In the recent years, disadvantaged students‟ academic performances have drawn much attention in Taiwan, due to the large gap between high achievers and low achievers in secondary education (Chen, 2008; Hsu, & Chen, 2007). The gap became larger after the implementation of the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum (Chang, & Yu, 2004). English education, in particular, shows a twin-peak distribution of learning . Consequently, remedial education has widely been regarded as an indispensable part of English education in Taiwan (Chang, & Yu, 2004). In 1996, the Ministry of Education (MOE) first launched an educational policy named Educational Priority Area (EPA), which aimed to improve the academic achievement of disadvantaged students in the rural areas (MOE, 2005). In 2006, the After School Alternative Program (ASAP) was put into practice to extend the remedial education to students who study in urban regions (MOE, 2006). Through the remedial education, the government has tried to promote the ideal of equality of educational opportunity via the external resources as well as the certificated teachers (Chen, 2008; Tan & Wu,
4
2009). Not only the MOE but also the civic associations, such as Yonglin Foundation, Rerun Novarum Center, and other non-profit organizations have dedicated large amounts of money and man power into remedial educational systems, to assist disadvantaged students to enhance their academic performances.
However, many teachers in remedial programs lack teaching certifications for the abrupt boost of remedial programs and underachievers. In 2010, to solve the problem, the MOE (2010) modified the criteria for teachers who are qualified to teach in remedial programs as follows.
1. Teachers who are certified by the MOE and currently are teaching in the school, 2. Retiring teachers,
3. University students with professional knowledge related to students‟ subjects, 4. People with education certification
5. People with professional knowledge related to students‟ subjects.
In addition to the criteria for teachers‟ recruitment, disadvantaged students are categorized as: the disabled, the aboriginal, cultural minorities, and the
socioeconomically disadvantaged (MOE, 2001). Through the clear guidelines from the MOE, remedial education in Taiwan is expected to both increase the equality of educational opportunities for the disadvantaged minorities and to minimize the profound impact of the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
While a bulk of studies have explored how teacher cognition is influenced by the contextual factors in mainstream educational systems, remedial education has
inexplicably received little attention. Drawing on Borg‟s framework (2006), this current study aims to examine the interplay of teacher cognition and practices by exploring what factors shape teacher cognition and their practices in this particular
5
educational context. Furthermore, this study attempts to discover to what extent the context may influence teachers‟ practices and their cognition.
1.4 Research Questions Three research questions are addressed:
1. How do the two teachers form their cognition of English teaching in the remedial program?
2. How does the two teachers‟ cognition interweave with classroom practices?
3. How do contextual factors influence the two teachers‟ cognition and practices in the remedial program?
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
In addition to Chapter 1, the thesis includes four chapters. In Chapter 2, previous studies related to teacher cognition and practices, Borg‟s framework, and remedial education are reviewed. In Chapter 3, the methods used for this study are described in detail, including research settings, participants, data collection, and data analysis. In Chapter 4, two cases are presented respectively by their teaching cognition, teaching practices, and its factors, which interweave with both cognition and practices. In Chapter 5, as the last chapter, discusses and summarizes major findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.
6
CHAPTER TWO LITERAUTER REVIEW
The chapter encompasses four essential areas in L2 language teachers‟ cognition and practice to frame the present study: (1) teacher cognition domains, (2) teacher cognition in second language, (3) teacher cognition in remedial course, (4) and the summary of the whole chapter.
2.1 Teacher Cognition Domains 2.1.1 Teacher Knowledge
In past decades, L2 researchers have drawn attention to teacher cognitive
development, which drives teachers‟ decision-making and then shapes their classroom practices. Earlier studies primarily discussed teacher cognition from their beliefs, knowledge, principles, theories, and attitudes (Borg, 2008). More specifically, the relationship between teacher cognition and classroom practices has been focused on.
In recent years, researchers have advocated another viewpoint, which emphasizes the specific aspect of the investigation toward implicit teachers‟ actions in practice (Borg, 2009, Golombek, & Johnson, 2004).
From research viewpoints, the nature of teacher knowledge can mainly be defined from three perspectives (Tsui, 2003). The first perspective emphasizes teacher knowledge as personal, practical, tactic, systematic, and dynamic development
developed in the classroom context where language teachers highly engage and respond. The related research defining this term as “personal practical knowledge”
(Connelly and Clandinin, 1985), focuses attention on teachers‟ personal understanding as well as action of their belonged situations through their daily practices. The second perspective, termed as “situated knowledge” (Lave, 1988), is influenced by
7
anthropological and psychological methods to knowledge. Specific environments, such as school and classroom settings, affect teachers‟ perceptions. Teachers‟
perceptions are affected by the specific environment, such as school and classroom settings where they operate. The third perspective explores how particular content knowledge and pedagogical strategies interweave in the minds of teachers, referred to as “pedagogical content knowledge” (Shulman, 1987).
2.2.2 Personal Practical Knowledge
Influenced by the earlier eminent scholars, such as Dewey (1938) and Elbaz (1983), some researchers found that teacher knowledge performed as social and experiential orientations and proposed a term “practical knowledge” to refer to
“focused attention on the action and decision-oriented nature of teacher‟s situation, and construes her knowledge as a function, in part, of her response to that situation.”
(p.5) It means that practical knowledge is observable and explainable in a teachers‟
daily practice, in a particular context. Furthermore, what guides a teacher to actively shape and direct their teaching is their understanding of a specific context, which is very complex and situational (Elbaz, 1983). Elbaz; therefore, identified these features of practical knowledge into five categories: knowledge of self, knowledge of the milieu of teaching, knowledge of subject matter, knowledge of the curriculum, and knowledge of instruction. While Elbaz emphasized the practical knowledge, Connelly and Clandinin (1985) expanded her framework and gave attention to the personal part of teacher knowledge, referred to as “personal practice knowledge.” They regarded a teacher‟s knowledge as the reflection of an individual‟s previous experience and of knowledge construction and reconstruction by situations. Through narratives, personal practice knowledge such as philosophies, teaching metaphors, and rhythms of school patterns, could be unveiled. Clandinin (1986) claimed that teachers could shape a
8
vivid “image” toward their work and a whole understanding, as well as perceptions of teaching, could be understood through the story-telling process (cited in Tsui, 2003).
Based on the viewpoints above, Golombek (1998) investigated two in-service ESL teachers‟ personal practice knowledge, informing their practice through the narratives.
The study highlighted the L2 teachers‟ personal practice knowledge, and was
embodied in persons and taken in the form of stories. That is, teacher knowledge was shaped by the reconstruction of their experience through stories.
2.1.3 Situated Knowledge
The previous subsection discusses the teacher knowledge in terms of individual‟s cognitive perspective via the narratives; however, Lave and Wenger (1991) and Leinhardt (1988), who took an anthropological aspect on knowledge, posited cognitive core is related to contexts and is developed contextually when practitioners responded to specific context where they operated. They proposed
“situated knowledge”, which focused on the relationship between learning and social situations where it occurred. The further explanation is “how a person learns a particular set of knowledge and skills, and the situation in which a person learner, become a fundamental part of what is learned” (Putnam & Borko., 2000, p.4).
According to Lave (1988), it could find that learners‟ cognition is situated in practice;
thus, it is of essence to consider the effects of contexts on teacher decision-making.
Leichardt‟s (1988) study echoed the above viewpoints. She examined how expert teachers used the situated knowledge to select and choose examples to illustrate mathematical concepts. The results showed that teacher knowledge was developed contextually in the specific social practice. In the study, the math teacher adjusted the teaching styles and chose the situated knowledge instead of generative knowledge since the former could be more suitable and effective in terms of problem solution
9
than the latter. In sum, the notion of situated knowledge pertains to “the teaching acts as a joint constitution of the context and the teaching-acting” (Tsui, 2003, p.50).
2.1.4 Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Unlike the previous conceptions related to general pedagogical knowledge, Shulman (1987) advocated ”pedagogical content knowledge” which focused on the interaction of specific subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of the teaching context. Regarding his notion, teachers‟ theoretical and practical knowledge could inform and be informed by their teaching. Moreover, Shulman (1987) proposed that “Teachers‟ development from students to teachers, from a state of expertise as learners through a novitiate as teachers, exposes and highlights the complex bodies of knowledge and skills needed to function effectively as a teacher (p.4).” Given that the knowledge transformation process is complicated, Shulman (1987) outlined two categories to summarize teacher‟s pedagogical content knowledge: Content knowledge, also known as deep knowledge of the subject itself, and knowledge of the curricular development. Adopting Schulman‟s framework, Watzke (2007) investigated how nine beginning teachers‟ pedagogical content
knowledge performed and shifted over time. The research supported Shulman‟s work that pedagogical content knowledge is developed through the process of teaching, conflict, reflection to solve the problems occurred in the particular course or the classroom context. That is, teacher development is inextricably linked to the specific subject knowledge and the real classroom settings.
2.1.5 Borg’s Framework for Language Teacher Cognition
Based on the above mentioned by studies, there are a number of identical terms referring to similar concepts, such as practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1983), personal
10
practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1985), situated knowledge (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Leinhardt, 1988), and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Early studies have mainly focused on the examination of how one or a few factors influence teacher cognition. Additionally, researchers, in particular, emphasize that contextual factors play a pivotal role in the implementation of teacher cognition and teaching practices. To embrace the complexity of teachers‟ mental lives and provide a holistic picture of how teacher cognition is developed and shaped, Borg (2003) used “teacher cognition” and proposed a schematic conceptualization of teacher cognitions and modified it as “language teacher cognition” (2006) as shown in Figure 2.1. In this model, Borg specifies three areas that influence teacher cognition, namely, schooling, professional coursework, and contextual factors.
Figure 2.1 Elements and processes in language teacher cognition
As shown in Figure 2.1, teacher cognition takes the central role, which refers to the interaction and negotiation among other three perspectives (schooling,
11
professional coursework, and contextual factors).
2.1.5.1 Teacher Cognition and Schooling
Schooling refers to teaching that is influenced by teachers‟ earlier learning experiences (Borg, 2006). Teachers‟ personal experiences as learners influence their cognition and their teaching. Borg, therefore, regards this factor as one of the main evidence to understand what teachers do throughout their careers. Johnson (1994) proposed the similar notion of teacher knowledge earlier. Language teachers‟ prior language learning experience plays an essential role affecting and shaping their teaching philosophies, classroom practices, and instructional decisions. In addition, Grossman (1990) points out that teachers‟ personal learning experiences have a strong impact on their expectations of students and their conceptions of how students learn.
On the other hand, Lortie (1975) defined this term, schooling, as “apprenticeship of observation”, deciding what teachers do in their classroom according to their memories as students. Teachers can easily trace back to their personal learning histories and imagine what teaching should be like based on their experiences as learners. As a result, identifying this feature is of importance for teacher cognitive development.
2.1.5.2 Teacher Cognition and Professional Coursework
The professional coursework refers to teacher training programs affecting teachers in different and unique ways. From Borg‟s (2006) viewpoint, teacher education has a significant function for teachers‟ behaviors and practices because teachers can construct knowledge and form their teaching belief. However, some studies prove that the relationship between teacher education and teacher cognition is not directly related (Almarza, 1996, Kagan, 1992; Richard, Ho, & Giblin, 1996). The
12
researchers claimed varied factors, such as the duration of the course training, their conception of their role in the classroom, their knowledge of professional discourse, their concerns for achieving continuity in lessons, and other classroom problems (e.g.
time pressure, tests) outweigh their professional training. Borg also maintains that cognition change does not guarantee behavior change, especially for novice teachers.
Teachers may perform particular behaviors and practices without any conscious change in their cognition. The relationship between teacher cognition and training is, thus, dependent on variable situations.
2.1.5.3 Teacher Cognition and Contextual Factors
Contextual factors entail classroom practices refer to social, psychological, and environmental conditions of the school and classroom, which have a strong impact on teachers‟ cognition. The major difference between experienced teachers and novices is the instruction implementations in accordance with their cognition. Experienced teachers‟ prior teaching experiences would largely influence their current teaching and allow them to anticipate instructional and students‟ problems. Teachers instead of ones use their learning experiences more to envision difficulties and are have trouble thinking about learning issues from students‟ perspectives (Borg, 2006; Crookes &
Arakaki, 1999). Based on Borg‟s notion, novice teachers may encounter many
challenges arising from curriculum, students, parents, institutions, education policies, and standardized tests. These factors may cause tension between teacher cognition and classroom practice and hinder their abilities to adopt ideal practices into the classroom; thus, teaching leads to the imbalance, especially for the novice teachers.
Nevertheless, Johnson (1996) claimed that novice teachers‟ teaching enthusiasm can overcome the contextual reality and soothe the condition. No matter what viewpoints researchers provide, context indeed has a strong power for both experienced and
13
novice teachers.
To summarize, teacher cognition is personal, practical, tacit, systematic, and dynamic (Borg, 2006). With different personalities, learning experiences, academic backgrounds, professional training, teaching experiences, and other contextual factors, teachers form their own individual conceptions of learning and studying (Tsui, 2003).
Hence, examining how teacher cognition interweaves with classroom practice is vital to get further understanding of teachers cognitive development by using Borg‟s diagram.
2.2 Teacher Cognition in Second Language Education
Research on teacher cognition in second language education had a late start in the 1990s (Borg, 2003, Tsui, 2003), and numerous studies indicate that there is an interrelationship between language teacher‟s cognition and actions. Most of these studies are related topics, especially in the field of grammar and literacy instruction while others focus on general issues, such as teacher education and decision-making within language teaching context. The diversity of research on language teacher cognition highlights the similar core, that is “the knowledge and skills teachers develop are closely bound up with the specific contexts in which they work and in their own personal histories” (Tsui, 2003). A Teacher‟s cognitive development relies heavily on the context and in turn the context is re-shaped by their cognition. To sum it up, the relationship between teacher‟s cognition that they develop and the context where they work is dialectical.
2.2.1 Teacher Cognition in Topics
Several studies of teacher cognition in English education in relation to specific topics like grammar, reading, and writing have been mostly carried out in the ESL
14
context in America. Ebsworth and Schweers (1997); for example, investigated teachers‟ beliefs about conscious grammar instruction held by 60 ESL university teachers by using questionnaires and informal interviews. They found that teachers in Puerto Rico taught grammar explicitly more than teachers in New York, given that teachers mentioned multiple factors shaping their viewpoints, including students‟
needs and context. They concluded that teachers‟ classroom practice especially in Puerto Rico rarely referred their teaching to research studies or any particular
methodology. Another study conducted by Burgess and Etherington (2002) echoed the previous research result. Researchers explored the beliefs about grammar and
grammar teaching with 48 teachings of English for academic purpose (EAP) in UK universities by using questionnaires. The results indicated that teachers reported that students in the classroom expected them to give explicit grammar instruction for efficient language study, causing teachers to hold a positive attitude towards conscious grammar teaching to meet students‟ expectation and needs. Therefore, understating the students‟ cognition and capabilities in language learning is of importance.
2.2.2 Teacher Cognition in Contextual Factors
In addition to the context factor, teachers‟ cognition is also affected by another issue, prior learning experience from the original text. Farrell (1999) examined
grammar teaching approaches, inductive and deductive methods, held by some pre-service English teachers in Singapore by writing self-reports relating to their earlier language learning experiences and their opinions about teaching grammar. The findings pointed out that pre-service English teachers preferred to track back to their own learning experiences and had been influenced relatively little by those theories of second language in the textbook. The studies conducted by Brumfit, Mitchell, and
15
Hooper (1996) as well as Ebsworth and Schweers (1997) also got the same insight.
SLA theories and schooling play a minor role in the English teaching context.
“Teachers‟ experience as learners can inform cognition about teaching as well as learning and these cognition may continue to exert an influence on teachers
throughout their career. There is also evidence to suggest that although professional preparation does shape trainees‟ cognition, programs which ignore trainee teachers‟
prior beliefs may be less effective at influencing these (Borg, 2006, p.248).”
Furthermore, Borg (1998) examined one EFL teacher‟s personal pedagogical systems and classroom practice in grammar instruction by using classroom
observations and interviews. He concluded that a teacher‟s cognition was shaped by educational and professional experience in his life. His initial training and learning affected the teacher in this study heavily.
In 2001, Borg compared two experienced EFL English teachers with regards to their grammar instruction and highlighted that teachers‟ formal instruction and knowledge were relatively related. In other words, the teacher with confidence and high language proficiency about grammar was willing to answer students‟ questions without any preparation and was more acceptable to the unplanned teaching
instructions.
In conclusion, teacher cognition based on these previous studies was shaped by multiple factors including schooling, professional coursework, classroom practice, and other contextual factors. Thus, using Borg‟s framework to depict the key dimensions of teacher cognition is crucial and can detail the relationships among them.
2.3 Teacher Cognition in Remedial Education 2.3.1 Remedial Education for Underachievers
16
In the past decades, remedial education has increasingly been implemented into both secondary and higher education systems because of the uneven distribution of wealth that has indirectly influenced the unequal educational opportunities (Hsu, Yu,
& Chang, 2010). In addition, race issues have been paid much more attention than before for the disparate schooling and educational resources (Tsai, 2004). As a consequence, more and more people observed this problem and proposed remedial programs to make up the disparity, as well as to equip students with required and necessary skills and knowledge to meet the basic capabilities at schools (Rienties, Tempelaar, Dijkstra, Rehm, & Gijselaers, 2008). Also, Bettinger and Long (2005) claimed that a main purpose of remedial courses is to assist underachievers‟ and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and to help establish a smooth
transition to the following step of their schooling or career. While numerous remedial
transition to the following step of their schooling or career. While numerous remedial