Background and Rationale

The premise of the current research is based on the view that it is no longer sufficient for Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) programs to solely offer student teachers a tailored and highly specialized knowledge base often consisting of

second/foreign language acquisition, linguistics, TEFL methodology, testing and

assessment, and a variety of specially-designed courses. The reason of such perception is that TEFL student teachers who merely acquire pre-packaged professional knowledge and teaching tactics from experienced teachers or teacher educators without real teaching practices are very likely to encounter “reality shock” after teaching in a real classroom. The unpleasant or even failure experiences in novice teachers’ early years of teaching may weaken their teaching commitment and could pose negative impacts on their future

professional development. As a matter of fact, the assumption noted above is supported by a number of studies which provide a substantial insight regarding the marginal effect of teacher education. Specifically, some teacher candidates feel that education programs do not prepare them adequately for the challenges they face during their initial practice (Kagan, 1992; Widden, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998).

Given the view that the content of teacher education constitutes not merely the

theories of teaching and the knowledge learned from textbooks, field experience has become a centerpiece of teacher education reform over the past several years (Bullough, et al., 2003). Therefore, over the past years there has been a tremendous wave of interest in the research regarding how to improve the quality and extent of prospective teachers’ field experiences (Latham & Vogt, 2007; Parson & Stephenson, 2005; Smith, 2004; Young, Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Erickson, 2005). Despite such efforts, the general perception remains unchanged, which means generally learning to teach is still considered an

individual endeavor, and good teachers in many ways work alone (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

With regard to the status quo of prospective teachers’ field experience, Bullough et al.

(2003) propose that the typical pattern of student teaching remained little changed for 50 years. The traditional pattern of field experience consists of a student teacher who is placed in a classroom with a single cooperating teacher for varying lengths of time, a term or perhaps a school year. Under such circumstances, the student teacher is expected to take full responsibility for classroom instruction and management as quickly as possible, and is arranged to practice his or her solo teaching as the partial fulfillment of practicum training (Bullough et al., 2003, p.57). The traditional practicum setting brings the connection among university, school, and student teacher that are not closely united. As Wideen et al.

(1998) state:

“The university provides the theory, the school provides the setting, and the student teacher provides the effort to bring them together (Britzman, 1986).

The results of research on the practicum suggest that we seriously need to question this notion.”(Wideen et al., 1998, p.152)

While practicum has been regarded as the bridge between theories and practices in teacher education, there is a growing cognition of the shortcomings of traditional patterns of field experience. For instance, in the model of traditional practicum, cooperating teachers exert

tremendous power over the learning process of student teachers (Wilson, Floden, &

Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Because of the hierarchical inequality inherent in this model, the challenge for student teachers is clear: “survival appears uppermost in their minds, with risk taking being minimal and the need for a good grade essential” (Wideen et al., 1998, p.155). Nonetheless, given student teachers’ focus on survival and intention of receiving a positive evaluation, the concern of whether student teachers’ professional development is significantly enhanced through their practicum teaching calls for further in-depth

investigations.

Consistent with teacher education in general, in the field of second/foreign language teacher education, the TESOL practicum is considered to be one of the most important experiences for most pre-service teachers to learn to teach. Nevertheless, according to Johnson (1996), what actually occurs during the TESOL practicum is still largely unknown and virtually ignored in most second-language teacher preparation programs, which has also been pointed out in several studies (see for example Freeman, 1989; Richards, 1987;

Richards & Crookes, 1988). This argument parallels to Zeichner’s (1980) assertion—“The appropriate question at this state of knowledge is not ‘are we right?’ but only ‘what is out there?’ (p.47).

Though the situation is little better in mainstream education, there is a persistent concern that student teachers’ practicum may not reach their full potential value (Goker, 2006). Responding to this concern, Bullough et al. (2002) argue that, “There is a growing need to rethink student teaching and to generate alternative models of field experience”

(p.58). Given the increasing difficulty and complexity of teaching, there is a need for modes that enhance teachers “competence in collaborative problem-solving” and

“competence of co-operation and team work” (Buchberger et al., 2000, p.49). Buchberger et al. (2000) further point out that “As regards education and training the move towards

more autonomy for schools and an increasing necessity for teacher team-work makes the acquisition of these competencies vitally important” (p.49, italics in original). In Dangel and Guyton’s (2003) review of constructivist-oriented teacher education programs and their effects, they identify eight significant elements across 35 teacher education programs.

Three of the eight significant elements are problem solving, collaborative learning, and cohort groups, which also highlights a collaborative role orientation to learning rather than private practice of individual learners.

By the same token, in an article portraying the future of second language teacher education, Johnson (2002) maintains that it is critical for any teacher education program to construct professional development opportunities that feature “a collaborative effort, a reflective process, a situated experience, and a theorizing opportunity¹.” Recognizing learning to teach as a collaborative effort places the locus of teacher learning not only within the individual teacher, or within a particular teacher education program, but among all those who participate in and have an impact on teacher learning (Johnson, 2002). In this perspective, it is essential that teacher education programs build collaborative partnerships both within and outside their own academic units.

Based on the conceptual framework discussed above, the current study therefore presumes that recent professional development efforts should move away from an emphasis on skills training to the “establishment of new norms of collegiality, experimentation, and risk-taking by promoting open discussion of issues, shared understandings, and a common vocabulary” (Lieberman & Miller, 1990, p. 1049). This form of development is based on the assumption that, firstly, “The element of sharing or

1 From “Second language teacher education,” by K. E. Johnson, 2002, TESOL Matters, 12(1). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=193&DID=929 TESOL Matters ceased publication in Fall 2003. Selected articles from TESOL Matters from 1997-2003 appear online and contents are viewed without page numbers. Thus, here the researcher quotes a part of writing without providing the precise page number on which the quotation is.

collaboration with colleagues offers the possibility of extending one’s insights about oneself as teacher to oneself as an individual member of a larger community” (Bartlett, 1990, p.210). Secondly, the integration of the practice teaching experience with the campus program is essential in the design of many TEFL programs and crucial to student teachers’

professional development. Also, the practice teaching experience recommended by the researcher differs from an internship in the nature of student teachers’ responsibility since during the internship the student teachers assist the teacher but do not take full

responsibility for teaching a class (Richards, 1998, p.20). Thus, creating opportunities for student teachers to experience collaboration in teaching and learning by making student teachers equally responsible for teaching should be advocated and implemented in TEFL programs to bring more benefits to the prospective English teachers.

Team Teaching as a Starting-Point

Language teachers’ professional collaboration can take many different forms, for instance, peer coaching, critical friendship, action research, critical incidents, case studies, teacher support groups, and of course team teaching (Richards & Farrell, 2005). Of the many effective ways of creating a professional learning community for prospective language teachers, the researcher defines the professional collaboration under the current investigation as team teaching because the purpose of team teaching can adequately fit into the nature of the teaching setting and the educational background and teaching experience of the participants of the study. Prior to the purpose of team teaching, the background information of the teaching context and the participants will be described next in order to provide readers with the prerequisite knowledge of this study. After which the purpose of team teaching and the link between team teaching and the current study are discussed.

Background Information of the Teaching Context and the Participants The

participants chosen for this study are two pairs of co-teachers who are graduate students pursuing their Master of Art (MA) degree in the Institute of TESOL in one national university located in northern Taiwan. Similar to most graduate TESOL programs, the curriculum offered in this program covers areas such as TESOL Methodology, Second Language Acquisition, Learning Motivation, Teaching Reading/ Speaking/ Reading/

Writing: Theory and Practice, Sociolinguistics, Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). In addition to second language teaching and learning-related courses, this language teacher preparation program has offered an opportunity for student teachers to teach college students GEPT test-taking skills. It is worth mentioning that such practice teaching experience is neither a partial fulfillment of an MA degree in TESOL nor a part of the teaching content in any MA courses. Instead of being forced to teach, student teachers in this program are encouraged to practice teaching on a voluntary basis.

The major reason for the graduate program to offer the GEPT-related courses is due to a budget provided by the Ministry of Education (MOE), which aims to improve college students’ overall English proficiency level. Responsible for well spending the budget to facilitate college students’ English learning, every semester the MA program designs and provides a series of English learning-related activities and courses, e.g., English Table, Learning English through Watching Western Movies, and GEPT Class, to students on the campus. These English learning-related activities and courses are carried out on a

non-credit and non-monetary basis, and students on the campus voluntarily participate in these activities and courses which are not a part of their school curriculum.

Since the summer of 2007, the student teachers in this MA program have started to conduct GEPT lessons voluntarily. Those who register for taking part in GEPT Class can choose to teach independently or co-teach with a team member (i.e., a peer as a teaching partner) and decide on a specific language skill (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, or

writing) which the course aims to focus on. None of the independent teachers or teaching teams are given any instruction about how to teach, nor are any expectation for formal collaboration established. Student teachers are responsible for constructing the syllabus before the class officially begins and discussing the lesson plan with the cooperating teacher to ensure smooth delivery of each lesson. The total class hours of GEPT class is 20 hours long and is offered in both spring and fall semester. Given the heavy burden of school work many MA students usually have, all of the student teachers in this study decided to schedule their GEPT classes during the summer break of the academic year 2008. By so doing, they can save all their time and efforts to accomplish their teaching tasks. During the 5-week intensive GEPT courses, the student teachers need to undertake two120-minute lessons per week.

Regarding participants’ educational background, three of the participants received their Bachelor degree with a major in English while the other majored in Special Education and minored in English in a university of education. None of the student teachers had the experience of teaching college students before. All the participants are classmates currently studying in the same MA program of TESOL; all of them are the 1^st-year students whose ages range from twenty-four to twenty-six.

The Purpose of Team Teaching According to Richards and Farrell (2005), the purpose of team teaching is to provide a collaborative-learning community in which “both teachers generally take equal responsibility for the different stages of the teaching process.

The shared planning, decision making, teaching, and review that result serve as a powerful medium of collaborative learning” (p.160). The researcher should point out here that, according to the information yielded from the opportunitist talks before investigation, co-teachers in each team both perceive themselves equally responsible for all stages of lesson, including pre-instructional planning, lesson delivery, and follow-up work in

relation to the GEPT course. They consider their role of co-teacher as team members who are both closely and equally involved in all aspects of teaching. This type of professional collaboration is different from, for instance, peer observation, peer coaching, critical incidents, and teacher support group, for team teaching involves “a cycle of team planning, team teaching, and team follow-up” (Richards & Farrell, 2005, p.159) which is not the primary focus of the many activities noted above.

Another professional activity similar to team teaching is peer coaching, which has been investigated and advocated by several previous studies and books due to the many benefits that peer coaching is capable of providing (see for example Brown, 2001; Goker, 2006; Vidmar, 2006). Nonetheless, compared with team teaching, peer coaching demands more structured interaction through three initial phases—peer watching, peer feedback, and peer coaching (Richards & Farrell, 2005, p.151). In the first phase, teams need to decide what they will focus on their peer-coaching activity, such as a specific technique of teaching. In the process of peer feedback, the coach, who has collected data, presents this information to his or her peer. The most important component of peer coaching is the third phase where the coach plans and offers suggestions for improvement. In addition to the three phases, it is crucial to note that real peer coaching performs on a system of request, that is, “One teacher requests a peer to coach him or her on some aspect of teaching in order to improve his or her teaching” (Richards & Farrell , 2005, p.153). However, the teaching context mentioned earlier is not structured in a way that peer coaching is expected to. Furthermore, the student teachers who collaborate to carry out GEPT class do not choose any specific topics for improvement. Instead, the student teachers regard themselves as equal partners not having any experience of teaching adult learners and being equally responsible for all stages of conducting lessons.