5.2 Conclusion
5.2.1 Summary of the Study
This paper adopted a case study approach to explore two English teachers‟
teaching cognition, practices, and their embedded contextual factors influencing the relations between the cognition and practices in the remedial program. Borg‟s
framework (2006) was adopted as the underlying theoretical and analytical framework to figure out the complexity of teacher mental lives. In the framework, three major factors were proposed to influence teachers‟ cognitive development in real classroom practices, including cognition and prior language learning experience, cognition and teacher education, and cognition and classroom practice. This study aimed to elicit the two English teachers‟ cognition, practices, and the contextual factors. Moreover, the study also examined how the two English teachers‟ cognition were formed and how the two English teachers‟ teaching practices interwove with their cognition in the remedial program. Data were collected from multiple data sources, including formal and informal interviews with two targeted teachers, their students, and the
administrator), weekly classroom observations, and teaching documents (e.g. syllabus, handouts, and supplementary materials).
The results of this current study revealed that the two English teachers held not only different cognition and knowledge concerning language teaching and learning but also different interpretations of their own teaching. The individual differences reflecting in their teaching practices seemed to be relatively influential to their teaching cognition. As Borg (2006) suggests, teachers‟ schooling has great impact on
85
their cognition. As revealed in this study, the two teachers‟ language learning and teaching experiences played a significant role in their decision-making to their teaching practice.
In addition to the two English teachers‟ schooling and professional knowledge, contextual factors from the situated remedial program also influenced the two teachers‟ cognition and teaching practices. In the remedial program, the experienced teacher had fewer influences than the novice teacher from the context because experienced teachers were able to handle classroom events and teaching contexts.
Also, they had more power to decide curriculum as well as courses. On the other hand, novice teachers needed time to get into the context. During this period, teachers relied greatly on the administrator and his colleagues‟ suggestions and opinions.
Furthermore, she regarded students‟ responses and academic performances as major references for their teaching modifications and cognitive reflections.
5.2.2 Pedagogical Implications
The findings of this study suggest several pedagogical implications. First, the results of the study suggest that teachers‟ roles in teaching contexts may influence their teaching cognition and practices. According to Borg‟s framework (2006), he concluded that factors which may affect teachers‟ cognitive development could be separated into three main domains, including schooling, professional trainings, and contextual factors. However, within the contextual factors, Borg did not further clarify this term. The current study found that the two English teachers‟ roles influenced their teaching practices in the remedial program. Experienced teachers who have more power in the teaching contexts tend to follow their own teaching instructions and seldom reflect what they teach while the novice teachers who have less power try to have a balance between their teaching cognition, practices and the remedial program‟s
86
goals. Novice teachers were prone to modify their teaching instructions at the beginning of the teaching period.
Second, experienced and novice teachers‟ different learning backgrounds and teaching experiences influenced different instructions they implemented in the remedial program and courses. For experienced teachers, they often seem to
successfully accomplish teaching tasks, anticipate upcoming problems, and then deal with problems with confidence. On the other hand, novice teachers easily get lost and doubted themselves whether their teaching is suitable for students in the specific context and continually modify their teaching and classroom management. Because they lack enough competence to apply professional training into the field of remedial courses efficiently, they mostly rely heavily on others‟ assistances to overcome both teaching and learning problems and to avoid tension between students and her. This study showed that mentor teachers should offer to teachers who teach remedial courses in the beginning of their careers. Tsui (2003) indicated that it was important for mentor teachers to lead student teachers into the teaching field during the teaching practicum. Through such training, novice teachers would have less trouble when starting in the teaching field and would have more confidence in believing that they could lead a new class.
Third, according to the findings, the contexts where teachers were situated were the most significant factor that could either facilitate or hinder teachers‟ classroom practices. One of the concerns revealed in this study was the different goals set by the remedial program, the administrator, and each teacher). To solve this issue, it is suggested that remedial programs and administrators should understand more about teachers‟ needs and give full support to teachers‟ instructions and decision-making in class. Furthermore, students‟ slow progress in their academic performances is another concern in this current study because teachers, under parents and educators‟ high
87
expectations, would feel pressure and are obliged to teach only what was included on exams, and catch up to the public schools‟ progress, thus causing the teaching to become exam- orientation. Students have hard time learning so fast and they are sacrificed again. Therefore, this study suggests that parents and educators should recognize that the implementation of remedial courses for underachievers and minorities is worth it in the long run.
5.2.3 Limitations of the Study
Three limitations were observed in this study. First, the data was collected in the classroom, which may limit data interpretations. In this study, two targeted teachers had interactions with the administrator, colleagues, and students out of classroom.
Thus, documenting those out-of-the-classrooms observations was important for the research because those interactions may reveal teachers‟ anticipation of students‟
learning needs and their decision-making in class that were ordinarily hidden in the classroom. Second, the data collection time of the two cases was limited to only one semester-long period. When the researcher collected data, it was the second semester of the year when Ron had already taught the same class for one semester. For Olivia, it was her first semester to teach this class so she had a lot of significant changes during the data collections. Therefore, it assumed that the time period for data collections should be prolonged a complete year, which may reveal more changes in teachers‟ cognition and practices. Third, the role of the researcher might have
imparted certain influence on the data interpretations for each participant. During the data collection, the researcher was teaching English in the same remedial program as Ron and Olivia did. Also, the researcher and Olivia studied in the same graduate school where Olivia was a senior. Thus, it was inevitable that the researcher might hold initial impressions on the participants, which may influence the data
88
interpretations because of their familiarity with her.
5.2.4 Suggestions for Future Research
The study investigated English teachers‟ teaching cognition and practices in the remedial program. The results provide insights into factors influencing teachers‟
decision-making in their teaching practice.
First, since the study only collected data in the second semester of an academic year, the two teachers‟ cognition in the first semester were undetected during the data collection period. It is unknown how the two teachers‟ cognition had changed when more teaching experiences were accumulated. Longitudinal studies were suggested to be conducted to observe the possible cognitive changes of experienced and novice teachers and explore factors attributing to the changes.
Second, since this study recruit both English teachers with diverse teaching educational backgrounds; recruiting participants with similar professional training can gain more understanding about the interplay between the teacher cognition and
teacher professional training. Future research may find it significant to include
experienced and novice teachers who receiving similar professional teacher training in the remedial program.
Third, because this study only focused on the remedial program held by a private institution, future research may conduct remedial programs in private and public school systems to investigate how different remedial contexts may influence teacher cognition and practices.
89
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2004). Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in
Post-Secondary Education. Washington, DC: U.S.: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Attewell, P.A., Lavin, D.E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924.
Bettinger, E.P., & Long, B.T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129, 17-26.
Bloom, B.S. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In French (Ed.), Accent on Teaching: Experiments in General Education (pp. 23-46). New York: Harper Brothers.
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9-38.
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal 55, 21-29.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice.
London: Continuum.
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms.
Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456-482.
Brumfit, C., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1996). Grammar, language and classroom practice. In Hughes (Ed.), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times (pp.
70-87). Oxford: Blackwell.
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?
90
System, 30, 433-458.
Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners.
In Freeman & Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in language teaching (pp.
154-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, S.J. (2001). 實施補救教學之課程設計與教學設計 [The design of curriculum and teaching of the implementation of remedial instruction].
Journal of Educaiton, 17, 85-106.
Chen, S.L. (2008). The status quo of After-School Academic Assistance in Taiwan's elementary schools. NTTU Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 1-32.
Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1985). Personal practice knowledge and the modes of knowledge: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed), Learning and Teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 174-198). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as Curriculum Planners. New York: Teacher College Press.
Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Research, 19(5), 2-14.
Crookes, G. & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and work conditions in an ESL program. TESOL Journal, 8, 15-19.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Ebsworth, M.E. & Schweers, C.W. (1997). What researchers say and practitioners do:
Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied Language Learning, 8, 237-260.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Farrell, S.C. (1999). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers' beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 1-17.
91
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1-13.
Golombek, P.R. & Johnson, K.E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space:
Examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers' development. Teachers and Teaching, 10, 307-328.
Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers' personal practical knowledge.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hill, M.R. (1993). Archival strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Hsu, Y.K. & Chen, Y.H. (2007). EFL teachers' perceptions and practices regarding the implementation of remedial instruction for underachievers. English Teaching & Learning, 31(2), 1-43.
Hsu, C., Yu, C.C., & Chang, Y.F. (2010). Teachers' perspectives on disadvantage students learning in the north part of Taiwan. In Z. A. e. al. (Ed.), (pp.
687-693): Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010
Johnson, K.E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.
Johnson, K.E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the TESOL practicum. In Freeman & Richards (Ed.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K.E. (1999). Understanding Language Teaching: Reasoning in Action.
Boston: MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 129-169.
92
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In Chaiklin & Lave (Ed.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers' Professional Learning (pp. 146-168). London: Falmer Press.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R.D., Green, L.B., Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., & et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Educational Priority Area. Retrieved 1/27, 2010, from http://www.sj2es.tnc.edu.tw/edufirst/93plan/index.htm
Ministry of Education. (2006). After School Alternative Program. Retrieved 1/27, 2010, from http://163.19.64.10/handweb/data/files/200801110545520.doc Ministry of Education. (2010). 國民中小學攜手計畫課後扶助學生篩選追蹤輔導
轉銜試辦計畫修正對照表. Retrieved 1/27, 2010, from
ms1.ttes.ntct.edu.tw/asap2/data/user/admin/files/201004141347103.ppt
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd edition ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-16.
93
Richards, J.C., Ho, B., & Giblin, K. (1996). Learning how to teach in the RSA cent.
In Freeman & Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp.
242-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Dijkstra, J., Rehm, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2008).
Longitudinal Study of Online Remedial Education Effects. In P. Bossche, W.
Gijselaers & R. G. Milter (Eds.), The Power of Technology for Learning (Vol.
1, pp. 43-59): Springer Netherlands.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Smith, D.B. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In Freeman
& Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 197-216).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tan, Y.C. & Wu, C.S. (2009). The study on the policy for disadvantaged students and its coping measures in Taipei city. Journal of Educational Administration and Evaluation, 8, 77-94.
Tsai, W.S. (2004). Consider the Taiwan aborigine students' education current and future situation from the education opportunity equality. Formosan Education and Society, 6, 109-144.
Tsai, Y.R. & Hou, C.R. (2009). 提升弱勢族群教育機會均等的教育政策分析: 以 課業輔導「夜光天使點燈專案計畫」為例. In-service Education Bulletin, 26(3), 47-54.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding Expertise in Teaching - Case Studies of Second Language Teachers. U.K.: Cambridge.
Watzke, J.L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a
developmental theory of beginning teacher practices. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 63-82.
Woods, P. (1986). Inside School: Ethnography in Educational Research. London:
Routledge.
94
Woods, P. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95
APPENDICES Appendix A
Consent Form for Teachers
Dear Teachers,
As you know, I am a graduate student majoring in TESOL in National Chung Tung University. As a graduate student and English teacher of aboriginal students, I have the opportunity to get more understanding of their situation. Thus, I have come up with a research question that I would like to know how English teachers relate to their students in their classroom practice such as the prior learning and teaching experiences, professional backgrounds, contextual factors and so forth. I, sincerely, invited you to take part in my study and I would like to describe this study to you in detail. I hope that you will be interested in working with me on this study.
There are three parts to my research: the classroom observations, the semi-structured interviews, and the document collections.
1. The classroom observation:
It will be proceeded once a week from March/ April to June in order to understand how the English teachers interact with their students and the classroom practice.
2. The interview:
It will be conducted about three times to obtain the English teachers‟ interpretations of their own classroom practices. If you agree, I would like to audio-tape the
interview so that I will be able to examine your comments later.
3. The document collection:
Documents including handouts, worksheets, and other teaching materials will be gathered as supplementary materials for analysis.
96
In this study, you may be worried that something you write or say may be used against you or misunderstood. So, I will never use your own name and all the information I collect is for the academic purpose. I will protect your privacy. In addition, you can leave the study at any time if you feel uncomfortable. I believe that you will find this study interesting and enjoying. If you want to know the result, I will provide it for you at the end of the study. If you have any problems or questions, please contact me.
Contact information
Student: Shu-Hua Shih (石淑華) Email: rosakraft@pchome.com.tw Phone: 0910671898
Advisor: Ching-Fen Chang (張靜芬) Email: cfchang@mail.nctu.edu.tw
Sincerely,
SHU-HUA SHIH
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Participant‟s consent
I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form. In addition, I understand that I can leave the study at any time. I agree to take part in this study.
Your name___________________________
Your signature ________________________ Date _________________
97
Appendix B
Interview Questions for Formal Interview 1
A. Biographical information 1. Name:
2. Gender:
3. Nationality:
4. Date of birth:
5. Place of birth:
6. Educational background:
7. Job:
B. Language background
1. What is your mother tongue (native language)?
2. Did you study any foreign languages?
3. When, how and where did you learn the foreign languages?
4. What do you recall about these lessons?
a. What kinds of methods were used?
b. Do you recall whether you enjoyed such lessons or not?
5. Did you feel that your own education as a student has had any influence on the way you teach today?
C. The profession and development as a teacher 1. How and why did you become an EFL teacher?
a. Do you have any teaching experiences before teaching in Chu Tung (竹東)?
b. If yes, what was the subject and to whom?
98
c. Were these particularly positive or negative?
d. What kinds of teaching methods and materials did you use?
2. Can you talk about your formal teacher training experiences? (for TESOL one) 3. How long have you taught in Chu Tung?
4. Can you talk about the overall teaching experience in Chu Tung?
5. Did you feel that your previous teaching experiences have had any influence on the way you teach in Chu Tung?
6. What are your motivations / reasons of being an English teacher of aboriginal students?
99
Appendix C
Interview Questions for Formal Interview 2
A. Teacher’s perspective on language itself
1. Do you consider it important to learn English? Why or why not?
2. What does language (English) mean to you?
3. Do you think it is important to speak English with native-like pronunciation?
4. In your opinion, what are the most important aspects of learning English?
(pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, interests)
B. Teacher’s perspective on language learning 1. What are the best ways to learn a language?
2. In your opinion, what are the most important aspects of learning English for your students? (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, interests)
3. How would you motivate your students‟ interests in learning English?
4. What kind of attitude students hold do you prefer?
5. How do you identity students‟ learning problems?
C. Teacher’s perspective on language teaching
1. Based on your knowledge or learning experience, what is good language teaching?
2. What are the most important aspects of teaching?
(language learning, classroom management, student‟s affective domain) 3. In your opinion, what are the most important aspects of teaching English?
(pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, interests) 4. How do you see your role in the classroom?
100
5. How do you design your lesson plan before class?
6. How do you design your worksheet? Do you have any rationale when designing it?
7. How do you deal with students with different textbook versions in the class?
8. How do your deal with students with different language proficiency in your classroom?
9. What teaching methods do you implement in your classroom?
9. What teaching methods do you implement in your classroom?