INNOVATION THROUGH TEACHER EDUCATION

PROGRAMS
 SLTE programs
• attempting to embrace a sociocultural theoretical
perspective on teacher learning (Johnson, 2009) must
take stock of how they are expecting teachers to
develop teaching expertise by asking: What is the
nature of the activities embedded in our teacher
education programs? What are we collectively
attempting to accomplish in these activities? What sort
of assistance are we providing for teachers as they
engage in these activities? And how does participation
in these activities support and enhance the
development of teaching expertise?
 the microteaching simulation

• The microteaching simulation, in which novice teachers

plan and teach ‘mini- lessons’ in front of their peers as a
component of a methodology course, has been a
common practice for bridging the theory/practice divide
in teacher education programs. In its initial iterations, the
microteaching simulation was framed from a positivist
epistemological perspective in which teaching was
conceptualized as a set of discrete behaviors that could
be broken down into smaller behavioral components that
could be studied, practiced, and mastered through
imitation and repetition (Politzer, 1969)
 the extended team teaching project
• Within the context of an introductory TESL methodology course,
the microteaching simulation was re-conceptualized based on a
sociocultural theoretical perspective on teacher learning
(Johnson & Arshavskaya, 2011). The goal of the project was to
create multiple opportunities for novice teachers to participate
in a range of authentic activities associated with language
teaching, to create multiple opportunities for strategic
mediation (Wertsch, 1985) from peers and the TESL course
instructor throughout the various activities embedded in the
project, and to support novice teachers through multiple
attempts at materializing and enacting their teaching practices,
all with the ultimate goal of moving them toward greater self-
regulation of theoretically and pedagogically sound instructional
practices.
• Classroom Observation – In order to establish a better sense
of the situated context in which the team would eventually
teach, each team member individually observed at least one
session (most observed two) of their assigned ESL course.
• Tutoring Assignment – Each team member participated in six
one-hour tutoring sessions with a student enrolled in his/her
assigned ESL course. This activity created an opportunity for
extensive informal tutor/tutee interaction in which the
novice teachers provided assistance on relevant course
assignments and/or other L2 learning priorities identified by
three to four ESL students.
 Collaborative Lesson Planning:
• Pre-Practice Teach – Based on content provided by the
ESL course instructor, team members collaboratively
constructed a lesson plan for the lesson they were
assigned to teach. They were encouraged to supplement
the required curriculum, however their lesson needed to
meet the instructional objectives articulated in the
course syllabi. Through both face-to-face and virtual
meetings, the teams created a lesson plan that included
instructional objectives, how they had conceptualized
the content, the organization of the lesson, strategies for
supporting student learning, and an assessment plan.
• Practice Team Teach – Each team completed a
one-hour ‘practice teach’ in front of their
peers and the TESL course instructor. During
the practice teach, instruction was halted at
numerous points to allow peers and the
course instructor to ask questions, provide
feedback, and/or make suggestions. Such
intermittent probing, commentary, and
suggestions proved to be a critical
• Collaborative Lesson Planning: Post-Practice
Teach – Based on feedback
• during the ‘practice teach’ each team revised
their original lesson plan. Some teams met
face-to-face with the instructor, while others
met virtually and then submitted their final
lesson plan for feedback prior to the ‘actual
teach’.
 Actual Team Teach
• – Each team then taught the redesigned lesson to
their assigned ESL course. The TESL methods
course instructor attended the session but did not
intervene. This activity prompted the team to
make many in-flight decisions as it became clear
that in the activity of actual teaching, they needed
to alter or adjust their plans depending on how the
ESL students responded to teacher-initiated
questions and/or engaged in certain instructional
activities
• Team Stimulated Recall Session – Within 48
hours, the team watched their video recorded
‘actual teach’ with the TESL methods course
instructor. They were allowed to stop the
recording at any point to comment on what they
were doing, what they were thinking, or how they
were feeling. They were encouraged to
externalize their thinking and consider alternative
instructional strategies that might have been
appropriate in the lesson.
Team Teaching Individual Reflection Paper

• – Each team member was given a digital copy

of the ‘practice teach’, the ‘actual teach’, and
the ‘stimulated recall session’ and then asked
to write a five to seven page reflection paper
in which they focused primarily on what they
learned about themselves as teachers, about
the activity of L2 teaching, and about their
learning-to-teach experiences throughout the
entire extended team teaching project.
INNOVATION THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH
AND TEACHER-INITIATED CHANGE
• Action research (AR) is typically seen as
‘empowering’ teachers, enabling them to
acquire deeper insights and understanding of
their practices. At the heart of claims for AR is
the notion of innovation and renewal through
a systematic methodological approach that
brings together classroom action, research,
reflection and understanding.
• Some, however, contest the notion of AR (e.g.
Allwright, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007; Allwright &
Hanks, 2009) as being ‘parasitic’ (Allwright,
2005) on the professional lives and concerns
of teachers, while others (e.g. Rainey, 2000;
Borg, 2010) analyse the prevalence of teacher
AR and point to the realities of the constraints
and difficulties for many teachers.
 Key ideas and concepts

• Essentially, AR combines two different but

related forms of activity by participants
operating in a particular social environment:
‘action’, in that participants enact plans
embedded in their daily realities; and
‘research’, in that, simultaneously, they
systematically investigate the impact and
meanings of these plans.
• AR involves a self-reflective, systematic and critical
approach to enquiry by participants who are at the
same time members of the research community. The
aim is to identify problematic situations or issues
considered by participants to be worthy of
investigation in order to bring about critically informed
changes in practice. Action research is underpinned by
democratic principles in that the ownership of change
is invested in those who conduct the research. (Burns,
cited in Cornwell, 1999, p.5)
• The process is basically someone’s reflection on a
content which results from an act, or reflection on
the act itself in order to act better together with
others within the framework of reality (my
emphasis).

• Most teachers are drawn to the idea of ‘acting

better’ with their learners and colleagues, and
Nolen and Vander Putten argue that AR is
appealing as it provides ‘a practical yet systematic
research method’ to investigate practices inside
and outside the classroom (2007, p. 401
 Various discourses permeate the literature which make claims for the capacity
of AR to motivate and mediate teacher-initiated change. These include:

• democratization of research: effective change in theory and practice needs

to be initiated by teachers; therefore a shift towards democratising research
would include teacher practitioners.
• empowerment of teachers: teachers are usually on the lowest rungs of
educational power, and subject to top-down directives where rapid policy
change must be enacted at the classroom level. AR is seen as giving teachers
more power in understanding and managing top-down change.
• ownership: through practical enquiry teachers gain greater agency in the
enactment of syllabus/curriculum directives in the classroom.
• professionalization: teachers gain skills through research that deepen
understanding and improve practice.
• transformation: transformative professional development in contrast to
transmission-focused teacher training is enabled.
• change: the basis is laid for teacher-driven change, as well as greater insights
into the motivations for policy change.
 The innovation
• the goals and plans that formed the core of
the innovation and also the processes of
implementation. In doing so, I also consider
what affordances for development as teacher
researchers the program offered participants
during its implementation
 From EA’s perspective, there were two major strategic goals for the
program:

• to equip teachers with the skills to enable them to explore and address
their own identified teaching challenges
• to share the outcomes of this research.

• In addition, EA anticipated four key outcomes that would build towards

a major strategic goal to raise levels and quality of professional practice:

• direct professional development of the teachers involved

• development of teacher peer networks
• increased teacher engagement with research and academic
researchers
• encouraging professional development by the teachers involved
beyond the program itself.
Consequently, after much discussion between the facilitators and the
reference group members, we decided to trial an approach involving:

•
• three face-to-face meetings for facilitators and teachers, two located in
Sydney and one located at the Gold Coast the day before the EA annual
conference (which the teachers would all attend)
• interim periods between meetings of putting the research into practice by
the teachers
• email contact at regular intervals between teachers and facilitators to
provide updates, exchange ideas, answer questions and comment on
progress
• a series of short overviews at regular intervals written by the teachers in
preparation for the individual papers that would eventually be published
in the CE journal, Research Notes
• a colloquium presented by the teachers and facilitators at the EA
Conference.
• The first one-and-a-half-day workshop introduced the teachers to
the methodological parameters, major concepts, procedures, steps
and methods of AR (see Burns, 2010), and the teachers were asked
to outline their current ideas and plans for research in their chosen
focus areas. We also used the workshop discussions to refine
research plans collaboratively in order to reach a point where the
teachers could go back to their classrooms with firmer ideas for
initiating the research. The focus topics that emerged as a result of
this workshop were:
•
– extensive reading programs, motivation and vocabulary development
– use of digital dictionaries
– learner responsibility in listening and speaking development
– extensive reading for beginner learners
– learner obligation and motivation
– progress, motivation and high-level learners.
 Conclusion

• The program outlined here as an example of

innovation through teacher- initiated research was
in a position to be productive from its initiation. It
contained conditions for success, which are not
routinely found to be available in other educational
contexts. Where policy makers and teaching
institutions simply admonish teachers to undertake
AR to improve their practices without providing the
necessary implementation structures, they create a
situation which is naive and bound to fail.