Evaluating and Improving Teacher Educators’ Language-Oriented Performance in Content-Based Teaching

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 71 - 86, 15.02.2019

Fenna Swart Dubravka Knèzic Jeroen Onstenk Rick De Graaff

https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.1.71

Öz

In general, teacher educators are considered to be educational specialists whose main task is to communicate content-based concepts to prospective teachers. However, unfortunately, most studies on teacher professional development overlook this specific language-oriented aspect of content-based teaching. Therefore, we address the aforementioned research gap and argue that teacher educators’ evaluation of their language-oriented performance in educational communication enhances the quality of their content-based teaching. Accordingly, we examine how the language-oriented performance of teacher educators is evaluated by both individual teacher educators (sample size N=3) and their students (N=32) in a small-scale intervention study. The findings of the study reveal that there is a relationship between the order of application of five language focus areas (i.e., language awareness, active listening, formalizing interaction, language support, and language and learning development, as noticed by the students), and teacher educators’ ability to apply these areas in accordance with their objectives related to content-based teaching.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fenna Swart Inholland University of Applied Sciences and Utrecht University, NETHERLANDS, Dubravka Knèzic, Jeroen Onstenk, Rick de Graaff

Kaynakça

• Amador, J., & Weiland, I. (2015). What preservice teachers and knowledgeable others professionally notice during lesson study. The Teacher Educator, 50(2), 109–126.
• Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533–548.
• Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 175–178.
• Boyd, M. P., & Galda, L. (2011). Real talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral language practice. New York: Guilford Press.
• Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515–534.
• Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., Akkerman, S. F., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Consequential research designs in research on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 90–99.
• Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341.
• Cajkler, W., & Wood, P. (2016). Adapting “lesson study” to investigate classroom pedagogy in initial teacher education: What student-teachers think. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(1), 1–18.
• Cobb, P., Hodge, L. L., & Gresalfi, M. (2010). Introduction. In E. Yackel, K. Gravemeijer, & A. Sfard (Eds.), A journey in mathematics education research (pp. 167–177). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
• Colton, A. B., & Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45–54.
• Conley, N. A., & Ah Yun, K. (2017). A survey of instructional communication: 15 years of research in review. Communication Education, 66(4), 451–466.
• Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination of Fuller's concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465–482.
• Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5), 523–545.
• Den Brok, P., van Eerde, D., & Hajer, M. (2010). Classroom interaction studies as a source for teacher competencies: The use of case studies with multiple instruments for studying teacher competencies in multicultural classes. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 717–733.
• DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482.
• Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.
• Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31(2), 59–70.
• Hajer, M., Prenger, J., Koole, T., Elbers, E., & Jonkers, M. (2003). Instructive dialogues. Participation in dyadic interactions in multicultural classrooms. In J. Deen, M. Hajer, & T. Koole (Eds.), Interaction in two multicultural mathematics classrooms: Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 139–170). Amsterdam: Aksant.
• Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.
• Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., and Soini, T. (2017). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher–student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 250–266.
• Jack, E. P., & Raturi, A. S. (2006). Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management Research News, 29(6), 345–357.
• Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541–560.
• Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338–355.
• McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). New York City: Teachers College Press.
• Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.
• Morris, A. K., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products: An alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 5–14.
• Mouza, C., & Wong, W. (2009). Studying classroom practice: Case development for professional learning in technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 175–202.
• Nijveldt, M., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., Verloop, N., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Assessing the interpersonal competence of beginning teachers: The quality of the judgement process. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 89–102.
• Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 49–79.
• Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
• Renshaw, P. D. (2004). Dialogic learning teaching and instruction. In J. van der Linden, & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schleppegrell, M. J., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 254–268.
• Schleppegrell, M. J., & O’Hallaron, C. L. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 3–18.
• Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278–290.
• Soto Gómez, E., Serván Núñez, M. J., Pérez Gómez, A. I., & Peña Trapero, N. (2015). Lesson study and the development of teacher’s competences: From practical knowledge to practical thinking. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 4(3), 209–223.
• Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., & Starko, A. (1990). Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it?. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 23–32.
• Suh, J. K., & Park, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 246–259.
• Swank, G. (2005). Promoting interaction in a multicultural primary classroom. Paper presented at the bi-annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia.
• Swart, F., de Graaff, R., Onstenk, J., & Knèzic, D. (2018a). Teacher educators’ personal practical knowledge of language. Teachers and Teaching, 24(2), 166-182.
• Swart, F., de Graaff, R., Onstenk, J., & Knèzic, D. (2018b). Teacher educators’ conceptualization of ongoing language development in professional learning and teaching. Professional Development in Education, 44(3), 412-427.
• Swart, F., Onstenk, J., Knèzic, D., & de Graaff, R. (2018c). Teacher educators’ understanding of their language-oriented development in content-based classroom interaction. World Journal of Education, 8(2), 95-113.
• Tsang, W. K. (2004). Teachers’ personal practical knowledge and interactive decisions. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 163–198.
• Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28.
• Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 243–257.