education programs are seen as the start of teachers’ professional development as student teachers work in a classroom setting sharing experiences with their classmates and their mentors then making the connection between on-campus in-class experience and school-based context through the teaching of practicum. This is seen as critical to fill the gap between the theoretical part students get in classrooms and the practical part in the teaching setting.

5.1. Teacher identity

This shift in understanding the role of student-teachers posits language teaching as social interaction in the classroom involving “specific social and institutional memberships” (Miller, 2009, p. 173). Questions like what, how, who, and who to are the soul of teaching practices, and they all play a role in shaping teacher identity. The term ‘identity’ shifted from its conceptualization as a process of continual emerging and becoming (psychological process) to a constructed, transforming, relational, and transitional process (contextual social processes). Second language teachers’ identities are influenced by different factors. These include curriculum policy (Cross & Gearon, 2007), cultural differences (Johnson, 2003), and workplace condition (Flores, 2001).

Varghese, Morgan, Johnston & Johnson (2005) conducted three case studies of teachers: (a) nonnative TESOL masters’ students, (b) a group of bilingual teachers, and (c) a teacher self-study in an ESL program. The researchers stress the point that sometimes the context of the classroom becomes a text,


and that teachers’ identities are personal and social matters. This positions the notion of identity as ‘agency and positioning of others’. Duff and Uchida (1997) showed in their study that personal background and history is an important element in shaping teachers’ identities.

Xu and Connelly (2009) offer an explanation of the benefit and importance of the use of narrative inquiry when talking about teachers’ experiences “it is necessary to know what teachers already know when teacher education begins in order to understand the narrative context shaping a teacher’s learning. How teachers know and experience their knowledge is important to understand the process” (Xu & Connelly, 2009, p. 222). Similarly, in “Every Experience Is a Moving Force: Identity and Growth through Mentoring,” Kimberly Johnson (2003) stresses the importance of narrative for teachers to share experience, especially in terms of mentorship and teacher-student relationships. Her narrative highlights such significant key values in the interaction between mentor and student such as identity, care, critical thinking and academic inquiry.

A major theme that emerged from the research discussed above is that identity is shaped by many factors including personal history/ background, gender, culture, working conditions, school and classroom culture. This suggests that identity reflects how student teachers see themselves and how their roles differ in different contexts. Teachers’ identities change because teachers always learn and discover more about the skills and knowledge of language teaching. Teachers negotiate their identities and roles in different social interactions which shapes their practices and their relationships.

5.2. Learning context and teacher training

Sociocultural perspective on learning emphasizes that learning happens in specific settings or contexts which affects the shaping of our learning. Settings like campus-based courses including practicums are seen as the beginning of teachers’ professional development through classroom experience, and working closely and learning from mentors (Malderez, 2009; Singh & Richards, 2009). There is an emphasis on the importance of these experiences to reflect a connection between campus-based and school classroom-based learning because most student teachers often perceive a gap between the theoretical part and the practical experience (Farrell, 2009; Flores, 2001; Freeman, 1996b; Johnson, 1996). There is a focus on the influence of teacher education programs on the actions and practices of teachers. Some researchers found out that the knowledge students teachers learned in their programs was washed away by the first year of teaching experience (Farrell, 2003; Freeman, 1993). Richards and Pennington (1998) and others reported that language teacher education programs failed to teach student-teachers

76 A. Kanakri

what they need and can implement in their classrooms. Tarone and Allwright (2005, p.12) noted that “differences between the academic course content in language teacher preparation programs and the real conditions that novice language teachers face in the language classroom appear to set up a gap that cannot be bridged by beginning teacher learners.” All these challenges called for the need to help and support student teachers by both teaching them skills and providing emotional support which would help them to be prepared to teach and to be successful in their classrooms.

Some research focuses mainly on the perceptions of novice ESL teachers or recent graduates to see the impact of pre-service teacher training on their readiness to teach ESL classes. Novice teachers who went through the pre-service teacher training felt a sense of belonging to this community in terms of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and a TESOL identity (Kiely & Askham, 2012). Many new teachers also felt moderately prepared to teach adult ESL students, but expressed that they are better and well-prepared after gaining some teaching experience during the first year of teaching (Faez & Valeo, 2012). The research suggests that TESOL programs should understand that they are preparing teachers to join professional communities, not just ‘classrooms’. They also call for a close collaboration between schools and teacher education institutions, and that these institutes should work closely with teachers and align the content of their programs to the needs of teachers to help them be prepared for teaching.

It can be noted from the studies on teacher training and preparation that all these programs should be able to explore, identify, and address the various influences and challenges that may face teachers in their classrooms. These aspects if not addressed in an efficient way could lead to feelings of inadequacy and isolation (Kuzmic, 1993). Unfortunately, findings from limited research that has been conducted on teacher preparation and training suggested that these issues are not addressed in teacher education programs. There seems to be a deficiency in addressing the issue of transition between the training stage and the first year teaching experience.

5.3. Collaboration

Following the sociocultural influence on teaching and learning emphasizes that teachers’ learning is not something that can be achieved alone, but that it is a social process that can be achieved by dialogue and interaction with others. These interactions help teachers to better understand their own beliefs through listening to other voices and experiences, “[s]elf-development needs other people . . . . By cooperating with others, we can come to understand better our own experiences and opinions” (Edge, 1992, pp. 3-4). Therefore, collaborative teacher development is gaining greater recognition


as a major part of the educational process.

Johnston (2009) viewed collaboration as a process that facilitates teacher development. He pointed out that collaborative teacher development (CTD) is a generic term that doesn’t imply any particular methodology, framework or theory. He noted that it can take more than one form. He gave examples by using action research (See Salmani Nodoushan, 2009), narrative inquiry, cooperative development, exploratory practice, team teaching, study groups, and dialogue journal writing. Action research in its philosophical roots is in collaborative action and it is in its nature collaborative (Auerbachian & Paxton, 1997; Edge, 2001; Farrell, 2015; Salmani Nodoushan, 2009; Smith, 2004). Narrative inquiry serves as an important source for teacher development in the stories of teachers talking about their teaching experiences. The storytelling includes extended reflection and analysis. It is a reciprocal relationship between the teller and a hearer and it is either build with students (Gibson, 2002) or with other teachers (Boshell, 2002). Cooperative development involves teachers investigating their own work through “carefully designed forms of nonjudgmental discourse” (Johnson, 2009). Many researchers described different ways that cooperative development can take different shapes (see Boshell, 2002; Edge, 2002, 2006; Mann, 2002). However, there seems to be two major challenges: internal, and external ones. The internal one is located in the fact that there is a huge disconnection between teachers and researchers mainly because the knowledge that is brought by teachers is not widely respected by researchers (Stewart, 2006; Toohey & Waterstone, 2004). The external challenge relies on the lack of institutional support as CTD requires resources and investment in time and effort.

A practicum is one of the methods that can be implemented as a way for teacher development (Gebhard, 2009). Practicum is not simply for mastering skills and knowledge, but a rich way to collaborate with other student-teachers and expert teachers (survivors) and to learn from their experiences. This kind of collaboration will help teachers to develop and examine their own beliefs and raise their awareness of the “moral and ethical dimensions of teaching.” It can also help teachers to develop their identities within a particular institutional and cultural context. Johnson (1996) describes the initial teaching experiences of a preservice teacher during a TESOL practicum in the United Sates, and then how awareness as well as her personal beliefs about learning and teaching in this experience helped her to shape her understanding of herself as a teacher.

Bailey (2009) shifts the focus to approaches and practices in teacher education supervision emphasizing the improvement of the quality of teaching and therefore involves assessment along with raising self-awareness

78 A. Kanakri

and developing understanding that Gebhard (2009) had suggested. Bailey distinguishes how supervision has been viewed in second language teacher education, how it has drawn heavily on directive approaches where the supervisor offers advice, nondirective approaches where he/she suggests approaches and alternatives for a specific method or practice, the collaborative model where both the supervisor and the student teacher work together to find out solutions to a specific problem or challenge, and a creative supervision, and a combination of the all above. Baily (2009) also noted the tension between the institutions for a directive approach to supervision rather than any other kind.

Collaboration plays an important role in teacher education; it can make the workplace a creative and intellectual environment. However, it seems that we as educators still have many challenges to overcome. How can we make sure or assume that the practices which we employ to teach our students are carried over and transferred to their classrooms? This is a question that we, as educators, should think about and consider when training and preparing student-teachers.

5.4. Teacher practices

Teachers are regarded now as self-reflective, inquiring, and critically motivated practitioners and researchers (Burton, 2009; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). The shift of the role of the teacher as an object to transfer knowledge (operative) to creative, problem solver, and decision makers (Robert, 1998) has created the need to train and prepare student teachers to adopt many different reproductive approaches which influence their teaching and practices.

Many researchers recognized the importance of teacher reflection and inquiry in teacher education. Being reflective enables teachers to critique their own teaching and make better informed decisions and enhance their teaching practices. Teaching reflection can be carried out in several different ways. One way is through oral processes, by stimulated recall, seminars, and discussion groups. Another way is through written process where teachers write down their reflections and document their notes and reflections. Examples include written narratives (e.g., Connelly & Clandinin, 1999), reflective journal–writing (e.g., Burton & Carroll, 2001), and collaboration (e.g., Burton & Usaha, 2004), or from teacher research (e.g., Johnson & Golombek, 2002). Another practice is through dialogic teaching, which centers teaching around conversations with other teachers focusing on teaching issues and at the same time examining their beliefs and practices and engaging in collaborative planning, problem solving and decision making (Johnson, 2009).


6. Methodologies change

Studying second language teacher education in depth also reveals a shift in the use of methodologies used to conduct research. Researchers who were interested in finding out student-teachers’ beliefs, experiences and attitudes undertook structured or open-ended surveys. This interest encouraged educators to teach novice students how to design well-structured surveys so that they could use them to gather information in their classrooms (see Brown, 2001; Dornyei, 2003). Novice teachers were also encouraged to use diary studies to record their development and reflect on their practices and experiences (See Bailey, 1990; Schmidt & Froda, 1986). Researchers then focused on examining the thought processes of learners. To achieve this goal students were asked to comment on their thought processes while they were engaged in a task or an activity; think aloud or verbal protocol (see Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Gu, 2003). Teachers’ cognition could be realized through questionnaires and interviews in which teachers could describe and verbalize their thinking and through observations and reflective writing in the form of journals. Teachers then were asked to transcribe their responses/protocol and then use a system to analyze this protocol.

The shift to studying classroom interaction led to the use of interaction analysis and discourse analysis. For interaction analysis, researchers use a coding system to locate communication patterns in the classrooms. For discourse analysis, researchers investigate what kind of knowledge teachers bring into their classrooms. Training student-teachers for this kind of practice uses scripts that include interactions from a classroom and then asks students to analyze these interactions and look for themes (See Lazaraton, 2003). Adding the component of social and cultural context and how they can affect L2 teaching and learning shifts to the use of qualitative studies specifically case studies and narrative inquiry. Researchers use them when they try to understand the effect of the cultural and social environment of the classroom on student’s English improvement (See Harklau, 1994).

7. Preparation of ESL writing teachers

As writing is believed to be the most important language skill ESL students need at the college level, an important question that concerns second language educators, theorists and administrators is who teaches or should teach L2 writing. Another question is what kind of preparation instructors do need to help linguistically and culturally diverse students by providing support to address their needs and challenges. Teachers who teach second language students and require writing as an integral part of their curriculum at the postsecondary level can be categorized into three groups. The first group consists of teachers of courses designed for bilingual/multilingual

80 A. Kanakri

writers. This group of teachers can be seen in the ESL programs that offer separate courses only for L2 students to prepare them for mainstream disciplinary classes. These classes are taught by teachers considered specialists and well-trained teachers to meet the students’ needs and challenges. Matsuda (2006) noted that L2 writing as a field draws from two main disciplines: composition studies and applied linguistics or TESOL studies. Many ESL teachers have TESOL degrees which may or may not involve training in the teaching of L2 writing, and others come from a composition training background who show interest in working with L2 students (Ferris, 2009). Ferris (2009) noted that this disciplinary merge presented some advantages and some challenges. She noted that even though TESOL graduate teachers have the knowledge of language theories and second language acquisition (SLA theories) which help them to understand the students writing problems and where they come from, they may lack training in composition theory and pedagogy which may result in teaching that only focuses on grammar and vocabulary rather than on writing processes and audience (Zamel, 1985). Moreover, composition teachers teaching ESL may be well-equipped and trained on how to teach writing, but they lack the understanding of the needs and challenges of L2 students and how to address them which leaves these teachers unprepared to teach diverse students. Therefore, many researchers indicated the importance of getting both types of training, the second language development and writing pedagogy (Matsuda, 1999, 2006; Wur, 2004).

There are also teachers who teach composition courses which include native speakers and ESL students. If, as Ferris (2009) noted, L2 experts or TESOL program graduates still commonly do not get special training to teach L2 writing, then it is rare that composition experts are trained and prepared to work with linguistically and culturally diverse students. If composition students are interested in teaching writing as a second language, they may find one similar elective class offered in the TESOL program and not the composition or rhetoric program. It is even rare for such programs to require these students to study or take courses that discuss L2 writing and writers issues, needs and challenges (Ferris, 2009). Recognizing the importance of having this knowledge to address L2 writers’ characteristics, needs and challenges in compositions classes, many programs around the United States and elsewhere offer pre-service and in-service training on second language writing issues to composition instructors. However, there still seems to be “a disciplinary division of labor between composition and ESL/EFL programs” in most contexts (Ferris, 2009; Matsuda, 1999, 2006). There is still a lot to be done and it seems more collaboration is needed to fully prepare teachers who will inevitably have ESL students in their courses. These concerns may even get more complicated when considering writing tutors in the writing centers.


Writing tutors are considered important tools to help students since most composition instructors and instructors in general do not feel that it is their job to teach students how to write and just refer them to the writing centers (Ferris, 2009). Research showed that those tutors are not well prepared to work with L2 writers (See Bruce, 2008; Leki, 2004; Linville, 2004). As Leki (2004) explained this, “these students do not fit the profile of the students the tutor was trained to help; their differing needs and expectations have made tutors feel incompetent and sometimes even annoyed” (Leki, 2004, p. xi). Ferris (2009) contends that even though many writing centers are required to have second language experts on their staff (see Destandau & Wald, 2002), all tutors need some kind of preparation such as providing internship or making it part of the practicum. This suggests the importance of collaboration between tutors and L2 experts. All students including undergraduate, masters, or doctorate refer to the writing centers for help, and if these tutors do not understand L2 writers’ needs and challenges, then the students will not get the help they need. This is specifically important for ungraduated students who are required to take composition classes and also graduate students who begin their educational journeys without getting the opportunity to take writing classes in either ESL centers or composition classes (cf., Bruce, 2008; Leki, 2004; Linville, 2004). Thus, if professors do not feel that it is their responsibilities to teach writing to students, or if they do not know how to teach writing to students, and if writing centers do not provide adequate support either, where can students turn for help? Who can help them?

The third group of teachers are instructors in the disciplines who do not have either composition or TESOL training (Ferris, 2009; Harklau, Losey & Siegal, 1999). Therefore, these professors lack the interest, time and knowledge of L2 writers’ characteristic, needs and issues which turn up into their lacking of the appropriate and adequate assessment and expectation of what their writing should look like. It is necessary to educate all professors and educators in disciplinary fields about L2 writers’ characteristics, needs and issues and “there must be institutions-wide willingness to accept responsibility for English learners’ development as college writers and it is indeed a difficult matter to change faculty attitudes and practices regarding writing in higher education settings” (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal , 1999, pp. 11-12). In a study conducted at the university of Hawaii, Wolfe-Quintero and Segade (1999) found that ESL students and also the instructors felt that composition classes did not prepare them to write in their classes. The researchers noted that the development of L2 writing takes place through “an entire undergraduate education” with support and assistance from teacher and universities facilities (Wolfe-Quintero & Segade, 1999, p. 196). Recently, many universities offer writing in the form of in-/across-the-discipline

82 A. Kanakri

programs which hire professionals to provide workshops, one to one coaching and support to disciplinary instructors (Ferris, 2009; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, Leki, 1992). However, it is apparent that these teachers are still not fully prepared to work with L2 writers and meet their needs, issues and expectations, and that there seems to be a need of communication and collaboration between ESL specialists, composition experts, and professors in the disciplines. Although this may present a challenge for these professionals, it is very important to understand L2 students’ needs and approaches in order to help advance their literacy development. There is a need to dismiss the notion and philosophy that helping and teaching L2 students is “not your job” and to avoid limiting the role of L2 specialists as only grammar teachers (Ferris, 2009).

8. Conclusion

The field of Second Language Teacher Education (SLTE) has expanded and changed considerably in both breadth and depth. Researchers’ efforts have led to redefining the goals and scopes of the filed, its conceptual framework, and the teaching methods it employs. These efforts were guided and influenced by the global worldwide expansion in the use of English language for different purposes and the need for competent teachers (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a). Teacher education is a major component of teaching English as a second language (TESOL) because it provides an understanding of the processes and challenges teachers may face in their classrooms. It also provides insights about the nature of ESL students and their needs and the overall learning context. There seemed to be a constant tension on the debate of the nature of teacher learning. Teacher learning was seen traditionally as a cognitive issue, and teaching was viewed as a transmission process. Teachers’ jobs were just to translate the knowledge and theories they learned in classes into practice (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2006a). Most research and theoretical pieces cared to improve the effectiveness and delivery of this knowledge. Teachers’ failure to deal with many challenges and unpredicted problems in the classroom, and their resistance to change, lead researchers to consider teachers’ training from another perspective. Teachers are viewed now as inquirers who construct new knowledge and theory through participating in specific social contexts and engaging in specific types of activities and processes (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2011). Teaching and also learning takes place in an environment that is full of interaction and collaboration of the participants in that environment. This view of learning which is highly influenced by the sociocultural theory emphasized the notion of identity construction and how the social process in a classroom setting is shaping the learning experience for both teachers and students.

Although there is a great emphasis in the literature on teacher preparation in


terms of pedagogy and content knowledge, research that focuses on how teachers can be prepared to effectively help culturally and linguistically diverse students in the difficulties they have regarding understanding how the language works in different academic discourses, and how they can be helped based on their varying needs, is still limited. If teaching ESL remains to be seen as simply “a matter of pedagogical adaptations that can easily be incorporated into a mainstream teacher’s existing repertoire of instructional strategies” (de Jong & Harper, 2005, p. 105), educators will be ignoring the fact that ESL students face different and more challenges than native speakers do at US institutions of higher education. What is needed is more attention to how teachers can be prepared with new ways of instruction in programs of second language teacher education.

It is true that ESL teachers should have positive attitudes towards students and try to understand the cultures from which the students come; however, this understanding should translate into specific pedagogical knowledge and pragmatic skills for teaching ESL students. The research is still limited in scope and depth, and this is perhaps a result of the short age of second language teacher preparation (SLTP) as a field of inquiry. Researchers are only beginning to understand what it takes to prepare teachers for linguistically and culturally diverse ESL classrooms. What are needed are longitudinal research studies that follow teachers beyond their teacher preparation programs, beyond the preservice teaching experience and into the classroom. Strategies for pre-service instructions are important, but these practices need to be examined in light of their effectiveness for future classroom instruction. Research is also limited in terms of preparing ESL teachers to teach writing to students expected to become writers across the disciplines. Issues like the ‘division of labor’ between ESL programs and departments of English have prevented many ESL writing teachers from receiving appropriate training and preparation to help ESL students master the academic compositional skills needed for success in their fields of study.

The Author

Aseel Kanakri (Email: [email protected]) is a doctoral candidate and a graduate assistant at the College of Education at Kent State University, USA. She specializes in Curriculum and Instruction and Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). She is also a senior lecturer of English at the University of Akron where she received her master’s degree in Rhetoric and Composition. Her research interests are ESL studies, curriculum and instruction, second language writing instruction and literacy studies, and second language teacher preparation

84 A. Kanakri

References

Allen, H. (1966). A survey of the teaching of English to non-English speakers in the United States. The National Council of teachers of English.

Andrews, S. (1994). The grammatical knowledge/awareness of native-speaker EFL teachers: What the trainers say. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher, (pp. 69-89). London: Prentice Hall International.

Andrews, S. (1997). Metalinguistic awareness and teacher explanation. Language Awareness, 6(2), 145-161.

Andrews, S. (1999). All these little name things: A comparative study of language teachers’ explicit knowledge of grammar and grammatical terminology. Language Awareness, 8(2), 143-159.

Andrews, S. (2003a). Just like instant noodles: L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 351-375.

Andrews, S. (2003b). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher. Language Awareness, 12(2), 81-95.

Anthony, E., & Crymes, R. (1977). Recommendations of the Teacher Preparation Committee at the 1966 Conference on Teaching English to Non-English Speakers in the United States. In J. Fanselow & R. Light (Eds.), Bilingual, ESOL and Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: Models, Practices, Issues, (pp.17-19). Washington, DC: TESOL, Inc.

Arndt, V., Harvey, P., & Nuttall, J. (2000). Alive to language: Perspectives on language awareness for English language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 43-61). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, K. M. (2009). Language teacher supervision. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Ed.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp.269-278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Banathy, B. H. (1968). Instructional systems. Palo Alto, Calif: Fearon Publishers.

Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 202-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Beebe, Leslie. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 39-66) Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Bernhardt, E., & Hammadou, J. (1987). A decade of research in foreign language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 71(3), 289-299.

Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 163-171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boshell, M. (2002). What I learnt from giving quiet children space. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development, (pp. 180-194). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1983). From ivory tower to real world: A search for relevance. Georgetown University Roundtable in Languages and Linguistics, 53-59.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D., & Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2015). Language testing: The state of the art (An online interview with James Dean Brown). International Journal of Language Studies, 9(4), 133-143.

Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing.

Brumfit, C. (1983). The integration of theory and practice. Georgetown University Roundtable in Languages and Linguistics, 59-73.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents

Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Burt, M. K., & Dulay, H. (1983). Optimal language learning environments. Georgetown University Roundtable in Languages and Linguistics, 74-86.

Burton, J. (2009). Reflective practice. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Ed.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 298-307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burton, J., & Carroll, M. (2001). Journal writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Burton, J., & Usaha, S. (2004). Standing on burning coals. Essential Teacher, 1(2), 50-53.

86 A. Kanakri

Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert- novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25-31.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2014). CCCC statement on second language writing and writers. Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting

Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: The Falmer Press.

Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (pp. 255-296). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Crandall, J. A. (1993). Professionalism and professionalization of adult ESL literacy. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 497-515.

Crookes, G. (1997). What influences what and how second and foreign language teachers teach? The Modern Language Journal, 81(1), 67-79.

Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2007). The confluence of doing, thinking and knowing: Classroom practice as the crucible of foreign language teacher identity. In A. Berry, A. Clemans, & A. Kostogriz (Eds.), Dimensions of Professional Learning: Professionalism, Practice and Identity, (pp. 53-67). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

De Jong, E., & Harper, H. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learner: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101-124.

Destandau, N., & Wald, M. (2002). Promoting generation 105 learners’ academic literacy and autonomy: Contributions from the learning center. CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 207-234.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questioners in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duff, P. A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451-486.

Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative development. Harlow, UK: Longman.

http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository?exact=sm_publisher%3A%22Sense+Publishers%22


Edge, J. (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development: A discourse framework for individuals as colleagues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Edge, J. (2006). Computer-mediated cooperative development; Non-judgmental discourse in online environment. Language Teaching Research, 10, 205-227.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.

Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faez, F., & Valeo, A. (2012). TESOL teacher education: Novice teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness and efficacy in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 450-471.

Fanselow, J. F. (1977). An approach to competency-based teacher education in second language teaching. In J. Fanselow & R. Light (Eds.), Bilingual, ESOL and Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: Models, Practices, Issues, (pp. 129-139). Washington, DC: TESOL, Inc.

Farrell, P. (2015). Teacher-research and the art of the professional experiment: Reflective practice in the practical-knowledge tradition. International Journal of Language Studies, 9(1), 1-22.

Farrell, T. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 95-111.

Farrell, T. (2009). The novice teacher experience. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 182-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flores, B. B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers' beliefs and their relation to self-reported practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision-making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 27-45.

88 A. Kanakri

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experiences/reconstruction practice: Developing new understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 439–454.

Freeman, D. (1996a). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom, (pp. 88-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1996b). The ‘‘unstudied problem’’: Research on teacher learning. In D. Freeman, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching, (pp. 351–378). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher-research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge- base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.

Gebhard, J. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 250-258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, B. (2002). Talking at length and depth: Learning from focus group discussions. In K. E. Johson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development, (pp. 91-107). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.

Gu, Y. (2003). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary learning art of two successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-272.

Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL. New York, NY: Routledge

Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and learning of reading is theoretically based. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, Research and Practice, (pp. 32-40). New York, NY: National Research Conference.

Havighurst, R. J. (1978). Indian education since 1960. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPS), 13-26.


Higham, J. (1992). Crusade for Americanization. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy, (pp. 72–85). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Johnson, K. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Johnson, K. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, K. A. (2003). Every experience is a moving force: Identity and growth through mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 787-800.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507-535.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83-108.

Johnson, K. E. (1996). Portfolio assessment in second language teacher education. TESOL Journal, 6, 11-14.

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2002). Inquiry into experiences: Teachers’ personal and professional growth. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development, (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kamil, M. L., & Pearson, P. D. (1979). Theory and Practice in Teaching Reading. New York University Education Quarterly, 10(2), 10-16.

Kiely, R., & Askham, J. (2012). Furnished imagination: The impact of preservice teacher training on early career work in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 496-518.

Kuzmic, J. (1993). A beginning teacher’s search for meaning: Teacher socialization, organizational literacy, and empowerment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 15-27.

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-195.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

90 A. Kanakri

Lazaraton, A. (2003). Incidental displays of cultural knowledge in the nonnative-English-speaking teacher’s classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2), 213-246.

Lee, R. R. (1973). Performance criteria for teachers: design of a model for innovation. TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 137-144.

Leki, I. (1992). Teaching second language writing: where we seem to be. English Teaching Forum, 29(2), 8-11.

Leki, I. (2004). Meaning and development of academic literacy in a second language. In B. Huot, C. Bazerman, & B. Stroble (Eds.), Multi-Literacies for the 21st Century, (pp. 115-128). Cresswood, NJ: Hampton Press.

Linville, C. (2004). Editing line by line. In S. Bruce, & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, (pp. 84-93). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Malderez, A. (2009). Mentoring. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 259-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malderez, A., & Bodoczky, C. (1999). Mentor courses: A resource book for teachers, trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, S. (2002). Talking ourselves into understanding. In K. E. Johson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development, (pp. 195-209). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing : A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50(4), 699-721.

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Second-language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second Language Writing in the Composition Classroom, (pp. 14-30). Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Miller, J. (2009). Teacher identity. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 172-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Molesky, J. (1988). Understanding the American linguistic mosaic: A historical overview of language maintenance and language shift. In S. L. McKay & S. C. Wong (Eds.), Language Diversity: Problems or Resources?, (pp. 29-68). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.


Norris, W. E. (1972). Teacher qualifications and preparation: Guidelines for TESOL/US. Presentation at Annual TESOL Convention, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1972.

Ovando, C. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1-24.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.

Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—why?. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.

Randall, M., & Thornton, B. (2001). Advising and supporting teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1987). The dilemma of second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 209- 226.

Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. New York, NY: University of Cambridge.

Richards, J. C., & Pennington, M. (1998). The first year of teaching. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Beyond Training, (pp. 173-190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of research on teacher education, 2, 102-119.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the 'good language learner1 can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-52.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2006a). Language teaching: State of the art. Asian EFL Journal, 8(1), 169-193.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2006b). Research in the language classroom: State of the art. Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 63-72.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2008a). A Framework for Task-Oriented Language Instruction. Journal on School Educational Technology, 3(3), 5-16.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2008b). The role of metacognition in the language teaching profession. Journal on Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1-9.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2009). Improving learning and teaching through action research. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(4), 211-222.

92 A. Kanakri

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2011). Reflective teaching in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes: An overview. Journal on School Educational Technology, 6(3), 1-6.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2016). Working on the ‘write’ path: Improving EFL students’ argumentative-writing performance through L1-mediated structural cognitive modification. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(4), 131-152.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A., & Pashapour, A. (2016). Critical pedagogy, rituals of distinction, and true professionalism. Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 29-43.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A., & Daftarifard, P. (2011). Globalized classroom, emancipatory competence, and critical pedagogy: A paradigm shift. In R. V. Nata (Ed.), Progress in Education, (pp. 147-162). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Schmidt, R., & Froda, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Eds.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schulman, L. (1986). Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, and behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.

Singh, G., & Richards, J. C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the course room. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 201-208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, B. O., Cohen, S. B., & Pearl, A. (1969). Teachers for the real world. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Smith, L. C. (2004). The impact of action research on teacher collaboration and professional growth. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives on Research and Practice, (pp. 199-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smyth, J. (1987). Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge. Taylor & Francis.

Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (1982). The mind of the puzzler. Psychology Today, 16(6), pp. 37–44.


Stewart, T. (2006). Teacher-researcher collaboration or teachers’ research? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 421-430.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education-Washington DC, 51(2), 113-121.

Taber, J. (2006). A brief history of ESL instruction: Theories, methodologies, and upheavals. seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jgeorg/TESLSCCC/Abrief History.htm

Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Second language teacher learning and student second language learning: Shaping the knowledge-base. In D. Tedick (Ed.), Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives, (pp. 5-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thornbury, S. (1997). Teachers research teacher talk. ELT Journal, 50, 279-289.

Toohey, K., & Waterstone, B. (2004). Negotiating expertise in an action research community. In B. Nortotn & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, (pp. 291-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21-44.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1997). Approaches to second language teacher education. In G. R. Tucker and D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (pp. 121-129). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Segade, G. (1999). University support for second language writers across the curriculum. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegel (Eds.), Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition, (pp. 191-209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wood, R. (1987). Measurement and assessment in education and psychology: Collected papers. Taylor & Francis.

94 A. Kanakri

Wright, T. (1992). L2 classroom research and L2 teacher education: Towards a collaborative approach. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Education, (pp. 187-209). Hong Kong, China: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Xu, S. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2009). Narrative inquiry for teacher education and development: Focus on English as a second language in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 219–227.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.

Zeichner, K. M. (1981). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher education. Interchange, 12(4), 1-22.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

international journal of language studies 94 journal of language studies, 11(1), 63-94 65 on the...

Documents