Teaching a foreign language: one teacher's practical theory

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 291–311

*Correspondin

4631-2407.

E-mail addre

0742-051X/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.tat

Teaching a foreign language: one teacher’s practical theory

Francis Mangubhai*, Perce Marland, Ann Dashwood, Jeong-Bae Son

Centre for Language Learning and Teaching, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld. 4350, Australia

Abstract

In recent decades, teachers of second languages in many countries, including Australia, have been encouraged

to use an approach known as communicative language teaching (CLT). This approach advocates the

development of communicative competence as a primary goal through the extensive use of the second

language as a means of communication during classroom lessons. Understandably, education authorities

and teacher educators are keen to know what teachers understand by CLT and how well they have

incorporated this approach into their second language teaching. This exploratory study seeks to answer

these questions in respect of one teacher, who claims to use a CLT approach. This is done by documenting her

personal practical theory of CLT, using a framework adapted from a well-known approach to describing models of

teaching. Access to the teacher’s practical theories was gained through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and

stimulated recall interviews involving use of videotapes of two of the teacher’s lessons. The study establishes that the

teacher’s practical theory is an amalgam of many features of CLT approaches and of general teaching. The CLT

components of the teacher’s practical theory are largely consistent with features commonly listed in texts about CLT

approaches, though there are some components of her theory that are not generally discussed in the CLT literature. The

framework used in this study for representing the teacher’s practical theories of CLT is also assessed and considered

suitable for wider use.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge base for teaching; Pedagogical content knowledge; Second language instruction; Second language learning;

Communicative language teaching; Inservice teacher education

1. Introduction

Schools in the Australian state of Queenslandteach Languages Other Than English (LOTEs),particularly European and Asian, from Grades 5–12. Queensland teachers of these foreign languagesubjects have been encouraged to use an approachcommonly referred to as communicative language

g author. Tel.: +61-7-4631-1804; fax: +61-7-

ss: [email protected] (F. Mangubhai).

front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

e.2004.02.001

teaching (CLT), and as the Communication andLanguage or Communication approach. CLTapproaches have also been widely endorsed foruse by Australian teachers of LOTE through theAustralian Language Level guidelines prepared inthe late 80s (Vale, Scarino, & McKay, 1991). Theinclusion of LOTE studies in the curriculum ofthese year levels is considered very significantbecause of the contribution it can make to therealization of national priorities: Improving socialcohesion within the multi-cultural societies ofQueensland and Australia, extending opportu-nities for cultural and economic exchanges with

ed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Mangubhai et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 291–311292

other countries and enhancing relationships withcountries and cultural groups on both regional andinternational levels.CLT is not a rigidly circumscribed method

of foreign language teaching but rather anapproach, based on an amalgam of affiliatedstrategies, that seeks to develop communicativecompetence in students and requires a commit-ment to using the foreign language as a mediumfor classroom communication as much aspossible. CLT classrooms are also usuallycharacterized by a number of features thatare commonly listed in the literature on CLT(Mangubhai, Howard, & Dashwood, 1999;Williams, 1995). These features include: anemphasis on language use rather than languageknowledge; greater emphasis on fluency andappropriateness in the use of the target languagethan structural correctness; minimal focus onform with corresponding low emphasis onerror correction and explicit instruction onlanguage rules or grammar; classroom tasksand exercises that depend on spontaneity andstudent trial-and-error and that encourage nego-tiation of meaning between students and studentsand teachers; use of authentic materials; anenvironment that is interactive, not excessivelyformal, encourages risk-taking and promotesstudent autonomy; teachers serving more asfacilitators and participants than in the traditionaldidactic role; and students being actively involvedin interpretation, expression and negotiation ofmeaning. In short, the approach ‘‘puts the focuson the learner’’ (Savignon, 2002, p. 4).Understandably, given the importance of LOTE

studies to the realization of national goals,education authorities and teacher educators havebeen keen to ascertain how well this approach isunderstood by those who are implementing it, howstrong their commitment is to its use and to whatextent this approach is reflected in teachers’classroom practice. As Rollman (1994) notes,these are persistent questions that demand ananswer if informed decisions are to be made aboutthe effectiveness of, and improvements to, currentteacher education programs aimed at assistingLOTE teachers to understand and implement CLTapproaches.

2. Review of relevant literature

To date, few studies of how well teachersunderstand and use CLT approaches appear tohave been undertaken (Karavas-Doukas, 1996).Moreover, these studies tend to be small-scale andhave been scattered across a number of differentcontexts. In a Scottish study, Mitchell (1988) usedin-depth interviews to investigate the understand-ings of ‘communicative competence’ held by 59foreign language teachers. She reported a widevariety of understandings ranging from commu-nicative competence as a survival language, usefulwhen travelling in foreign places, to one that issimilar to Canale and Swain’s (1980) conception ofthe term. This conception was described in termsof grammatical, strategic and sociolinguistic com-petences, the last-mentioned being later differen-tiated into sociolinguistic and discoursecompetences (Canale, 1983). Mitchell also re-ported finding that many teachers still espousedbeliefs about second language acquisition thatwere at odds with those underpinning a CLTapproach.A two-phase project undertaken by Mangubhai,

Dashwood, Berthold, Flores, and Dale (1998) inAustralia sought to identify understandings andbeliefs about CLT of some 39 LOTE teachers. Inthe first phase of the study, teachers were asked tocomplete a questionnaire, an adaptation of onedeveloped by Karavas-Doukas (1996). In thesecond phase, follow-up interviews were con-ducted with six of the phase one respondents toprobe further their beliefs about CLT. A conclu-sion of this research was that teachers’ under-standings and beliefs about some keycharacteristics of CLT differed from those appear-ing in the literature on CLT.Another study involving 10 teachers of Japanese

in Queensland state schools (Sato & Kleinsasser,1999), found that teachers’ conceptions of CLTwere of four types: (a) CLT is about learning tocommunicate in the second language; (b) CLT usesmainly speaking and listening; (c) CLT involveslittle grammar instruction; and (d) CLT usesactivities that are time consuming. Observationof classroom practices in this study also indicatedthat teachers tended to use a didactic approach,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Mangubhai et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 291–311 293

with grammar playing a central role, features notconsistent with CLT approaches. A number ofother authors have also reported marked differ-ences between teachers’ and researchers’ concep-tions of CLT (Nunan, 1987; Rollman, 1994;Thompson, 1996; Whitley, 1993; Williams, 1995).A search of literature in the area of teacher

thinking was also undertaken to see if studies hadbeen conducted which could cast light on teachers’understanding of, commitment to, and use of CLTapproaches. Research on teacher thinking has, asone of its goals, documenting the practical knowl-edge that teachers accumulate as a result ofclassroom experience and reflection on thatexperience. A fundamental premise underpinningthis research is that what teachers do in classroomsis largely shaped by this practical knowledge, apremise that is well established and widelyaccepted (Ross, Cornett, & McCutcheon, 1992;Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986; Wood & Bennett,2000). Despite an extensive review of this corpus ofliterature, only one study of teachers’ practicalknowledge relevant to CLT approaches (Golom-bek, 1998) was located. In this study, the focus wason the personal practical knowledge of twoEnglish-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teachersand not on their practical knowledge related toCLT per se. The findings did not bear on the issuesof interest in this paper.In summary, the little evidence that is available

points to teachers having incomplete and imprecisenotions of what CLT entails and to substantialdifferences within teachers’ understandings ofCLT and between teachers and researchers. Insimilar vein, Karavas-Doukas (1996) concludedthat ‘‘ythe few small-scale classroom studies thathave been carried outyseem to suggest thatcommunicative classrooms are rare. While mostteachers profess to be following a communicativeapproach, in practice they are following moretraditional approaches’’ (p. 187), an observationalso made by Savignon (2002). Thus, the evidenceis not regarded as substantial enough to allowclear-cut answers to questions about how wellteachers’ understand and use CLT. Yet suchevidence is still urgently needed to allow asubsequent assessment of the effectiveness ofprograms of teacher education aimed at the

preparation of LOTE teachers in the use of CLTapproaches.

3. Outline of project

The preceding review points clearly to the needfor more research into teachers’ understandings ofCLT and the adequacy of such understandings.These issues became the focus of interest in thisstudy that, in keeping with other research intohuman knowledge and thinking, was set within aqualitative research paradigm. To allow researchmethods to be fine-tuned prior to their potentialuse in a larger, subsequent study, this project wasplanned as a small-scale, exploratory or pilot studyinvolving only a few teachers, of which one is thefocus of this article. This particular teacher waschosen from amongst the others because she wasthe most articulate in elaborating her beliefs aboutteaching. The two primary questions to beaddressed in this article are: What does the teacherunderstand by CLT? And, how adequate is suchan understanding? A further question to beaddressed, because of its bearing on a possiblefollow-up study, concerns the adequacy of theframework used in this study for representing theteacher’s understanding of CLT.

4. Research methods

An approach to investigating teacher under-standing of CLT was used which owes much tocurrent research on teacher knowledge and think-ing. This research was used to source the choice ofmethods because, as noted earlier, it posits thatwhat teachers do in classrooms is guided by thepractical knowledge that they have built up largelythrough experience in classrooms. Because prac-tical knowledge is a product of a natural tendencyin human beings to try to make sense of thecontexts in which they work and live and is used tobuild frameworks for guiding action therein, it canalso take on the form of practical theory. Whilepractical theories are not theories in the scientificsense because they are not ‘‘yconceptually pre-cise, specifically explicated, and able to withstand

ARTICLE IN PRESS


rigorous logical tests’’ (Sanders & McCutcheon,1986, p. 57), practical theories do allow teachers todescribe, make sense of, and provide plausibleexplanations for, events in their classrooms. Theyare also useful for predicting what may happen inclassrooms, hence providing a basis for purposiveaction through the generation of lesson plans thathold some potential for success (Marland, 1993).In common with other theories then, practicaltheories serve the functions of description, expla-nation and prediction. This has prompted teachersto be represented as theory-builders who continu-ally construct, elaborate, test and refine their ownpractical theories of teaching (Busher, Clarke, &Taggart, 1988; Richardson, 1997; Schubert, 1992).These premises provided the rationale for thedecision that, to uncover teacher understandingsof CLT approaches, appropriate methods wouldbe those regularly used for exploring and doc-umenting teachers’ personal practical theories ofCLT.Two methods were chosen to assist the teacher

in the explication of her practical theories of CLT:(a) semi-structured, in-depth interviews; and (b)stimulated recall interviews involving the use ofvideotapes of lessons taught by the teacher toprompt teacher recall of aspects of her practicaltheories.

4.1. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews

The decision to use this interview approach wasshaped by a number of considerations. First, thismethod has a long and successful tradition inteacher thinking research dating back two decades(Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Elbaz, 1983). It givesteachers the opportunities and time to detail fullyand freely the bases for their approaches toteaching, without the constraints of a set scheduleof invariant questions. Moreover, this approachallows prominence to be given to the voiceof teachers rather than that of researchers,an important consideration for ensuringfidelity of accounts of practice and their rationales(Elbaz, 1991).Second, practical theories are considered to be

largely implicit (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Gage,1977) because they tend to build up in teachers’

minds in the absence of a formal process of theoryconstruction and because teachers are rarelyinvited to make them explicit. For these reasons,articulation of implicit theories by teachers canpose difficulties. These difficulties can be assuagedto an extent within the context of an in-depthinterview by creating a climate conducive toteacher reflection and disclosure of details of theirpractical theories. Teacher engagement in theseintrospective processes can be encouraged byinterviewers being empathic, supportive and non-evaluative, asking open-ended questions, seekingclarification and extension of the teachers’ remarksand using the language of the teachers wherepossible. In this study, the role of interviewer wasdefined to include these features.Third, a semi-structured approach was used

because it was felt that it would provide flexibilityto allow unique features of a teacher’s practicaltheory of CLT to surface and would assist ateacher, inexperienced in articulating the bases forhis/her teaching, to disclose important aspects ofhis/her practical theories (Berg, 1995).A major challenge involved in using in-depth

interviews in this study was deciding the set of corequestions to be used within a semi-structuredinterview approach. The challenge faced by theresearch team was to decide how wide the netshould be cast in interviews to ensure fulldisclosure of a teacher’s practical theory of CLT.A wide variety of terms have been used todocument teachers’ practical knowledge and the-ories. The more prominent ones include values(Halstead, 1996), beliefs (Calderhead, 1996;Pajares, 1992), principles and rules (Elbaz, 1983),aims or goals (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Marland& Osborne, 1990), strategies and actions (Brown &McIntyre, 1988; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996),normal desirable states (Brown & McIntyre,1988), student progress (Brown & McIntyre,1988), cues (Marland, 1997), teacher attributes(Cooper & McIntyre, 1996), contextual variablesor conditions (Brown & McIntyre, 1988), images(Clandinin, 1986; Johnson, 1992), metaphors(Tobin, 1990) and pedagogical content knowledge(Gudmonsdottir & Shulman, 1987). A key ques-tion was: Which of these constructs should ateacher be invited to discuss when outlining his/her

ARTICLE IN PRESS


practical theories? Finding a suitable answer tothis question proved challenging for severalreasons, reasons that are explored in some depthhere because the solution adopted is novel andexploratory and because it is grounded in ananalysis of issues which have received scantattention in teacher thinking research to date.First, determining the nature of core questions

is made difficult by differences of opinion aboutthe scope and focus of teachers’ practical theories.Some researchers report that teachers havetheories with quite specific foci such as pupillearning, classroom control, the aims of schooling,how teachers can ‘repair’ interactions whenthey want to change student states-of-mindand how people should interact with eachother in a learning process (Anning, 1988; Busheret al., 1988). Theories on these specific topicswould have a much narrower focus than practicaltheories about, for example, teaching a particularage level or a subject such as History or Mathe-matics. Indeed, the latter could well subsume theformer.Secondly, there are marked differences in the

number and nature of constructs used to encapsu-late practical theories. Some describe practicaltheories only in terms of beliefs or metaphors or acombination of these two (Ross et al., 1992), whileothers provide much more extensive accounts ofpractical knowledge. Elbaz (1983), for example, indescribing the practical knowledge of one second-ary teacher of English, used five practical knowl-edge components (knowledge of self, milieu,subject matter, curriculum development and in-struction) and postulated that the teacher’s prac-tical knowledge was structured in terms of rules ofpractice, practical principles and images. Otherstudies (e.g., Batten, Marland, and Khamis, 1993;Brown & McIntyre, 1988) provided other con-ceptualizations of practical theories involving arange of constructs and links between them.Thirdly, accounts of teachers’ practical theories

usually pay little attention to the links between thediscrete elements of these theories. Even an every-day or commonplace understanding of theorysuggests that a theory must be more than anisolated or independent body of knowledge if it isto provide explanations for why teachers act as

they do. According to Snow (1975), theories, intheir simplest form, consist of two features—thecomponents themselves and the set of relationshipsamong components. Certainly, components ofteacher practical knowledge appear to be linkedin quite significant ways (see, for example, thework of Batten et al., 1993; Brown & McIntyre,1988; Marland, 1997). Such linkages can denotecausal and reciprocal effects among components,mutually beneficial or inhibitory associations, pre-requisites for success in the use of a component,and contextual factors that impact on othercomponents.The challenge for the research team was to

develop a framework for conducting semi-struc-tured interviews that would allow an interviewer topromote, in non-leading ways, teacher talk on asmany constructs and links among constructs aswould ensure full disclosure of a practical theory.The compromise solution that was finally reachedon the issue of what core questions should beincluded in in-depth interviews involved the use ofthe framework proposed by Joyce and Weil (1992)for describing models of teaching, but with someadjustments as explained below. The Joyce andWeil framework has the advantages of beingwidely known and respected in teacher educationcircles and of having been used with success inpromoting teacher learning of new approaches toteaching (Showers, 1985; Showers, Joyce, &Bennett, 1987). Table 1 shows how the Joyce andWeil framework was used to identify foci ofquestions for helping full teacher disclosure oftheir practical theories. It should be noted that thefoci included many of the constructs, listed earlier(e.g., values, beliefs, goals and principles), used todocument teacher practical knowledge and theory.Teachers were also to be given the opportunity tonominate any other features of their practicaltheories not covered by these constructs.The Joyce and Weil (1992) framework was thus

used to generate the set of initial questions for usein in-depth interviews while, at the same time,drawing on the list of constructs used for describ-ing teacher practical theories (see above). Thesequestions usually took the form: ‘‘Doy (e.g.strategies, teacher–student relationships, teacherskills, etc.) feature in your use of a CLT

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Relationship of interview questions to features in the Joyce and Weil model

Features of Joyce and Weil model Focus of interview questions about CLT approaches

Goal focus—main goals of lesson(s), unit Aims

Assumptions, principles and major concepts underlying the

model

Beliefs, values, principles underpinning CLT approaches

Syntax—the sequence of lesson phases (Interviews did not focus on this feature because CLT

approaches involve a range of instructional strategies; instead

interviewees were invited to discuss strategies, methods or

tactics they regarded as consistent with CLT.)

Social system—roles of teacher and students, teacher–student

relationships, norms of student behaviours

Teacher and student roles, relationships, preferred student

behaviours (cues, normal desirable states)

Principles of teacher reaction—how to regard learners and how

to respond to what learners do

Principles of teacher reaction

Support system—additional requirements beyond usual human

skills, capacities and technical facilities

Special teacher attributes, skills required in CLT lessons; special

resources used in CLT lessons

Instructional and nurturant effects—outcomes, both direct and

implicit, of the model

Main outcomes (cognitive, affective, skill)—planned and

unplanned

Metaphors, images appropriate to CLT approach


approach?’’ Or ‘‘Are there anyy (e.g., strategies,teacher roles, aims) that are central to your use ofa CLT approach?’’ Follow-up questions were notprescribed, arising instead from teacher responsesto the initial questions and in keeping with thebasic requirements for creating a context appro-priate to teacher disclosure outlined earlier.

4.2. Stimulated recall interviews

Videotapes of lessons involving use of CLT weremade and used in post-lesson interviews tostimulate teacher recall of parts of practicaltheories related to classroom events. This methodwas used to provide a source for cross-checking in-depth interview data and to supplement such datain instances where the teacher was reminded, bycues on lesson videotapes, of other aspects of his/her practical theory not revealed in the in-depthinterviews. In re-play sessions, the teacher was tobe asked to stop the videotapes where aspects of aCLT approach were in evidence and explain therationale for those classroom events. The inter-viewer took the roles of facilitator and client-centred counsellor to assist teacher disclosure ofpractical theory features and by listening carefullyto the teacher, seeking clarification or elaborationwhere necessary, and reacting supportively but notjudgmentally.

5. Selection of participant

The teacher–participant discussed in thisarticle was one of seven who expressed aninterest in being involved in the project.Like others, she attended a briefing sessionwhere they were informed of the goals andmethods of the project, introduced to projectteam members, and invited to seek clarificationof project details. At this meeting, informationwas also provided on the ethical standardsthat would apply, including assurances of pre-servation of anonymity and respect for theteacher’s right to withdraw at any time; the extentof the participant’s commitment of time to theproject; and the need to select either a Year 7 orYear 10 class as the focus class for the researchproject. This choice of year levels was made toincrease the likelihood of long student exposure tothe LOTE and long teacher exposure to the classor class members, features seen as possiblycontributing to the practical theory being wellestablished and relatively stable. Criteria used inthe selection process included: stated commitmentto the use of CLT approaches in classrooms;considerable experience as a LOTE teacher;involvement in in-service activities related toCLT; articulateness; and enthusiasm for involve-ment in the research project.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


6. Data collection

The data base considered necessary for thepreparation of an account of a teacher’s practicaltheory of CLT included 2-hour-long in-depthinterviews; videotapes of two CLT lessons, eachof about 30min duration; and 2-hour-long stimu-lated recall interviews involving use of the lessonvideotapes to prompt recall of aspects of theteacher’s practical theory of CLT as revealed byher use of CLT in the two lessons.All in-depth and stimulated recall interview data

and lesson videotapes were gathered by onemember of the research team without CLTexpertise but with extensive experience in thesetechniques and in education. This decision wasmade because, in an earlier study (Mangubhaiet al., 1999), an inhibitory effect on teachers wasfound to occur when interviews were conducted bythose members of the research team with CLTexpertise. Data collection sessions were arrangedat times nominated by the teacher, usually over a3-week period, beginning with in-depth interviewsand followed by videotaping and stimulated recallinterviews. Stimulated recall interviews were con-ducted on the same day as the videotaping, withpreferred times being immediately after the lessonwas videotaped or as close as possible there-to.

7. Data analysis

All in-depth interview data were transcribed forsubsequent analysis using a two-phase system oftextual analysis. The first phase, unitization,involved reduction of all text spoken by theteacher to ideational units, defined as all the wordsat a particular point in the discourse embodying asingle idea being expressed by the interviewee. Thesecond step involved classifying each unit into oneof 18 categories. The categories covered:

* fifteen interview foci which correspondedroughly to the dimensions in Joyce and Weil’s(1992) framework for describing a model ofteaching (see Table 1) namely, aims, assump-tions (beliefs, values, principles), strategies,teacher role, student role, teacher–student

relationship, student behaviour norms, teachingskills, teacher attributes, special resources,principles of teacher reaction, instructionaleffects, nurturant effects, metaphors andimages;

* three categories constructed to accommodatereferences to: (a) contextual features such asthose relating to the class, individual studentsand institutional and community variables; (b)teacher affect; and (c) all other units fallingoutside those mentioned above.

All in-depth and stimulated recall interview datawere coded by one member of the research team. Arandom selection of 10% of the teacher’s tran-scripts was subjected to checks of reliability onboth unitization and classification, using Brophyand Evertson’s (1973) formula. Application of thisformula, regarded as a stringent one, resulted inreliability figures of not less than 93% forunitization and not less than 78% for classifica-tion. These figures were taken as indicating a verysatisfactory level of coding reliability.Once coding of all in-depth interview data had

been completed, the results were recorded usingNVivo software to facilitate organization andmanagement of the coded data. All instances ofeach type of unit were then collated and printoutsof this re-organized data prepared. These data setswere then used to prepare an account of theteacher’s practical theory of CLT in respect of theparticular class nominated by the teacher using,where possible, the teacher’s actual words. Datafrom stimulated recall interviews were used tosupplement in-depth interview data.An account of the teacher’s practical theory of

CLT was structured round the dimensions ofmodels of teaching proposed by Joyce and Weil(1992), with additional information about theteacher, class and institution being used tocontextualize the practical theory. A draft versionof the account was first subjected to scrutiny byother members of the research team to ensurefidelity and completeness of the reporting, andthen by the teacher. The teacher was asked toensure that the account ‘rang true’, that is,represented, with fidelity, her personal approachto the use of CLT approaches and left out nothing

ARTICLE IN PRESS


of significance. Where the teacher sought mod-ifications to the draft version, these were discussedfully and changes made until the revisions metwith the teacher’s approval.

8. Presentation of teacher’s practical theory of

CLT

The account of Doreen’s practical theory ofCLT is set out below. It is preceded by thepresentation of some biographical data on Doreenand some information intended to contextualizethe theory. The account of the theory is based onthe framework proposed by Joyce and Weil fordescribing the essential features of models of, orapproaches to, teaching.

8.1. About the teacher

The teacher selected as the participant in thispilot study is Doreen (a pseudonym), a nativespeaker of German, who was born in the Nether-lands in 1947. She has been a resident for over 30years of Australia where she completed her pre-service teacher education in 1969. From that timeto the present, Doreen has been a teacher inQueensland schools. She holds a Diploma inTeaching, a Bachelor of Education Studies and aGraduate Diploma in TESOL. Currently, Doreenis teaching in a junior state secondary school in amajor provincial city in Queensland where sheholds a position as a LOTE teacher.

8.2. About the class

The class chosen by Doreen to be the focus ofinterviews and lesson videotapes for the researchproject was a Grade 10 comprising 10 students,eight boys and two girls whose chosen LOTE wasGerman. The small number of students reflects thefact that, at the Year 10 level in this school, LOTEstudies are optional, that is, do not have to beincluded in a student’s course of studies in thatyear. Other factors impacting the size of this classwere the relatively small size of the school (420students) and the existence of other LOTEsubjects. Doreen considers her Grade 10 class to

be a ‘select group’, ‘fairly knowledgeable’ and‘quick on the uptake’. She has known most of thestudents since Year 8 and considers them ‘keen tocome’ to the German class and reluctant to leave,so much so that she has ‘yalmost got to throwthem out at the end (of a lesson)’. Their schoolbackgrounds in German vary considerably, withsome not having studied German in primaryschool and one girl having commenced study ofGerman only in Year 9. Normally, study ofGerman in Years 8 and 9 is the pre-requisite forentry to the Grade 10 German class but this iswaived in special circumstances.Doreen believes that ‘you’ve got to know your

class’ and likes to know their parents as well. Shefinds gathering information about them easybecause of the small class size. One of the benefitsof this knowledge of students for Doreen is thatshe knows their interests and can adjust lessoncontent to cater for these. Features of the classthat warrant special attention, according toDoreen, are first, that two of the male studentsare autistic and second, some are members of one-parent families without mothers. The autisticstudents are members of this class because a policyof inclusiveness applies in Queensland StateSchools.

8.3. About the institutional culture

The school in which this study was set is aJunior State High School catering for studentsfrom Years 8 to 10. It was established within thelast 8 years as an adjunct to a much larger statesecondary school and is located on a separatecampus some distance from the ‘mother’ school.Doreen enjoys being a teacher in this school andasserts that the school administration is supportiveof LOTE subjects.

8.4. Outline of Doreen’s practical theory of CLT

8.4.1. Goal focus of her CLT lessons

For Doreen, a main goal of her use of a CLTapproach is to have students able to ‘converse’ inGerman with Germans: ‘At the moment our goalis to learn the language, to make it useful inGermany’ for when students visit Germany in a

ARTICLE IN PRESS


couple of months time on a school-organized visit.Uppermost in her mind is the need for the secondlanguage to serve utilitarian purposes. It must beseen by students as ‘realynot some airy-fairysubject that they do only for exam purposes’.Moreover, she wants them to learn ‘just basicsurvival German’ and to be able to engage incasual, informal exchanges with ‘someone in theirown age group’ about ordinary, everyday activ-ities—‘talking about themselves, finding their wayround town, buying things, going shopping,eating, go(ing) to the bankypost office, send(ing)a letter home to Australiayto say what’s wrongwith them if they feel sick, how to talk over thetelephone, (and) perhaps make an appointment’.Doreen wants her students to be fluent enough inGerman ‘to make them feel comfortable if theywere suddenly transported into Germany’. In fact,‘being comfortable in the language’ is described byDoreen as the ultimate goal of her CLT approach.Such a condition, in Doreen’s view, means thatstudents will have the confidence to use the secondlanguage without fear of ridicule and rejection.Another important goal for Doreen is to expose

students to the German culture because shebelieves that learning a language is made easier ifstudies of the language and the culture go hand inhand. Consequently, activities in Doreen’s CLTlessons are frequently embedded in topics relatedto the culture of Germany—history, geography,customs, cuisine, fests, makes of car and breeds ofdog. Through these activities, Doreen wantsstudents not just to ‘hear the language’, conversein German and ‘hone their listening skills’ but alsoto note cultural similarities and differences, tobecome tolerant of others and to learn to bediplomatic.

8.4.2. Assumptions

In-depth interviews with Doreen revealed anumber of key assumptions about CLT whichunderpin her use of this approach with this specificYear 10 class. These assumptions have beengrouped under headings (see below) generated bythe research team from a careful analysis ofinterview transcripts.

Integration of language and culture. In Doreen’sview, one of the benefits of mastering another

language is that it allows you ‘yto make yourselffeel comfortable in the culture’. But there is, in herview, a reciprocal benefit. She believes that‘through cultural exposureythey (students) feelat ease with the language and the language willcome easiery’. Accordingly, she believes that tolearn a language one needs to engage in a parallelstudy of the culture; hence she does not ‘ywant tomake the German language seem separate fromtheir (German) whole way of life’.

Macro-skills. A key belief of Doreen’s is that alanguage is ‘for the purpose of communication’; inother words, you learn a language so that you cancommunicate with others via speaking, listening,writing and reading. ‘If you are unable to seesomebody, you have to talkyuse body language.If you can’t do any of those, you can write. Youcertainly have to listen and you’ve got to readsigns, ymenus, yadvertisements, ytimetables.You’ve got to read. All those four macro-skills willbe covered’.

Learning a LOTE. The contentions in thepreceding paragraph are linked to two of Doreen’sbeliefs about learning a LOTE. The first is that it isimportant for students to hear the second languagein use, whether by native speakers or by theirpeers: ‘I think the more they hear a language thebetter, regardless of what dialect it is’. The secondbelief is that students should be encouraged to usethe second language in oral exchanges in theclassroom, no matter how faltering or incorrecttheir speech might be. As well, Doreen believesthat students will also learn to communicate inGerman through written exchanges with Germanstudents via the Internet. Above all else, Doreenasserts, you have got to ‘yget them talking inGerman’. She believes it is important for her to‘encourage contact (with Germans or Germanspeakers), even if it’s just basic info—how old areyou? brothers and sisters? hobbies? what you like,what you don’t like? Gradually, the questions getdeeper and more involved’.

Ways of building student confidence in use of the

second language. To build student confidence inusing the second language, Doreen believes that itis best if oral exchanges are relatively private,between a student and his or her closest friend, andnot involving strangers. Not surprisingly, given the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


above, she believes that the development ofcommunicative behaviour by students involves‘copying, mimicking and (listening to) me model-ling’ the language. Doreen considers that she ‘talksto them a lot in German’. About one particularsegment of her videotaped lesson, she commented:‘See, I just kept talking, in German, to give thekids a chance to hear German spoken all the timewith the hope that they will pick up certainphrases.’ Clearly, Doreen believes that, throughhearing ‘simple phrases all the timey, they(students) will learn expressions, they will auto-matically adopt some of them andy (they willlearn that) through using simple phrases they canstill prattle on (in German)’. Moreover, shemaintains that students need to form an integratedview of the second language and not view it as‘isolated individual little topics’ and that they needto learn how to transfer their knowledge ofvocabulary learnt in one context to other contexts.

Teacher use of L1 and L2. So that students get tohear the second language in use, Doreen believesthat it is important for her to use it during lessons,but not exclusively. She maintains that she musttry to preserve a balance between usage of the firstand second languages (English and German)—shecalls it ‘switching’: ‘y (I)f I’m going back toEnglish every now and then briefly, I’m picking upthe ones who may have been lost, and theny Idon’t even do it consciously, I’ll switch back toGerman again’. At another interview point, shesaid: ‘I try to keep a delicate balancey I tend togive the shorter instructions in German’ andlonger explanations in English in case ‘it goesright over their heads’; so for ‘short commands orshort responsesy I’d probably say that in Ger-man all the time’. Short expressions like ‘ythatdoesn’t fit or that’s wrong (or) if I’m telling themto be carefuly I say that in German because thatis something that will have an impact on them’. Asthe first quotation in this paragraph indicates, herpractice of switching frequently between the twolanguages serves another important purpose. Itallows her to keep engaged in the lesson thosestudents who may not comprehend what she issaying in German. Switching backwards andforwards enables her to keep those students tunedin to the lesson.

Student errors. Doreen also considers it impor-tant that students hear different German dialects.She tries to ensure this through using local, native-speaking Germans and, as well, video- andaudiotape resources. One assumption that Doreenstresses is that ‘it doesn’t really matter at first howmany mistakes the (students) make, so long asthey’re communicating. yRegardless of howbroken it is, or how badly grammatically it’sspoken, it doesn’t matter; if they can get the basicpronunciation, someone will understand’. Theapplication of this belief was illustrated by Doreenby reference to such examples as ‘leav(ing) off anending of an adjective’, putting ‘the verb in thewrong place’ or sentence syntax errors. She says,‘I’d rather them communicate than worry aboutthe grammatical structure’.

The place of structure and grammar. Doreen,however, does not believe that structure andgrammar are unimportant, citing, as examples oftheir importance, knowledge of modal or helpingverbs and placement of verbs and past participlesat the end of sentences. In response to an interviewquestion about the teaching of grammar, she said,‘I do show them patterns of languagey I do haveto teach them grammar. There is just no wayabout it’. But because she believes that studentsdislike grammar and find it a very ‘daunting’subject, she tries to ‘camouflage’ it through herchoice of topics. For example, she camouflages thestudy of the gender-sensitive forms of adjectives inlessons about German dogs with live specimens ofdogs present during the lesson.

Teacher reactions to student errors. Doreenbelieves in encouraging students to use the secondlanguage even if it is far from error-free. She alsobelieves in overlooking some of the errors wherewhat students are saying is understandable: ‘Ithink that’s very importanty Encourage them totalk. Don’t stop them for every little mistakethey’re making. It’s not very nice’. However, thereare times when students make errors that she doestry to adopt a specific reactive pattern. Instead ofinterrupting student talk, ‘ywhich (she claimsshe’s) got a very bad habit of doingy’, she tries to‘ywait till he’s finished and then I will remodel acorrect structure’. She uses this pattern, hopingthat students will ‘pick it up and re-use it correctly

ARTICLE IN PRESS


next timey’. Secondly, she does not condoneridicule—‘laugh(ing) at them’ or saying ‘yha, ha,that was a stupid thing to say’. Rather, she seeks toassure them that she understands what they aresaying or writing but, reluctantly, avoids providingcorrective feedback—‘y I wouldn’t have madetoo much of a fuss about it’ (the error). Thisreluctance vanishes quickly if another studentpoints out a mistake. Then, with some relief, sheconsiders it appropriate to point out the mistakeand how to correct it.

The nature of topics, tasks and activities. Otherprominent beliefs in Doreen’s practical theoryrelate to the content and nature of topics,tasks, activities and other related aspects ofLOTE lessons. The following sample of statementsby Doreen indicates her commitment to abelief that tasks, activities and topics should bereal, meaningful, useful and related to students’interests:

* ‘So, their tasks are all set in realistic situations,such as, ‘‘you are writing a letter to a friend’’ or‘‘you have just been introduced to a group ofGermans. How would you go about explainingsuch and such’’ or ‘‘you’ve met a lady in thestreet, in Bonn; here’s a map; she wants to go tothat direction. How would you help her get toher destination’’’.

* ‘That’s right. Be realistic. If you make it tooairy-fairy for them, their vocab. may not beforthcoming. And it’s meaningless’.

* ‘I think the overlaying factor when you’reteaching a language is ‘‘how useful is it’’? Youdon’t have to say, ‘‘The postman brings a biggreen letter’’, or something like that. You’rebetter off talking about a pop group inGermany. That’s more their style’.

The last statement also explains Doreen’s dislikeof working from textbooks. She believes that thetasks she sets are more realistic than those found intextbooks because she can make them morerelevant to the interests of her students.

Values. Doreen’s use of a CLT approach isgrounded in certain values that she sets out topromote. Two of these are ‘listening to each other’and ‘supporting each other’. ‘One thing that I’m

very finicky about is ‘‘be prepared to listen tosomebody else speaking’’ and it’s also one of ourclass expectations that we’ve typed up on a littleposter’. Her endorsement of the second of thesevalues is revealed in her comments following anoral presentation in German by one of her twoautistic students who had refused, over 2 years, toaddress the class: ‘y (W)ell the kids nearly gavehim a standing ovation. They clapped, and theyclapped, and he went red, and he went all colours;but that was so spontaneous. I was reallyimpressed’.Other values considered important by Doreen

are independence, taking responsibility for theirown learning and ‘giving it a go’. She expectsstudents to take responsibility for their ownlearning and, to this end, very seldom sets home-work. ‘They know that their responsibility is to gothrough what they’ve done that day.ySo it’s theirown individual responsibility, that they have tolearn.’ She expects them also to display indepen-dence, for example, in the preparation andpresentation of their orals and in research. Shetries to encourage student independence by allow-ing them to follow their own interests, forexample, during Internet sessions, by respondingpositively to requests from students about topicsthey would like to cover and by reacting with ‘lotsof encouragement’ to the ideas and answersproffered by students. In these ways, too, sheseeks to get them to ‘have a go’ because, as sheputs it, ‘yif you don’t give it a go, you’ll neverlearn’. At the same time, she wants classroominteractions to be tempered with much justice: ‘Ibelieve in giving everyone a fair go. That’s whywe’ve got one of our classroom expectations on thewall, ‘‘please give everybody a go’’.’Values of reliability and punctuality were

also highlighted by Doreen. Her reference tothese values was probably due to the imminenceof a class visit to Germany. In the followingquote, Doreen points out how important thesetwo values will be in ensuring that their trip istrauma-free: ‘Because the majority of them arecoming with me to Germany, y I’ll be testingthat. ‘‘Are you reliable to look at the clock andknow that you’ve got to be on the platform 5 at 2minutes past 10?’’y’

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Pedagogy. Doreen has designated a number ofkey pedagogical beliefs in her perspective onpedagogy, amongst which are:

* Catering for all (‘I’m trying to cater for all ofthem’).

* Going from the known to the unknown (‘So Ialways go from the known to the unknown’).

* Conducting assessment in informal situations(‘Because an informal situation is less stress-fuly (you’re) not under so much pressure, theydon’t realize that they’re going to be testedy’).

* Making the lesson student-centred (In respectof one videotaped lesson, she said: ‘Now, in thiscase, I would like to criticize myself. The lessoncould have been more student-centred. I findthat I was talking too much.’).

* Showing sensitivity to the backgrounds (e.g.religious) of individual students (‘I know not todelve too much on religious customs in Ger-many. If we do Christmas and Easter things, Iknow I’ve got to have just a simple colouring inthing for him that’s not so religiously oriented’).

* Limiting listening activities to match students’attention spans (‘y (I)f I end up talking for 5minutes long, I’ll lose them in the first 30secondsy).

8.4.3. Strategies

Doreen is committed to using a variety ofstrategies because she wants to cater for all ofthem and ‘yappeal to all their (students’) sides’.Her choice of strategies is influenced by a numberof broad principles: (1) She tries to ‘give them abroad cross-section of experiences in anythingthat’s German—a lot of visual work (and) hands-on work’. (2) She embeds strategies in topics thatshe believes are ‘interesting for the kids’ but, whereunavoidable topics lack appeal, she camouflagesthem under other ‘titles’. For example, as men-tioned earlier, rules about the placement ofadjectives relative to nouns are ‘camouflage(d)behind the idea of bringing a live animal intoclass’. (3) Strategies are selected which can becoupled with attempts to ‘encourage them (stu-dents) to talk’.A strategy frequently used by Doreen includes

the use of games such as German versions of

Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit. A game ‘we oftenplayy (is) where you have a basket full of objectsand someone in the middle with the ball (passingit) backwards and forwards. yI start passingarticles and saying the names in German and theypass the article around while the ball’s still goinground’. Other strategies include role plays, excur-sions to places which reflect German culture andheritage (restaurants, a cuckoo clock centre andcemeteries), the use of native speakers of German(‘I bring in a lot of German people’) andsituational conversations (‘y (S)ay you’re on abus, you want to go to such and such a place, youwant to ask how many stops it is and how muchyou’ve got to pay’).Because the tasks she sets are ‘yusually

communicatively based’ and thus involve oralwork, extensive use is made of group work (‘Wedo a lot of group-work’). As mentioned above,strategies also include the use of the Internet(‘Every Friday afternoon, I’ve got them bookedinto the library for a whole term and I get themonto the German school network and I encouragethem to find an e-mail pal’).Doreen also notes that ‘there are times that I

have to do chalk and talk and there’s no wayabout it’. An illustration of a topic that lent itselfto a chalk and talk approach was: ‘If I’m trying toget across the idea of the nominative case and theaccusative case like the subject and the object of asentence.’Doreen’s classroom practice is often shaped by a

concern about the level of student understandingwhen German is being used. For example, during alesson when a local dog-trainer was addressing theclass in his native German about the history andbreeding of the German shepherd dog, her concernabout student understanding emerged: ‘So I wasworried. Are they understanding? Are they gettinganything out of it?’ At interview points when thisconcern was expressed, Doreen indicated that shemonitors their level of understanding by watchingfor certain student cues: ‘I know when I’m losingthem. They get a pretty glazed look on their faces.They start counting the spitballs on the ceiling.They may start to doodle. And little Jean(pseudonym), who’s never done Grade 8 Germa-nyactually gets a very anxious look on her face if

ARTICLE IN PRESS


I’m losing her.’ When a lack of student under-standing has been identified, Doreen then switchesto English but asks students to indicate what theyhave understood: ‘And that’s why I stopped andsaid, ‘‘Let’s do this in English but first tell me whatyou’ve understoody’’.’

8.4.4. Social system

This component of Doreen’s practical theory ofCLT is dealt with under the following fourheadings.

Teacher roles. As noted in the previous para-graph, Doreen adopts the traditional ‘chalk andtalk’ role. She made reference to this role ininterviews when discussing the introduction ofgrammar into some lessons, for example, ‘whenwe’re doing adjectives in front of the noun’ andwhen dealing with the case of verbs. At othertimes, when students are engaged in tasks she hasset, she adopts the role of ‘facilitator’ when ‘I willoffer suggestions, ysteer them in the rightdirection’ and respond to their questions. Onother occasions, Doreen says, ‘y I take anabsolute back step like when they’re on theInternet. I don’t interfere at all. I’ll look overtheir shoulder to make sure they’re not on any sitethey shouldn’t be on. I know my boys!’Among the other roles mentioned by Doreen

were those of: ‘mother’, especially important in herview because she has so many boys in her classwithout mothers; ‘friend’; mediator when, forexample, the two autistic students ‘ywithoutmeaning toycause a bit of friction in the class’;and organizer of excursions including ‘the parentswho come along for the excursion on the dayy’.Exercise of the role of mediator is infrequentbecause this Year 10 class is ‘ysuch a beautifulgroup’.

Student roles. Roles that Doreen wants studentsto play include those of group worker andsharer—because they have to ‘converse’ and ‘talkto each other’ in German and help each other learnnew words: learner; listener; and ‘investigator’. Shealso wants each student to be an ‘initiator’, forexample, of topics for oral presentations and of theslants they take, of questions in German duringvisits of native speakers from the community andof responses to the tasks she sets.

Teacher–student relationships. The classroomatmosphere Doreen seeks to establish in her CLTlessons is one that is positive, non-threatening—‘Ithink that’s very important’—and respectful ofherself. She also works to ensure that the class-room atmosphere features a cooperative relation-ship between herself and students and amongstudents, and that it is relaxed and informal. Themeans she has of getting rid of a ‘formal, sterilestructure’ include re-organizing the seating intosemi-circles’ and restricting her use of chalk andtalk. In Doreen’s view, a relaxed and informalatmosphere is one means of inducing students tointeract more and of enhancing learning: ‘I thinkyou get more out of it if you are relaxed andinformal’.

Normal student behaviours. Behaviours thatDoreen seeks to encourage students to displayduring CLT lessons include: being ‘on task’ and‘focussed’; ‘taking responsibility for their learn-ing’; showing independence; being responsive toher, especially when she wants to engage in formalinstruction; and asking lots of questions—‘inquir-ing, not only asking me words but asking me whyor howy’. Cooperative behaviour, particularlyhelping and supporting peers, is one that sheappears to stress: ‘I really like it when they’rehelping each other’.

8.4.5. Support system

This component of a practical theory is dealtwith under ‘teaching skills’, ‘teacher attributes’and ‘special resources’. The last of these three doesnot cover the basic or run-of-the-mill resourcesthat are essential to CLT approaches such as whiteboards, writing tools and classroom furniture.Rather, it describes human and physical resourcesthat are beyond the usual.

Teaching skills. In Doreen’s view, effectivenessin the use of CLT approaches requires thatteachers be able to gauge whether ‘ythey’re notgetting through to them (the students)’. Makinguse of visual cues given out by students—‘You cansoon gauge by their eyes’—is at least part of thisskill of interpreting the mental states of students.Once the teacher has made the assessment that thestudents lack understanding, then the second skill,that of altering the teaching approach, needs to

ARTICLE IN PRESS


come into play, according to Doreen. ‘You’ve gotto be able to alter your teaching approach soquickly’. Doreen also made brief reference to amanagement skill, that of maintaining order andensuring observance of classroom rules.

Teacher attributes. Doreen maintains that, inorder to use a CLT approach successfully, a LOTEteacher needs to be ‘passionate about the subject’,encouraging (‘you’ve got to encourage them’),demanding (‘ydon’t let them get away with justshoddy work’) but ‘understandingyof not onlytheir age level, but maybe of their abilities’.Success also requires, in Doreen’s view, thatteachers be flexible, able to use ‘1001 ways ofteaching that particular point of grammar’ forexample, and that they have an in-depth knowl-edge of the second language. ‘A basic knowledge isnot good enough’ in Doreen’s view. According toher, a teacher’s knowledge of a second languagehas ‘ygot to be damn good, otherwise the kids’llpick up really quicklyyif you’re hesitant’. Beingdiplomatic, helpful, critical, friendly, patient andnice were other teacher attributes mentioned byDoreen as being important in CLT lessons.

Special resources. ‘Bring in the outer world intothe school’ is one of Doreen’s catch-cries in respectof special resources for CLT lessons. It is a generalprinciple that she applies to her choice ofresources. However, it is also quite clear thatDoreen believes that resources should be authen-tically German. Exemplars of authentic Germanresources provided by Doreen include: Germanvideos ‘ythat I buy in Germany,yno subtitles’;German television programs, ‘yespecially theones with the advertisementsy’; ‘youth maga-zines, e-magazines and posters, all of Germany asit is today’; stickers and stamps sent over by ‘myGerman friends’; German dogs; and, as notedpreviously, German versions of Trivial Pursuit andScrabble.A second principle enunciated by Doreen is ‘The

more people you bring in the better’, meaninglocal residents who are native speakers of German.As an example, in one lesson recorded on video forthe project, Doreen arranged an address to theclass, in German, on the German shepherd dog, bya native speaker of German who was also a dogtrainer. Doreen also makes use of resources from a

near-by branch of the Goethe Institute as well asthose on the Internet.

8.4.6. Principles of teacher reaction

The principles that Doreen strives to observewhen reacting to students include the following:

* Not being critical when students show initiative(‘That’s why I didn’t rouse on Bill and Pete(pseudonyms) when they ended up in theGerman (Internet) chat room’).

* Reacting to student questions by probing (‘y Iwon’t tell them but I’ll sort of try and get theanswer out of them’).

* Reacting to student questions about the mean-ing of a passage in German by encouragingthem to deduce the meaning and by guessingthe meaning of words that they do not know.

* Reacting with supportive comment to studenteffort (‘This would be a better way to say it,instead of outright saying, ‘‘Don’t be stupid.You can’t say that.’’ I can’t think of a biggerput-down’; and ‘If students are making anobservation which may not be correct but theywant to share their knowledgey I’ll probablysay, ‘‘Look, nearly there’’ or ‘‘You’re prettyspot on’’ but then I add a little bit extra’).

* Reacting to student responses with correctivefeedback or inducement to reflect further(‘Maybe, but don’t you think that maybe thatcould be better’; ‘I could rephrase it and throwthe question back on them’; ‘Returning withother alternatives’; Using ‘yqueries to makesure that they’re thinking again’).

8.4.7. Instructional and nurturant effects

Doreen nominated three important instructionaleffects of a CLT approach: mastery of languagerelated to everyday topics, citing as examples thesize of dogs and the game of soccer about whichshe claims Germans are very passionate; theacquisition of alternate vocabulary such as ‘snout’for ‘mouth’, ‘claws’ for ‘finger nails’ and ‘paw’ for‘foot’; and, arising from such a vocabulary-richbackground, the ability ‘to manipulate whatthey’ve learnt’ in one context and transfer it toothers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Nurturant effects identified by Doreen included‘y a love for learning a language or an inquisi-tiveness on how does this language get puttogether’; a hunger for ‘ymore than what I’veactually given them, whether its German popmusic or German fashions or German cuisiney’;and an awareness of and respect for the feelings ofothers, attitudes which she believes have developedas the result of having two autistic students inthe class.

9. Discussion

This study was undertaken to seek answersto two primary questions in respect of Doreen,the teacher–participant: What understanding ofCLT approaches does she hold? And, howadequate is her understanding of CLT ap-proaches? In this section of the report, these twoquestions will be dealt with in turn but, at theoutset, it is important to note that Doreenconsidered that the above account, incorporatingchanges that she made to an earlier version, was afaithful and comprehensive representation of herpractical theory of CLT and did not require anyfurther additions or alterations. Secondly, inqui-ries about the possibility of her thinking about herCLT approach in terms of metaphors or imageswere initiated but these also came to naught. Thissection ends with an assessment of the adequacy ofthe framework, based on the work of Joyce andWeil (1992), used for documenting Doreen’spractical theory.

9.1. Doreen’s understanding of CLT

Doreen’s practical theory of CLT is an amalgamof many of the features of CLT approaches,including those most commonly cited in theliterature, and many features of general teaching.Those features of CLT approaches, enunciated inthe introductory section of this paper, are outlinedfirst along with indications of Doreen’s commit-ment to them (or lack of commitment) as outlinedin her practical theory. Her comments indicate afirm commitment to most features and a partial oreven an implicit commitment to others.

* The goal of developing students’ communica-tive competence.Doreen clearly accepts this as a principal goal

in CLT lessons. This is made evident in herespousal of a belief that language is for thepurpose of communication via the four macro-skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing(see Section 8.4.1 and ‘Macro-Skills’ underSection 8.4.2). Further evidence of this can befound in her wanting her students to be able toconverse in German with Germans, to be ableto engage, both orally and via the Internet, incasual, informal exchanges about everydaymatters with German youth of their own age,to hone their listening skills and ‘yto readsigns, ymenus, yadvertisements (and) yti-metables’ (see ‘Macro-Skills’ in Section 8.4.2).

* A commitment to using the foreign language asa medium for classroom communication asmuch as possible.In a number of the assumptions outlined in

Doreen’s practical theory (see Section 8.4.2 under‘Learning a LOTE’, ‘Ways of Building StudentConfidence in Use of the Second Language’ and‘Teacher Use of L1 and L2’), she stressed theimportance of students being exposed to hearingand using the German language as much aspossible in the classroom. She arranged for thisto occur through her use of German in theclassroom, via the Internet, through the use ofresources written in German and through contactwith Germans and German speakers.

* An emphasis on language use rather thanlanguage knowledge.In Section 8.4.2, under ‘Student Errors’, ‘The

Place of Structure and Grammar’ and ‘TeacherReactions to Student Errors’, for example, shestates her beliefs in encouraging students to usethe second language even if it is far from error-free, in overlooking student errors where theiruse of German is understandable and down-playing the place of structure and grammar inher CLT approach. These comments indicate agreater emphasis on fluency-related activities inher classroom.

* A greater emphasis on fluency and appropriate-ness in the use of the target language thanstructural correctness.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


In Section 8.4.2 under ‘Learning a LOTE’,Doreen indicated that getting students touse German was her main priority and that,in pursuit of this goal, faltering or incorrectspeech should be overlooked. She made noreference, however, to student fluency andappropriateness in the use of German. Thus,it cannot be inferred from her statementsthat she would attach a higher priority tothese aspects of student usage than structuralcorrectness.

* Minimal focus on form with correspondinglow emphasis on error correction andexplicit instruction of language rules orgrammar.‘Learning a LOTE’ (in Section 8.4.2) pro-

vides some evidence that Doreen gives lowpriority to form or structural correctness. In thesame section, under ‘Student Errors’ and‘Teacher Reaction to Student Errors’, shemakes abundantly clear her belief that studenterrors warrant little attention: ‘y (I)t doesn’treally matter at first how many mistakes the(students) make, so long as they’re commu-nicating’. There is also a hint in ‘The Place ofStructure and Grammar’ in Section 8.4.2 thatDoreen would agree with giving low emphasisto explicit instruction in grammar. This issuggested in two of her comments. The first isthat, while acknowledging that structure andgrammar are not unimportant, Doreen focuseson these aspects of German as the opportunityarises, a principle now referred to as form-focussed instruction (Ellis, 2001). The secondcomment is to the effect that, because studentsfind grammar daunting, Doreen ‘camouflages’her treatment of it.

* Classroom tasks and exercises that depend onspontaneity and student trial-and-error andthat encourage negotiation of meaning betweenstudents and students and students and tea-chers.Doreen made no explicit references to spon-

taneity, student trial-and-error and studentnegotiation of meaning. She did, however,stress the importance of students ‘giving it ago’ (see under ‘Values’ in Section 8.4.2).This might be seen as implying a degree of

risk-taking by students and hence opportunitiesfor trial-and-error learning.

* Use of authentic materials.Under ‘Special Resources’ in Section 8.4.5,

Doreen’s commitment to the use of authenticresources is made clear. Here she makesreference to her use of a range of resourcesfrom Germany including videos, games, televi-sion programs, magazines, e-magazines andGerman-speaking members of the community.

* An environment that is interactive, not exces-sively formal, encourages risk-taking and pro-motes student autonomy.Elements of Doreen’s practical theory (see

‘Teacher–student Relationships’ and ‘NormalStudent Behaviours’ under Section 8.4.4) in-dicate she is in general agreement with thisfeature of CLT approaches. She eschews formalstructures in favour of ones that are ‘relaxedand informal’ and ‘positive and non-threaten-ing’. These features make classroom environ-ments more productive in her view—‘I thinkyou get more out of ity’, and encouragestudents to interact. Doreen also encouragesstudents to ask lots of questions, both factualand higher-order ones, to take ‘yresponsibilityfor their learning’ and to be independent.Indeed, student independence is seen by Doreenas an important value to be cultivated in CLTclassrooms (see ‘Values’ in Section 8.4.2). Hereshe cites some of the forms of student indepen-dence she strives to develop and the tactics sheuses to promote them.

* Teachers serving more as facilitators andparticipants than in the traditional didactic role.The role of facilitator is one that Doreen

adopts (see ‘Teacher Roles’ in Section 8.4.4)though she also admits to serving in a didacticrole, or ‘doing chalk and talk’, as required (seeSection 8.4.3). She serves as ‘facilitator’, definedby her as including ‘yoffer(ing) suggestions,ysteer(ing) them in the right direction’ andresponding to their questions, when studentsare engaged in task work or in group work, thelatter being used extensively by Doreen (seeSection 8.4.3).

* Students being actively involved in interpreta-tion, expression and negotiation of meaning.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Clearly, Doreen wants students to be activeparticipants in the CLT classroom. Among theactive roles she wants students to adopt are‘group worker’, ‘sharer’, ‘investigator’ and‘initiator’ (see ‘Student Roles’ in Section8.4.4). However, though some of these rolesinvolve the students in expressing themselves inGerman (e.g. in oral presentations, conversa-tions, communicative tasks and asking ques-tions during presentations by native speakers ofGerman) (see ‘The Nature of Topics, Tasks andActivities’ in Section 8.4.2 and 8.4.3), only onereference by Doreen to ‘interpretation’ and‘negotiation of meaning’ was found (see Section8.4.6).

There were evident in Doreen’s account of herpractical theory of CLT other features, not usuallycited in lists of common features, that are regardedas part of CLT approaches. Instances of suchfeatures include:

* The goal of seeking to develop in studentstolerance of others and diplomacy in relationswith people from other cultures (see Section8.4.1).

* Making lessons student-centred and adjustinglesson content to cater for students’ interests,part of the knowledge of students that shegarners deliberately (see ‘Pedagogy’ in Section8.4.2 and ‘About the class’, provided incontextual information prior to the account ofthe practical theory).

* Engaging in studies of the German culture byembedding activities in topics related to theculture of Germany—history, geography, cus-toms, cuisine, fests, makes of cars and breeds ofdogs—to ensure that students see the Germanlanguage as an integral part of the Germanculture (see Section 8.4.1 and ‘Integration ofLanguage and Culture’ in Section 8.4.2).

* Helping students to form an integrated view ofthe German language and not to see it as ‘isolated individual little topics’ (see ‘Ways ofBuilding Student Confidence in the Use of theSecond Language’ in Section 8.4.2).

* Frequently using simple phrases in German inher talk with students in the hope ‘they will pickup certain phrases’. Although her reasoning is

not stated, Doreen has an expectation thatstudents acquire the target language fromsuch exposure. This belief is not contrary togenerally held views of CLT (see ‘Strategies’ inSection 8.4.3).

Doreen’s practical theory of CLT incorporatesother components that are not related to CLTfeatures. These other components are quite nu-merous, are probably derived from aspects ofDoreen’s general teaching, but do not appear tobe at odds with CLT approaches as generallyconceptualized. For example, Doreen madereference to:

* Building up student confidence in the use ofGerman so that they would feel comfortable inthe language as a goal (see Section 8.4.1).

* Switching from English to German and viceversa as a management technique to ensurestudent engagement in the lesson (see ‘TeacherUse of L1 and L2’ in Section 8.4.2).

* Values she considered important in the class-room. These included listening to each other,being supportive of each other, encouragingstudents to generate ideas and answers,reliability and punctuality (see ‘Values’ inSection 8.4.2).

* Beliefs about teaching including those to dowith going from the known to the unknown,using informal settings for assessment purposes,showing sensitivity to students, matching lessoncontent to students’ attention spans and makingclassroom rules explicit (see ‘Pedagogy’ inSection 8.4.2).

* Chalk and talk as a teaching strategy (seeSection 8.4.3).

* Student behaviours such as being on-task andbeing responsive to her as the teacher (see‘Normal Student Behaviours’ in Section 8.4.4).

* Gauging and interpreting student cues to assesstheir level of understanding and adjusting thelesson accordingly (see ‘Teaching Skills’ inSection 8.4.5).

* Flexibility as a teacher attribute (see ‘TeacherAttributes’ in Section 8.4.5).

* A number of principles of teacher reactionincluding probing, reacting to student effortwith supportive comment, not reacting critically

ARTICLE IN PRESS


to student initiatives, providing corrective feed-back and inducing students to reflect furtherand encouraging students to deduce and guessmeanings of words (see Section 8.4.6).

In summary, Doreen’s understanding of CLT asrevealed in her practical theory incorporates manyof the commonly listed features of CLT, otherfeatures of CLT not usually listed and manyfeatures of her general approach to teaching. Inother words, Doreen has integrated many featuresof general teaching into her practical theory ofCLT. From a CLT experts’ perspective, herunderstanding of CLT is therefore a ‘hybrid’ orcomposite version including CLT and non-CLTfeatures but with no features that could be classedas not consistent with CLT approaches. From apractitioner point-of-view, holding such an under-standing of CLT probably makes good sensebecause actual lessons involving CLT are unlikelyto be based only on commonly listed CLTfeatures. Actual lessons probably incorporateCLT features and non-CLT features. One reasonis that teachers are unlikely to eschew the use ofsound teaching practices when using a CLTapproach even if such practices are sourced ingeneral teaching, provided they are not at oddswith CLT features. Hybrid versions of practicaltheories would not receive endorsement by CLTadvocates if practices from general teaching rancounter, or were antithetical, to CLT approaches.Neither Doreen’s practical theory of CLT nor herpractices in two videotaped lessons showed such atendency.

9.2. Adequacy of Doreen’s understanding of CLT

The above analysis of Doreen’s Practical Theoryreveals that there is extensive overlap between herpractical theory and the list of 10 text-basedcommon features of CLT. Moreover, no areas ofdivergence were found. It also appears thatDoreen’s understanding of CLT includes somefeatures that are not strictly CLT but are aspectsof general teaching that are CLT-compatible.These have been integrated into her CLT ap-proach. A plausible inference from these assess-ments is that Doreen has a sound appreciation of

CLT. Further support for this inference can befound in an examination of classroom practices inthe two videotaped lessons taught by Doreen.They exhibit extensive use of the second languageby an invited German-speaking guest, teacher andstudents; use of authentic resources; informallesson environment with students seated in asemi-circle during the presentation and able tointerrupt the presentation to ask questions of thepresenter; use of group work; acceptance ofstudents’ answers in German without correction;a focus on language use with occasional shifts tostructure as necessary arising from opportunitieswithin the lesson; students actively involved inexpression and interpretation; and teacher operat-ing to facilitate student understanding andgroup work.One limitation of this assessment of the con-

gruence between Doreen’s practical theory and the10 common features of CLT listed earlier is thatthe 10 features represent quite a coarse-graineddescription of CLT. To enable a more preciseassessment to be made of the extent to whichDoreen’s practical theory reflects a CLT approach,a much more fine-grained description of CLT isneeded. Use of the Joyce and Weil frameworkoutlined above to develop such a description couldprovide an effective solution. This frameworkwould allow CLT approaches to be defined interms of goal focus, theoretical assumptions,strategies, social system (comprising teacher role,student role, teacher–student relationships andnormal student behaviours), support system (com-prising teacher skills, teacher attributes and specialresources), principles of teacher reaction andinstructional and nurturant effects.A second limitation of the above analysis of

Doreen’s practical theory of CLT is that itindicates only the presence or absence, partial orotherwise, of commonly listed features of CLT inDoreen’s practical theory. It offers no accurateindication of the strength or potency of Doreen’scommitment to these features, either intellectuallyor in practice. While this could be a significantlimitation of this approach, it has been addressedto some extent by the study of the two videotapedlessons taught by Doreen. Such an examinationrevealed a high level of compliance between her

ARTICLE IN PRESS


classroom practice and practical theory. More-over, no practices could be found that were inconflict with the 10 common features of CLT.

9.3. Adequacy of the framework adapted from

Joyce and Weil’s model for describing ways of

teaching for representing teachers’ practical theories

of CLT

Within available texts covering conceptualanalyses of CLT and prescriptive advice forteachers on the use of CLT approaches, noaccounts of CLT were found which were ascomprehensive as the practical theory accountbased on the Joyce and Weil framework. For thisreason alone, the framework used in this studymay well provide a valuable alternative to existingaccounts of CLT approaches, one that extends andenriches current descriptions of CLT. How wellpractical theories might fulfil the needs of teacherswishing to adopt CLT approaches is an openquestion, though the popularity in teacher educa-tion circles of the Joyce and Weil model ofteaching framework perhaps provides some causefor confidence.A second way of seeking an answer to this

question is to examine the framework itself.Though many of the dimensions of teaching areincluded, the research team noted that there wereno explicit references to the place of testing (orassessment/evaluation), an integral part of teach-ing, within the model of teaching framework. Itwas also noted that Joyce and Weil applied thenotion of ‘principle’ restrictively to teacher reac-tions to students only. However, research onteacher thinking has also identified teacher refer-ences to principles relating to other facets ofclassroom life such as use of time, power sharing,order of teacher contacts with students duringlessons and when to be strategically lenient anddiscriminate in favour of disadvantaged students(Clark & Peterson, 1986). Attempts were made ininterviews to redress these missing elements.In addition, the account of Doreen’s practical

theory contains no details of the phasing orsequencing of activities, one of the basic constructsin the Joyce and Weil framework. This was theresult of a deliberate choice to limit teacher

disclosure of strategies used in CLT lessons to ageneral description of strategies rather thanpursuing details of the phasing of activities withineach strategy. Limitations on interview time didnot allow the latter.Another way of assessing the adequacy of the

framework used in this study for documentingteachers’ practical theories would be to seekteacher input on this issue. The fact that theteacher in this study was unable to nominate anygaps in the framework is encouraging. Althoughthis favourable evidence provides a promisingstart, it is admittedly limited and inputs frommany other teachers are needed. Two additionalsources of input on this issue would be readers ofthis paper and teachers using examples of practicaltheories, such as Doreen’s, to acquire expertise inthe use of a CLT approach. Until such evidence isin, resolution of this issue will have to be deferred.Overall, this case study has shown that Doreen

could be regarded as a communicatively orientedLOTE teacher, who shows a good understandingof the main features that underpin communicativeapproaches of teaching a second language in theclassroom. It has also shown that the Joyce andWeil framework, which is commonly used in pre-and in-service teacher education, captures manyinsights into a teacher’s practical theory of CLT.The framework has the added advantage that itprovides the possibilities for a more fine-graineddescription of a teacher’s understanding of com-municative approaches and for presenting a morecomprehensive description of them in this ap-proach to second language teaching.

9.4. Implications for research on teacher thinking

Hopefully, the research outlined in this paperwill encourage an extension of research intoteachers’ knowledge and understanding of CLT.Finding answers to questions about the extent towhich teachers understand and use CLT ap-proaches or, for that matter, other innovativepedagogies, is an activity that must be pursued inthe interests of learners, teachers, teacher educa-tors and society as a whole. A further hope is thatthis paper might also re-ignite an interest in thenature of teachers’ practical theories of teaching in

ARTICLE IN PRESS


general. To date, insufficient attention has beenpaid to questions about the range, structure andkinds of practical theories held by teachers.Currently, literature in this field provides fewbroad, well-researched conceptualizations of prac-tical theories of teaching. Nor does it providemany exemplars of teachers’ theories that illustratethe scope and complexity of the practical knowl-edge that guides classroom practice. A range ofconceptualizations and exemplars, rich in detail,broad in scope and sufficiently complex to allowmore complete representations of teachers’ the-ories is needed to provide both pre- and in-serviceteachers with frameworks and models that theycan adapt to articulate their own personalpractical theories. This need is all the more urgentgiven the contemporary, widespread acknowledg-ment of the important role that practical theoriesplay in shaping practice, learning to teach anddetermining the effectiveness of teachers.

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by a grantPTRP 179596 from the University of SouthernQueensland. The authors thank Alison Noller fortranscribing the audiotapes, and Juanita Wolrigefor running the NVivo program (Fraser, 2000).The authors also express their gratitude to thethree anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments and suggestions. Any weaknesses re-main the responsibility of the authors.

References

Anning, A. (1988). Teachers’ theories about children’s learning.

In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp.

128–145). Lewes: Falmer.

Batten, M., Marland, P., & Khamis, M. (1993). Knowing how to

teach well: Teachers reflect on their classroom practice

(Research Monograph No. 44). Melbourne: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon.

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1973). Low-inference observational

coding measures and teacher effectiveness. ERIC Microfiche,

ED 077 879.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1988). The professional craft

knowledge of teachers. Scottish Educational Review, (Special

Issue), 39–45.

Busher, H., Clarke, S., & Taggart, L. (1988). Beginning

teachers’ learning. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’

professional learning (pp. 84–96). Lewes: Falmer Press.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers beliefs and knowledge. In D.

Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Simon & Shuster

Macmillan.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to

language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards, & J. Schmidt

(Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–28). London:

Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of

communicative approaches to second language teaching

and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Clandinin, J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in

action. London: Falmer Press.

Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes.

In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd

ed) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.

Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective teaching and

learning: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Connelly, E. M., & Clandinin, J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum

planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical

knowledge. New York: Nicholls.

Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’ knowledge: The

evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

23(1), 1–19.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused

instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.

Fraser, D. (2000). QSR NVivo, NUD�ISTVivo reference guide

(3rd ed.). Melbourne: QSR International.

Gage, N. (1977). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal

practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464.

Gudmonsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content

knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 31(2), 59–70.

Halstead, J. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In

J. Halstead, & M. Taylor (Eds.), Values in education and

education in values (pp. 3–14). London: Falmer Press.

Johnson, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the

practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 8(2), 123–136.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. with Showers, B. (1992). Models of

teaching (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate

teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT

Journal, 50(3), 187–198.

Mangubhai, F., Dashwood, A., Berthold, M., Flores, M., &

Dale, J. (1998). Primary LOTE teachers’ understandings and

ARTICLE IN PRESS


beliefs about communicative language teaching: Report on the

first phase of the project. Toowoomba: Centre for Research

into Language Teaching Methodologies/The National

Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

Mangubhai, F., Howard, B., & Dashwood, A. (1999). Primary

LOTE teachers’ understandings and beliefs about commu-

nicative language teaching: Report on phases II and III of the

project. Toowoomba: Centre for Research into Language

Teaching Methodologies/National Languages and Literacy

Institute of Australia.

Marland, P. (1993). A review of the literature on implications of

teacher thinking research for preservice teacher education.

South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 51–63.

Marland, P. (1997). Towards more effective open and distance

teaching. London: Kogan Page.

Marland, P., & Osborne, A. (1990). Classroom theory, thinking

and action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 93–109.

Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative language teaching in

practice. London: CILTR.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making

it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136–145.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research:

Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational

Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education. Build-

ing a world of new understanding. Washington: Falmer Press.

Rollman, M. (1994). The communicative language teaching

‘‘revolution’’ tested: A comparison of two classroom

studies: 1976 and 1993. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2),

221–239.

Ross, E., Cornett, J., & McCutcheon, G. (1992). Teacher

personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory

and research. New York: SUNY.

Sanders, D., & McCutcheon, G. (1986). The development of

practical theories of teaching. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 2, 50–67.

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. (1999). Communicative language

teaching: Practical understandings. The Modern Language

Journal, 83(iv), 494–517.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching:

Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon

(Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching

(pp. 1–27). New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Schubert, W. (1992). Personal theorizing about personal

theorizing. In E. Ross, J. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon

(Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum

practice, theory and research (pp. 257–272). New York:

SUNY.

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational

Leadership, 42(7), 43–49.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of

research on staff development: A framework for future

study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leader-

ship, 45(3), 77–87.

Snow, R. E. (1975). Theory construction for research on

teaching. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of

research on teaching (pp. 77–122). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about commu-

nicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15.

Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master

switch for teaching. Theory into Practice, xxix(2), 122–127.

Vale, D., Scarino, A., & McKay, P. (1991). Pocket all. Carlton,

Vic: Curriculum Corporation.

Whitley, M. S. (1993). Communicative language teaching: An

incomplete revolution. Foreign Language Annals, 26(2),

137–154.

Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form on communicative language

teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher.

TESOL Journal, 4(4), 12–16.

Wood, E., & Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories, changing

practice: Exploring early childhood teachers’ professional

learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 635–647.

Documents

Teaching a foreign language: one teacher's practical theory