Review article The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and lear to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching’ Donald Freeman Center for Teacher Education, Training, and Research, Department of Language Teacher Education, School for International Training, Brattleboro, VT 05301, USA “This poper agus Gat teachen’ mental lives repent the ‘hidden sie of aching Tt exis how twacher learning and teacher now, central ttrbuts of those menallivs havebeen concepaikzed and said since 1975 and traces connections to similar work #9 English language tec ing (ELT)’- While dhe majority of erature reviewed is draw fom the north American enpoaive parallel are sketched in some of the emery ing seca in ELT teacher edussion The analysis coannines four broad fares of sues: how tachs learn content and teaching pracces how teaches’ a= talprcesesareconsived, the oe of priorknowied in Jeri to tac, ad the role of ocala insitional context Tken toga, rseah in thee areas sugges implications fr the design and practice of tacher tain- ing and profesional development in Second lnguage her eduction L. Introduction I you read the popular press o watch the media, itis striking to see how many people seem to have opin- jens about how teaching should be done and how teachers should be prepared. Arguably more than any other aspect of education, the preparation of teachers is largely animated by popular perception and belief. Moves to improve such professional preparation: often seem to be bared more on fad or opinion than fon any solid research-based understanding how the work of teaching is actually done. Unlike other forms of professional wotk such as law or medicin which define both the knowledge-base of the pro. fession and the processes through whick people gain Donald Fresman i Profewor of Second Language | Echcaon and Director of he Techer Knowle Project tthe radate School or lnenatons Tening, ‘Braleboro, Vermont. His current work focus on doo mening development and change in practionen’ eowkske, and its impact on student learning. He is author of Doing Teacher-Research: From Inquiry To Understanding (1998), and editor of Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (with Jrk C, Richards; 1996), access to that knowledge-base (Starr 1982), teaching. remains populist to its core (Labaree 1992). The knowledge-base is largely drawn from other disci- plines, and not from the work of teaching itself (Shulman 1988).This paper works against that popu- lar assumption by reviewing the emerging research base in general education on learning to teach. The aim is to advance the basic argument that teachers’ ‘mental lives represent the hidden side of teaching. 1 examine how teacher Iearning and ceacher knowl- edge, 2 central attributes of those memtal lives, have been conceptualized and studied since 1975 and I trace connections to similar work in English lan ‘guage teaching, I argue that teacher learning is the core activity of teacher education and therefore that any improvements in the profesional preparation of teachers, including those who teach English and other second languages, need to be informed by this research, ‘To explore this idea ofthe hidden side of teaching, the argument examines two main sacio-cognitive processes, One involves the developmental question fof how individuals learn to teach; the other involves the epistemological question of how teachers know what they know to do what they do. Thus the former guestion examines what is known as teacher Jeara~ ing (Kennedy 1993), while the fater probes what is termed teacher knowledge (Ball 2000). Cleatly these two areas of research ae interrelated and inform fone another: In fact, one might well argue that itis difficult to conceptualize how teachers learn without some notion of what itis they are learaing; ehus that the process and it focus oF object are mutvally defin- ing (Darling-Hammond & Sykes 2000), "This paper wat peepated with support fom the Teacher Knowledge Project at the School for Internation Trine wt eda/Qkp>. The author hanks tW0 akonymous ee err for thei comment, responce to which have hopetly sucngthened the pape Fin ths paper I ue the phe “Engh Inguage eaching’ ot (ELD) 10 fe tothe teaching of Engh a second, additonal for forig language, known inthe US 28 TESOL. i recognize thatthe phase ELT 33 bit problematic in thi che Urited Siac canbe tke oer to Engl 8 mother tongue ofr langage imrction (anguage ara), while in Europe i would sem t bs more accurately pled ia thi cae Lang Tech 35,113, OK 101017/8096444801001720- Prine in the Unt Kingdom © 202 Cambridge Une Pes 1Teacher knowledge and learning to teach Ina sense then, the paper isa sort of conversation. One side draws on developments in the study of teacher learning and teacher knowledge in general educational esearch, primarily in the north American context, The other side of the conversation counter~ poses samples of parallel concerns in the field of English language teaching (ELT). Like any undertak- ing of this kind, which seeks to elaborate relationships among various types of research and thinking and to draw connections, there are bound to be shoetcom= ings, Some readers may find errors of omission, work that they feel should have been included. Others may ‘question the specificity of focus, wondering about langer trends in social history and politcal analysis that clearly shape education but that are not mentioned haere In spite of these concerns, I hope that the con- versation developed here between a set of concerns in general education research and parallel sues in ELT teacher education will bezetr both area of Work, The staring point for this conversation reaches back to when the fact that teachers’ mental activity right shape their classroom practice was not taken as a given. In fact, it was only in 1977, in an article in the (Cambridge Jourtal of Education titled ‘Decision and pe ception: New constructs for research on teaching cffects, that Walberg coined the phrase ‘teachers’ men- tal lives’. In writing about teachers’ decision-making and perceptions of teaching and learning, he opened up the broad, then uncharted, domain. of teacher thinking in which these constructs might be found, A ‘quarter of a century later, however, the political and social discourse about education in the media and among the general public continues to concentrate on the publicly accessible, behavioural aspects of teaching and to oveelook the existence — let alone the critical Jimportamce — of teacher thinking and'teachers' mental lives'in shaping effective teaching and learning. This paper takes this notion of ‘teachers’ mental lives’ as a starting point for an analysis of teacher Tearning. It examines how notions of thinking and learning have evolved through research over the last ‘quarter of a century The analysis begins by making a cease for the 1970s asa starting point for this review, The argument itself is then organized around four major themes (in bold):The first theme, how teach= ers learn content and teaching practices, exam- ines the definition ofthe teacher learning proces itself and how understanding of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of that learning process has evolved. The second theme addresses the nocion of thought in teachers’ work and how teachers’ mental processes are con- ‘ceived. The third theme, the role of prior know! ‘edge, probes what teachers bring to the learning process. And the fourth theme, the role of social and institutional context in learning to teach, examines how setting in both a social and physical sense shapes how teachers learn and what they know. The final section outlines the implications of these four themes for second language teacher education. a Il A starting point Any endeavor of this nature has to establish a logical starting point.To some degree, that sarting point will always be arbitrary; however, there should be some declared logic to it. In this review, { argue for the decade of the 1970s as an appropriate marker since it lagged a critical turning point in how teachers were viewed in the research literature, In many ways, this period marked a shift in the plate tectonics of educa tional research and policy and how caching, learn ing, and schools were conceived in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In the United States, for example, several national reports led to increasing Interest and concern over school effectiveness and how teaching could be improved (e.g., NIE 1975). ‘Agpizst what had been the predominant paradigm of process-product research in the study of education (Dunkin & Biddle 1974), many began to question whether the complexity of teaching and learning could be understood fom a behavioural standpoint alone and whether the core notion of teaching. as transmission was a workable one. ‘When couched within a transmission model, the process-product paradigm examined teaching in terms of the learning outcomes it produced, Procest- product studies concentrated on the link, which was fofien assumed to be causal, between the teacher’ actions and the students’ mental processes. As a clastic statement ofthis view put it “The sswmnpion was made that diferences among teachers in how they ongaive inaction, in the medhods and materials they we and in how they steract wit pups would have ere tent effts on hot much children lesrned.(WeDonald& Eat 1976, quoted in Shaman 1986, 10) In process-product research, the aim was to under- stand how teachers’ actions fed ~ or did not lead - 10 student learning, Studies of patterns in classroom, questioning provide a clear instance of such research (Gee Rowe 1974), Wait time’ research Jed to impor ‘ant insights into how timing and the complexity of teacher questions influenced student responses. However, as Carlsen (1991) points out in his review of this research, the roe of the texcher’ thinking and her mental procesies in such behaviours was notably absent, Further, Carlen argues that when wait ime rescarch expanded to include examination of why the teacher posed the questions she did, why she addressed particular students, and how the questions fit within the flow of the lesson and curriculum, 3 ‘more complex and textured picture emerged. ‘The move towards more qualitative or hermeneu- tic studies of teaching and learning, studies that examined how the teacher's mental processes might shape her actions in teaching, depended on several crucial redefinitions. One entailed 2 shift in how teachers were viewed sociopolitically, that they, and rot simply their behaviours in classtooms, weredefined as central in teaching, In ths light, for exam- ple, itis perhaps significant that a leading book that helped to popularize this embedded view of teach- cers’ work was Sylvia Ashton-Warner’ Teche, frst published in 1979. The second major shift, which is perhaps more important to this review, required a conceptual and research agenda that would define “veachers’ mental lives’. In a sense, the central ques- sion became of what are these lives comprised? Four publications provided useful markers of the initiation of this focus on ceachers’ mental lives. Two high-profile research zeports, one which appeared in the United States in 1975 fiom the National Institutes ‘of Education (NIE 1975) and the other released the same year in England by the Social Sciences Research, Council (Sutcliffe 1977) both argued for understand ing teaching through the lens of what was called “clini~ cal decision making’. They argued for the notion of ‘decision’ as a way to elaborate, and even in a sense 10 ‘quantify, ceachers’ mental lives, point [ will turn to below. Two books also appeared in the same period that were to become highly influential in education, In 1968, Philip Jackson published Life in clasrooms, and in 1975 Schookacher a socologial study, Dan Lortie’s path-breaking study of teachers’ work, was released, Both writers argued for re-centring educational research on teachers’ experiences in the classroom, Tortie made the case in his Preface: Ie is widely conceded thatthe core wanactions of forma ede tion take place whete teachers and acedents meet Amo every ‘School practioner bor wat a clsoom teacher eaching i he tot sates of educational practice. -- hough boas and arcs ‘uct eaches on how they Shaldbchave a leone ‘Sof techng work ~ ad th ook odie whos hook = are ‘ae emphasis aed} (1975, i) ‘These publications were examples of the public sign post of shifing definition of teachers work at leat Within the educational research community. The focus was moving fom teacher behaviours towards 2s examination of thei thinking and experience. This, review centres, then, on the question of how this view of teachers and teaching has evolved since the mid 1970s, Using the organizing metaphor of what Walberg (1977) called “teachers! mental lives? the review examines the major stages inthis journey that has combined pursuit of profesional epistemology with the establishment of psychologically complex identity How have we come to understand the learn ing and the knowledge tha go into making teachers! mental lives? And what might such inguiries suggest for teacher education in Second language education? I, Organizing the review: Four themes and three time periods To examine these questions, this analsis is organized around four themes that together map out the devel- ‘opment of such research: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach © How do teichers learn content and teaching practices? + How are teachers" mental processes conceived? * What is the role of prior knowledge in lexrning toteach? © What is the role of social and insti context in learningto teach? Like any set ofa priri organizers, they may be some~ what arbitrary. However, I would argue that these themes make certain intuitive sense in that each one ‘builds on the one that precedes it to evolve a more complex, socially and institutionally situated view of teacher learning and knowledge. The first theme begins with the content and tsching practices; these speak to the objects of teacher learning and thinking: the what and the haw in learning © teach. Then, sven these objects, the second theme addresses how ‘cacher thinking itself is defined, and how the thought proces involved are conceived. his discussion leads to the third theme, and the question of how teachers’ ‘past experiences interacts with their present think- ing, or the role of grioe knowledge. The fourth theme examines how context ~ in a social and physical sense ~ shapes teacher® fesrning and their thinking, While other analyses might map out the research landscape dilerently, these four themes suggest a logical way to organize this burgeoning literature in response to the overarching question: How hs our view of teacher learning and knowledge evalved in the st quarter oxtary and whut implications does that have for second teacher telucation? In focusing on work since the mid 1970s, | have subdivided the period into three broad time fames: work leading up to 1975, which I term ‘the decade of change’ (1980-1990), and then ‘the decade of consoli~ dation’ (1999-2000). Together these three time peri~ ods and the four themes create a matrix that can serve to organize the discussion. (See p. 4.) Following this review, the concluding section of the paper addresses how this research might shape work in Second language teacher education. Ultimately his paper has the pragmatic intent of making suggestions to improve the practices of teacher education based ‘on what we know about how terchers learn and how their knowledge is formed. Thus in conclusion, T comment on the implications of these themes for hhow we understand the role and potential impacts of teacher education an learning to teach, IV. The status quo ante-The period leading up to the mid 1970s To puc the matter perhaps overly simply, prior to the rid 1970s, teachers were generally not seen as having ‘mental lives’ to. use Walberg’ phase. Policy and research in education drew strongly on the process product paradigm, as outlined in section II, Content vwas separated from teaching processes so that che 3Teacher knowledge and learning to teach Shifting frames in understanding: 25 years of research on learning to teach - DECADES - ‘The decade ‘The decade of Leading up of change consolidation to 1975 (1980-1990) (1990-2000) T] Content 11 |_ Teaching practices | Thought processes M| Prior knowledge E | Context: clessroom/ school/ communi a ty ‘whit and the how of teaching fll into neat, hermetic categories, each with its own set of discipline derived definitions. Learning to teach involved mas- tering the specific content one was to teach and separately mastering methodologies for conveying that content to learners. These methodologies were ‘often bolstered by theories of learning. The field of English and foreign language teaching offers us a clear picture of the evolution and continuity of this view. In the cate ofthis field, the form of language as the content of second/foreign language instruction has been defined by applied linguistics, while the notion of cultura content and knowledge has largely replaced literature in defining the ‘content’ of lan- guage use in classroom settings (viz, Kramsch & Kramsch 2000), Likewise, the currency of teaching, ‘methodologies has undergone periodic shifs in this century as definitions of good methodological prac- tice’ in English and foreign language teaching have moved fiom grammar translation, to the direct ‘method, to audiolingualism, to communicative lan- guage teaching (eg., Richards & Rodgers 2000) Throughout this evolution, cognitive psychology, and more recently second language acquisition, have provided theoretical and empirical input into the direction of these methodological movements (viz. Byrnes 2000). Tin English and foreign language teaching, learning to teach has been langely viewed as 2 zuater of mas- tering conteat on the linguistic and meta-linguistic levels, practising classroom methodologies and tech= nique, and learning theoretical rationales for chem. This view, which derives fom the process-product paradigm (Gee Chaudron 1988), is supported by a network of key assumptions about how to organize and teach language at knowledge. The structure of the university, for example, organizes knowledge according to academic disciplines that in turn have given rise co the various subject-matters now used in 4 professional preparation (Freeman 1998; Shulman 1988). Similarly, the professionalization of teaching. has needed to define a knowledge-base upon which to predicate policy actions such as teacher licensure for example, These efforts have required some sort of fixed categories of content and process by which to assess what teachers know and can do (McKeon 2001; Labaree 1992) These two epistemological forces of university structure and professionalization blend with a third force, the social organization in schools, 0 farther shape the structure of teachers" professional know!- edge. Since the early 1900s, schooling in industrial- ined societies has increasingly drawn distinctions between clementary and secondary teaching (Tyack 1974). Elementary teachers ae responsible for teach- ing most subjects to one group of learners; they are in effect seen as teaching children first and content second. In secondary schools, the reverse is true. Teachers are usually organized into departments math, history, natural sciences, foreign languages — ‘while students cizculate from classroom to hborstory to study with them (Tyack & Tobin 1994). Thus at the secondary level, the subject matter is the primary ‘organizer in the social organization of schools These various forces of delivery and use of knowl- ledge ~ the steucture of the university zhe profession alization of teaching, and the social organization of schooling, along with others ~ underscore the perva~ siveness of the view in education in which content and process are treated as separate and combinatory clements in learning to teach. By-in-lage, content is seen as.a fixed, even permanent set of concepts to be learned and mastered by the teacher-to-be. In contrast, teaching processes ~ such as methods, activities, nd techniques ~ are seen as the packaging for content. These proceses ate the ways in which ‘good’ teachers adjust the content for learners “Good! teaching conveys the same content to diverseTeacher knowledge and learning to teach learners such that, should the learners not learn, the shortcoming is generally seen as lying in the teaching proceses and, by extension, in the teachers competence. There is thus an on-going and dynamic tension between the fixed value of the content knowledge and the local, contextual adjustment of teaching practices that the teacher must learn to navigate. Tn the esearch and thinking leading up to the mid 1970s, the teacher, then, was Viewed 383 doer, as an implementer of ather people’ ideas ~ about curticu~ lum, methodology, and even about how students learned. Ifthere was no “mental life! then there could be few ~ if any ~ thought processes to support this doing of teaching, Further in keeping with ths view, new teachers were scen to enter profesional taining tabula rsa, with no prior knowledge of teaching oF the teacher’ role Background, experience, and social context were all overlooked a potential influences on how new teachers formed knowledge in their profesional education. It followed, then, that context twas seen a8 a backdrop. Classrooms and schools were simply settings in which teachers implemented the thinking of others. New teachers ‘put their taining into practice’ in the clsstoom. At the chalice, experienced teachers implemented curricula. and teaching methods so 3s to enhance student learning “ackson’ study of elementary schoo!s, Li in lss- roam published in 1968, offers a glimpse of how teacher thinking was viewed in the period leading up to 1975. His description echoes the norms of the day, norms that projected assumptions about stability, familirity and predictability on to classroom lif. “ickson (1968, 7) observed, "Not only is the chs zoom a relatively stable physical environment, it also provides a fairly constant socal context. Behind the fame old desk sit the same old students, in font of the familiar blackboard stands the failiar teacher. His comment captures the dilemma of proces product research in studying and understanding teachers and teaching from the outside in. Every- thing external ~ the classroom, the teachers and students actions — all look very familiar There appears to be great regularity in the publicly visible world of teaching. Pechaps for that reason, the teacher’ inteenal mental world was assumed £0 be minimally sophisticated as well. Noting the ‘absence of technical terms in teaches’ tlk, Jackson (1968, 144) commented Not only do teachers avoid clabo- rate words, they also scem to shun elaborate ides V. The decade of change - 1980-1990 While the 1970s marked a turning point in how reseatch conceived of teachers and their mental lives, > While published in 1968, the fl influence of eon book took root in the eal 1970s ence its inclusion athe argument for the 1970s athe toring point in conceptualizing teacher! work the years from 1980 to 1990 marked a full decade of cchange and reconceptualization. Concepts that are now taken for granted ~ such as teaching as decision- ‘making or the role of beliefs and assumptions in teaching, the notions of the ‘hidden’ pedagogy and curriculum or the ‘apprenticeship of observation’, of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ ~ were all spawned and took root during this time, The challenge of the decade was in fact twofold: teachers’ work and their ‘mental lives had to be repositioned in the study of teaching and, simultaneously, different research ‘methodologies needed to evolve and be adopted to ddo so. In other words, it was a challenge of whe to Took as well as one of haw to look. In the proceedings of the first meeting of the International Study Astociation of Teacher Thinking, held in 1983, Hawkes and Olson (1984, 1) wrote with great bravado and excitement of this time of reconceptualization: Looking fom a eacher-shinking perspective at ceaching and learing: one i not 30 much sing forthe diloure of te sffecive teacher, but fr the explanation and understanding of teaching proceses as they are. Af all the teachers subyee- tive schooerated knowledge which determines for he most pare what happens in the clusoom; whether the teacher an rcalste hers knowledge or not fori emphas Comparing this new interpretative approach to its antecedents in process-product research, they con chided, Instead of reducing the complexities of teaching-learning situations to a few manageable research vaviables, one tries to find out how teachers cope with these’ complexities’ (1984, 1). Studying teicher’ “subjective school-rehted” knowledge required some sort of unit of analysis, which became the notion of decisions "The central, and arguably the most influential, concept to emerge in the study of teacher thinking a the 1970s was tha of decision-making (Shavelion & Stern 1981), Interestingly, the notion of peda~ gical decisions seems to have found is way nto educational research from work on physicians’ decision-making in clinical setings (see NIE 1975). While equating the mental work of doctoring with that of teaching has definite political overtones (Labaree 1982), defining teachers’ mental lives in terms of decisions they make created an easy, almost quasi-behavioural, unit of analysis that could be applied across multiple clasroom settings, content ateas, and levels of teaching expertise. Pethaps the first major appearance of the concept in ELT came in Devon Woods’ work (Woods 1989). Connecting decision-making to other mental activity, Johnson (1995, 33) describes ‘teachers’ theoretical belief a Glkers through [which they] make instructional judgments and decisions’. Further in her book, Un © teaching: Reasoning in acon, Johnson (1999) extends this analysis to provide a very useful overview of how the concept of deci 5Teacher knowledge and learning to teach sion-making has developed in ELT and been linked to other ideas such as pedagogical judgments, beliefs, and knowledge structures, ‘While throughout the 1980s teachers’ decision making came to provide a discrete unit of analysis, the study of teachers’ mental lives sill required a broader shift in the educational research paradigm. ‘The new interpretative paradigm, however, requited new skill and theory. These were largely imported fom field work in anthropology and sociology with the widespread development of ethnographic studies in education as, for example, with Shirley Brice Heath’ 1983 pivotal study, Ways with woeds: Language in axmmunikes and chssrooms This grounded, field- based, interpretative work revealed that content and teaching processes were far more integrated than had been heretofore accepted. The integration worked ‘on two levels, There was what might be called an “internal integration’ in which content and teaching. process were seen 2s intimately connected, and there ‘as likewise an ‘external integration’ of content and teaching process within the social fibric of'communi- ties and classrooms. Studies ofthis internal integration ‘of content and teaching process generally focused, Quite logically, on the role of language as the glue in instruction, as in Edwards and Furlong’ study The ln~ gmge of aching: Meaning in chsoom intercon (1978) or Mehan’s work with Cazden in Learning lesons (1979). External integration looked at how class= room practices linked (0, or were disconnected from, the ways in which such skils or knowledge worked in the community, as with Heath study of sehool- community links in literacy practices, for example ‘The notion of this internal integration of content and teaching processes via language of instruction fed the evolution of two constructs: Shulman’ (1987) proposal of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ and Clandinin’ (1985) notion of teachers’ images’. Pedagogical content knowledge, or PCK as it came to be known 2s, argued that teachers operate from a form of knowledge that derives from neither disci- pline-based content nor training, based pedagogy, but 1s a hybrid of the ewo, Grossman, in her case study of a high school English teacher tided, The making of tachs, explained PCK in the following way “Teachers must draw upon both their knowledge of subject matter to select appropriate topics and their knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and con ceptions to formulate appropriate and provocative representations of the content to be learned’ (1990, 8).The place of language in setting up and working ‘with these representations is clearly central. The teacher engages her students, and the students engage ‘one another, with the content of the lesson through Ianguage. Thus the teacher’ PCK on which that ‘engagement is based, or perhaps which that engage ment expresses in practice, is a highly linguistic undertaking, When applied to language as subj matter however, PCK becomes a messy and possibly 6 unworkable concept. Using Grossman’ definition, for inance, teachers’ knowledge of subject-matter ‘would probably be defined in linguistic terms, while students’ prior knowledge and conceptions of lan- guage likely tem ffom their Sst language. Further, teacher and student conceptions meet in the second language classroom, through a mixtuze of fist and second languages, thus setting up at least dice, potentially conficting, levels of representation: the teacher’ linguistic knowledge, the students’ fist lane guage background, and the classroom language iter- Arguing fora dstnet form of tachers' knowledge similar to PCK, Elbsz (1983) and Clandinin (1983) ssid that teachers work from what they called "per- sonal, practical Knowledge’ in teaching. Clandinin defined such Knowledge as “imbued with all the ‘experiences that make up a person’ being... [tis] derived from, and understood in terms of, 3 person's experiential history, both personal and profesionst (1985, 362). Clandinin and her colleagues chimed that teachers enace thei “personal, practical know ‘edge’ 25 narrative “images in claitoom teachin these images integrate personal history, present act ity,and fature goals ineo one seamles continuity Interestingly, about five years later, When such research was filly underway, Shulman chaired a colloquium atthe 1992 American Educational Research Association titled, PCK —A concept that is vsefally wrong” In reviewing the veritable cottage industey of research spawned by the concept the set sion addressed the fact that, while PCK jad helped to refocus both research and teacher education on the kinds of knowledge and know-how that teachers actually use in their classroom practices, as an episte~ rmological concept it was seriously flawed. None- theless progress had been made. It had become accepted that teaching involved the teacher in com= plex thought processes In contrast to the tacher as dcr, the teacher was now lazgely seen 25 ‘knowing what to do’ (Freeman 1996a). This view rested on 2 complicated mental if the core of which was vari- ously described as ‘decision-making’ (Shulman and Eben 1975), as belief, prinipls, and assumptions (Panjes 1992), or 25 ‘personal, practical knowledge’ (Elba 1983) This complenification of thought was accompa- nied by a reasessment ofthe role of prior knowledge in teacher learning, If, 3s Clandinin had said, teach cers’ knowledge encompassed the sum total oftheir personal and professional experiences, then clearly that background must somehow interact with ~ and potentially shape ~ any new learning teachers might do, Writing i 1991, at the end of this decade of change, Kennedy (1991, 2) argued the isue quite succinctly: “Teachers, like other learners, interpret new content through their existing understandings, and modify and reinterpret new ideas on the basis of ‘what they already know and believe". Kennedy wasreferring here to the findings of Teacher Education and Learning toTeach Studies (TELT),a massive set of lon- gitudinal examinations that probed the influences of teacher education on learning to teach. TELT was conducted in the late 1980s by the US. National ‘Center for Research on Teacher Learning at Michigan State University, which Kennedy directed. ‘Two concepts, perhaps mote than others, helped to ditect this thinking about how teachers’ prior knowledge shapes their professional learning. The first came from seminal thinker, educational sociolo- gist Danie) Lortie i his notion of the ‘apprenticeship of observation’. Here Lortie referred to the 13 or so years that individuals spend observing teachers and participating in classrooms as students (Lortie 1975). Researching this concept in English and foreign lan- ‘guage teaching two decades later, in 1995, Bailey and her colleagues found that such experiences created ‘what they called a ‘teacher factor’, which they described as ‘the ‘good’ and ‘bad? ceiching models (which were evident in our histories. It became clear) they continued, ‘that the teacher factor in general was mote important to us as Tearners than were the materials or methodology pers’ (Bailey ct al. 1996, 15) ‘The second concept was Denscombe'’s notion of | ‘hidden pedagogy’ that he described as teachers’ implicit theories about 'what the job Jof teaching} is al} about’ (1982, 251). This pedagogy, Denscombe contended, may do’ more than any professional preparation to shape how individuals actually teach. Thus the role of prior knowledge was catapulted from the insignificance of a bul isa view to the centrality of an internal guiding force or ‘hidden pedagogy’. Its interesting to note a further connec~ tion here. Denscombe taced the genesis of his thinking about ‘hidden pedagogy” back to the notion ofa hidden curriculum’ in Jackson’ Lien clssrooms Jackson had argued that this ‘hidden curriculum’ accounts for the replication of socialization in schools by placing demands on students and teachers that may conflict with the demands of the explicit curriculum, While the notion of prior knowledge created a history to the teacher’ present thinking and practice, projecting professional learning throughout a teacher’ career gave rise to the concept of develop- ing expertise in teaching, Prior to the work of Lortie (1975), the notion of teachers’ professional life spans had not been a major concern or focus of research. In terms of professional expertise, major research and conceptualizations by Berliner in the mid-1980s (1986) and others served to establish the concept of professional development over time, throughout a teacher’ career. This work pointed to definite stages in the development of knowledge and practice (Genburg 1992; Tsui forthcoming), that at different stages in their careers, teachers have different profes- sional interests and concerns. For example, novice Teacher knowledge and learning to teach teachers, defined as those with less than three years of clasroom experience, tended to be concerned with, carrying out their images of teaching by managing the casroom and controlling students (Berliner 1986). In contrast, expert teachers, defined in the research as those with five years or more in the class- room, tended to coneern themselves with the pur- poses and objectives of their teaching and how they ‘may be accomplishing them, Te is perhaps inevitable that this complicated tex ture of time and activity — evidenced in constructs, such as ‘hidden pedagogy or curriculum’, the ‘apprenticeship. of observation’, teachers’ ‘pertonal, Practical knowledge’ or harrative ‘images’, of PCK — implicated a more central rle for context in teacher learning and professional knowledge. These con- structs all suggest that personal and social history, present social relationships, and future social percep tions are interwoven in che fabric of teachers’ mental lives, Together these forces provide a sort of core that threads itself through the activity of teaching. Context thus becomes more than the physical space of the classroom and school in which teachers prac- tise teaching skill. It assumes a virtual dimension through the socializing power of the teachers past and present experiences and communities, From this perspective, the perceived distance between the somigtimes ivory tower worlds of professional train ing and the nitty gritty of the classroom — the old ‘Forget what you learned on that training course, this is how we do things here. — is recast. The theory practice gap is no longer an isue of lack of relevance or of faulty transfer of skills; rather it is one of con- necting and integrating the tocial contexts of profes sional education with those of the clastoom and the schoo) The 1980s were, then, a very rich and productive time for the study of teacher learning. In her article, ‘Research on teachers knowledge:The evolution of 1 discourse’, published in 1991, Elbaz summarized this decade of change, making the case that research fn teacher knowledge had evolved into the three ‘broad areas of inquiry: teacher thinking, the culture of teaching, and the persoazl, practical knowledge of teachers Elbaz 1991, 1). While these subfields might seem to have introduced greater complexity the aim of the enterprise itself — to explore and document teachers’ mental lives ~ had been sharpened. In sum- ‘marizing that aim, Elbaz (1991, 10) returned to its roots when she wrote: Students of tacher thinking have ll ice concerned o adres an imbalance which had tn the past given ws Knowledge of teaching from the outside only many have been commited return teacher the night speak for and abou teaching, ‘To examine how this ‘right’ has evolved, we turn now to the period that spans 1990 to 2000, which is represented in the third and final column of the matrix,Teacher knowledge and learning to teach In comparison co the 1980s, which had marked a decade of fundamental change in how teacher learn ing was defined and understood, the ten-year period fom 1990 to 2000 has consolidated and deepened that understanding The move away fom the pprocess-product poradigm, which had begun in 1975, became more-or-less complete. The notion of teachers’ mental lives, and indeed the concept of teacher learning itself, was firmly estblished as a ‘matter of public policy. For example, in the United States, a leading national commission argued: ‘The teacher must remain the Key. Debates over educa tional policy are moot if the primary agents of instruction are incapable of performing their func- ions well’ (NCTAF 1996, 5), Similar positions were articulated in policy documents of other national governments during this period (e.g., South Aftics: NDOE 1996; Brazil: MEC 1996) Thus there seemed to be litle disagreement about the central role chat teachers must play in under standing teaching, whether for tke purposes of research of of improvement and reform. The notion sat teachers possess access to unique knowledge about teaching became increasingly widespread. In English and foreign language teaching, this idea of examining ceaching in its own right came into its ‘own in this decade from 1990 to 2000. In retrospect, the tnjectory was a logical one, Throughout the 1980s, there had been increasing interest in the nature of teacher fearning in the field of English lan- guage teaching (ELT), concerns that took root in second language teacher education on the one hand and in teacher development on the other. Two important markers of that movement to ‘examine second teacher learning in Second language teacher education involved professional associations, the International Association of Teachers of English 36 2 Foreign Language (IATEFL) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and the publication of a collection of professional work on the topic, In the late 1980s the Teacher Development Special Interest Group (SIG) was organized within IATEFL, following by a couple of yeats the forma- tion of a similar group, the Teacher Educzdion Interest Section, within TESOL. Both groups flour- ished in che early 1990s, providing the first marker of the central interest in teacher learning. In its frst newsletter published in 1986, the new IATEFL SIG outlined the following goal as a selFarticulated comnitment to teacher learning: ‘To enable and encourage all categories of teacher to take more responsibility for professional and personal evolution throughout their careers", This emic concern by teachers for their own professional learning and improvement was accompanied by a second marker which came in 1990, when Richards and Nunan 8 published their edited volume titled, Second lnguage teacher educiton, In the Preface, the editors stated che purpose of the book as follows:"The field of teacher ‘education is a relatively under explored one in both second and foreign language teaching. The literature fn teacher education in fanguage teaching is sight compared with the literature on isues such as meth- ods and techniques for classroom teaching’ (Richards & Nunan 1990, x). An interesting complementarity of concern emerges when these two events are considered side by-side. Elbaz might have argued that Richards and ‘Nunan were seeking to provide ‘koowledge of teach- ing fom the ouside’, while the IATEFL Teacher Development SIG would encourage ‘teachers t0 speak for and about teaching’. However, both efforts shared a common focus on teacher learning in English and foreign language teaching. For either undertaking, to explore teacher education of to pro- mote teacher development, one would have to delve into the nature of teacher learning. Perhaps not coin- cidentally therefore, to flame and support such work in English and foreign language teaching, the profes- sion has turned to patallel work in general education. ‘What has happened in this decade co promote this synthesis and consolidation? On a macro-level, research orientations had shifted and the interpreta tive paradigm moved towards 2 post-modern per- spective that asserts that any knowledge depends on a plurality of views, eflecs a relativity of position in establishing those views, and can be promoted or ‘silenced’ depending on how power is used. Johnston (1999, 261-262) offers a succinct summaty of the key themes that make up this often thorny and com- plex term: Within educational research, ‘postmodern’ at concerned il with the nate of power im eduction inition (ax ait in ewhich tha Been congivent with ria theory), with the struggle 10 hae diverse voices sa the @dveonal proces, ‘specally thowe of tadizonaly marginalized and deempovered troup: with the conta of language (agnararz) and he Hes that all expeesion is simulaneouay iterpetaon; with the death of the subject andthe subsequent appraisal of unitary ‘dstuble ident and with dhe cregue of previously unchal- Jenged assumptions undelyng educational practices For the field of English and foreign language teach- ing, postmodernist arguments can be disquieting cones. In comparing the itinerant, expatriate EFL teacher to 2 medieval paladin, Johnston observes: “The laudable goal of teaching a language while learning about another culture at frst sts uneasily, Dut inevitably, alongside the language teacher's mpi cation in the hegemonic and predatory power rela- tions berween English-speaking and non-English speaking countries’, The field has, for example, gen~ erally treated English as the content of teaching and textbooks as fairly benign representations of that content. In this largely technicist approach, EFL teachers teach the language, while the learnersa decide what they will do. with i, Postmodernism calls that neutrality into question, however. Given the postmodern frame, itis thus not sur- prising that our understanding of how content zad teaching processes interrelate has changed 28 well Challenging the separation of content and how itis taught, McDiarmid and his colleagues (1989) argued at the start of the decade for what they called "sub- Ject-matter representation’. Subject-materreprsen= dation mediates beoween how the teacher conceives of, and represents, content to students and how they conceive of, and learn, that content. Cleary this concept, which is anchored in the logocentrism of postmodernism, is well suited to language a subject- ‘matter and to English and foreign language teaching Writing about the process of course design, Graves (2000, 43) describes a version of subject-mater representation this way ‘When you think abou dhe costet of scouts, you an think aout Both whe starts wil ear and ay they wil lat i For example in a wlting cout, the what and the at are lnternrined. You may coneeptalze the content in terms of types of writing dey wil lar, but learning how to produce ‘howe ype of wing nvoves the acl proces of ring In fact, concern for subject-matter representation, or redefining how content and teaching processes fit together in the language classroom, has been a cen- tral concern for English and forsign language teach- ing in this decade. Two prominent examples include the process syllabus (e., Breen & Littlejohn 2000)* and learning styles (Oxford 1990), for example, Each fof these concepts blend’ content and teaching process in versions of subject-matter representation in English and foreign language teaching. The process syllabus, for example, includes processes for obtaining and managing learners’ input about the ‘course content as part of the subject matter. Thus Tearners can, to various degrees, structure both what content they learn and how they learn it In a similar vein, earning-styles pedagogy includes the learners’ various ways of learning content as explicit and articulated parts of the course conent. Thus in both instances, the what of instruction is expanded from language perse to encompass the how of learning the language. ‘With both the process syllabus and learning-styles pedagogy, as with work on subject-matter represen- fation generally, the boundaries of content and teaching process become blurred, No longer ate ‘what and how seen as separable elements to be combined in classtoom delivery. Further, concepts of personal, practical knowledge and PCK that evolved “While work on the process of procedural yabus dates the rmid-198D5 (ey, Breen, 1984; Prabho, 1967), seem to hare teen more curtiule Hn foc. fi intercing 0 note fo this aml fs re-intodction and expt conneeton to teaches" ‘ection-making in Breen & dejo (200) Teacher knowledge and learning to teach ring the 1980s erated a new hybrid form of class- room knowledge on which to base teaching. How- ever, subject-matter representation goes beyond this synthetic hybrid to confound the basic binary struc ture of content and process, creating a different per- spective that has definite implications for educating language teachers In the postmodern worldview, litle is fixed or permanent, For the teacher, thought processes depend on point of view, of position, Thinking reflects social identity ~ who you are, your back= ground and experience, your purposes, and your Social context, Researchers in this decade have referred to this relativity as'postionality of knowing” (eg.,Britzman 1991; Belenky etal. 1986). In terms of English language teaching, Johnston details this posi tionality in terms of what he cals the marginality’ of ESL/EFL a5 a ‘postmodern profession’. He writes that ESL/EFL teaching is 2 marginal occupation... n academe terms [because it cu piel] a ildfind pce amid linguities, edeston, Engl Bnd a host of othe dsaplines such psychology sociology, and Anthropology: In is daly practices, [ESL/EFL tenching]® con- ducted by defititon atthe meeting pon betwee co OF mote cules and overs very extence to difeence and t ongoing, ontact between cull Others ton 199,276) Within the postmodern fame, because thinking and knowledge are relative to the person, it follows ‘hat different people will think (and know) the same things differently Thus, the argument goes, a teacher will think about and know her teaching and her classroom differently foom a non-teacher who spends time there, regardless of the parity, care, and thor oughness thatthe outsider may investin the research process. Part of the challenge is that knowledge ia the classroom is widely networked; it brings cogether past experience and future goals within the context ff present activity and interaction. This quality has bbeen referred to as the narrative or storied character of teachers’ knowledge (Carter 1993) This blending past and present raises the issue of how prior knowledge fits into this new landscape, Previous views saw prior knowledge as what teach- crs knew beiae they entered professional training (as in pre-service teacher education PRESET) or the classroom. Thus prior knowledge was an entity that needed to be integrated into the teacher candidate's present thinking and knowledge. Under the indi fence of postmedernisma, and the positionality of knowing, that view changed. In effect, prior knowl- edge ~ the past ~ becomes one more vantage point fon curtent activity: it becomes one more position from which to know. In her work on classroom dis. coarse, drawing on the work of Basi Berstein and others’ in language education, Courtney Cazden (1988) made the point that there are two sets of cons text: che public contexts among teachers and stu dents which shape classroom talk and who says what 9Teacher knowledge and learning to teach to whom and how, and there are also what Cazden referred to as the ‘contexts of the mind’, These ‘con- texts of the mind” shape how interlocucors know what to say, what is acceptable or taboo, and so on. They provide the private interpretative maps from which’ individuals navigate the public interaction. ‘Thus inappropriate language behaviour may well be 4 function of the speaker not having the appropriate “context ofthe mind’ for the public seting Clearly there is no single ‘context of the mind” ‘These interpretative fees are multiple and overlap ping. Bringing this work into teaching, as [ have ‘done, consider the following. In a class discussion for Instance, a teenage student talks abour an argument ‘with his parents. The teacher can hear what he sys within the ‘context of the mind’ of the teacher: She can listen for fluency and accuracy of expression and language mistakes. But she can simultaneously listen fiom che mental context of an adult or parent, hear- ing perhaps the other side of the argument. And she can listen ffom the mental context of a former teenager, hearing perhaps the injustice of the situa- tion. These contexts are embedded within one another like so many boxes. Taken together, they create a complex interpretative frame through which the teacher makes sense of her work From a teacher-education standpoint therefore, the teacher learner’ contexts of mind provide a meeting point between prior knowledge, as life history, Back- ‘ground, social position, experience and so 97, and the present experience and inveraction of the teacher education activity or course. Thus, for example, a acher-training course that emphasizes student-cen~ tred, communicative strategies may conflict with the prior knowledge and contexts of mind of teacher participants from national settings and educational ‘cultures that emphasize the central authority of the teacher. To address this dleraena, Bax (1997) and oth- ers have called for ‘context-rensitve’ teacher educa tion practices that they define as ‘involving trainees in ways that would ensure that che programme has as close a bearing as possible to their teaching concerns and contexts’ (Bax 1997, 233). One might argue, however, that this type of mediation and adjustment between trainee and taser happens anyway all the time, and that context-sensitive strategies simply offer a means of trying to make visible and active a part of the teachereducation activity that is usually hidden and covert ‘When teacher learning is seen as negotiating iden— tity and positioning knowledge, the notion of con- text in its conventional sense disappears. Interaction is no Jenger considered central, with all the trappings ‘hat surround it labeled as context”. Rather there are different, embedded ffames of meaning which pro- vide interrelated ‘texts’ or sources of meaning. Each ‘of these texts hinges on difference, providing a mildly ‘or strongly contrasting source of interpretation. If we consider the previous example of the teacher and the 10 teenage student fr example, having acces to multi~ ple ways of hearing the stadent’s comments, on what bass will the teacher detecmine her response? She ‘may hear the student as a teacher because the activity is prep for an oral exam, Or she may hear him a8 8 adult, bcause he has not spoken up in clas discus- sions before. She may actully do both and her public response will blend the two frames, And if 3 researcher were to observe the whole interaction and ask the teacher why she had responded as she di, her answer would no doub take into account posi- tionality and would come in part as a function of who the researcher was and the question chat had bbeen asked. Thus whst had been called teacher ‘deci- sion-making’ the 1980s becomes a complex, con- Singent, and amorphous set of relationships among meaning, context of the mind, and public activity Pennycook (1999, 337) ‘argues that teachers responses to difference lie a the core of the transfor- ative or ‘critical’ approaches to clastoom caching He distinguishes between che frst which ‘hinges on whether eschers see their pedagogical goal primari= ly as giving marginalized stadents accesso the main~ stream .,. of a tying co transform the mainstream bby. placing greater emphasis on inclusivity’ Pennycook refers to the frst approach as creating ‘access’ and the second as creating transformation’ Inerestingly, Johnston (1999) seems to be arguing that the BFL teacher is cast— oF casts him or herself 2s ‘postmodern paladin’ by seeking to create acces for students to English language and asociated cul- ture(s). In drawing the parallel, he observes that "While the paladins were not themselves colonizers or missionaries .. they acted as de ftp representa tives of colonizing powers such as church and nation” onscon 1999, 259). In contest, Bax (1997) appears to favour Pennycook’s transformative approach by stguing for greater inclusion of trainees’ teaching concems and context. 1k may be ironic that a decade of consolidation seems to have brought more complexity than carty o our understanding of teacher learning. The world ‘of research and practice was probably simpler and more ordered in good old days when public actions were what mattered and mental lives were les of a concern. Thus iis fair to ask what ll this complexity has gained us. 1 would argue that thee ate a feast three principal advantages. Firs ete are now more legitimate voices with acces to and thus the possbili- «y to tansform the conversation about teaching and learning. "To retuen to teachers the right to speak for and about teaching’, as Elbaz put it in 1991, has brought teachers into the research process which is étitcal 10 profesionalization. Second, those voices can raise ishes of complexity and messines in under standing teaching. It may have been easier to think of the world as dat, 35 we did in the 13th centary or the ‘arth asthe centze ofthe solar system, bu the implicit simplicity of either holding did not make itso. TheTeacher knowledge and learning to teach sume isthe case with understanding teaching. While ‘we might arrive at crudely accurate maps of teaching by studying it fom the outside in, we will not grasp what is truly happening until che people who are doing it articulate what they understand aboutit. Third, the consolidation has led and is leading to power-sharing amongst rexearchers, teachers, and teacher educators. The interaction of different types of knowledge ~ ot of things known from various points of view — leads inevitably to issues of power and who is"right’.If,as I believe it wall, the next step ‘will involve a redefinition of what counts as knowl edge in the study of teaching, we will have to move fom the simple technicist answers of our current debates, to more complex and focal responses. Evidently teachers can do the job of teaching perfectly well without going public about what they are thinking and what they know. The dilemma, then, is how to engage teachers in articulating and publicly representing the complexity of teacher learning (Freeman 1998), Vil. Some implications for teacher education This review began with the question, how have we come to underand the learning ane the knowledge that go into making teaches’ ment livs? In closing [turn to a brief examination of what the responses, charted ‘over the lst two decades of research in general edu- cation, may portend for the theory and practices of preparing teachers in Second language teacher edu cation. These implications are organized into three central observations. § The aim of teacher education must be to understand experience. ‘The central challenge for teachers like any of us,is to find meaning in our experience. If teachers’ mental lives are storied or narrative webs of past and present experience, if their knowledge is reflective of their position in the activity of teaching, then it makes Sense that relective practice must become a central pillar in teacher education. The tole of external input = of theory, prescriptions, and the experiences of others ~ lies in how these can help the individual teacher to articulate her experience and thus make sense of her work. Teacher education must then serve two functions. It must teach the skills of reectivity (Stanley 1998) and it must provide the discourse and vocabulary that can serve participants in renaming. their experience (Freeman 1996b). We need t0 understand that articulation and reflection are recip- rocal processes. One needs the words to talk about what one does, and in using those words one ean see it more clearly Articulation is not about words alone, however. Skills and activity likewise provide ways through which new teachers can articulate and enact {heir images of teaching, § Teacher education will need t organize and support new relationships between new and expe! yachers. If knowledge in teaching belongs fundamentally to teachers, thew it makes sense that teachers must be able to communicate what they know about their work to those who are learning it A critical ole of new teacher education designs will be to make that happen, through well-crafted mentoring programs and similar social arrangements that connect new and experienced teachers in learning teaching across ‘career span. ‘With regard to this notion of career spans, three points bear emphasizing. First the notion that pre- service teacher education can fully equip a teacher for a career in the classroom is erroneous. This approach, which T have elsewhere referred to as ‘front-loading’ (Freeman 1994), assumes that all of ‘what teachers need to know and be able a de cin be addressed at the stare of their careers through PRE- SET. However, this assumption and approach clearly runs contrary to what is known about the role of place and time in teacher education. If contexts for any learning ate socially developed and situated, if teacher learners are bringing their contexts of mind’ to their formal learning in teacher education, then it is clear that what ig being learned challenges and transforms what is known over time, Otherwise teacher education could fully equip a first-year teacher with the knowledge and skills to lat a career, an assumption that is as patently absurd a iti, unfor~ tunately, stil widespread in practice. Second, if teacher learning and expertise evolves ia a broadly predictable and normative fishion over time, itis also leat that the ‘one-size-fits-ll’ approach in INSET is ‘equally inappropriate. Rather, it makes sense for in- service education to base offerings on choice rather than prescription and thus to present a variety of opportunities. Finally, i is important not to confuse the idea that teachers’ specific needs and interests may evolve over time with the face chat the Finda- ‘mental impulse in teacher learning remains constant: namely to find or establish meaning in their work. 5 In teacher education, context is everything, The conventional notion of comveeting. theory into practice om which most teacher education operates begs the question of context. This review has highlighted the changing view of context in research over the past 25 years, In research through the mid 1970s classrooms were seen primarily a5 sites of educational delivery. Because teachers’ practices were exentally defined as behavious context sizply supplied places for that behaviour to unfold. During the 1980s, in the so-called decade of change, teachers! "Teacher knowledge and learning to teach practices were rendered more complex as they ‘were situated in personal and institutional histories and seen as interactive (or dialogical) with others — students, parents and community members, and fel- low teachers ~ in the settings in which they unfold- ced. Thus the notion of context moved from backdrop to interlocutor in the creation and use of teachers’ knowledge. All of which raises the specific question Jn teacher education of what the role of schools can be in learning to teach, Teacher educators and researchers are now asking how schools as socio~ cultural environments mediate and transform what and how teachers learn. How can these contexts be orchestrated to support the fearning of new teachers and the transformation of experienced practitioner? Unfortunately, the vast majority of PRESET and INSET programs do not engage with these ques- sions. They continue to operate within a knowledge- transmission perspective, to be prescriptive and top- down, to use highly directive training strategies, and to then assume that any failure in che outcome must bbe the fault of the individual who is trying to learn to teach (viz. Freeman & Johnson 1998) VII. Closing ‘This paper has examined the notion of teachers’ ‘mental lives as a heuristic for the hidden side of teaching. I have tried to cteate a conversation between two perspectives: the general educational reseatch on teacher learning and teacher knowledge and examples of how that work has found its way into English language teaching, The focus, however, has always been on teacher learning and its relation, to more effective professional preparation. There is 3 widespread assumption in teacher education generale Iycas well arin ELT, that the delivery of programs and activities is the key to preparing good teachers, In this view, successful teacher education is seen a8 a by- product of capable teachers-in-training and teacher educators working in well-structured designs with good materials and activities, Underlying these aspects of delivery, however lies an assumption about the hidden side of the work. There is 2 rich, varied, and complex process of learning to teach on which teacher education must build. Focusing on this learning process, as distinct from the delivery mecha- nisms, is changing our understanding of teacher edu~ cation in important ways. Basic questions of how language teaching is learned and therefore how teacher education interventions can best be orgi- nized to support that learning will, hopefully, shape ‘our work moving forward, References ASHETON- Want, S179). Tee. NewYork: Bantam Books Bauey, K. 3 BeAcTHOLD, B. BaautsTAN, N, JACODZISL FFUSCIMAN, M. P HouskoOk, | TUMAN, X-WABSBLUTH & LJ Zauo (1996), The language leaner ausobiogephy: 2 Examining the ‘appreniesip of observation’ In Freeman, Df Richa (es). Tacha in page the NewYork: Cambridge University Pres, 11-29, ‘BAL, DL. (2000. Bring pracices:ntertwining content and Pedagogy in teaching and eamning $0 eich, otal of Tacx Edsauon, (9), 240697 Bax, S. (1997). Roles for a tacher educator in contere-sensisne teacher education ELT Jour, 51 (3), 232-4 BELENEY, M., CUNCY, N, GOLDAERGER &), TARULE (1986) “Wert ways offnoonng The devdopment ol wa, nd mind ‘Now York Basic Books ‘Binute, D. (1986) In pursuit of expert pedagogue, Educionl Resrche,15 7), 5-13 [BREEN M. (1984). Proces syabuss inthe language elsoom, "nC. Bruit (ed), Genel English sys design, Oxford Pesgimon Pres TDnEtN, M.& A. LITVLEIONN (ed) (2000). The procs obs ‘Cambridge: Cambie Univer Pes, BurTasatsD. (191) Pree make pate: Aci uly feu ngtotach, Albany. Suite Unverty of New York Pres [ByANES, H. 2000) Shaping she xcourse ofa practice The role ‘of linguists and prychology in language teaching. Maka Langone 84 (8) $729, ‘CaRTaEN, W. (1991), Questioning in casroansAsocaingust= fe penpectve RevewofBduabond Reeweh, 6 157-78 ‘Catan, (1998) The place of sory ithe study of teaching Si teacher eduction Bsions Rise. 22 (1) 5-12 18 ‘CAZDEN,C. (1988). Charvom dseouse The ngage chingand Tex, Portsmouth, NH Heineman, CCrinvonen, C. (1985) Secoad lng claroone, New York Cambridge University Pres. CCeanmiangD. (1988) Pessoal practi knowledges study of. teacher cro ies, Carn lngy, 15 (4) 361-85, DARLING HanOND,L.& G. SYRES od) 200), Taching 2a Tern prosne Hancbook of ply and pani. San Franco Josey Das Densconene, M. (1982) The hidden pedagogy and is implca- Tins for cacher taining’ An ecologies ras Beh Jota fSocelayofEdaction, 3249-65, ‘onsen, Me). & BL). BIDDLE (1974). The madly of eching. New "York Hak EDWARDS, A.D. J FURLONG (1978). The ygge of waching Meng cena racton London: Heineman naz, F (1983) Teche ding Asal of patil nos, ‘New York: Nichole Publishing uaa. F (1991), Research on teacher” knowledge: The eve hon of discourse Jounal of Carclum Sues, 2 1}. 1-1 FPaeshan, D. (1999), Knowing into doing Teacher education fe the problem of tana In D. C.'. Li, D. Mahoney, TC. Richards (es), Experi second Engage teacher deve Tae. City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Hong Kong, Teetinn, D. (1996, Redefining the elauonshp berween ‘eveatch and whit teachers know In K, Haley &D. Naan (el, aes fom the ngage claroen. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Pes, 58-115, Pascwan, Dy (906), Renaming expetience/ reconstructing Practice: Developing new andentandings of teaching. In Freman 22 Jack © Richards (ed) Teacher karing gg ttehng New Yorks Cambridge Univenity Pres, 221-4 PREbuAn D. (1998), Dang eachrsocarh: Pom sry under sang Benton: Fiine/\TP. FREEAN, D & K. E, JOHNSON (1998). Reconceptalzng the Kowledge-bae of language teacher easton, TESOL Quaredy 32 9), 397-417 CGENPUNGV (19), Pazerns and onpnining perpectivesA view of expert, Texting and eter Edn, 8 (5/6), #3596 Graves, K. @000), Desging begmge cone, Boxton eile (Gnosswan. (1990). The mung ofa the New York Teschers Coleg Pres,Hiawnrs,R & JOtsow (1984), Teche inking Anew ppecive ‘on peising joblnsin icon Lise, Nethelands Swe and Zetlinger Hie, 5 (1983), Wye wah word Lange comeunis and score. New York: Cambridge Unieraty Pw {Jeon P. (1968), Li in caeooms New York Hol, Rinehart ‘nd Wingon, ‘Jovison, KE (1995), Unset oormanicaion in scone ‘Bag cloom, New York Cambridge Unveniy Pres JONSON, KE (1999), Undensudg gag wacige Rexoing, ination Boron: Heinle/ITR Jovisron,B. (1999) The expatriate teacher x postmadern pale din Recachin aching Engh 34, 235-80, KERMEN. MC 991), A roeaeh amb on ther lamin Eat Ling Mi: Nawal Cente for esearch on Teacher Lacing KRAMSCHC, & © KRANGCH (200). The avatar of iterate language study. Man Language Journal 4 (1), 583-73. Lanake D. (1992), Knowledge, power andthe rionalation of teaching’ A genedogy ofthe movement 1 prfeusonaze teaching Hara sun Rew, 62 (2), 123-54 Lown, D. (1975) Shankecher A ack way, Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Pres MeDianoan,G. WD. BALL & C. W. ANDERSON (1985). Why ‘ying one chapter ahead doesn really work: Subjeet-specie pedagogy In M. Reynolds (ed), The owas fx been Finger. Einxfnd NY. Pergamon, 193-206 McKeon, D. (2001). Fuure peracs Lesion for 2 2Istcenary ‘TESOL, TESOL Miaten, 11), 14 Matas, H. (1979), Leaming. isons University Pres. IMixtsray OF EDUCATION AND. CULTURE (MEC}, BRAZiL (0936), Deven Edicion in ea Brass: Author. [Nariosnt Comssion! ON TEACHIMG AND AMERICA'S FUTURE [NCTAF] (196). What nanen most Techn Sor Americ age Wahington, DC: Author NaTioxst DEMIIMENT OF EDUCATION (NDOE], Rerusuc ‘oF SOU! Arca (1996), Aa agenda of passe: Naor peoy on tacher sip amon ant devebpet, Pretoria, South Aten: Author [Namoat INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (NIE] (1979) Teaching a ‘lnk problem-solving Rap of pel #6; Naked coke ‘ons in cing Washington, DC: Author. Cerons 1 (1950), Langage ering ep What eve tacke ‘Stoudinow. Boston: Newbury Hotse/ Heine atagts,F (1992). Teacher’ belie and educational earch ‘Cleaning up a mesy contract. Revew of Easton Recah 620) 307-82. CCombeidge: Hered Teacher knowledge and learning to teach ‘PRABAUNGS. (1987. Sd gage pga: Oxf: Oxfod Univer Fs Pesnycoow. A {1990).lntodcion: Crt approaches to TESOL TESOL Queiy 33 9), 32948 crak. NUNN (5) (1990), Seagal ‘chasse New rk: Canbrige Uneniy row acta C&T Ropes (000), Age mek in Tanpig echng (2nd ede). New York: Cambridge Unters hee Rowe, M. B, (1974). Wie ie and teva instructional “arly thet iftnes om guage logand fate contd = Pare One Wa ie Jeno Reach on Sarna. 11, ioe, Siivsons R&B STERN (198, Research on teaches peda ical hgh, jdgyen, dca bean Rew EXtsioniReeach $,435-98 sutnan L (980) Putaigne and riences inthe ‘tly of teaching nM. Whtrock (ct), HauBockorecarhon techn edn) Newer MacmianPobahing 36 nines (198) Knowledge-be and eching ourdion ‘ofthe new tein Harord Band Raw, 9 (11-2. swiss L988). Discipline of init cation, In TR gs (cd) Canplanceny mid tes action ‘Wagon DC: ArnercanEdncatorl Resch Asotin, vie ‘cin 1 & A. Esra (1975). Satis n protlem-slving {idgnet and decor aking Implation or eoucon] ricrch, Review obo Tech, 5-42, risus. (098). A femewot tea een TESOL Quray 32 0) Sh rae. (1982), The al warmatin of Aran mse Newek ti Hooks surcura} (1979, toduction tothe Vhune on dasrom “dscson-making CanbrsgJounal of Ewan ().2-3. Tu, A (erhvoming Bpaue in eh,” Now Yor ‘Cambridge University Pee “Toner D. 1970), One baer: ior of Arian bane ‘aon, Cambridge: Harn University Pre “TwnckD.& WeTosi (194).The yanmar fchooig: Why i To hard 0 change? Anton Ses Recah Jara, isnsie WAiDIRG, (1977) Dection and perception: New somtract for research on teaching efecs Cobra Eon, 71220. Woons,D. 1980). Staying ESL teacher decon-making Raven methodoloped hues snd iil ele Cale Pipa Aged nga 6,107.23,