“For L2 teachers to function as transformative intellectuals the intellectual tools of inquiry must permeate all dimensions of their professional development experiences.”

(Johnson, 2006, p. 24)

Paula Golombek, University of Florida, pgolombek@ufl.edu

Davis Reis, The Pennsylvania State University, dsr158@psu.edu

6th International Language Teacher Education Conference--May 30, 2009

Because of our changed conception of teachers ways of knowing and teacher professional development, assessment of pre-service teachers should harmonize with these conceptions.

DA unifies assessment and development and can be injected into teacher education programs through the use of video protocols.

Discuss alternative assessments being used

Define DA and its goals Explain video protocols and what

mediational intervention might look like Look at a data example Summarize

Cases (Johnson, 1996)or stories (Johnson & Golombek, 2002)

Professional development schools--team meetings, peer observations, use of cases, and action research (Johnson, 1996; Gebhard, 1998)

Portfolios (Johnson, 1996, 1998). Teacher research—action research (Edge &

Richards, 1993; Burns, 1999), exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003), narrative inquiry (Johnson & Golombek, 2002).

“that integrates assessment and instruction into a seamless, unified activity for simultaneously assessing and promoting learner development through appropriate forms of mediation that are sensitive to the individual’s (or in some cases a group’s) current abilities. In essence, DA is a procedure for simultaneously assessing and promoting development that takes account of the individual’s (or group’s) zone of proximal development (ZPD)” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004, p. 50).

Diagnose/Assess actual level of development of a pre-service teacher

Diagnose/Assess potential level of development of a pre-service teacher

Promote this development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004)

Mediator=teacher educator Learner=pre-service teacher

A teacher is videotaped teaching a routine lesson.

The teacher educator and teacher view the tape.

The teacher educator or the teacher stop the tape when either views a teaching moment to be compelling.

The teacher educator provides some kind of mediation

Asking leading questions Modeling Hints Suggestions Explanations Starting to solve the tasks and asking

students to continue (Kozulin & Garb, 2002)

Mediator and learner negotiate the support needed

1 P: what could you have done ?2 A: and then I could’ve said “did any of the place you circled sound as if they 3 were (.5) pronounced (1.0) separately? Sort of like4 P: uh-hm5 A: physically going at it from the inverse=6 P: =yeah7 A: instead of saying “well did you hear linking?”8 P: uh-hm•A: “Well did you hear it (.5) did you hear each (.5) word pronounced • separately, (1.0) did you not hear linking” (1.0) so if they’d say “no no no• it wasn’t separate here:12 P: uh-huh=13 A: =y’know14 P: that may be going a step ahead of the game=15 A: =yeah16 P: I don’t know (1.0) what if you just simply said “okay let’s look at line one 17 together” (.5) “who can give me an example of linking here”

18 A:okay19 P: umm (.5) it would be a way to specify the way that the thing is rather20 than like choosing one or another you’re focusing attention21 A: yeah22 P: “does anybody have an example from one” um (1.5) um23 A: yeah24 P: that would be, that would be one way (1.0) to do [that]25 A: [“Did] anyone 26

pick any- was anyone able to identify how: two words were being linked 27together in line one (1.0)

28 P: uh-hm29 A: something like that30 P: I-II think to draw their attention to line one ra[ther]31 A: [yeah]32 P: than leaving it so: open (1.0)33 A: yeah:34 P: and when things are so: open,35 A: it’s a little (.5) not so easy ta figure out what to do36 P: uh-hm (1.0) and so you wanna help them know what to do.

Provides insights into individual teacher’s pedagogical reasoning and affective concerns, particularly cognitive and emotional dissonance (Golombek & Johnson, 2004)

Allows for mediational intervention that is contingent and responsive to teacher’s needs, or “the right help at the right time” (Verity, 1995)

SR allows teachers to develop alternative idealized activities or conceptualizations, encouraging recontextualizing in practice

DA is obviously time consuming—number of teachers is an important determiner

DA is not the panacea—use in conjunction with other ways of sense-making and assessment

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language

learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78. pp. 465-483.

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teacher.

Language Teaching Research, 7, pp. 113-141. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language

Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darling-Hammond L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in

context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 523-545. Edge, J. & Richards, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers Develop Teachers Research.

Oxford: Heineman. Erben, T., Ban, R., & Summers, R. (2008). Changing exam structures within a

college of education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL

endorsement courses in Florida. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, (pp. 87-114). London: Equinox.

Gebhard, M. (1998). A case for professional development schools. TESOL Quarterly, 32. pp.

501-510. Golombek, P. R. (1998). A Case Study of Second

Language Teachers' Personal Practical Knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 447-464.

Golombek, P. R. & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative Inquiry as a mediational space: Examining cognitive and emotional dissonance in second language teachers’ development. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 10, 307-327.

Johnson, K. E. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, pp.

765-771. Johnson, K. E. (1998). Portfolio assessment in second

language teacher education. TESOLJournal, 6, pp. 11-14.

Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher

education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, pp. 235-257. Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2002). (Eds.) Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development. NY: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2003). ‘Seeing’ teacher learning. TESOL Quarterly, 37,

729-737. Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the past into the future.Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, pp. 49-74. Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second

language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lidz, C. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: The Guilford

Press. Poehner, M. E. (2008a). Both sides of the conversation: the interplay between mediation

and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds.).

Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. (pp. 33-56). London: Equinox. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Memory and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.