Exploring a Practice-Based Approach to Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: A Work in Progress

Access provided by York University (18 May 2013 14:27 GMT)

Exploring a Practice-Based Approachto Foreign Language TeacherPreparation: A Work in Progress

Francis J. Troyan, Kristin J. Davin,and Richard Donato

Abstract: This article describes the implementation of a practice-basedapproach to foreign language (FL) teacher preparation. After briefly framingthe discussion in relation to the literature on the practice-based approach inteacher education – including Phase I of the American Council on the Teach-ing of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Research Priorities – we present the imple-mentation and integration of this approach in the context of FL teacherpreparation. The successes and challenges encountered throughout the imple-mentation experience are discussed, and recommendations are made for prac-tice-based course design in FL teacher preparation programs and for futureresearch on the practice-based approach.

Keywords: foreign language teacher preparation, high-leverage practices,practice-based approach, teaching methodology, teaching practicum

Resume : Cet article decrit l’execution d’une approche a la formation des en-seignants basee sur la pratique. Apres un resume de recherches precedentes – ycompris la Phase I du projet « Research Priorities » de l’American Council onthe Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) – l’application de cette approchedans la formation des enseignants de langues etrangeres est presentee. Fondessur cette etude exploratoire, les reussites et defis de l’execution de cette ap-proche sont examines. Dans la perspective de cette experience, des conseilssur le planning d’un cursus de preparation des enseignants de langues etran-geres base sur la pratique sont proposes. Des directions de recherche futuressont suggerees d’apres les resultats de cet etude.

Mots cles : formation des enseignants de langues etrangeres, pratiques peda-gogiques a impact eleve, approche basee sur la pratique, methodologie del’enseignement, travaux pratiques d’enseignement

The purpose of this article is to describe and examine the implementa-tion of a practice-based approach in foreign language (FL) teacherpreparation. A practice-based approach differs from what may becalled a “traditional approach” to pre-service teacher education by

© 2013 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,69, 2, (May / mai), 154–180 doi:10.3138/cmlr.1523

emphasizing a limited, yet useful and flexible set of instructional prac-tices that are woven throughout a program. Guided by their instruc-tors, pre-service teachers deconstruct and re-construct these practicesas they implement and refine their work. A practice-based approachdiffers from a traditional approach in which students are introducedto a broad range of best practices that are briefly identified and dis-cussed but not deeply analyzed, deconstructed, and implemented.Rather than introduce students to an extensive set of teaching strate-gies, a practice-based approach focuses on a well-defined set of devel-opmentally appropriate practices that are considered learnable bybeginner teachers. The approach also maintains that no amount of“teaching about teaching” or reflection on teaching can replace theenactment of teaching (Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman &McDonald, 2008), during which novices are supported and assisted intheir work by more accomplished professionals. In this way, teacherpreparation creates zones of proximal development for the developingteacher (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999; Hoffman-Kipp,Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003; Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Golombek,2003; Tasker, Johnson, & Davis, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978). Within thiszone, mediation of various kinds works to create a potential plane ofdevelopment through which students-in-training bring essential prac-tices under their own control and transform themselves into accom-plished novice teachers.

Given this perspective on pre-service teacher preparation and ourcollective previous experiences, we sought to explore how we mightintroduce the practice-based approach into an existing FL teacherpreparation program without dismantling and revising it entirely. Inthis article, we will document this process by addressing three goals:first, after discussing current literature on the practice-based approachin teacher preparation, we will describe the implementation andintegration of this approach in the context of FL teacher preparation;second, based on this description, the successes and challenges en-countered throughout the experience will be discussed; third, throughthe lens of these initial experiences, recommendations will be madefor designing FL teacher preparation programs that seek to integrate apractice-based approach and the realities of classroom practice withthe needs of novice teachers.

Toward a practice-based approach

Given the apparent limitations of the traditional approach to teacherpreparation, a need exists to re-examine our approach to how pre-service teachers learn specific instructional practices, the instructional

A Work in Progress 155

© 2013 CMLR/RCLV, 69, 2, 154–180 doi:10.3138/cmlr.1523

moves that constitute these practices, and the contexts in which cer-tain practices can be used productively and flexibly. To this end, it hasbeen argued that rather than front-load pre-service teachers with anexhaustive list of instructional practices (and related theories), thetime has come to focus on a limited set of essential teaching practicesin teacher preparation (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Ericsson, 2002; Ericsson,Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Lam-pert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010). These practicesneed to be developmentally appropriate for novice teachers, learnableduring their teacher education program, and readily teachable for fac-ulty (Ball et al., 2009).

The practice-based approach is founded on the assumption thatteaching is not based solely on improvisation and intuition; it is com-plex work that can be explained, made visible, implemented, andrefined (Lampert & Graziani, 2009; Lemov & Atkins, 2010). In mostother cases of professional training, immediate guidance on perfor-mance is common as the novice carries out various aspects of specificprofessional practices. In aviation, for example, theory and practiceare linked from the first flight. If a student pilot is struggling with across-wind landing, the certified flight instructor can provide guid-ance through linked controls, coaching the student throughout anauthentic situation without risk of accident or injury. In contrast to tra-ditional approaches to teacher preparation, in which instructors onlyconference and reflect with pre-service teachers after teaching a lesson,the practice-based approach emphasizes the need to coach and pro-vide formative feedback during teaching. This approach has been re-commended for the training of pre-service teachers1 on the groundsthat, as Schon (1987) states, they require

freedom to learn by doing in a setting relatively low in risk, with access tocoaches who initiate [them] into the “traditions of the calling” and helpthem, by “the right kind of telling,” to see on their own behalf and in theirown way what they need most to see. (p. 17)

As is common practice in other professions, teacher preparationprograms need to provide pre-service teachers with opportunities tomake decisions with the support of expert guidance from experiencedteachers and teaching coaches (i.e., teacher educators). Although thetheory-practice connection, or what is better described as praxis (e.g.,Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Poehner &Lantolf, 2010; Valli & Price, 2000), is necessary for development of allkinds, in actuality the conditions under which pre-service teacherslearn to teach in the traditional approach impede this dialectical

156 Troyan, Davin, and Donato


relationship. For example, researchers in teacher development haverecently begun to explore the use of coaching during instructionthrough, for example, Bluetooth “Bug-in-Ear” technology (Goodman,Brady, Duffy, Scott, & Pollard, 2008; Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery,2010),2 which facilitates immediate feedback in the form of privatecommunications between supervisor and teacher while the teacherworks with students.

A research priority in foreign language education

In the United States, FL teacher preparation has recently joined thenational dialogue on a practice-based approach. In 2010, the AmericanCouncil on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) launched aninitiative, the Research Priorities Project, to identify areas in whichresearch was needed to improve FL classroom instruction. One areaidentified as a research priority is high-leverage teaching practices(Glisan & Donato, 2012). As part of this initiative Hlas and Hlas (2012)reviewed the literature and research on the practice-based approachin teacher preparation. They argued that building a teacher prepara-tion program on the concept of practice initially requires the identifi-cation of those practices that are relevant to FL education and arenecessary for beginning FL teachers. In their review, Hlas and Hlashighlighted the nascent state of the work on high-leverage teachingpractices (HLTPs) based on research on mathematics education anddiscussed its potential application to the field of FL teacher prepara-tion. Drawing from the work of Ball et al. (2009), they defined HLTPsas practices that are

most likely to equip beginners with capabilities for the fundamentalelements of professional work and that are unlikely to be learned on one’sown through experience . . . teaching practices in which the proficientenactment by a teacher is likely to lead to comparatively large advances instudent learning. (Hlas & Hlas, 2012, p. s78)

They further described HLTPs as complex practices that must be bro-ken down into micropractices,3 that is, smaller components of theHTLP to be learned and enacted by novice teachers (Hlas & Hlas).Hlas and Hlas applied the following four examples of HLTPs and ac-companying micropractices from the field of mathematics teacherpreparation to FL teacher preparation (pp. 80–90):

1. Anticipating student errors and misconceptions during planning.(Micropractice: Four column planning.)

2. Making connections between multiple representations.4



3. Leading a classroom discussion. (Micropractice: Eliciting and re-acting to student contributions during discussion.)

4. Teaching through problem solving. (Micropractice: Targeted scaf-folding through routine questioning.)

They concluded that future research is needed to determine theHLTPs distinctive to FL education, to trace the evidence of teachingeffectiveness based on HLTPs throughout a teacher’s career, and to ex-plore how an FL teacher preparation program focused on HLTPs couldbe implemented. Therefore, our exploratory study of the practice-basedapproach concomitantly aligns with a stated research priority in FLEducation in the United States and current research in teacher prepara-tion across the disciplines.

Clarifying terminology

Because the practice-based approach is still evolving, the terminologyin the literature varies. Hlas and Hlas (2012) use the term high-leverageteaching practices, whereas other authors simply use the term high-leverage practices (HLPs) (Ball et al., 2009; Hatch & Grossman, 2009; Ka-zemi, Franke, & Lampert, 2009). Other teacher education researchersrefer to core practices (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009;Grossman & McDonald, 2008), while some opt for the generic termpractice (Grossman et al., 2009). The variation in the terminology repre-sents the differing grain size of these practices and highlights theimportance of a common language (Ball and Forzani, 2009; Lampert,2010). For example, in Hlas and Hlas’ use of the term HLTP, the grainsize is quite large (e.g., leading a discussion) thus requiring the specifi-cation of micropractices to fully explain the various components andcomplexity of the practice in question. A smaller grain size, suggestedin the use of the term core practice, entails less complexity and mightbe used to describe specific instructional moves in a well-defined in-structional activity or task, such as asking particular types of questionsduring a text-based discussion.

For the purposes of our work, we adopted the term high-leveragepractice (HLP), defined as “the strategies, routines, or activities thatnovices need to learn to do and from which they will continue to learn[while] teaching” by the Learning in, from, and for Teaching Practice(LTP, 2011, “What There Is to Be Learned about Teaching Practice,”para. 1) project. In addition to HLPs, we use the LTP term instructionalactivities to further distinguish the specific practice from the activity inwhich the practice is embedded:

Learning teaching is designed around a small set of common instructionalactivities (IAs), which are chosen to have legitimacy in actual school



classrooms and known to support student achievement. These IAs enableus to treat teacher preparation as initiation into a “practice” with sharedtools and language developed around shared goals. The IAs serve ascontainers that carry principles, practices, and knowledge into practiceand support both student learning and teacher learning. (LTP, 2011,“Instructional Activities [IAs],” para. 1)

Consider the following example for FL education. An HLP that hasbeen identified for the profession is “using language comprehensiblyduring instruction” (Davin & Donato, 2011, “HLPs Chosen,” 16; Troyan& Abdel-Malek, 2012). This HLP can be used across multiple IAs,such as introducing new vocabulary, telling a short story, teaching acontent-based lesson, or managing the class and giving directions. TheHLP – the use of comprehensible input – is not bound to a specificscript that the novice teacher memorizes. Rather, it is a dynamic prac-tice developed over time and gradually appropriated in new IAs bythe pre-service teacher. This critical relationship between the HLP andIA is at the core of our approach and will be described in detail in thefollowing sections in which we report on our exploratory study.

A practice-based approach in FL teacher preparation:An exploratory study

The practice-based approach can be difficult to implement in teacherpreparation programs because of external constraints on programdesign such as time, the academic content requirements of state de-partments for teacher certification, or generic methods courses wherepre-service teachers from various content areas learn together. To ourknowledge, unlike other content areas such as mathematics, science,and English language arts, the integration of a practice-based approachinto an existing FL teacher preparation program has not been systemat-ically implemented and examined in the United States.

Research questions

Based on the current research on teacher education, we implementeda practice-based approach in our practicum in FL teaching (henceforthreferred to as practicum course).5 Through the development and imple-mentation of the practicum course over two years, we hoped toanswer the following questions:

• How can a course based on HLPs be structured and carried outwithin a FL teacher preparation program?

• What are the successes and challenges experienced upon imple-mentation of this approach?



• What are the next steps for the field in the development and inte-gration of the practice-based approach in FL teacher preparation?

Context

The practicum course, in which our work with HLPs took place, wasimplemented at a large urban public university in the United States.In 2010, the various program coordinators6 in the School of Educationconvened to discuss ways to better integrate the university course-work and field experiences of pre-service teachers. Although univer-sity coursework and field experiences often overlapped during thesemester (See Table 1), communication was found to be limitedbetween the constituents (the university instructors, the mentor teach-ers, and the pre-service teachers); therefore, inconsistencies and con-tradictions often existed between the pre-service teachers’ learning inthe university classroom and particular teaching practices that wererequired in the field site. In FL education, the program chose to ad-dress this gap through the examination of HLPs in a practice-basedapproach. Because the practicum course required implementation ofthese HLPs by the pre-service teachers in the field site and structuredobservations of HLPs by university supervisors, the university coursesand field experiences were inextricably linked.

Participants

In the summer of 2010, two doctoral students, a technology consultantin the School of Education, a part-time faculty member, the tenured

Table 1: Course sequence in the FL Teacher Preparation Program

Summer 1(June–August)MAT

Fall(Sept–Dec) MATand PY

Spring(Jan–April)MAT and PY

Summer 2(May–June)MAT

Courses Introduction to FLEducation MATonly*

Practicumcourse

Issues in FLEducation

ResearchSeminar MATonly

FL Teaching LabMAT only

FL Testing andAssessment

DisciplinedInquiry MATonly

FL Teaching LabPY only

FieldExperience

MAT 20 HoursWeekly

MAT 35 HoursWeekly

MAT 35 HoursWeekly

PY 15 HoursWeekly

PY 40 HoursWeekly

FL = foreign language; MAT = Master of Arts in Teaching; PY = Professional Year* Introduction to FL Education is a required prerequisite for admission of PYs into the teacherpreparation program.



faculty member from the FL teacher preparation program, and theuniversity supervisors who observe pre-service teachers in the fieldmet to discuss the redesign of the practicum course. The course wasplanned and facilitated by the second and third authors in the fall of2010 and by the first author, who taught the course in the fall of 2011.Across the two years of the study, 28 pre-service teachers were in-volved. Table 2 depicts the program, language, grade level of field siteplacement, and year in the study of the pre-service teachers.

Program

At this university, there are two options for certification in FL education:a four-semester (summer, fall, spring, summer) Master of Arts in Teach-ing (MAT) and a two-semester (fall and spring) post-baccalaureate Pro-fessional Year (PY) program. For the PY program, pre-service teachersmust spend 15 hours per week at the field site during the fall semesterand 40 hours per week during the spring semester. For the MAT pro-gram, pre-service teachers must spend 20 hours per week at the fieldsite during the fall semester and 35 hours per week in the springsemester. Each pre-service teacher is assigned to a unique classroomand mentor teacher for all field work during the entire year. The practi-cum course, in which both MAT and PY students enrolled, met for1.5 hours each week for 15 weeks during the fall semester, concurrentwith the pre-service teachers’ first semester in the field site. The posi-tion of the practicum course relative to the other experiences in the twoprograms is depicted in Table 1.

The practicum course was one in a sequence of courses devoted toforeign language teaching, which included Introduction to ForeignLanguage Education, the Teaching Lab, Techniques and Procedures ofForeign Language Instruction, and Issues in Foreign Language Educa-tion.7 The Teaching Lab engaged pre-service teachers in micro-teaching

Table 2: Distribution of languages of certification, program, and grade level in 2010 (10)and 2011 (11)

Language N* PY MAT ES MS HS

10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11

Spanish 4 8 1 4 3 4 1† 2 1† 2 2 4French 4 4 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 3 4German 3 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 2Chinese 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Latin 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

ES = elementary school; MS = middle school; HS = High school* n = 13 and 15 (2010 and 2011, respectively)† Elementary and middle school placements



in which they followed a peer teaching model. While the MATs tookthe Teaching Lab the semester before the practicum, the PYs tookthe two courses concurrently. In the MAT program, pre-service tea-chers also completed a comprehensive examination portfolio course en-titled Disciplined Inquiry and an action research seminar in which theyconducted classroom-based research and wrote a required seminarpaper. The practicum was selected as the class in which to introducethe HLPs and integrate them into the field site experience becauseit was one of the courses that was required for both MAT and PYstudents.

Course description

The design of the course was informed by the emergent research ofLTP (2011), discussed earlier. Following their lead, the goal of thepracticum course was to design a training experience in which pre-service teachers could “move back and forth between engaging withactual, particular enactments of teaching and the investigation of theskills, knowledge, and principles involved in those enactments” (LTP,2011, “About the Project,” para. 2). The concurrent placement of thepracticum course and the first semester of field work enabled themovement back and forth between what was learned at the universityand what was enacted in the field site.

Selection of the HLPs

After reviewing the literature and discussing appropriate grain sizewith the FL teaching staff (Lampert, 2010), three HLPs were chosen:(a) using the target language comprehensibly during instruction (CI);(b) questioning for building and assessing student understanding; and(c) teaching grammar using an inductive approach followed by co-constructed explanations of form-meaning relationships.8 Althoughthese three HLPs may not be the only practices that accomplished no-vices need to know and be able to carry out, they served as a produc-tive starting place based on generally accepted principles of FLinstruction. Specifically, each of these HLPs is well known in FL teach-ing, is based on research and theory, and has been generally recom-mended as essential to ambitious teaching in an FL context by the FLprofession and, in the case of the use of questions, by professional or-ganizations in other disciplines.9 Meeting criteria outlined by Ball et al.(2009), these three HLPs apply across different approaches to instruc-tion, can be adapted to any proficiency level, can be detailed and madeaccessible to pre-service teachers, can be revisited periodically, and canbe implemented by pre-service teachers in their field sites. Moreover,each of these HLPs has a research history and has been discussed and



debated from various theoretical perspectives, including sociocognitivetheory (Atkinson, 2002; Bandura, 1989), sociocultural theory (Brooks,1990; Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997; Donato, 1994; Lantolf &Appel, 1994; Swain, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978), information processingtheory (Krashen, 1982; Long, 1983; McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod,1983; Swain, 1995; VanPatten, 2004), and language-based theories oflearning (Halliday, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). The large grain size of thesepractices allowed us to relate the practices to theoretical issues pre-sented and discussed in other classes and to create a dialogue wherebytheory informed practice and practice further informed (and at timestransformed) theory.

The HLPs were intentionally presented in this particular orderbecause making the target language comprehensible (HLP 1) supportsasking well-chosen and comprehensible questions in the target lan-guage for a variety of purposes (HLP 2). In addition, teaching aninductive grammar lesson (HLP 3) requires making contexts for obser-ving grammar in action clear to students through various languagemodifications, such as repetition, use of particular visual displays ofthe language, use of intonation and gesture, and so on. Further, ateacher’s (comprehensible) questions enable students to direct theirattention to relevant parts of the language, guide students to observehow language forms carry out particular functions, and provide alaunching point from which explanations can be co-constructed bystudents and the teacher.

Instruction of the HLPs

Five weeks of instruction were dedicated to each of the three HLPs,for a total of 15 weeks. Our instructional procedures – informed by thework of Lampert and Graziani (2009) and Ball and Forzani (2009) andadapted for our context – included four phases: deconstruction, dem-onstration, rehearsal and coaching, and implementation/feedback.Table 3 depicts this progression of instruction for each HLP and thecorresponding practicum course activity.

Table 3: Instructional procedures in the practicum course

Week Phase Practicum course activity

1 Deconstruction Introduction to the HLP2 Deconstruction Discussion of structured observations in the field site3 Demonstration Analysis of videos featuring the HLP4 Rehearsal and coaching In-class rehearsal and coaching5 Implementation/feedback In-class presentation of videotaped implementation

HLP = high leverage practice



Each HLP was deconstructed during the first two weeks of instruc-tion. During this period, pre-service teachers critiqued transcripts(e.g., Lee & VanPatten, 2003, pp. 26–48), rated videotaped exemplars(e.g., Annenberg/CPB, 2004) of the HLP, and completed structuredobservations of their mentor teacher’s implementation of the HLP inthe field site. The third week of instruction was devoted to in-class demonstration of the HLP by the practicum course instructor.Past experiences with modelling a practice revealed a tendency forpre-service teachers to direct their attention to learning the languagecontent of the modelled lesson (i.e., acting as students in a languageclass) rather than observing, analyzing, and remembering the specificpedagogical moves that the modelled lesson attempted to illustrate.We remedied this problem by initially analyzing the practice intasks where the pre-service teachers were not required to play the roleof student (e.g., transcript and video analysis). This preparationequipped the pre-service teacher with the concepts needed to benefitfrom classroom demonstration lessons where they assumed the role oflearner.

The pre-service teachers worked in collaborative groups of three orfour based on their language throughout the semester. Group workwas a key component of the practicum course because it reduced thepressure on the individual pre-service teacher. Although one groupmember was responsible for rehearsing and presenting a lesson foreach HLP, the instructors stressed that this lesson was the property ofthe group, not the individual. It was a course requirement that eachpre-service teacher rehearse, implement, and present a videotaped les-son featuring the implementation of an HLP once during the semester.After the three class meetings in which the HLP was deconstructedand demonstrated (weeks 1–3, Table 3), the groups met outside ofclass time to co-plan the lesson in preparation for the rehearsal. Dur-ing class on the fourth week, one member from each group rehearseda portion of the lesson, about which the instructor provided extensivecoaching. Based on the coaching, the groups revised their lessons andthe same member from each group subsequently taught and video-taped the lesson in the field site.10 During the class session on the fifthweek, each group selected a 15-minute segment of the video that bestdemonstrated the HLP and presented the segment to the class. Thosegroup members not responsible for presenting the HLP in class wereobserved and assessed in their respective field sites by the universitysupervisor. Grade options were Satisfactory (S) and Unsatisfactory(U). To pass the practicum course and receive an ‘S’ grade, all pre-service teachers were required to receive a meets expectations rating onthe observation rubric for each HLP (see Appendix A). In the case of a



making progress rating, revisions had to be made until the minimumstandard was attained (see “Role of university supervisor,” below).11

Planning and assessment instruments

For each HLP, a planning checklist and corresponding assessmentrubric were created. On the checklist and rubric, the HLP was brokendown into key features that were grouped and listed. To increase theirpotential reliability and validity as instruments for “teacher capacitybuilding,” these checklists and rubrics were designed to clearly definethe performance expectations for each HLP and reviewed by several in-structors in the program (Rea-Dickins, 2008, p. 264; Turner, 2012). Whilesome features had to be present in lessons for pre-service teachers tosatisfy the HLP and receive a meets expectations rating, others wereoptional and allowed for the assignment of an exceeds expectations dis-tinction (see “example checklist and rubric” in Appendices A and B).

The pre-service teachers used the checklists and assessment rubricsas tools to understand the HLPs and plan their lessons. They werefirst introduced to the assessment rubrics during the HLP deconstruc-tion (weeks 1 and 2) and demonstration (week 3) phases by usingthem to score videotaped classroom examples of each HLP. Whenplanning their own lesson for the rehearsal (week 4) and implementa-tion (week 5) phases, pre-service teachers used the appropriate plan-ning checklist to ensure that they had included all necessarycomponents of each HLP (Gawande, 2009).12 The assessment rubrics13

were then used in the practicum course and in the field site by the uni-versity supervisors to rate the performance of each pre-serviceteacher.

Role of university supervisors

An invitation was extended to university supervisors to join the prac-ticum course three times over the semester, for each of the week 5classes (the presentations of videotaped lessons; see Table 3, above)given by their pre-service teachers. To encourage participation by uni-versity supervisors, their attendance and observations at the week 5sessions were included in their required observations for the semester.Any remaining HLP not observed in the practicum course was ob-served and assessed by the university supervisors in the field site.After each observation, the supervisors reviewed their ratings on theassessment rubric (see Appendix A) with the pre-service teachers,after which each pre-service teacher produced a formal reaction andreflection. In the event of any making progress ratings, the supervisorcompleted additional observations in the field site and provided for-mative feedback to the pre-service teacher until a minimum of a meets



expectations rating was attained. Because pre-service teachers were as-signed to the same mentor teacher and university supervisor for bothsemesters, monitoring of HLPs continued into the spring semester. Inthe case of pre-service teachers who did not attain a rating of meets ex-pectations during the fall, the pre-service teacher was assigned anIncomplete (I) for the practicum course and the university supervisorworked with the pre-service teacher in the spring semester to ensurethat the minimum standard was met. All other pre-service teachers(those meeting all expectations in the fall practicum course) were per-mitted to determine their spring HLP focus.

Successes and challenges of implementation

Given the rather dramatic departure from how we structured theteacher preparation program in the past and our enthusiasm for apractice-based approach, we realized the need to carefully documentthe implementation of that approach and monitor and evaluate itsstrengths and weaknesses. This documentation consisted of instructorfield notes and the videotaped rehearsal and implementation of theHLPs by the pre-service teachers. Based on the documentation, thissection presents some of the successes and challenges in the imple-mentation of the practicum course through a discussion of the salientthemes in our field notes and videos. These themes are: (a) opportu-nities for collaboration in the FL teacher preparation program, (b) thecritical relationship between HLPs and IAs, (c) pre-service teacherresistance during coaching, and (d) “The Resource Challenge” (McDo-nald, Klein, & Riordan, 2009).

Opportunities for collaboration in the FL teacherpreparation program

As a result of the practicum course, a new sense of collaborationdeveloped across the constituents of the FL teacher preparationprogram. Previously, the university supervisors met only twice a yearto review supervision procedures, with additional meetings occurringonly when extra support was required for a pre-service teacher. Incontrast, the practicum course capitalized on the university supervisoras the critical mediating link between the field site and the practicumcourse. Now a more central figure, the university supervisor was anintegrated member of the program. Through their participation in se-lecting and monitoring HLPs on site and attending the practicumcourse, we (the university supervisors and the faculty) developed asense of shared work, opened new channels of communication, andcreated a stronger support system for the pre-service teachers.



The critical relationship between HLPs and IAs

The importance of the relationship between the HLPs and the IAsbecame evident over the two years of our experience. In the first yearof the practicum course, pre-service teachers demonstrated a generalinability to identify appropriate, meaningful, and interesting IAs forthe enactment of each HLP. For example, during the comprehensibleinput portion of the course, one pre-service teacher taught a lesson onlocative prepositions in Spanish by giving each of her students a balland a box that she had painstakingly made from paper. By positioningthe ball in relation to the box, she modelled phrases such as “on topof,” “to the right of,” and “underneath.” After introducing thesephrases by modelling with her own paper ball and box, she quizzedthe students by saying one of the phrases and having each one posi-tion his or her ball accordingly. While her input was comprehensible,the context was uninteresting and lacked a meaningful purpose forthe use of locative prepositions in Spanish. Because of her weak selec-tion of this IA for the enactment of this HLP, the students became visi-bly bored and disinterested.

Our experience described above echoes the assertion of Grossmanet al. (2009) that many HLPs may take years to master, and thereforeHLPs need to be grounded in IAs that support their enactment (Lam-pert & Graziani, 2009). As the LTP (2001) group states, pre-serviceteachers:

are required to make judgments about how to respond to students using theknowledge, principles, and practices that make up the “curriculum” thatsupports learning to do the work [of] teaching. The IAs are structured tolimit the territory in which novices need to make these kinds of judgmentsso that the mathematical knowledge and the practices they need to use todo them are able to be specified. (“Instructional Activities [IAs],” para. 1)

Because we did not initially “limit the territory” (LTP, 2011, “Instruc-tional Activities [IAs],” para. 1) in the first year of the course, wefound that pre-service teachers selected IAs that were not entirelyappropriate for the HLP being developed. Assuming that our pre-ser-vice teachers were able to select a context and enact the practice simul-taneously was misguided, and perhaps even developmentallyinappropriate for the beginning teacher, at least during the introduc-tory phases of learning an HLP. It became clear to us that pre-serviceteachers needed assistance when deciding upon an IA in which torefine their skill with particular HLPs. Based on our experience in thefirst year, each HLP was situated in an IA in the second year of thecourse, as Table 4 depicts.



In our experience, the quality of pre-service teachers’ lessons im-proved considerably when provided with an IA, which led to moremeaningful and contextualized execution of the HLP. By requiringthe HLP to be carried out in a cognitively challenging IA for learners,such as introducing new vocabulary words situated in a meaningfuland interesting context, pre-service teachers were not burdened withthe added task of selecting contexts of use. This structure allowed thepre-service teachers to initially practice the HLP in an instructionalterritory that was well defined. Containing the practice in this wayprovided the pre-service teachers with situations in which they wererequired to make judgments in the management of contingent inter-actions with students. Over time, as their control over the practice de-veloped, pre-service teachers were able to decide for themselveswhich HLPs play critical roles in different IAs (See Figure 1 for anexample).

Table 4: HLPs and corresponding IAs

HLP IA

Using the target language comprehensiblyduring instruction

Introducing new vocabulary words situatedin a meaningful and interesting context

Questioning for building and assessingstudent understanding

Guiding a text-based discussion using theinteractive model and consisting of pre-,during-, and post-reading activities

Teaching grammar inductively in meaningfuland co-constructing grammaticalunderstandings

Telling a story (e.g., folktale, legend) thathighlights a particular grammatical structurein a cultural context, followed by a co-constructed explanation of form-meaningmappings between teacher and students

HLP = high leverage practice; IA = instructional activity

Figure 1: The relationship between the HLP and IAsHLP = high leverage practices; IAs = instructional activities

Troyan & Abdel-Malek, 2012



Pre-service teacher resistance to coaching

Despite the efforts of the instructors to establish an environment forconstructive feedback on practice, not all pre-service teachers wereopen to coaching during their 20-minute lesson rehearsal. On severaloccasions, pre-service teachers became annoyed and defensive whenthe instructor stopped their lessons at critical points, provided feed-back regarding problematic aspects of the HLP, and asked for revisionand repetition. Some of the pre-service teachers reacted to coaching asif it were an unnecessary intrusion and an inconvenience. We foundthat coaching, a critical component of the practice-based approach,was not perceived by the pre-service teachers as a routine part oflearning the complexities of instruction and interaction. On the con-trary, pre-service teachers approached their practice teaching sessionsas finalized performances to be observed rather than drafts of teachingto be coached, critiqued, revised, and refined.

The Resource Challenge

Any educational or institutional reform involves The Resource Chal-lenge, which has three components: ideas, talent, and money (Mc-Donald et al., 2009). The first resource, ideas, was plentiful in thisexploratory study, considering the innovative nature of the redesignand the extent to which it pushed all constituents to rethink teacherpreparation. The second and third components represent the majorcatalysts for future revisions. The second, talent, revealed the pro-gram’s many strengths and areas for improvement using the practice-based approach. This exploratory study represents the reflectiveprocess of the course instructors and the university supervisors in-volved. Furthermore, many of the mentor teachers in the presentstudy could have benefitted from professional development on theHLPs chosen in this work. We found that the three HLPs were notalways part of the mentor teachers’ practice. This reality representsan ongoing challenge in the deconstruction and demonstrationphases of the practicum course, and the overall implementation ofa practice-based approach. If the profession is to advance thisapproach, more professional development on HLPs may be neededfor in-service teachers, particularly those mentoring pre-serviceteachers. The third facet of the challenge, money, was the biggestchallenge for the project. Money is necessary to enable certain consti-tuents, namely the university supervisors and mentor teachers, toparticipate. This exploration of the practice-based approach was notfunded. One example of how this impacted the study is that therewere no funds available to provide the professional development



needed by many of the cooperating teachers who served as mentorsof the pre-service teachers. Furthermore, some aspects of the workdescribed here, such as working with a pre-service teacher until he orshe receives a meets expectations rating, could require additional com-pensation for the supervisor. Moving forward, it is our recommenda-tion that the three facets of the Resource Challenge be considered infuture program design and research.

Recommendations for FL teacher preparation

Given the successes and challenges presented in the description anddiscussion above, we have developed five recommendations to con-sider in the implementation of the practice-based approach, regardlessof programmatic structures.

Foster collaboration

University supervisors responsible for observing pre-service teacherswithin the field site must be treated as essential components of thisapproach. In our work, the shift in the role of the university super-visors created new opportunities for collaboration across programpersonnel. The supervisors served as a constant link between the pre-service teachers, the mentor teachers, and the practicum instructor. Inaddition, collaboration between the practicum course instructor anduniversity supervisors facilitated a shared understanding of the com-ponents of each HLP. This helped both parties to provide targetedfeedback on HLPs using the assessment rubric.

Clearly define IAs

A practice-based approach should initially clearly define the IAs fornovices and gradually guide the pre-service teacher in applying thepractices in new and more complex activities. In our experience, les-son quality was quite poor during the first iteration of the coursebecause we did not initially “limit the territory” (LTP, 2011) by pro-viding the IAs for the pre-service teachers. Planning these logistics ofenactment requires thought, energy, and flexibility that may not nec-essarily be part of a traditional approach.

Be selective

One lesson learned from our investigation of practice-based teachereducation was the need to be selective when considering the HLPs forour intensive work. By identifying and selecting a limited number ofuseful practices to be deconstructed, analyzed, and coached, prepara-tion programs work toward the formation of accomplished novice



teachers. Learning to teach requires that teacher educators avoid at-tempting to introduce all aspects of accomplished instruction into asingle course or program of study. One attractive feature of practice-based teacher education is that it establishes reasonable expectationsfor novices that are developmentally appropriate to their level of expe-rience and abilities.

Expect resistance

We recommend thoroughly preparing pre-service teachers for therehearsal stage of this process, perhaps through the use of videotapedrehearsal demonstrations. Despite the efforts to create a supportiveenvironment for feedback on practice, some pre-service teacherswere resistant to coaching and were frustrated by attempts to refinetheir instructional behaviour. Given the novelty of the practice-basedapproach, specifically its departure from the expectations that pre-service teachers may have for the nature of feedback and the role of acritical stance towards one’s own practice, resistance should be ex-pected. Rather than planning to avoid this natural part of the changeprocess, it may be more prudent to establish clear norms for coachingand feedback, expect resistance in the process, and plan to respond toit as a collaborative community (Fullan, 2011).

Work within the resources of the program

Given the diversity of FL teacher preparation programs, we realizethat programmatic structures, human resource limitations, and finan-cial constraints present challenges to the implementation of the prac-tice-based approach. However, our experience has several implicationsfor programs wishing to integrate a practice-based approach inteacher preparation. First, at a basic level, teacher preparation pro-grams of all types can orient their work toward the development ofcertain HLPs that are essential to the novice teacher. Second, the gen-eral approach to the deconstruction of HLPs presented in this papercan serve as a structured, accessible way for teacher educators to teachpractices essential to our profession. Third, to the extent possible, pro-grams can align field site experiences with selected HLPs to pilot thepractice-based approach within existing programmatic structures. Inuniversities where students only have access to one methodologycourse, a portion of the course can be systematically devoted to HLPs.For example, at a major university, Davin has incorporated thisapproach in the FL Methods course by dedicating the last hour ofeach 2.5 hour session to the approach described in the present study.Students engage in deconstruction, demonstration, rehearsal and



coaching, and implementation/feedback throughout the semester.Documentation of the practice-based approach in a variety of programtypes is needed and should be a goal of future research efforts.

Conclusion and recommendations for future research

This article describes our application of the research on the practice-based approach to the field of FL teacher preparation. Based on ourinterpretation of the literature, we designed a practicum course thatcentred on three HLPs, based on our previous experience with teach-ing practices in FL education with which beginning teachers havestruggled. In addition, these practices were rooted in theories of FLinstruction and in research on teaching and learning.

It is our belief that the practice-based approach holds promise forFL education; however, research is needed to fully develop an under-standing of the approach. Key issues need to be investigated throughresearch questions such as the following:

What are the HLPs of FL education? In our work, we have identifiedthree HLPs on which to initially focus the practice-based approach.Following the lead of mathematics teacher preparation, systematicobservation of the classrooms of effective FL educators is needed toidentify the HLPs that are applicable to our field and critical to theprofessional repertoire of pre-service teachers and novice teachers inthe initial stages of their careers (Ball et al., 2009).

How do we develop and sustain a cadre of mentor teachers who value,model, and support the development of these HLPs? Maintaining a cohortof mentor teachers is a challenge in any approach to teacher prepara-tion. The implementation of a practice-based approach complicatesthis task in that the practices, which are the essential components inthe development of the pre-service teacher, are not currently ubiqui-tous in the profession. As we build this capacity, we will need to trainboth mentor teachers and pre-service teachers simultaneously. Anessential part of this process is a validation study of the assessment in-struments, with the goal of achieving consistency in ratings acrossraters and instructional settings (Tillema, 2009).

How can we integrate the practice-based approach into programs withonly one methods course? Many universities do not have the luxuryof providing pre-service teachers with multiple methods courses.Clearly, investigations are needed to explore how the practice-basedapproach can be implemented in programs of all sizes. The successfulexperiences of programs with limited methods courses, such as theone described above, need to be shared with the profession at large. Inthis way, options are made available to programs for implementing



practice-based approaches where a course dedicated to HLPs is notpossible.

What student outcomes result from pre-service teachers trained in apractice-based approach compared to those trained in theory-based approaches?As Hlas and Hlas (2012) noted, evidence is needed to determinewhether this practice-based approach is more effectively preparing ourpre-service teachers to meet the needs of twenty-first century learnersthan the traditional approach and, ultimately, whether or not it is re-sulting in improved student learning.

Correspondence should be addressed to Francis J. Troyan, Department ofTeaching and Learning, College of Education and Human Ecology, 333 ArpsHall, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210. E-mail: [email protected].

Acknowledgements

We thank the students, instructors, and university supervisors who participatedin the implementation of our practice-based approach. We thank ProfessorEileen W. Glisan for her feedback and encouragement, and the two anonymousreviewers whose insightful comments and suggestions were invaluable in ourrevision process.

Notes

1 It is not our claim that flying a plane is the same as teaching a classroomof students. Rather, it is that the training for these two complex practicesdiffers significantly.

2 Immediate feedback is delivered to the practitioner during instruction viaa small speaker (a bug) inserted in the ear.

3 For readers familiar with Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) macro- and microstra-tegies, the HLPs presented here represent microstrategies that have been“conditioned and constrained by the . . . language policy” and the goalsof FL Education in the United States (p. 209).

4 Hlas and Hlas (2012) did not include a micropractice for this HLTP.5 This course is not presented as an example of mastery of a practice-based

approach for FL education. Our intent is to provide an example of theapproach as it was implemented in one context, along with the successesand challenges that we encountered.

6 Program coordinators are professors from Social Studies, English, Mathe-matics, Science, Reading, Special Education, and Elementary Educationwho oversee the curriculum, staffing, and specific certification programrequirements.

7 We realize that, in our program, we have more time than in most pro-grams, both graduate and undergraduate, to explore this model. It is our



mailto:[email protected]

hope that our experience can inform future design of the range of pro-grams, from those large programs similar to ours to those in which onlyone methods course is offered.

8 Our decision to include the teaching of grammar inductively derivedfrom the observation that, for our students, the deductive presentationof grammar (i.e., presentation of rule followed by practice in the formof textbook exercises) was generally the unmarked form of grammarinstruction that they knew and experienced as language learners and thedefault mode of instruction most often observed and used in the schools.By focusing on inductive approaches to grammar, we attempted toexpand the grammar teaching repertoire of our pre-service teachers whileasking them to make principled choices concerning aspects of the lan-guage they felt needed greater degrees of teacher explanation versusthose aspects that could be presented using inductive presentations andco-constructed explanations intended to engage students’ critical thinkingand analytical abilities about conceptual form-meaning relationships(Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002, 2010).

9 Ambitious teaching has been described by practice-based researchers as in-structional experiences that support students in carrying out cognitivelydemanding tasks (e.g., Lampert, Boerst, & Graziani, 2011). A related term,ambitious instruction, has its origins in the standards-based testing andassessment reform of the 1990s (e.g., Cohen, 1995; Jennings & Spillane,1996; Smith & O’Day, 1991).

10 Research has demonstrated that the use of videotaped lessons (e.g., Friel &Carboni, 2000) and other artifacts of practice (Smith, Stein, Silver, Hillen, &Heffernan, 2001) allow pre-service teachers to more effectively discernessential elements of practice. Pre-service teachers distributed videotapepermission forms to the parents of their students. Any student who did nothave permission to be taped was seated outside the view of the camera.

11 Grades for the practicum course were assigned on an ‘S’or ‘U’ basis. Inorder to receive an S, a minimum rating of meets expectations was requiredfor all three HLPs.

12 For an interesting discussion on the uses of checklists, see The Checklist

Manifesto (Gawande, 2009).13 Because of space limitations, only the rubric for Comprehensible Input is

provided (Appendix A).

References

Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2002). The PACE model: A story-based approach

to meaning and form for standards-based language learning. French Review, 76,

265–296.

Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (2010). Using a story-based approach to teach

grammar. In J.L. Shrum & E.W. Glisan (Eds.), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized



language instruction (4th ed., pp. 216–244). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage

Learning.

Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) (2004). Teaching foreign

languages K-12: Daily routines. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://www.

learner.org/resources/series185.html

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language

acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1111/1540-4781.00159

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners:

Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-

Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of

policy and practice (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/0022487109348479

Ball, D.L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of

practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary

School Journal, 109(5), 458–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596996

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development. Vol.6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Brooks, F.B. (1990). Foreign language learning: A social interaction perspective. In

B. VanPatten & J.F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition-foreign language

learning (pp. 153–169). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Brooks, F.B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J.V. (1997). When are they going to say ‘It’

right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language

Annals, 30(4), 524–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb00860.x

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:

Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

Cohen, D.K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher,

24, 11–17, 31.

Davin, K.J., & Donato, R. (2011, November). Toward a practice-based approach in

second language education. Paper presented at the American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages Convention, Denver, CO.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P.

Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.

33–56). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Ericsson, K.A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights

from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of

excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate

practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),

363–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363



http://www.learner.org/resources/series185.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00159

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596996

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb00860.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

http://www.learner.org/resources/series185.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00159

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479

Friel, S.N., & Carboni, L.W. (2000). Using video-based pedagogy in an elementary

mathematics methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 100(3), 118–127.


Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York:

Metropolitan Books.

Glisan, E.W., & Donato, R. (Eds.) (2012). ACTFL research priorities in foreign

language education phase I [Special issue]. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1).

Goodman, J.I., Brady, M.P., Duffy, M.L., Scott, J., & Pollard, N.E. (2008). The effects

of “Bug-in-Ear” supervision on special education teachers’ delivery of learn

units. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(4), 207–216.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088357608324713

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-

imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory into Practice, 15,

273–289.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research

in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1),

184–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906

Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for

teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach.

American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/444230

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics

and Education, 5(2), 93–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7

Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of

representation: Using technology to examine teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 60(1), 70–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328533

Hlas, A.C., & Hlas, C.S. (2012). A review of high-leverage practices: Making

connections between mathematics and foreign languages. Foreign Language

Annals, 45(s1), 76–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01180.x

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A.J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection:

Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 248–254. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_12

Jennings, N., & Spillane, J. (1996). State reform and local capacity: Encouraging

ambitious instruction for all and local decision-making. Journal of Education

Policy, 11(4), 465–482.

Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective.

New York: Routledge.

Johnson, K.E., & Golombek, P.R. (2003). “Seeing” teacher learning. TESOL Journal,

37(4), 729–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588221

Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher

education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious teaching.

Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education




http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088357608324713

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/444230

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328533

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01180.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_12

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_12

Research Group of Australasia, Signapore. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ltp/files/kazemi_et_al_merga_proceedings.pdf

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:

Pergamon Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to

postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we

mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0022487109347321

Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using

designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious

mathematics teaching. In M.K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional

explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0594-9_9

Lampert, M., Boerst, T.A., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational resources in the

service of school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113,

1361–1400.

Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’

and teacher educators’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491–509.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596998

Lantolf, J.P. & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language

research. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom:

Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching

Research, 15(1), 11–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328

LTP (Learning in, from, and for Teaching Practice) Project (2011). Learning in, from,

and for teaching practice (LTP): Rethinking the design of teacher education.

Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ltp/home

Lee, J.F., & VanPatten, B. (2003).Making communicative language teaching happen

(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Lemov, D., & Atkins, N. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students

on the path to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second

language classroom. In M.A. Clarke & J. Handscomb (Eds.), On TESOL ’82:

Pacific perspective on language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Washington,

DC: TESOL.

McDonald, J.P., Klein, E.J., & Riordan, M. (2009). Going to scale with new school

designs: Reinventing high school. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An

information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x

Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and

L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment.Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17

(4), 312–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749030903338509



http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ltp/files/kazemi_et_al_merga_proceedings.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347321

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0594-9_9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596998

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ltp/home



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749030903338509

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347321

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0594-9_9

Rea-Dickins, P. (2008). Classroom-based language assessment. In E. Shohamy &

N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 7. Language

testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 257–271). New York: Springer Science +

Business Media LLC.

Scheeler, M.C., Congdon, M., & Stansbery, S. (2010). Providing immediate

feedback to co-teachers through Bug-in-Ear technology: An effective method

of peer coaching in inclusion classrooms. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 33(1), 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888406409357013

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching

and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform

(CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06–4/91). New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy

Research in Education.

Smith, M.S., Stein, M.K., Silver, E.A., Hillen, A., & Heffernan, C. (2001, April).

Toward a practice-based curriculum for teaching: Integrating narrative cases and

other artifacts of practice within a course for teachers of mathematics. Symposium

conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Seattle, WA.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G.

Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies

in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition

through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and

second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tasker, T., Johnson, K.E., & Davis, T.S. (2010). A sociocultural analysis of teacher

talk in inquiry-based professional development. Language Teaching Research,

14(2), 129–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809353871

Tillema, H.H. (2009). Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice

teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of

Teacher Education, 60(2), 155–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0022487108330551

Troyan, F.J., & Abdel-Malek, M. (2012, November). Using comprehensible input in the

K-16 Arabic classroom. Paper presented at the American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages Convention, Philadelphia, PA.

Turner, C.E. (2012). Classroom assessment. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.),

Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 65–79). London: Routledge.

Valli, L., & Price, J.N. (2000). Deepening our understanding of praxis: Teacher

educators’ reflections on action research. Teaching Education, 11(3), 267–278.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713698974

VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0888406409357013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809353871

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330551

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713698974

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330551

Comprehensible

inputrubric

ExceedsExp

ectatio

ns

Meets

Exp

ectatio

ns(S)

MakingProgress

(U)

Creatingcomprehensible

LANGUAGE

Thepre-serviceteacher:

Paraphrase

snewwordsand

exp

ressions.

Use

svo

cabulary

andstructures

thatthestudents

knowandbuilds

onthem

ove

rtim

e.

Generalizestheperform

ance

indicators

across

multiple

instructionala

ctivities.*

Defin

esnewwordswith

exa

mples

ratherthantranslatio

ns.

Use

snewwordsandexp

ressions

more

thanonce

ortwiceandenters

andre-enters

these

language

elements

frequently

intheinput.

Signals

newwordsandstructures

usingtoneofvo

ice.

Slowsdowntherate

ofsp

eech

forthe

leve

lofthestudents.

Supportinglanguage

comprehensionthrough

CONTEXTSandSTRATEGIES

forcomprehension


Reco

mbinesgestures,

visu

al

supportandkn

owledgeofstudents

tocreate

consistently

compelling

contextsforco

mmunicatio

n.


ance

indicators

across

multiple

instructionala

ctivities.*

Use

sgesturesto

make

new

language

clearin

ameaningfula

ndpurpose

ful

context.

Use

svisu

alsandpropsto

support

comprehensionin

ameaningfula

nd

purpose

fulc

ontext.

Createsalessonwith

ameaningful

andpurpose

fulc

ontext

thatisreleva

nt

tothestudents.

Focu

sesstudentattentio

nontheinput

bymakingsu

restudents

know

the

topic

andobjectiveofthelessonin

adva

nce

oftheinputactivity.

Creatingcomprehensible

INTERACTIO

NS



ance

indicators

across

multiple

instructionala

ctivities.*

Use

squestionse

quence

sthatbegin

with

yes/noquestions,

move

toforced-choicequestions,

andendwith

open-ended,personalizedquestions.

Invo

lvesstudents

intheinteractionin

seve

ralw

ays

anddoesnotjust

lecture

totheclass.

Providesuse

fulp

hrase

sto

help

students

negotia

temeaning,su

chas

askingforrepetition,askingfor

clarificatio

n(C

anyo

usa

ymore?),

checkingtheirco

mprehension(D

oyo

umean...?),andco

nfirmingtheir

understanding(Ithinkyo

uare

saying...Am

Iright?).

*Toexceedexp

ectatio

ns,

thepre-serviceteach

erwillhave

tosh

owability

toapply

theHLPto

varyinginstructionala

ctivities.

Therefore,multiple

obse

rvatio

nsofagivenHLPmust

beco

mpletedto

assignthis

ratin

g.Each

columnontherubricsu

bsu

mestheperform

ance

indicators

totherightofit.

Appen

dix

A



Appendix B

High leverage practice #1: Comprehensible inputplanning checklist

CATEGORY I: Creating comprehensible LANGUAGE

! The pre-service teacher paraphrases new words and expressions.! The pre-service teacher uses vocabulary and structures that the

students know and builds on them over time.! The pre-service teacher defines new words with examples rather

than translations.! The pre-service teacher slows down the rate of speech for the

level of the students.! The pre-service teacher uses new words and expressions more

than once or twice and enters and re-enters these language ele-ments frequently in the input.

! The pre-service teacher signals new words and structures usingtone of voice.

Category II: Supporting comprehension through CONTEXTS andSTRATEGIES for comprehension

! The pre-service teacher uses visuals and props to support com-prehension in a meaningful and purposeful context.

! The pre-service teacher uses gestures to make new languageclear in a meaningful and purposeful context.

! The pre-service teacher focuses student attention on the input bymaking sure students know the topic and objective of the lessonin advance of the input activity.

! The pre-service teacher creates a lesson with a meaningful andpurposeful context that is relevant to the students.

Category III: Creating comprehensible INTERACTIONS with students

! The pre-service teacher provides useful phrases to help studentsnegotiate meaning, such as asking for repetition, asking for clari-fication (Can you say more?), checking their comprehension (Doyou mean . . . ?), and confirming their understanding (I think youare saying . . . Am I right?).

! The pre-service teacher involves the student in the interaction inseveral ways, including active comprehension checking, anddoes not just lecture to the class (e.g., signalling, responding,completing a sentence after meaning has been established).

! The pre-service teacher uses question sequences that begin withyes/no questions, move to forced-choice questions, and endwith open-ended, personalized questions.



Exploring a Practice-Based Approach to Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: A Work in Progress

Documents

Transcript of Exploring a Practice-Based Approach to Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: A Work in Progress