Exploring the Pedagogical Beliefs of World Language Teachers:
A Case Study of a North Texas School District
Angela Hardy
August 29, 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1-2
1.1. Researcher’s Positionality
2. Background…………………………………………………………………………………...2-4
2.1 Traditional Pedagogical Approaches in the Language Classroom
2.2 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Standards
3. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………….4-6
3.1 Defining Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs
3.2 Relationship Between Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs and Actions
3.2 Connection Between Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs and Educational Change
4. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………….……6-9
4.1. Theory of Second Language Acquisition
4.2 Applying Krashen’s Theory to Practice
5. Research Design………………………………………………………………………….…9-12
5.1 Research Site
5.2 Data and Methods
5.3. Reflexivity
6. Findings………...……………………………………………………………………….....12-16
7. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….....17-21
8. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...…….21-22
9. References……………………………………………………………………….………...23-25
10. Appendix………………………………………………………………………….……...26-35
Abstract
Using data from survey responses, this study uses a quantitative approach to explore the attitudes of world language teachers in a north Texas school district concerning pedagogical approaches in order to determine the extent to which they are aligned with the constructs underlying the American Council for Teaching Foreign Language (ACTFL) World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of current district teacher beliefs in order to inform future professional development and highlight areas in need of support. Findings from this study reveal that only about half of district teachers independently pursue frequent professional development in language instruction, and that the majority of teachers collaborate with colleagues infrequently. Concerning teacher pedagogical beliefs, findings show that most teachers believe in prioritizing oral proficiency over grammatical accuracy, believe that students should be provided with opportunities for language exchange, field trips, and guest speakers, and believe in the importance of integrating authentic media, cross-disciplinary connections, and diverse perspectives into lessons. However, there is a clear divide between teachers who desire to create their own lessons and those who prefer to implement standardized curriculum. Additionally, teacher responses vary widely concerning the degree to which instruction should occur in the target language and the percentage of instruction that should be comprehensible to students.
Key words: world language teachers, teacher pedagogical beliefs, language acquisition, secondary classroom
1. Introduction
If you stepped into a typical world language classroom twenty years ago, you could expect to find a teacher-centered class where instruction was focused on coverage of the textbook curriculum, with students graded on their ability to regurgitate isolated skills oriented around grammatical rules. In other words, the traditional world language classroom could be described as a place where students learn about the language, rather than a place where students learn to use the language (ACTFL, 2011). In recent years, however, world language pedagogy in the United States has transformed to become more student-centered and focused on authentic use of the target language[1]. The American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the premier professional organization for language educators in the U.S., has taken a leadership role in developing national standards[2] that reflect these pedagogical innovations (ACTFL, 2017).
A large body of literature has demonstrated the effectiveness of the constructs upon which the ACTFL standards are based, arguing that meaningful cross-cultural interaction in the target language and ‘comprehensible input’ are key features of successful world language instruction (Krashen, 1982; 1989; 2003; 2017; Truscott, 1996; 1999). An additional group of scholarship links teacher pedagogical beliefs to teacher action and educational change (Richardson, 1996; Donaghue, 2003; Quinn, 2002; Li, 2013). However, up to this point, no data has been collected in the north Texas school district selected for this case study to determine the extent to which district language teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are aligned with the constructs underlying ACTFL standards. Using data from survey responses, this study takes a quantitative approach to explore the pedagogical beliefs of world language teachers in this north Texas school district. By providing results from this study to the district’s World Languages Specialist, I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the needs of teachers for professional development in coming years and shed light on what the Specialist can to do to better address teacher needs and facilitate their growth by providing training and support. My study seeks to understand:
1. What is the range of training and professional development in language instruction for teachers in this north Texas school district?
2. What beliefs do teachers in this north Texas school district hold concerning language pedagogy?
The roadmap of my paper is as follows. First, I contrast traditional world language pedagogical approaches with the principled approaches recommended by the American Council of the Teacher of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) in the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. Then I review prior literature on teacher pedagogical beliefs and their relation to both teacher action and educational change. Next, I describe my conceptual framework drawn from Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, elaborating on what pedagogical beliefs a teacher following Krashen’s theory would hold. I then explain the design of my study, discuss my findings, and conclude by making recommendations for how the school district can best support language teacher growth.
2. Background
2.1 Traditional Pedagogical Approaches in the Language Classroom
Beginning in the 1880s with François Gouin’s The Art of Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages, and continuing for the next century, a series of language teaching methods rose and fell in prominence: Charles Berlitz’s Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method, the Cognitive-Code Learning Method, Community Language Learning, Total Physical Response, and so on (Brown, 2002). Throughout this period, however, despite innovations in methods, certain general practices remained widely entrenched in language classrooms in the United States (ACTFL, 2011). Teachers were trained to cover content in the textbook rather than personalizing lessons for the unique needs of a class, to focus on isolated skills and grammatical constructs rather than focusing on oral proficiency and authentic communication, and to bring in discussion of culture in the form of “factoids” rather than through the creation of meaningful connections (ACTFL, 2011).
Starting in the 1980s, innovations in pedagogical approaches to language instruction shifted from being oriented around prescriptive methods to being grounded in research-based principles (Brown, 2002). For example, the principle of ‘communicative competence’ asserts that students will become competent communicators by using the target language in real-world application rather than simply being drilled on accurate language usage (Brown, 2002). A principled approach also allows for variation among learners and instructional contexts, providing space for a teacher to adopt aspects of multiple methods (Brown, 2002). The rise in emphasis on a principled approach to language instruction laid the foundation for the creation of pedagogical objectives centered on principles rather than concerned with lists of vocabulary or catalogs of grammar (National Standards, 1999).
2.2 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Guidelines
In 1996, pedagogical objectives centered on research-based principles of language instruction were first nationally standardized by the American Council for Teaching Foreign Language in collaboration with the United States Department of Education in a document titled Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century (Abbott & Phillips, 2011). Since that time, the standards have continuously been revised to reflect the most recent research on language acquisition. More than 40 states have aligned their world language standards to match the national framework, and school districts have adopted world language curriculum that corresponds with the national standards (Quinn, 2002; Abbott & Phillips, 2011).
However, adoption at the state -or even at the district- level is not adequate to ensure that the principle-based standards will be applied at the classroom level. Teachers have final agentic power in the application of principles in the classroom (Richardson & Anders, 1994; Tedick & Walker, 1996), and teachers change their practice in the classroom only when their beliefs change (Freeman & Freeman, 1994). In my survey, I investigate the alignment of world language teacher’s beliefs with the most current iteration of the national standards, the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages, which are composed of five domains: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities (ACTFL, 2017).
3. Literature Review
If the new World Language Specialist in this north Texas school district wishes to effectively bring instructional innovation to district classrooms in alignment with research-based principles of language acquisition, the first step is to consider current teacher attitudes and patterns of thought (Quinn, 2002). Therefore, in this section I suggest a working definition of teacher beliefs, followed by an examination of how the relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher practices can inform instruction. Finally, I conclude by discussing the ways in which asking teachers to examine their beliefs can yield educational change.
3.1 Defining teacher pedagogical beliefs
Conceptualizations of teacher beliefs are complex (Li, 2013), but a generally accepted definition considers teacher beliefs to be “premises or propositions about the world that are felt to be true” and which a teacher could cite as a rationale for decision-making in the classroom (Richardson, 1996). Pedagogical beliefs are beliefs which specifically center around the practice of teaching. Teacher beliefs and knowledge are often equated by researchers, or treated as twin parts of a cohesive network (Woods, 1996). Indeed, in a review of the distinctions made between beliefs and knowledge by 20 individual researchers, Pajares (1992) concluded that a teacher’s beliefs and knowledge were intricately entwined in a belief system. Kagan (1990) proposed the term teacher cognition to capture the unified nature of teachers’ attitudes, reflections, and knowledge concerning pedagogy, students, and the content taught. This conceptualization allows for an individual teacher to change his or her beliefs over time (Richardson, 1996). In this study, the use of the term beliefs follows this conceptualization.
3.2 Relationship between teacher pedagogical beliefs and actions
Research suggests that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs strongly influence their practice (Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Borg, 2003; Li, 2013). The relationship has been conceptualized as an interactive one in which experiences in the classroom or in training can mold beliefs, and beliefs in turn influence practice (Richardson, 1996). However, beliefs espoused by teachers are not always aligned with their practice (Li, 2013). Although a teacher may hold a pedagogical theory to be true, the context of classroom resources and teacher competency may limit the ability of the teacher to apply theory to practice.
3.3 Connection between teacher pedagogical beliefs and educational change
Research has shown strong associations between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their willingness to try new methods and approaches (Donaghue, 2003; Li, 2013). Indeed, teacher beliefs shape the way in which a teacher engages in professional development and whether they choose to incorporate new principles and methods into their teaching practice (Quinn, 2002). When a teacher is open to experimenting with a new method or principle, subsequent reflection on the results of that experimentation can inform shifts in teacher pedagogical beliefs (Richardson, 1996; Quinn, 2002). Therefore, professional development and support that addresses teacher beliefs while also encouraging experimentation with new practices can be instrumental in affecting change in instructional practices (Richardson, 1996). Hence, this quantitative assessment of the current state of district world language teacher’s current levels of professional development and current pedagogical beliefs concerning language instruction will be useful in establishing a starting point for future professional development.
4. Conceptual Framework
The American Council for Teaching Foreign Language (ACTFL) principle-based standards were designed and are continuously updated to reflect current research and theories in language acquisition, and draw heavily from the work of Stephen Krashen (Crouse, 2012). In this section I examine Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition as a framework for determining best practices in language instruction, explaining what teacher pedagogical beliefs an adherent of Krashen’s theory (who is therefore following ACTFL recommendations) would hold.
4.1 Theory of second language acquisition
Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition is founded on the belief that the process through which people acquire a foreign language is not fundamentally different from the way in with they acquire their first language (Krashen, 1982). His theory is comprised of five main hypotheses: the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis.
The acquisition-learning hypothesis
The acquisition-learning hypothesis postulates that two independent systems of second language performance exist: ‘the acquired system’, an intuitive and subconscious process that follows the path by which infants acquire their first language, and ‘the learned system’, a staid process of formalized instruction characterized by activities such as drills on grammatical constructs. Using this hypothesis, one would conceptualize language acquisition occurring through natural and meaningful interaction, and language learning occurring through traditional classroom methods in which the student is a passive recipient of standardized content that is memorized rather than applied spontaneously. While the shallow learned system is teacher-centered and prioritizes the use of the L1[3] to explain the rules of the language, the organic acquired system is student-centered and rarely employs use of the L1, with the majority of instruction in the target language. According to Krashen, the focus on form in the language learning system produces students who are knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the language, yet struggle with applying that knowledge to in a way which allows them to use the language to communicate (Krashen, 1982).
The monitor hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis posits that under the leaning system students are taught to monitor and edit their language production so that they can prove that they understand the correct grammatical structure (Krashen, 1982). The process of monitoring utterances slows down meaningful language production and can limit communication (Truscott, 1996; 1999). Conversely, under the acquisition system students are encouraged to communicate spontaneously and with ease in a way that promotes proficient use the target language (Krashen, 1982).
The input hypothesis
In ‘the acquired system’, a student becomes more proficient in the language when instructional ‘input’ is just beyond the current level of linguistic competence (Krashen, 2017). Therefore, ‘comprehensible input’ consists of spoken or written content that is one step above the current level of student comprehension, i.e., that which the learner can understand but is not yet able to independently produce. To make content comprehensible, a language teacher uses context, visual cues, explanations, and rephrasing (Krashen, 1989). Under this hypothesis, the medium of instruction is the target language, which is employed in a fashion that is challenging yet comprehensible (Krashen, 2003).
The natural order hypothesis
The natural order hypothesis states that there is a predictable order by which learners acquire grammatical structures (Krashen, 1982). However, Krashen does not advocate that language curriculum should be strictly tied to this order or structures since that strict marriage would inhibit spontaneous language acquisition. Rather, he advocates that the instructor allows for the natural order of acquisition to occur organically.
The affective filter hypothesis
According to the affective filter hypothesis, certain variables such as learner motivation, confidence, and levels of anxiety either facilitate or inhibit language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Learners with higher levels of motivation and confidence, coupled with lower levels of self-criticism and anxiety will be less likely to form an ‘affective filter’ that impedes acquisition. Therefore, the role of the instructor is to prevent the affective filter from becoming an obstacle to acquisition.
4.2 Applying Krashen’s theory to practice
From the theoretical perspective of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, agentic teacher actors are responsible for creating learner-centered activities that allow for spontaneous improvisation and meaningful interaction. Thus, the most effective language teachers would be expected to hold pedagogical beliefs that reflect the views that instructional priority should be given to oral proficiency over technical knowledge. For example, Krashen’s theory would predict that a teacher who defines his or her role in the classroom as a facilitator of natural and personalized communication would be more effective at producing learners who are able to interact easily in the target language. Indeed, an educator who embraces Krashen’s philosophy would spurn rigidly prepared and standardized curriculum and choose to design lessons centered around the individual students in the class. Under Krashen’s system, the vast majority of instruction, including classroom procedures and management, should occur in the target language. Finally, a teacher who is guided by Krashen’s theory would prioritize instructional activities and experiences such as guest speakers, exchanges, and field trips which allow for interaction with native speakers, and the incorporation of a diverse range of authentic media with engenders student curiosity and engagement.
5. Research Design
5.1 Research Site
The north Texas school district where this pilot study is conducted is a public independent school district located in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. The district serves a student population of around 25,235, with 64.6% of its students considered economically disadvantaged based on eligibility for free or reduced lunch and 86% of its students representing minority ethnicities. Although students in the district hail from 90 different countries and speak 60 different languages at home, a large proportion (56%) are native or heritage speakers of Spanish.
Within the district are 25 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, and 5 high schools. One elementary school offers an introduction to Chinese, and other offers an introduction to Spanish, but the vast majority of world language classes are offered at the secondary level to students in grades 7-12. There are 35 secondary teachers of foreign language, and two teachers of foreign language at the elementary level. The survey sampling frame consists of all 37 foreign language teachers. In the middle schools, Spanish I is offered as a two-year elective class for 7th and 8th grade students. In the high schools, students are required to take a minimum of two years of foreign language in order to meet graduation requirements. However, students can elect to take up to four years of language. All five high schools offer Spanish and French. Three offer Japanese, two offer German, and one offers Chinese. Although the average student to teacher ratio in the language classroom is 16:1, there is a considerable range in class sizes depending on enrollment. While German, Chinese, and Japanese classes tend to have smaller class sizes, French and Spanish class, especially introductory classes, tend to have about 30-40 students.
In the spring of 2017, the district school board decided to allocate resources to create a new administrative position: World Language Specialist. Up to this point, no individual administrator was tasked with collecting data concerning world language instruction. Starting in the 2017-2018 school year, the World Language Specialist will begin conducting observations of all district language teachers, designing a program of professional development, providing curricular support, and developing common assessments. The motivation for this study is to provide an understanding of district teachers’ philosophical orientation surrounding student language acquisition that will guide the World Language Specialist in developing an initial plan of action.
5.2 Data and Methods
This study descriptively analyzes quantitative data collected through a web-based survey administered using Qualtrics. During the course of developing the survey items, I consulted with the district World Language Specialist to better understand the context and needs of the district, and drew from previous instruments that used surveys to assess language teacher pedagogical beliefs (Quinn, 2002), as well as the ACTFL World Language Standards and Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition. The 25 item survey is composed of five sections (see Appendix): general information concerning teacher’s experience and educational background, past patterns of professional development, and teachers’ pedagogical beliefs concerning communication skills, cultural understanding, and global connections.
The sampling frame of the survey is the whole population of world language teachers in the north Texas school district (n=35). The link to the survey was distributed to the targeted teachers by email in two rounds: an initial request and a follow-up email sent one week later. Teachers were asked to complete the survey by the World Language Specialist, but were not required to do so. However, since a request was sent by an administrator, this may have reduced nonresponse by bolstering the motivation to participate. To maintain teacher anonymity, no questions were asked regarding courses taught, nor were teachers asked to provide the name of the high school in the district in which they teach or other identifying information.
In the course of the study, 29 world language teachers in the school district completed the survey. It is important to note that the 29 teachers who chose to complete the survey may have characteristics that are systematically different from those of the 6 teachers who ignored the request to participate in the survey. However, sampling error in this study is small. As 83% of teachers in the district completed the survey, results can be considered representative of the district as a whole since they nearly cover the whole population.
5.3 Reflexivity Statement
My position as a former teacher in the school district, as well as my familial relationship with the newly appointed district World Language Specialist[4] pose a potential threat to validity as this could influence my survey design and my interpretation of the data (Creswell, 2014). In order to correct for this potential threat to validity, I discussed my research design and analysis with professors and peers in order to incorporate the additional perspectives and interpretations of researchers without personal investment in the north Texas school district being studied. I piloted my survey with a focus group of ten teachers to receive feedback on potential bias. In this way, I increased the validity of my survey instrument as well as the accuracy of the conclusions which I draw (Creswell, 2014).
6. Findings
In this section, I present results from each of the five sections of the survey.
Training and professional development in language instruction for district teachers
Table 1 presents demographic traits of the participating teachers.
[Table 1 about here]
From the table, we see that the experience level of district world language teachers varies, with 24% of teachers having between zero and five years of experience, 21% having taught between five and ten years, 17% having taught between 10 and 15 years, and 38% having taught more than 15 years. The majority of world language teachers neither majored nor minored during their undergraduate studies in the language that they currently teach. However, the majority of teachers (about 55%) are native speakers of the language that they teach. About a quarter of world language teachers hold a graduate degree in the language which they teach, but only four of the twenty-nine respondents hold a graduate degree in either linguistics or language instruction.
Table 2 presents professional development characteristics of the participating teachers.
[Table 2 about here]
Teachers were asked questions to determine the amount of professional development they had pursued in the previous year. While about half of world language teachers read professional literature concerning language instruction or acquisition on a monthly or weekly basis, the other half of teachers engage with professional literature only once or twice a year. When asked about the frequency with which they attend either state, regional, or national conferences concerning language instruction, about half of the respondents reported that they either never attend such conferences or attend less than once a year, while the other half of respondents attend conferences at least once a year or more. The number of credit hours earned by world language teachers from training specifically designed for language instructors varied, with 11% of teachers reporting that they earned no credit, 25% of teachers reporting about one-day worth of credit earned (1-8 hours), 43% reporting 9-16 hours of credit, 7% reporting 17-29 hours of credit, and 14% reporting more than 30 hours of credit.
Next, teachers were asked about the frequency with which they collaborate with colleagues in their own school, within the district, outside the district, and through online platforms. Within their own school, about a quarter of teachers reported no collaboration with colleagues for the purpose of designing lessons or making pedagogical decisions, 31% reported collaborating infrequently (once or twice a semester), 7% reported collaborating once or twice a month, and 38% reported collaborating once a week or more. Teachers reported less frequent collaboration with colleagues in other schools within the district: 32% never collaborate with other district teachers, 64% collaborate once or twice a semester, and only 1 respondent reported collaborating as frequently as once or twice a month. The majority of teachers (59%) reported never collaborating with colleagues outside the district, 31% reported collaborating once or twice a semester, and 10% reported collaborating at least once a month or more. The majority of respondents (66%) reported using online platforms to share lesson ideas and engage in discussion about language teaching.
Finally, teachers were asked about their preferences for autonomy in designing curriculum. Likert-scale responses to the statement, “I prefer to create my own lessons rather than using a uniform, prepared curriculum” showed a divide in opinion. About 55% of teachers agreed with the statement to varying degrees, while the remaining 45% of teachers disagreed with the statement to varying degrees.
Pedagogical beliefs of district world language teachers
Oral proficiency and communication skills
Table 3 presents pedagogical beliefs concerning oral proficiency and communication skills.
[Table 3 about here]
Of the three sections of the survey concerning pedagogical beliefs, the section on oral proficiency and communication skills showed the most diversity of opinion among world language teachers. Most questions in this section concerned the percentage of the target language that a teacher believed should be used in the classroom by the teacher, by the student, and in materials. The majority of teachers (76%) believe that 90% or more of instruction should take place in the target language (as opposed to English), whereas 17% selected a range of 60-90% and 7% chose a range of 30-60%. However, responses differed concerning the teacher’s use of the target language for classroom procedures and classroom management, with 14% of teachers believing that only 0-30% of this discourse should take place in the target language, 7% of teachers selecting a range of 30-60%, 28% of teachers selecting a range of 60-90%, and 52% selecting a range of 90% or more. When asked what percentage of the target language used by the teacher should be comprehensible to the student, 28% of teachers responded that students should understand 30-60%, 31% of teachers responded that students should understand 60-90%, and 41% of teachers responded that students should understand 90% or more. Responses differed when teachers were asked what percentage of materials used during instruction should be comprehensible to the student with teacher scaffolding, with 3% of teachers selecting a range of 30-60%, 38% of teachers selecting a range of 60-90%, and 59% of teachers selecting a range of 90% or more. Finally, when asked what percentage of the target language a student should ideally use during instruction, 3% of teachers selected a range of 0-30%, 21% of teachers selected a range of 30-60%, 45% of teachers selected a range of 60-90%, and 31% of teachers selected a range of 90% or more.
Responses on a likert-scale showing agreement with the statement, “it is more important to focus on a student’s ability to use grammar correctly than it is to focus on building oral proficiency” showed a range of opinion. About 14% of teachers agreed to some extent that a grammatical focus should supersede attention to oral production of the language.[5] Conversely, 24% of teachers somewhat disagreed with the statement, 41% disagreed, and 21% strongly disagreed.
Cultural Understanding
Table 4 presents pedagogical beliefs concerning cultural understanding.
[Table 4 about here]
The last two sections of the survey showed the most consensus among district world language teachers. The vast majority of respondents (93%) believed that authentic media in the target language (such as music videos or news clips) should be integrated into lesson plans at least once a week rather than simply being showcased. One teacher believed that once a month was a sufficient frequency for integrating authentic media, and one teacher believed that once per semester was adequate. Likewise, the vast majority (97%) agreed to some degree that cultural diversity (such as a French teacher using examples of culture in Senegal, Haiti, or Canada) should be integrated into lessons throughout the year rather than simply being highlighted once or twice a year, with 38% reporting strong agreement with the importance of curriculum that reflects a diversity of backgrounds.
Connections, Comparisons, and Global Communities
Table 5 presents pedagogical beliefs concerning connections, comparisons, and global communities.
[Table 5 about here]
All teachers agreed to some extent that instructional units in the language classroom should make cross-disciplinary connections with content in math, science, geography, history, and English, with 41% reporting a strong agreement with the importance of interdisciplinary connections. Similarly, all but one respondent agreed to some extent that students should have opportunities to communicate in the target language with counterparts from other parts of the world on a regular basis using tools such as social media and videoconferences, with 24% of teachers reporting a strong agreement with the importance of these connections. All teachers agreed to a certain degree that students should have the opportunity to engage with a guest speaker representing the target language and/or culture at least once or twice a year, with 21% expressing a strong agreement. Finally, all but one respondent agreed to some degree that students should have the opportunity at least once or twice a year to participate in a field trip that allows them to explore aspects of language or culture, with 45% of teachers reporting a strong agreement with the importance of field trips.
7. Discussion
What is the range of training and professional development in language instruction for teachers in this north Texas school district?
A majority of world language teachers neither hold an undergraduate nor a graduate degree in the language which they teach, and few have studied linguistics or language instruction at the graduate level. These statistics could indicate the need for content specific professional development to supplement the current body of knowledge of district language teachers. Currently, only about half of district teachers independently seek out professional development experiences with frequency (reading professional literature at least once a month, attending professional conferences at least once a year, and attending more than one day of training concerning language instruction per year). Follow-up interviews conducted by the World Language Specialist should investigate the obstacles that prevent teachers from engaging in professional development opportunities, with the goal of allocating resources and providing support that mitigates those obstacles. Additionally, teachers who do independently pursue professional development (literature, conferences, and training) should be asked to describe which particular experiences have been most helpful to their craft. The World Language Specialist could use information gleaned from these interviews to create a database of useful resources.
A majority of district world language teachers (55%) collaborate infrequently (less often than once a month) with colleagues in their school to design lessons or make pedagogical decisions. In part, this could be due to the fact that some language teachers do not have colleagues within their building who teach the same subject. For example, high school campuses have only one German, Chinese, or Japanese teacher. However, that does not account completely for the lack of collaboration within campuses. District world language teachers are asked to teach six class periods a day, with only one conference period remaining for lesson planning, grading, and collaboration with colleagues. These conference periods are not routinely scheduled at the same time for world language teachers, therefore collaboration with colleagues is most likely to occur before or after school. Another potential obstacle to collaboration could be the conflicting pedagogical beliefs revealed by the survey results. If a school has two French teachers, for example, one who prefers to create his or her own lessons, and another who prefers to utilize standardized curriculum, it is unlikely that they would collaborate on lesson planning. The percentage of teachers who collaborate frequently with peers outside of their school is even smaller; 97% of teachers collaborate less than once a month with colleagues in other district schools, and 90% of teachers collaborate less than once a month with teachers outside the district.
Follow-up interviews with world language teachers should examine the factors that currently limit collaboration between teachers as well as the factors that enable collaboration. Expanding the use of online platforms for collaboration between colleagues could help address obstacles that prevent pedagogical discussion. The World Language Specialist could help build avenues for school and district level collaboration using Canvas and Google Classrooms, tools which the district has already adopted, and could build avenues for collaboration outside the district by recommending online platforms such as private Facebook groups specifically designed for AP Spanish teachers to share lessons and discuss pedagogy.
What beliefs do teachers in this north Texas school district hold concerning language pedagogy?
Under Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, as well as ACTFL guidelines, the teacher is considered the most valuable asset for creating learner-centered activities allowing for spontaneous interaction and improvisation in language production. A majority of teachers expressed preferences in alignment with this principle, reporting that they prefer to have autonomy in creating their own lessons. The World Language Specialist should seek to gain a deeper understanding of why the remaining 45% of district teachers prefer to use uniform, prepared curriculum rather than designing lessons to fit the needs of the individual students in the class. Furthermore, insight could be gained in observing teacher’s lessons to understand the real-world ways in which district teachers are combining aspects of standardized curriculum and resources with innovation and personalization. Additionally, the interviews and observations conducted by the World Language Specialist should qualitatively explore the extent to which there might be a relationship between teachers’ desire to create their own lessons and levels of collaboration and professional development.[6]
From the theoretical perspective of Krashen’s natural order hypothesis, effective language teachers prioritize oral proficiency over technical knowledge, trusting that students first gain the ability to communicate organically and spontaneously, and through that oral proficiency become adept at selecting the correct grammatical forms. Most district world language teachers seem to hold pedagogical beliefs in line with Krashen’s theory. However, the World Language Specialist should seek to understand the viewpoint underlying the preference for a grammatical focus from 14% of district language teachers.
Both the American Council for Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) and Krashen’s hypotheses of acquisition-learning and input advise that the vast majority (90% or more) of instruction, including classroom procedures and management, materials provided to students, and communication both from the teacher to the class and from the student to the class should occur in the target language. It is the teacher’s role to scaffold the use of the target language in a way that is remains comprehensible to students through the use of context clues. While 76% of world language teachers believe that 90% or more of instruction should occur in the target language, that percentage dropped to 52% with regard to classroom procedures and management, to 59% with regard to materials used in the classroom, and 31% with regard to language used by the students. Moreover, only 41% of teachers believe that 90% or more of the target language used by the teacher should be comprehensible to the student. The variance in responses indicates a lack of internal consistency regarding the theory of comprehensible input. It is unclear from these results whether district teachers have a clear vision concerning the proportion of the target language that should ideallly be used in the classroom as opposed to English. Through observations and interviews, the World Language Specialist should seek to understand the extent to which district teachers design their lessons with the theory of comprehensible input in mind, and consider providing professional development concerning this theory.
A teacher guided by both ACTFL recommendations and Krashen’s theory would aim to incorporate a diverse range of authentic media in order to engender student curiosity and engagement. District language teachers’ beliefs seem to align with these recommendations, with the vast majority of teachers stating that authentic media and a diversity of cultural perspectives should be incorporated frequently. The World Language Specialist should work to support teachers by curating and providing pertinent resources, as well as offering training on their incorporation into lessons.
Finally, teachers who subscribe to ACTFL standards and Krashen’s theory would believe in the importance of instructional activities and experiences such as guest speakers, pen pal exchanges, and field trips, and the establishment of cross-disciplinary connections that allow for authentic interaction with native speakers and spark engagement in the learning process. Indeed, district world language teachers showed alignment with this theoretical perspective, with the vast majority indicating that they find value in these experiences and would hope that the opportunities were available to their students. With this in mind, the World Language Specialist should assess the current level of field trips, guest speakers, and exchange programs in place within the district, and interview teachers to understand the factors that might hinder such projects. Next, the Specialist should consider ways in which he could provide support and resources that allow teachers to provide more of these opportunities to their students.
8. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of current district teacher pedagogical beliefs in order to inform future professional development and highlight areas in need of support. The main questions of my research investigate: (i) What is the range of training and professional development in language instruction for teachers in this north Texas school district? (ii) What attitudes do teachers in this north Texas school district hold concerning language pedagogy? Employing quantitative data from survey responses, this study reveals that only about half of district teachers independently pursue frequent professional development in language instruction, and that the majority of teachers collaborate with colleagues infrequently. Concerning teacher pedagogical beliefs, the findings show that most teachers believe in prioritizing oral proficiency over grammatical accuracy, believe that students should be provided with opportunities for language exchange, field trips, and guest speakers, and believe in the importance of integrating authentic media, cross-disciplinary connections, and diverse perspectives into lessons. However, there is a clear divide between teachers who desire to create their own lessons and those who prefer to implement standardized curriculum. Additionally, teacher responses vary widely concerning the degree to which instruction should occur in the target language and the percentage of instruction that should be comprehensible to students.
In order to effectively meet district goals of ensuring that world language instruction is in alignment with the research-based principles of language acquisition advocated by the American Council for Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL), the district World Language Specialist should begin by understanding the current state of professional development and pedagogical beliefs of district teachers. In this regard, the results from this study can be taken as a baseline. However, quantitative measures of teacher beliefs using Likert scales, although efficient at quickly capturing a broad overview, lack depth and do not allow for differentiation of responses. Due to this limitation, this survey fails to capture a diversity of opinion or explanations for teacher responses. Additionally, teachers may hold pedagogical beliefs yet be limited in applying those beliefs to practice due to a lack of training, experience, or resources. For these reasons, much research concerning teacher beliefs is qualitative and inductive (Richardson, 1996). As a follow-up to this initial study, the district World Language Specialist should spend time interviewing and observing the classroom of each of the 35 world language teachers in the district. Therefore, the results of this study should be considered a starting point for a longer investigation.
9. References
Abbott, M., & Phillips, J. (2011). A Decade of Standards A Decade of Foreign Language Standards : Influence, Impact, and Future Directions: Survey Results.
ACTFL. (2011). 21st Century Skills Map. Washington, D.C.
ACTFL. (2017). American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review on reasearch on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36.
Brown, H. (2002). English Language Teaching in the “Post-Method” Era: Toward Better
Diagnosis, Treatment, and Assessment. In Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 8-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crouse, D. (2012). Going for 90% Plus: How to Stay in the Target Language. The Language Educator, October.
Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57(4).
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (1994). Between worlds: access to second language acquisition. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 3.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire language and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2017). The Case for Comprehensible Input. Language Magazine. Based on a presentation delivered at the International Foreign Language Teaching Conference (IFLT), Denver, July 2017.
Li, L. (2013). The complexity of language teachers’ beliefs and practice: one EFL teacher’ s theories. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.790132
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign
language learning in the 21st century. Yonkers: National Standards in Foreign Language
Education Project.
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62.
Phillips, J., & Abbott, M. (2011). A Decade of Foreign Language Standards: Impact, Influence, and Future Directions. Washington, D.C.
Quinn, L. (2002). Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5).
Richardson, V. & Anders, P. (1994). The study of teacher change. In Teacher change and the staff development process, (pp. 159-180). New York: Teachers College Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd ed., (pp. 102-119). New York: Association of Teacher Educators.
Tedick, D. & Walker, C. (1996). R(T)eaching all students: necessary changes in teacher education. In Foreign Languages for all: Challenges and choices, (pp. 187-220). Lincolnwood: National Textbook Co.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2).
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4).
10. Appendix
Survey on the Pedagogical Beliefs of World Language Teachers
Section 1 (5 items): Welcome Message and Demographic Information
To all district World Language Teachers:
Thank you for taking 5-10 minutes to complete this survey about pedagogical viewpoints and instructional approaches in the language classroom. You will not be asked to provide any identifying information, and your responses will remain anonymous. I look forward to your thoughtful responses which will help guide the direction of professional development and support provided in the coming school year.
1.1 How many years of experience do you have as a language teacher?
o 0-5
o 5-10
o 10-15
o More than 15
1.2 In your undergraduate studies, did you major in the language which you currently teach?
o Yes
o No
1.3 In your undergraduate studies, did you minor in the language which you currently teach?
o Yes
o No
1.4 Do you hold a graduate degree in the language which you currently teach?
o Yes
o No
1.5 Do you hold a graduate degree in linguistics or language instruction? (As opposed to a general degree in education.)
o Yes
o No
1.6 Are you a native speaker of the language that you currently teach?
o Yes
o No
Section 2 (8 items): Professional Development in Language Instruction
2.1 Over the past year, how often did you read professional literature (such as an academic journal, online article, or book) concerning language instruction or acquisition?
o Less than once a year
o Once or twice in the last year
o Monthly
o Weekly
2.2 How often do you attend state, regional, or national conferences concerning language instruction?
o Never
o Less than once a year
o Annually
o More than once a year
2.3 In the past year, how many credit hours did you earn from attending training specifically designed for language instructors? (Ex. AP Summer Institute for a World Language, Learn More Achieve More session for language teachers, etc.)
o No credit
o 1-3 hours
o 4-8 hours
o 9-16 hours
o 17-29 hours
o 30+ hours
2.4 In the past year, how often did you collaborate with colleagues within your school for the purpose of designing lessons or making pedagogical decisions?
o Never
o 1-2 times per semester
o 1-2 times per month
o Weekly
o More than once a week
2.5 In the past year, how often did you collaborate with colleagues in other district schools for the purpose of designing lessons or making pedagogical decisions?
o Never
o 1-2 times per semester
o 1-2 times per month
o Weekly
o More than once a week
2.6 In the past year, how often did you collaborate with colleagues in schools outside of the district for the purpose of designing lessons or making pedagogical decisions?
o Never
o 1-2 times per semester
o 1-2 times per month
o Weekly
o More than once a week
2.7 Do you use any online platforms to share lesson ideas and engage in discussion about language teaching? (Ex. Facebook group for sharing lessons, discussion forums, etc.)
o Yes
o No
2.8 I prefer to create my own lessons rather than using a uniform, prepared curriculum.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
In the remaining sections (3-5), you will be asked to answer questions about what you believe would be the ideal learning situation in a language classroom. If no barriers such as the lack of resources or planning time existed, what kind of instruction would you hope to see?
Section 3 (6 items): Oral Proficiency and Communication Skills
3.1 Ideally, what percentage of instruction should be in the target language rather than in English?
o 0-30%
o 30-60%
o 60-90%
o 90% or more
3.2 What percentage of the target language should a teacher ideally use during classroom procedures and classroom management (as opposed to using English)? (Ex. Handing out papers, permission to go to the bathroom, quieting the class)
o 0-30%
o 30-60%
o 60-90%
o 90% or more
3.3 What percentage of the target language used by the teacher should be comprehensible to the student? (i.e. the student can use context and other clues to understand the meaning)
o 0-30%
o 30-60%
o 60-90%
o 90% or more
3.4 In the ideal classroom, what percentage of materials used during instruction (i.e. readings, media) should be comprehensible to the student with teacher scaffolding?
o 0-30%
o 30-60%
o 60-90%
o 90% or more
3.5 What percentage of the target language should a student ideally use during instruction (as opposed to using English)?
o 0-30%
o 30-60%
o 60-90%
o 90% or more
3.6 It is more important to focus on a student’s ability to use grammar correctly than it is to focus on building oral proficiency.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
Section 4 (2 items): Cultural Understanding
4.1 In the ideal classroom, authentic media in the target language (i.e. music videos, news clips) should be integrated into lesson plans (as opposed to merely being showcased)
o Once per semester
o Once per month
o Once per week
o More than once per week
4.2 Cultural diversity (such as a French teacher using examples of culture in Senegal, Haiti, or Canada) should be integrated into lessons throughout the year rather than simply being highlighted once or twice.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
Section 5 (4 items): Connections, Comparisons, and Global Communities
5.1 Ideally, instructional units in the language classroom should make cross-disciplinary connections with content in math, science, geography, history and English.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
5.2 Ideally, students should have opportunities to communicate in the target language with counterparts from other parts of the world on a regular basis. (ex. Social media penpals, videoconferences)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
5.3 Ideally, should students have the opportunity to engage with a guest speaker representing the target language and/or culture at least once or twice a year.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
5.4 Ideally, students should have the opportunity at least once or twice a year to participate in a field trip that allows them to explore aspects of language or culture.
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Somewhat agree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
TABLE 1. Major Demographic Characteristics (N=29)
Variable
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Number of Years Teaching
| ||
0-5
|
7
|
24.14
|
5-10
|
6
|
20.69
|
10-15
|
5
|
17.24
|
More than 15
|
11
|
37.93
|
Undergraduate major in language they instruct
| ||
Yes
|
14
|
48.28
|
No
|
15
|
51.72
|
Undergraduate minor in language they instruct
| ||
Yes
|
8
|
27.59
|
No
|
21
|
72.41
|
Graduate degree in language they instruct
| ||
Yes
|
7
|
24.14
|
No
|
22
|
75.86
|
Graduate degree in linguistics/language instruction
| ||
Yes
|
4
|
13.79
|
No
|
25
|
86.21
|
Native speaker of the language they instruct
| ||
Yes
|
16
|
55.17
|
No
|
13
|
44.83
|
TABLE 2. Professional Development Characteristics (N=29)
Variable
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Frequency of Reading Professional Literature
| ||
Less than once a year
|
1
|
3.45
|
Once of twice in the last year
|
14
|
48.28
|
Monthly
|
8
|
27.59
|
Weekly
|
6
|
20.69
|
Frequency of attendance of professional conferences
| ||
Never
|
4
|
13.79
|
Less than once a year
|
10
|
34.48
|
Annually
|
11
|
37.93
|
More than once a year
|
4
|
13.79
|
Credit hours in language instruction in past year
| ||
No credit
|
3
|
10.71
|
1-3 hours
|
1
|
3.57
|
4-8 hours
|
6
|
21.43
|
9-16 hours
|
12
|
42.86
|
17-29 hours
|
2
|
7.14
|
30+ hours
|
4
|
14.29
|
Collaboration within home school
| ||
Never
|
7
|
24.14
|
1-2 times per semester
|
9
|
31.03
|
1-2 times per month
|
2
|
6.90
|
Weekly
|
4
|
13.79
|
More than once a week
|
7
|
24.14
|
Collaboration in other district schools
| ||
Never
|
9
|
32.14
|
1-2 times per semester
|
18
|
64.29
|
1-2 times per month
|
1
|
3.57
|
Weekly
|
0
|
0
|
More than once a week
|
0
|
0
|
Collaboration outside the district
| ||
Never
|
17
|
58.62
|
1-2 times per semester
|
9
|
31.03
|
1-2 times per month
|
1
|
3.45
|
Weekly
|
2
|
6.9
|
More than once a week
|
0
|
0
|
Use of online platforms for collaboration
| ||
Yes
|
19
|
65.62
|
No
|
10
|
34.48
|
Prefer to create own lessons (not uniform)
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
3
|
10.34
|
Disagree
|
1
|
3.45
|
Somewhat disagree
|
9
|
31.03
|
Somewhat agree
|
7
|
24.14
|
Agree
|
3
|
10.34
|
Strongly agree
|
6
|
20.69
|
TABLE 3 . Pedagogical Beliefs Concerning Oral Proficiency and Communication Skills (N=29)
Variable
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Percentage of instruction in the target language
| ||
0-30%
|
0
|
0
|
30-60%
|
2
|
6.9
|
60-90%
|
5
|
17.24
|
90% or more
|
22
|
75.86
|
Percentage of classroom procedures/management in the target language
| ||
0-30%
|
4
|
13.79
|
30-60%
|
2
|
6.9
|
60-90%
|
8
|
27.59
|
90% or more
|
15
|
51.72
|
Percentage of teacher language that should be comprehensible to the student
| ||
0-30%
|
0
|
0
|
30-60%
|
8
|
27.59
|
60-90%
|
9
|
31.03
|
90% or more
|
12
|
41.38
|
Percentage of classroom materials that should be comprehensible to the student
| ||
0-30%
|
0
|
0
|
30-60%
|
1
|
3.45
|
60-90%
|
11
|
37.93
|
90% or more
|
17
|
58.62
|
Percentage of the target language student should use during instruction
| ||
0-30%
|
1
|
3.45
|
30-60%
|
6
|
20.69
|
60-90%
|
13
|
44.83
|
90% or more
|
9
|
31.03
|
Believe focus on grammar more important that focus on oral proficiency
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
6
|
20.69
|
Disagree
|
12
|
41.38
|
Somewhat disagree
|
7
|
24.14
|
Somewhat agree
|
1
|
3.45
|
Agree
|
2
|
6.9
|
Strongly agree
|
1
|
3.45
|
TABLE 4. Pedagogical Beliefs Concerning Cultural Understanding (N=29)
Variable
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Frequency with which authentic media should be integrated into lesson plans
| ||
Once per semester
|
1
|
3.45
|
Once per month
|
1
|
3.45
|
Once per week
|
11
|
37.93
|
More than once per week
|
16
|
55.17
|
Believe cultural diversity should be integrated in lessons throughout the year
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
1
|
3.45
|
Disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat agree
|
4
|
13.79
|
Agree
|
13
|
44.83
|
Strongly agree
|
11
|
37.93
|
TABLE 5. Pedagogical Beliefs Concerning Connections, Comparisons, and Global Communities (N=29)
Variable
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Believe units should make cross-disciplinary connections
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat agree
|
7
|
24.14
|
Agree
|
10
|
34.48
|
Strongly agree
|
12
|
41.38
|
Believe students should have weekly communication opportunities with global counterparts in the target language
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat disagree
|
1
|
3.45
|
Somewhat agree
|
5
|
17.24
|
Agree
|
16
|
55.17
|
Strongly agree
|
7
|
24.14
|
Believe students should engage with guest speakers at least once or twice a year
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat agree
|
7
|
25
|
Agree
|
15
|
52.57
|
Strongly agree
|
6
|
21.43
|
Believe field trips should be offered once or twice a year
| ||
Strongly disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Disagree
|
1
|
3.45
|
Somewhat disagree
|
0
|
0
|
Somewhat agree
|
3
|
10.34
|
Agree
|
12
|
41.38
|
Strongly agree
|
13
|
44.83
|
[1] In language instruction literature, the target language refers to the foreign language being studied.
[2] This project was funded by the US Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities. While the first iteration was published in 1996, the document has undergone considerable and consistent revision to reflect the most up-to-date education research (Phillips & Abbott, 2011).
[3] In language pedagogy literature, L1 refers to the native language of the learner, whereas the L2 is the second language being acquired. The L2 is also commonly referred to as the target language.
[4] The World Language Specialist is my father. We were also colleagues within the same high school in the district for four years.
[5] Five out of six of the respondents who believed that grammar was more important than oral proficiency were native speakers of the language which they teach.
[6] Results of pair-wise correlations between these quantitative variables were statistically insignificant.
No comments:
Post a Comment