language teaching research

8/7/2019 Language teaching research

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-teaching-research 1/23

Language Teaching Research 9,4 (2005); pp. 381–402

Teachers’ knowledge and experiencein the discourse of foreign-language

classroomsManel Lacorte University of Maryland – College Park

Recent research on second language acquisition (SLA) has strengthene

foreign (FL) and second language (L2) teaching methodologies supportin

the development of communicative tasks, interactive activities in th

classroom, and learner-centred instruction. However, these and any othe

trends in FL and L2 teaching and learning could be more beneficial i

teachers and teacher educators would deepen their understanding of th

diverse pedagogical and institutional conditions that may influenc

classroom work. As part of a wider interest in the relationship between

teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and their practices in a number o

classrooms of Spanish in the USA, this qualitative study focuses on th

teachers’ management of the transitions between instructional stages – i.e

phases in the development of a lesson – with specific attention to th

analysis of interaction and control during the transitions.

I Introduction

Current foreign (FL) and second language (L2) methodologies have

shifted from traditional teacher-centred instruction to a learner-centred

classroom, where learning, learner needs and purposes, and meaningfu

processes of communication are integrated (Nunan, 1988; Tudor, 1996)

In this context, teacher and learner roles are redefined as dynamic rathethan static dimensions of the communicative process and the classroom



The realities of language instruction, though, may be not as straight

forward as they initially appear for L2 teachers working under unsuit

able conditions such as those deriving from large classes, heavy teaching

loads, low levels of student motivation, required involvement in administrative responsibilities and, in certain contexts, high expectation

regarding research portfolios (Crookes, 1998; Wilkerson, 2000). Also

even though the term ‘communicative’ has become commonplace in

L2 teaching, the range of its actual applications in the classroom indi

cates that ‘[it] is not a mutually shared construct between scholars and

practitioners’ (VanPatten, 1998: 931).

Based on a combination of methods for the collection and analysis

of data, this study seeks to examine qualitatively how teachers’ belief

and attitudes may influence the development of certain segments of

FL classroom discourse, specifically the transitions between the instruc

tional stages – periods or steps in the progress or development of the

lesson. The main argument is that a deeper understanding of the inter-

action of beliefs and practices could allow language teachers and teachereducators to better accommodate any current and future innovations

in classroom practice – such as teaching and learning techniques or

materials – to the distinct characteristics of any given language class-

room and its participants. Relevant to the study are the notions of

language teacher knowledge and beliefs, and the discourse of L2

classrooms.

II Language teacher knowledge and beliefs

‘Knowledge’ – facts and ideas resulting from study, investigation, obser

vation or experience – and ‘beliefs’ – trust or confidence in some person

or principle – (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)1 – constitute

relevant notions for the understanding of classroom practices, participant reactions to pedagogic changes and ways in which new informa

382 Teachers’ knowledge and experience



(b) the understanding of the social, cultural and institutional contex

where teaching occurs (Freeman and Richards, 1996; Richards, 1998)

In his study of English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers in Canada

Woods (1996: 282) analysed their beliefs, assumptions and knowledge(BAK), and found that BAK ‘seemed to underlie everything that th

teachers did and said’.

Research on the interaction of teachers’ beliefs and practices ha

examined a number of issues in order to develop, as Freeman and

Johnson (1998: 397) point out, a knowledge base of language teaching

supported by ‘the activity of teaching itself . . . the teacher who doe

it, the context in which it is done, and pedagogy by which it is done’

One of the most productive issues has been the nature of grammar teach

ing as teachers perceive it. Findings from this perspective indicate tha

most teachers believe in some sort of grammar teaching, although

the exact nature of this teaching varies considerably from teacher to

teacher (Eisenstein Ebsworth and Schweers, 1997). As Borg (1999

2003b) notes, the cognitions behind this variability are generated bykey educational and professional experiences such as teachers’ language

education, teacher education programme, and classroom experience

For this reason, knowledge of the L2 grammar may only become

pedagogically significant when combined with other kinds of teache

knowledge, like knowledge of learners, L2 learning and self (Johnston

and Goettsch, 2000).

Another area of growing interest deals with teachers’uses of the targe

(TL) and first (L1) languages in the L2 classroom. Even though the

emphasis here is still on theoretical perspectives and empirical analyse

of classroom discourse (see, e.g., Levine, 2005; Turnbull and Arnett

2002), some studies have provided qualitative descriptions of language

use from the teacher’s perspective (Macaro, 1997; Polio and Duff

1994), while others have focused on the teachers’ difficulties with usingthe TL in their classrooms due to conflicts with the curriculum th

Manel Lacorte 383



the influence of new language policies on the teachers’ professiona

identity, social relationships with others in the work context, and thei

classroom practices (Breen, 2002), or the extent to which new construct

like the Standards for Foreign Language Learning (1996) may affect thebeliefs and practices of FL teachers (Allen, 2002).

The present study seeks to analyse the relationship between teachers

beliefs and attitudes and their discourse during the transitions between

the instructional stages making up a language lesson. Accounting for

approximately 15% of classroom time in elementary classrooms (Doyle

1986; cf. Richards and Lockhart, 1996), these transitions also seem to

take up a significant percentage of time in L2 classrooms, especially

those with regular communicative activities in pairs or small groups

Previous work on transitions or ‘boundary moves’ – discourse between

instructional stages – in language lessons was carried out by Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975) as part of their study of L1 classrooms, and by

Mitchell et al. in the field of FL instruction (1981). However, these stud

ies and most references in L2 methodology tend to consider the teacheras the responsible party for effective transitions that ‘establish a link

between one activity and the next’ (Richards and Lockhart, 1996: 121)

‘make it clear that there will be a shift in focus’ (Hadley, 2001: 462), o

‘make the connections . . . across each activity clear’ (Hall, 2001: 110)

These notions of ‘good’ management, based on concision and clarity

might not give an adequate account of what actually happens in the

classroom. Rather, features of discourse conveyed by either teacher o

students during the transitions initially viewed as undesirable could in

fact ‘serve a function within the larger discourse of the classroom, pro

viding a “boundary” zone between phases of the lesson, during which

social and task-related negotiation may take place’ (Gourlay, 1998: 1)

Drawing upon this perspective, our study seeks to analyse L2 teachers

management of transitions, with specific attention to the issues of interaction and control over the instructional sequence – including the use o




the beginning, halfway and the end of the academic year; (b) extensive

notes from non-participant classroom observations (10–12 for each

teacher); and (c) retrospective analysis of audiotapes recorded during the

instruction. The triangulation of these data collection strategies waintended to provide different kinds of data on the teachers’ belief

and their verbal behaviour in the classroom. These methods sought to

answer two questions: (1) What perceptions do FL teachers have abou

their classrooms and their own teaching? (2) How could these percep

tions be related to the teachers’ management of the transitions between

instructional stages?

The three interviews followed a ‘semi-structured’ design by which the

researcher introduces a number of topics (rather than specific questions

that may generate information relevant to the purpose(s) of the interview

(Bauman and Sherzer, 1974; Silva-Corvalán, 2001).2 As a consequence

the content of the interviews varied as the researcher collected informa

tion about the teachers’ professional experience and behaviour. The firs

interview centred around issues or ‘domains’ deemed relevant to thistudy such as academic and teaching background, language learners

teaching Spanish in the USA and in the participating schools, and pro

fessional development. At this stage, ‘descriptive’questions – e.g., ‘How

would you consider your teaching at present?’ – allowed the researche

to elicit extended comments from the teachers about the initial themes

The subsequent interviews would include structural and contrastive

questions to bring about a closer definition of the meanings shaping the

teachers’ knowledge and their behaviour in the classroom (Spradley

1979). After the initial areas of interest were outlined, the structura

questions contributed information about how the teachers organize thei

knowledge – e.g., ‘What kinds of considerations do you have when

choosing a textbook?’ – and the contrastive questions focused on wha

the teachers meant by the various terms they used to describe theiknowledge – e g ‘What differences do you find between a “traditional

Manel Lacorte 385



study, the transitions were determined from (1) the verbal behaviour o

the teachers; e.g., the teacher summarizes the previous instructiona

stage, introduces a new stage, interrupts a stage due to unexpected

occurrences during the instruction, or attempts to move forward toanother stage with words like ‘all right’, ‘then’, ‘now’, ‘so’, or with

expressions like ‘so, now that we’ve seen how the neuter pronoun works

now let’s practise with it, ok?’ and (2) the students’ verbal and non

verbal reactions to that behaviour; e.g., the students open their books to

find the corresponding activity.

IV Institutional and instructional contexts

The following data come from five courses of Spanish for beginners

each conducted in a different institution. Schools A, B and C are public

high schools in three of the four school districts of County Z, located in

a rural area in the East Coast of the USA. School D is a private board-

ing high school for girls, and School E is a private 4-year college oliberal arts, both located in the same county.4 According to the US

Census, County Z had at the time of the investigation a slightly highe

percentage of population with less than a high school diploma, a highe

rate of unemployment and a lower median income than the state and

national averages. The teachers involved in the investigation exhibited

different profiles:

1) Teacher A was a male in his late twenties, with a BA in Spanish and

6 years of teaching experience (5 years in School A).

2) Teacher B was a female in her mid forties, with an MA in Spanish

in progress and 15 years of experience in diverse academic context

(1 year in School B).

3) Teacher C was a female in her mid fifties, with a BA in French and

Spanish and about 30 years of teaching (most of them in School C)




race (white). The only exceptions were Classroom C, with four African

American students (out of 30), and Classroom E, with five internationa

students (out of 18). All the classes had a similar proportion of male and

female students (except for Classroom D, with only girls) and a similaage distribution.

V Data analysis

As a preliminary step towards the analysis of the teachers’ managemen

of the transitions, there follows a brief account of the main areas of inter

est for the teachers, concerning their classrooms and their own teaching

Next, the analysis will focus on two relevant issues about the teachers

discourse that emerged from the observations: the control over the

instruction, and the use of L1 and L2.

1 The interviews: teachers’ knowledge and beliefsEven though the topics introduced by the researcher in all the interview

were meant to balance practical and theoretical aspects of teaching, the

teachers were keener to discuss more practical issues concerning thei

teaching and the classroom in the following areas: adaptation of materi

als to complement the course textbook (B, C, D and E); implementation

of school or state curricula (B, D and E); the influence of the sociocul

tural context in the students’ attitudes towards Spanish (A, B and C)

classroom atmosphere (B, D and E); classroom discipline and manage

ment (A and C); and individual differences (A and B).

Along with such practical orientation towards pedagogic matters in

the classroom, the teachers emphasized other personal and educationa

events as key factors in both their professional career and teaching a

present: influence of particular individuals at different stages of theicareer (college supervisor forA teacher mentor for B and D high schoo

Manel Lacorte 387



of teaching’, that is, personal and subjective understandings of teaching

and learning a language.5 These personal theories combined elements

from three main dimensions:

• adaptation to the institutional and classroom context, regarding

general curricular criteria, textbook guidelines, students’ needs and

level of motivation, interaction with colleagues, etc. (‘when and how

to do things’);

• experience with and development of teaching activities and

classroom routines (‘doing things in the classroom’);

• development of an appropriate personal philosophy of educationconcerning classroom routines, the interaction with students, and the

academic and institutional contexts (‘linking thought and action

over time’).

I would suggest that the teachers’ approach to their job was based on

a dynamic and recursive process in which they would gradually find and

assess specific points of reference in order to adapt to new academicenvironments (a book on classroom discipline, advice of a supervisor

activities from professional workshops, suggestions by other colleagues

about learning activities, proficiency guidelines provided by state o

national professional organizations, etc.). The resulting experience gath

ered inside and outside the classroom would have the potential to

feed back into the adaptation to other environments, and would

strengthen the development of general pedagogic principles realized

through sets of favoured practices ‘on the basis of background know

ledge and experience and during further classroom experience’ (Breen

et al., 2001: 495).

2 The observations: discourse in the transitions between stages

While the previous section dealt with teachers’ views of language




behaviour in the classroom, the analysis of the transitions between

stages sought to shed some light on a specific issue: the control ove

the instructional sequence – including the use of L1 and L2 during the

transitions.

a Control over the instructional sequence: ‘Control’ may be defined a

the ‘power or authority to guide or manage’, or as a ‘skill in the use of a

tool, instrument, technique, or artistic medium’ (Webster’s Ninth New

Collegiate Dictionary). Possibly due to the influence of learner-centred

L2 methodologies, some teachers and teacher educators may have

certain unfavourable attitude towards the notion of control in the L2

classroom. However, any classroom could be regarded as a scene where

an appropriate combination of different types of control might help to

develop an atmosphere conducive to enjoyable and efficient language

learning (Biao, 1996). My analysis of transitions between stages sug

gested that teachers in this study resorted to two main kinds of contro

over the instruction:

• Pedagogic control, or strategies to move forward the instruction and

maintain the focus on the classroom activities, e.g., the pace of th

instruction, the negotiation of content and activities, the physica

arrangements for the learning activities, and the physical position o

the teacher during the instructional stages.

• Disciplinary control, or measures to avoid or subdue interventionsinterruptions, and any other actions that could affect the progres

of the lesson, e.g., reprimands at an individual or collectiv

level, changes in seating arrangements, and other disciplinary

actions in accordance with the policy set forth by the teaching

institution.

This distinction does not mean that the options are mutually exclusiveOn the contrary, the teachers seemed to make use of either type o

Manel Lacorte 389



groups. Then, he hears a loud comment from a student who does no

seem interested in the arrangements for the activity:

Excerpt 1

1 T Ok, let’s see whose turn (.)

2 F Who cares?3 LL ((after a brief silence, there are some exclamations of surprise and

laughing)) Oh:::: ((T stares at F.4 There are more comments from students))5 T ((smiling)) Clase, in the beginning of the year (.) I said ‘whose room

is this’?6 LL Yours.7 T Thank you! ((LL laugh. T looks at F)) ‘Who cares?’ (2) I care (.

¿Comprende? [‘Understand?’]8 F Yes, sí I mean.9 T ((Smiling)) Very nice (1). Ok, that’s enough, that’s enough for you.

10 We’re done with . . . You understand, right?11 F Sí.12 T Muy bien. Now I forgot-oh, I’m over here ((new activity begins))

In the interviews, Teacher A emphasized the importance of setting

specific guidelines about management and discipline, especially at a

time when he felt that recent changes in American society could have

caused a decline of discipline standards in the educational system

This position was based in part on the principles suggested by a book

that the teacher had read about the subject, and also on the advice given

by his college supervisor. The guidelines were to be conveyed in the

classroom through clear and concise messages from the beginning of the

course, in order to avoid as many discipline problems as possible late

on in the instruction. The above excerpt, in which Teacher A remind

the student about his ‘ownership’ of the classroom, may reflect the

expectations established by the teacher from the outset. However, i

may also indicate how he attempts to maintain a certain balance betweenhis expectations and other strategies related to his more extended




a standing position next to her desk, and writing the answers on the

board:

Excerpt 2

1 T Ah! “la cabina telefónica”. El cuarto para Superman, super hombre2 [‘Ah! The “phone booth”. The dressing room for Superman’]3 F He’s changed now!4 M He lives in x in Superman three, the x go down one side xxx side he’

Superman.5 T ¿Sabes por qué? Es muy moderno, muy moderno ahora. Sí . ((LL6 intervene in the conversation about Superman)). Sí, super hombre

7 ¿verdad? Bueno, ¿voluntario para leer la lista aquí? [‘Do you knowwhy? He’s very modern, very modern now. Yes. Yes, a super man

8 right? Ok, a volunteer to read this list?’] ((AC continues))

As Teacher B noted in the interviews, the interaction in this kind o

exchanges reflected her attempt to increase the students’ level o

both linguistic proficiency and cultural awareness. In contrast to the

disciplinarian approach of the first teacher, when Teacher B notices thathe initial students’ contributions about the changes experienced by

Superman may distract the group – and slow down the transition into a

new stage – she seems to resort to a different type of pedagogic strategy

Here the teacher does not stop the conversation between students by

asking them in English or Spanish to concentrate on the next activity

Instead, Teacher B elaborates briefly and in Spanish on the new item

brought about by the student(s), and takes back the control in order to

continue the instruction. In her lessons, she employed other strategies to

maintain or regain control, such as the intensification of the pace o

instruction, a central position in the front of the classroom, and negotia

tion to sort out unexpected requests about make-up assignments, schoo

activities, exams, etc. Teacher B appeared to manage matters of a rathe

disciplinarian nature at a collective level by (a) reminding the clasabout old or new classroom rules often displayed as signs on th

Manel Lacorte 39



the homework and framing the next stage, when the student intervene

to express her disappointment (Excerpt 4, Ob D/5):

Excerpt 4

1 T All right (.) a:: ((glances through the book)) (15) Para la tarea quier2 que escriban una composición a: de quince oraciones sobre lo que (13 a:: sobre lo que hizo la sema-el fin de semana pasado. Entonces, m4 es, a:: (1) ((writes on the board)) [‘As homework I want you to writ

an essay of 15 sentences about what you did last weekend’]5 F Ay, Mr. T! We just did that or something like that last week.6 T Drew! ((writes on the board)) (7) Hay que practicar, si quier

7 aprender el español hay que practicar ((continues writing on th8 board)) [‘You’ve got to practise, if you want to learn Spanish, you’v

got to practise’]

In his first lessons, Teacher D appeared to experience some difficulty

in maintaining a regular structure of transitions and pace of instruction

especially on days when numerous student interventions seemed to dis

rupt his initial plans. Instead of leaning toward the implementation ospecific disciplinary actions, the teacher seemed to support the basis fo

control mainly through decisions on materials and activities for the

course that gradually intensified the pace of instruction and reduced the

unexpected interventions from students during the stages and in the tran

sitions between stages. Another factor for the development of pedagogic

control had to do with the use of Spanish in the instruction. Specifically

several episodes of interaction during the lessons suggested an attempby the teacher to either maintain or recover the floor by resorting to

Spanish. It also appeared to have a visible effect on the behaviour of the

student(s) participating in the interaction (they would quickly become

silent), especially when this involved topics not directly related to the

planned sequence.

In the course taught by Teacher E, the transitions contained very fewinstances of teacher–student exchanges. If in Classroom A this situation

Manel Lacorte 393



((closes door)) activities manual, that’s where those exercises are . .

and the day in the course schedule is September 15, the day we turn

it in, ok? So, go back, take a look in your syllabus to clarify those

kinds of things on page two’ (Excerpt 5, Ob E/1).• Expectations about the use of English and Spanish in the instruction

e.g., ‘Bueno (.) vamos (.) a conseguir, vamos a obtener, vamos a

obtener información sobre los compañeros no hablando nada de

inglés, obviamente ¿no? Nunca nada de inglés ((smiles. IN con

tinue))’ (‘Ok, we are going to obtain, we are going to obtain infor

mation about our classmates without speaking any English

obviously. Never in English’) (Excerpt 6, Ob E/6).

• Influence of the interpersonal, institutional and academic context on

the interaction between teacher and students (a Spanish class in a

private college of liberal arts with students older than those in the

previous classrooms in the study). The following exchange occurs

when Teacher E begins to provide feedback after an activity and he

notices that a female student has raised her hand. As in mosexchanges between the teacher and other students in the class, the

female student seems to follow a certain etiquette expected for

the interaction with instructors in this academic and institutiona

environment (Excerpt 7, Ob E/4):

Excerpt 7

1 T Algunas personas responden, algunas personas no. Tenemos qu2 practicar mucho los números. ¿Cómo practicar? Saadiya? [‘Some3 people answer, others do not. We do have to practise the numbers a lot

How to practise them?’]4 F a:5 T ¿Pregunta? [‘A question?]6 F I didn’t mean to cut you.7 T No, no.8 F Ok, a: question




six one five seven’), or as part of the same sentence (e.g., ‘Bueno, flip

the page. This should be muy fácil [“very easy”]. Let’s go a la derecha

[“to the right”]’). On the other hand, the teachers who used mainly

Spanish – especially Teacher E – showed a significant tendency to userepetition and other performance features such as changes in intonation

emphasis and volume.

The comments made by the instructors during the interviews did no

seem to reflect certain theoretical views such as the cognitive value o

L1 as part of the negotiation of meaning in collaborative tasks (Antón

and DiCamilla, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 2000), nor the benefits of

judicious use of the L1 as an ‘enhanced form of input that is more salien

for the learner’ (Turnbull and Arnett, 2002: 205). Instead, in our fina

interview at the end of the year the teachers linked the use of English to

one or more of the following pedagogical dimensions:

• The presentation and practice of specific aspects of the subjec

matter, that is, grammar (A, B, C and D) and cultural facts connectedor not with the initial lesson script prepared by the teacher (B, C

and D).

• An attempt to keep the attention of young students toward new

learning contents, the directions for activities, and the activitie

themselves (A, C and D).

•The personal experiences that some teachers had as learners o

Spanish in their high school, college or university (A and B).

• The institutional and sociocultural context in which some teacher

believed that students did not feel very motivated to learn a language

other than English (B and C).

• The lack of knowledge and resources to maintain the use of only

Spanish in the instructional sequence (D).

• The convenience of using the L1 in cases where that meant maximizing practice time in Spanish (E)

Manel Lacorte 395



affecting the progress of the lesson. These options are usually alter

nated by the teachers according to their own approach to the socia

and pedagogic conditions of the classroom.

• The multifaceted realities of L1/L2 use in the FL classroom, oftenless related to any possible type of cognitive value but to a variety o

individual, professional and political factors.

Keeping in mind its limited scope, the results of this study may

support the findings from other larger-scale qualitative projects in ESL

settings (see, e.g., Breen, 1991; Breen, 2002; Breen et al., 2001; Kubota

2001) and studies in FL education (see, e.g., Kubota et al., 2003; Osborn

2000; Reagan and Osborn, 2002; see also Kinginger, 2002, for a related

discussion from the perspective of sociocultural theory) with regard to

the significance of notions such as control, status and authority for th

understanding of social and linguistic interaction in L2 classrooms.

Many teachers of Spanish and any other languages in the USA nowa

days may find themselves trying to reconcile, on the one hand, recommendations from current pedagogic trends about learner-centred

instruction, creativity and meaningful communication, and individua

differences and diversity in the classroom; and on the other, issue

related to previous experiences learning or teaching the FL or L2, man

agement and discipline within the classroom, high ratio of students to

teachers, students’ lack of cultural awareness, lack of quality materials

inadequate in-service training, etc.

This study has sought to give language teachers and language teache

educators a closer view of the less accessible social and pedagogic

dimensions of the relationship between L2 classroom participant

coming from diverse personal and educational backgrounds. To some

degree, this kind of reflection could induce a notion of teaching ‘stan

dards’ that would address not only the linguistic and cultural principleof L2 learning but also the variety of norms and actions shared by teach

Manel Lacorte 397



analysis, namely, the individual level, the interactive level (groups) and

the level of collectivities (organizational, cultural or societal).

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the teachers who kindly agreed to participate in this

study. Without their consideration and valuable time this project would

have not been possible. I am also very grateful to Simon Borg, Judith

Liskin-Gasparro, Adrian Holliday and Helen Winder for comments and

suggestions on draft versions of this paper. I would also like to thank the

two anonymous reviewers for their very constructive feedback. Anyomissions and weaknesses are my own.

Notes

1 For further discussion about the working definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘beliefsprovided in this paper see Allen (2002), Borg (2003b), Pajares (1992), Richardson

(1996) and Woods (1996).2 The researcher did not aim to present the interviews as a casual and unstructuredencounter, because a so-called ‘spontaneous’ interview – or a ‘dialogue’ – is not natural speech event, nor does it have ‘rules of speaking to guide the subject or thinterviewer’ (Wolfson, 1976: 195). On the other hand, an interview is recognized andaccepted as a speech event by both the interviewer and (it is hoped) the intervieweeswhich may produce more valid results from speech appropriate to the occasion.

3 The stages outlined in this study were intended to reflect the teachers’ views of thelesson as a sequence of recognizable teaching events: presenting new content (PR)

providing directions for the activity (IN), working on the activity (AC), assistingstudents during the activity (AS), giving feedback (FE), etc.

4 The selection of teachers and schools for this project was based on the researcher’ability to carry out the study in nearby schools and colleges while teaching full-time inthe same geographic area.

5 Pajares (1992) identifies several similar constructs in general education, such as ‘principles’, ‘implicit theories’, ‘practical knowledge’, ‘professional craft knowledge’, whichhave been used thereafter by authors in general education and L2 teaching and learning

VII References




Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J., editors, 1974: Explorations in the ethnography

of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biao, Z. 1996: Misconceptions. Clarifying the concept of control. English

Teaching Forum 34: 4–12.Borg, S. 1999: Studying teacher cognition in second language gramma

teaching. System 27: 19–31.

—— 2003a: Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research o

what language teachers think, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36

81–109.

—— 2003b: Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: a literature review

Language Awareness 12: 96–108.Breen, M. 1991: Understanding the language teacher. In Phillipson, R. et al

editors, Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon, UK

Multilingual Matters, 213–33.

—— 2002: From a language policy to classroom practice: the interven

tion of identity and relationships. Language and Education 16

260–83.

Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R. and Thwaite, A. 2001Making sense of language teaching: teachers’ principles and classroom

practices. Applied Linguistics 22: 470–501.

Connelly, F., Clandinin, D. and He, M. 1997: Teachers’ personal practica

knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and

Teacher Education 13: 665–74.

Crookes, G. 1998: What influences what and how second and foreig

language teachers teach? The Modern Language Journal 81: 67–79.Doyle, W. 1986: Classroom organization and management. In Wittrock, M.C

editor, Handbook of research on teaching, third edition. New York

Macmillan, 392–431.

Eisenstein Ebsworth, M. and Schweers, C. 1997: What researchers say an

practitioners do. Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in th

ESL classroom. Applied Language Learning 8: 237–60.

Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. 1998: Reconceptualizing the knowledge-basof language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32: 397–417.

Manel Lacorte 399



Hall, J. 2001: Methods for teaching foreign languages. Upper Saddle River

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnston, B. and Goettsch, K. 2000: In search of the knowledge base of lan

guage teaching: explanations by experienced teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review 56: 437–68.

Kinginger, C. 2002: Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in US for

eign language education. Applied Linguistics 23: 240–61.

Kubota, R. 2001: Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms

TESOL Quarterly 35: 9–38.

Kubota, R., Austin, T. and Saito-Abbott, Y. 2003: Diversity and inclusion o

sociopolitical issues in foreign language classrooms: an exploratorysurvey. Foreign Language Annals 36: 12–24.

Levine, G. 2005: Co-construction and articulation of code-choice practices in

foreign language classrooms. In Barrette, C. and Paesani, K., editors

Language program articulation: developing a theoretical foundation

Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle, 110–30.

Macaro, E. 1997: Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A. and Son, J. 2005: Similaritie

and differences in teachers’ and researchers’ conceptions of commu

nicative language teaching: does the use of an educational model cast

better light? Language Teaching Research 9: 31–66.

Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B. and Johnstone, R. 1981: The foreign language

classroom: an observational study. Stirling Educational Monograph

No. 9. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Stirling, UK.Morris, M. 1998: Beliefs and practices of teaching assistants toward

language use in elementary French classes. In Heinlenman, L., editor

Research issues and language programs. Boston, MA: Heinle and

Heinle, 101–41.

National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 1996

Standards for foreign language learning: preparing for the 21s

century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.Nunan, D. 1988: The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge




Polio, C. and Duff, P. 1994: Teachers’ language use in university foreign

language classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and targe

language alternation. The Modern Language Journal 78: 313–26.

Psathas, G. 1995: Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interactionThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Psathas, G. and Anderson, T. 1990: The ‘practices’ of transcription in

conversation analysis. Semiotica 78: 75–99.

Reagan, T. and Osborn, T. 2002: The foreign language educator in society

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richards, J. 1998: Beyond training: perspectives on language teache

education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richards, J. and Lockhart, C. 1996: Reflective teaching in second language

classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, V. 1996: The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. I

Sikula, J., Buttery, T. and Guyton, E., editors, Handbook of research on

teacher education. New York: Macmillan, 102–19.

Sato, K. and Kleinsasser, R. 1999: Communicative language teaching

(CLT): practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal 83494–517.

Silva-Corvalán, C. 2001: Sociolingüística y pragmática del español

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, R. 1975: Towards an analysis of discourse: th

English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Spradley, C. 1979: The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehar

and Winston.Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 2000: Task-based second language teaching: th

uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4: 251–74.

Tudor, I. 1996: Learner centredness in language education. Cambridge

Cambridge University Press.

Turnbull, M. and Arnett, K. 2002: Teachers’ uses of the target and firs

language in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 22: 204–18.VanPatten, B. 1998: Perceptions of and perspectives on the term ‘commu

Manel Lacorte 40



Appendix A

For both interviews and classroom observations, transcriptions were

based on a combination of conventions from the Jeffersonian System

(Psathas, 1995; Psathas and Anderson, 1990), particularly common in

Conversation Analysis, conventions relevant to discourse uttered in L2

classrooms (Allwright and Bailey, 1991), and a few personal additions

The excerpts of classroom discourse in this paper indicate the teacher

and lesson from which they were recorded (e.g., ‘Excerpt 1, Ob A/12

comes from Lesson 12 taught by Teacher A). Other transcription

conventions in this paper include:

(.) interval of less than a second

(2) length of an interval in seconds

(. . .) utterance partially reported

:::: prolongation of previous sound

T teacher

F1, F2 female student

M1, M2 male studentLL unidentified subgroup of class

LLL whole class

Who cares noticeable increased volume

latching, or no interval between utterances

x, xx, xxx incomprehensible item from one word to beyond phrase length

(( )) verbal descriptions of events in the classroom

[ ] translation into English of speech conveyed in the L2


language teaching research

Documents