Frank GiraldoMasters in English Didactics

University of Caldas

Exploring CLT possibilities in a

Professional Development

Program for In-service English

Language Teachers

A Professional Development Program

In-service / Pre-service English language teachers’ classroom

performance

Qualitative Action Research

What is the effect of a Professional Development Program on the in-service and pre-service English

language teachers’ classroom performance in an English

language institute?

• Find out nature of impact of PDP on the teachers’ classroom performance.

Question and Purpose

Rationale

• Learning to reflectto work collaborativelyto analyze and change

experience

• Educating teachersin a post-method pedagogyon context-sensitive grounds

SLTE

6 teachers’ professionalism in

ELT

Teacher Educator

SETTING

Problem: Birth of action research cycle

Needs identified among in-service teachers

Reflection and awareness upon own classroom practice

Practice of current language teaching methodologies

Awareness on the importance of student motivation and participation in class

Approach to grammar teaching

Tasks for different learning styles and strategies

What is the effect of a Professional Development Program on the in-service/pre-service English language teachers’ classroom performance in an English language institute?

To improve the teaching performance of in-service and pre-service English language teachers through the implementation of a professional development program.

General Objective

Specific Objectives

1. To increase teachers’ awareness about their own classroom practice.

2. To strengthen the teachers’ practice of current methodologies for language teaching.

3. To raise teachers’ awareness on the importance of students’ motivation and participation in class.

4. To promote a principled approach to grammar teaching. 5. To foster the inclusion of tasks for different learning styles and

strategies.

Theoretical Framework

Professional Development:Freeman, 1989Villegas-Reimers, 2003Diaz-Maggioli, 2004Richards and Farrell, 2005Wilde, 2010

Curriculum Development:Brown, 1995

Richards, 2001Nation and Macalister, 2010

Teacher Performance:Ur, 1991Brown, 2001Harmer, 2007Westwood, 2008Ontario’s Educational Board, 2010Richards, 2011

Reflective Teaching:Cruickshank, 1981

Zeichner, 1982Bartlett, 1990

Richards and Lockhart, 1994Ur, 1991

Harmer, 2007b

Theoretical Framework

Current Methodologies for Language Teaching:

Stryker and Leaver, 1997Richards and Rodgers, 2001Bingham and Skehan, 2002Brown, 2007Harmer, 2007b

Student Motivation and Participation:

Ur, 1991Lightbown and Spada, 2006Harmer, 2007aDörnyei and Ushioda, 2011

Grammar teaching:Ur, 1991Thornbury, 1999Brown, 2007

Learner Styles/Learning Strategies:Lightbown and Spada, 2006

Oxford, 1990; 2003

Theoretical Framework

Álvarez and Prada2005

Sierra2007

Cadavid, Quinchía, and Díaz 2009

MethodologyApproach

Naturalistic

Anti-positivist

Idiographic

Burrell and Morgan, 1979

MethodologyQualitative

Creswell, 1979

MethodAction

ResearchCarr and Kemmis, 1983

DIAGNOSTIC

STAGE

Needs identified among in-service teachers

Reflection and awareness upon own classroom practice

Practice of current language teaching methodologies

Awareness on the importance of student motivation and participation in class

Approach to grammar teaching

Tasks for different learning styles and strategies

ACTION

EVALUATION

STAGES

The Professional Development Program

• 7 sessions, 3 hours, weekly• Praxizing (Sharkey, 2009)• Activities:- Discussions of readings assigned prior to workshops- Tutor presentations- Class observations: live and videoed- Planning, executing and reflecting upon lessons- Learning activities- Talks by experts; talks with students

SAMPLE PDP

LESSON

SAMPLE DATA

• The in-service teachers made effective connections between theory and practice through the design of a lesson plan. This practical activity demanded conscious work from them.• There were contradictions between what

they said they did and what they really did in their teaching. The analysis of their own lesson plan helped them reach that conclusion. • There was an increasing awareness towards

Communicative Language Teaching.

• The tutor guidance was key for good results. When I interacted with them, the practical activity was more enriching.

• Observation went well because it combined theory and practice.

• The lesson plan with activities from the three current methodologies helped them relate theory and practice.

• There was more individual attention to every single in-service teacher.

• There was an increasing awareness on structuring activities more logically.

Participant # 2

• S/He has changed his/her teaching.• S/He has more theory to apply in classes

and has positive results among students.• S/He has been able to become aware of

his/her and his/her students’ progress. • S/He has applied all current

methodologies for language teaching. S/He didn’t do it before but is now. S/He has seen the results.

Participant # 2

• S/He has increased his/her interest in these methodologies and has applied them, which s/he didn’t do before.

• S/He has developed strong interests towards task-based language teaching and in general towards all current methodologies for language teaching.

Participant 4Observation 1:Students use language structures meaningfully and to interact with others. Language at the oral level is then used for a writing product, which means activities are coherent somehow. Observation 2:Your grammar teaching is improving continuously and the pacing is consistent. Lesson coherence: between eliciting parts of a house, describing your own as support and listening activity, and the students talking about their own house, coherence was high.

Observation 1:Give tasks a clear communicative goal. They wrote the routine to show you their linguistic competences, which is perfectly fine. In CLT and TBLT, what would they do this for? Observation 2:The way they did the writing was only for language display purposes, not for communication.

Participant 4

“So, for example, when I would give my lesson on Saturday, and then we would have the course on Thursday, and it was about a certain, you know, concept or something, then I would reflect if I have done it, if I haven’t done it; if I should do it better, how should I do it better? So, I would be constantly reflecting, you know, on what I already know and how I can improve that, and yeah.”

Extract from an interview.

FINDING

On classroom performance

Holistic view of languagePrincipled approach to grammar teachingStructured, coherent teachingPlanning based on current methodologiesCare for students’ needs and motivation

FINDINGOn awareness of teaching and classroom

performanceNoticeable improvement in grammar teachingBeginning practice in methodologies for ELTSensitivity towards students’ needs and

motivationsStrategy-based instructionCoherent teaching

FINDINGOn the Professional Development Program as a Reason

for ImprovementSuccessful combination of theory and practice:- Theory and classroom activities- Experiential learning activities- Talks by experts- Practical planning activities- Reflection upon teaching

Role of teacher educator- Feedback on practical planning activities: making sense of theory- Observation cycle: Pre, while, post (reflection in action)- Reflection on action: Theorizing from practice

Conclusions and

recommendations

1Professional development programs do have an impact on teachers’ classroom performance.

Conditions for this to happen:•Teachers’ prior knowledge.•Particular contexts.•Sensitive to teachers’ needs.•Not a top-down agenda.•Careful needs analysis: Experience, knowledge, beliefs, skills.

2Theory and practice have a symbiotic relationship in professional development programs, and this relationship directly benefits teachers’ classroom practice.

But how?•Teachers using, criticizing and adding to theory.•Bringing improvement thanks to reflection.•Theory: reflects teaching needs, explicit use of it in workshops; meaningful use of it; practice and follow-up.

3The teacher educator plays an important role in helping teachers improve.

What should this role be like?•Focus on strengths and aspects to improve. •Connect theory and practice: Critical questions. •F2F contact; monitoring plan: Observation system •Talking about teaching; making sense of theory.•Professional growth and feedback for PDP.

Special recommendation

4Licenciaturas should consider the findings in this AR study.

Use them how?

•Subjects combining theory and practice.•Attention to practicum courses.

References (1)• Álvarez, G. and Prada, C. (2005). Teachers in a public school engage in a study group to reach

general agreements about a common approach to teaching English. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 6, 119-132.

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

• Bingham, M. and Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved January 9th, 2013 from http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/research/files/145.pdf

• Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. • Brown, D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.).

New York: Pearson Longman.• Burns, A. & Richards, J. (2009).The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.• Cadavid, I., Quinchía, D. and Mosquera, C. (2009). Una propuesta holística de desarrollo

profesional para maestros de inglés de la básica primaria. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 14 (21), 133-158.

• Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Deakin University Press.

• Cohen, L. and Manion, L.& Morrison, K. (1998).Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

References (2)• Council of Europe (2001).Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,

and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los

Angeles: Sage. • Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004).Teacher-Centered Professional Development. ASCD Publications.• Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation.(2nd ed.) Harlow, UK: Pearson

Longman.• Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and

related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (1), 27-45. • Glaser, B. J. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research.New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.• González, A. (2007). Professional development of EFL teachers in Colombia. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y

Cultura, 12 (18), 309-332. • Harmer, J. (2007a).How to teach English. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman. • Harmer, J. (2007b).The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.• Hopkins, D. (1995). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Buckingham: Open University Press.• Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006).How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching language through content: A counterbalanced approach.

Amsterdam, PHI: John Benjamins Publishing Company.• Macaro, E. (2009). Developments in language learner strategies. In V. Cook & L. Wei (Eds.),

Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language teaching and learning. Volume 1 (pp.10-36). London: MPG Books Group.

• Ministry of Education in Ontario, Canada (2010). Teacher performance appraisal: Technical requirements manual. Available at: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/pdfs/TPA_Manual_English_september2010l.pdf

References (3)• Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004).Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London:

Hodder Arnold, Hodder Education. • Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2010).Language curriculum design. New York:

Routledge. • Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

Boston, MA: Newbury House Publisher.• Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Learning

styles and Strategies / Oxford, GALA.• Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language

classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.• Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T. (2005).Professional development for English language

teachers (strategies for teacher learning). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T. (2001).Approaches and methods in language

teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Richards, J.C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References (4)• Sharkey, J. (2009). Can we praxize second language teacher education? An invitation to join a

collective collaborative challenge. Íkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 14, (22), 125-150.• Sierra, A. (2007). Developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes through a study: A study on teachers’

professional development. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 12 (18), 277-306.• Stryker, S. & Leaver, B. (1997).Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and

methods. Georgetown University Press.• Thornbury, S. (1999).How to teach grammar. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. • Ur, P.(1991). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the

literature. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.• Wallace, Michael J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.• Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Victoria, AU: ACER Press.• Wilde, J. (2010). Guidelines for professional development: An overview. In C. Casteel and K. G.

Ballantyne (Eds.), Professional Development in Action: Improving Teaching for English Learners. (pp. 5-11). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf

• Wright, T. (2010).Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Lang. Teach., 43 (3), 259–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

frankgiraldodesign.wordpress.com

icaros@utp.edu.co