Technology use as transformative pedagogy :

Technology use as transformative pedagogy :

Material Information

Technology use as transformative pedagogy : using video editing technology to learn about teaching
Macy, Michelle
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla]
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Educational Processes
Educational Technology
Instructional Effectiveness
Language Teachers
Sociocultural Theory
Teacher Education
Dissertations, Academic -- Education, General Foreign Language Instruction Secondary Education -- Doctoral -- USF ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: Within the paradigm of Sociocultural Theory, and using Activity Theory as a data-gathering and management tool, this microgenetic case study examined the processes - the growth, change, and development - engaged in by student-teachers in a foreign language education program as they worked together to complete an activity. The activity involved digital video recording and editing, mediators which were intended to facilitate the iterative review of and subsequent reflection and action upon the content of the video during its creation. By investigating the process of contextual interaction between learners and the mediational elements of their environment as the activity progressed, this study intended to further understanding of preservice teacher development in at least two important ways. The aims of this study were to discover a) tangible evidence of cognitive transformation (development in the form of regulation), as well as b) aspects of professionalization into a community of skilled second language teachers (as evidenced by activity). The present study took place in a graduate-level foreign language/TESOL education practicum course. The activity involved the making of a digital video to explain and exemplify a given second language instructional approach, as well as the rationale behind and methods of targeting a specific language skill. Using theoretical constructs previously shown to be effective in the pedagogy of teacher preparation, the creators of this task endeavored to design a socially- and artifact-mediated activity with the potential to broaden and deepen student-teachers' pedagogical and professional knowledge. The student-teachers failed to engage in meaningful dialogical or critical reflection as they engaged in the task, and made no perceptible regulative movement. What ultimately was revealed in the case of the study participants was a disconnect between the intentions of the core-task designers and the outcomes effected by the student-teachers. The data gleaned from this close examination of student-teacher processes was revelatory in terms of the quantity and types of factors that appeared to significantly impact the outcomes of the project. These factors have the potential to inform the process of translating socio-cultural theory into pedagogical practice, and should be of interest to anyone involved in the development of student-teachers, including those who design or deliver preservice teacher curricula. Discussed are the possible explanations for the disconnect between the designers and administrators of the activity and the participants in the study. Also considered are the potentially serious implications for second language teacher education programs and their curricula in terms of the application of sociocultural constructs to learning tasks and environments. Recommendations include increased scaffolding by the course professor through direct guidance, as well as by structuring tasks to facilitate students' ability to collaborate and to perceive and resolve the conflicts, contradictions, and tensions that arise during the course of the activity. On a broader level, serious examinations of teacher education programs and curricula are also recommended to look for ways to better understand, align, and achieve the goals of teacher developers and those of their student-teachers.
Disseration (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 332 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle Macy.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E14-SFE0004830 ( USFLDC DOI )
e14.4830 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004830
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Macy, Michelle
0 245
Technology use as transformative pedagogy :
h [electronic resource] /
b using video editing technology to learn about teaching
by Michelle Macy.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 332 pages.
Includes vita.
(Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Within the paradigm of Sociocultural Theory, and using Activity Theory as a data-gathering and management tool, this microgenetic case study examined the processes the growth, change, and development engaged in by student-teachers in a foreign language education program as they worked together to complete an activity. The activity involved digital video recording and editing, mediators which were intended to facilitate the iterative review of and subsequent reflection and action upon the content of the video during its creation. By investigating the process of contextual interaction between learners and the mediational elements of their environment as the activity progressed, this study intended to further understanding of preservice teacher development in at least two important ways. The aims of this study were to discover a) tangible evidence of cognitive transformation (development in the form of regulation), as well as b) aspects of professionalization into a community of skilled second language teachers (as evidenced by activity). The present study took place in a graduate-level foreign language/TESOL education practicum course. The activity involved the making of a digital video to explain and exemplify a given second language instructional approach, as well as the rationale behind and methods of targeting a specific language skill. Using theoretical constructs previously shown to be effective in the pedagogy of teacher preparation, the creators of this task endeavored to design a socially- and artifact-mediated activity with the potential to broaden and deepen student-teachers' pedagogical and professional knowledge. The student-teachers failed to engage in meaningful dialogical or critical reflection as they engaged in the task, and made no perceptible regulative movement. What ultimately was revealed in the case of the study participants was a disconnect between the intentions of the core-task designers and the outcomes effected by the student-teachers. The data gleaned from this close examination of student-teacher processes was revelatory in terms of the quantity and types of factors that appeared to significantly impact the outcomes of the project. These factors have the potential to inform the process of translating socio-cultural theory into pedagogical practice, and should be of interest to anyone involved in the development of student-teachers, including those who design or deliver preservice teacher curricula. Discussed are the possible explanations for the disconnect between the designers and administrators of the activity and the participants in the study. Also considered are the potentially serious implications for second language teacher education programs and their curricula in terms of the application of sociocultural constructs to learning tasks and environments. Recommendations include increased scaffolding by the course professor through direct guidance, as well as by structuring tasks to facilitate students' ability to collaborate and to perceive and resolve the conflicts, contradictions, and tensions that arise during the course of the activity. On a broader level, serious examinations of teacher education programs and curricula are also recommended to look for ways to better understand, align, and achieve the goals of teacher developers and those of their student-teachers.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Evans, Linda .
Educational Processes
Educational Technology
Instructional Effectiveness
Language Teachers
Sociocultural Theory
Teacher Education
Dissertations, Academic
x Education, General Foreign Language Instruction Secondary Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856


Technology Use as Transformative Pedagogy: Using Video Editing Technology to Learn About Teach ing by Michelle Macy A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of World Languages College of Arts & Sciences and Department of Secondary Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Linda Evans, Ph.D. Carine Feyten, Ph.D. Wei Zhu, Ph.D. Adam Schwartz, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 1, 2011 Keywords: activity theory, cognitive development, c onstructivism (learning), educational processes, educational technology, instructional ef fectiveness, language teachers, microgenetic case study, microteaching, pedagogical content knowledge, process versus product, reflection, socio-cultural theory, student teachers, teacher education Copyright 2011, Michelle Macy


Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to Nikhil, my son. He has been the ultimate reason for me to move ahead and complete this degree. I am co nstantly amazed by his intelligence and curiosity, and I hope to instill in him the des ire to learn that my own mother imparted to me. He has brought so much love and laughter in to my heart, and has reminded me how to play and to notice the beautiful details of every day. With every passing moment, his amazing light shines brighter, and my love for him grows even stronger. I hope I can make him as proud of me as I am of him.


i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................... ................................................... List of Figures ................................................... ................................................... ............vii Abstract ................................................... ................................................... .....................viii Chapter I ................................................... ................................................... .......................1 Overview and Context of Research Problem.......... .................................................4 The Pedagogy of Teacher Preparation.............. ...........................................4 Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Preparation.... ....................................5 Teacher Development in the Course of a Pedagogica l Approach...............6 Products versus Processes......................................... ...................................6 Purpose of the Study.............................. ................................................... ...............8 Research Questions................................ ................................................... .............11 Limitations....................................... ................................................... ...................12 Location of the Study............................ ................................................... ..12 Study Participants............................... ................................................... ....12 Institutional and Researcher Bias................ ...............................................13 Standards....................................... .................................................13 Reflection and Reflective Practice.............. ...................................13 Constructivist Principles in Education.......... .................................14 Definition of Terms............................... ................................................... ..............14 Organization of the Study......................... ................................................... ..........20 Chapter II ................................................... ................................................... ...................21 Teacher Preparation............................... ................................................... .............22 Theories of Teacher Education and Training....... ......................................22 Theories of Teacher Development.................. ...........................................23 Theories of Cognitive Constructivism............ ...............................24 Theories of Social Constructivism............... ..................................25 Reflection and Reflective Practice............... ..............................................32 Defining Reflection in Teacher Preparation...... ............................34 Taxonomies of Reflection in Teacher Preparation. .......................42 Applying Reflection in Teacher Preparation...... ...........................46 Research and Implementation...................... ..............................................47 The Context of the Study.......................... ................................................... ..........49 The Course and Core Task......................... ................................................49 The Research..................................... ................................................... ......51 Case Study...................................... ...............................................52 (Micro)Genetic Analysis......................... .......................................53


ii Exploratory Practice............................ ...........................................54 Activity Theory................................. .............................................56 Origins and Theoretical Underpinnings of Activi ty Theory........................................ ..................................58 The Structure and Function of an Activity...... ..................61 Organization of the Research Procedures........... ................................................... 67 Chapter III ................................................... ................................................... ..................68 Research Design................................... ................................................... ...............69 Sociocultural Theory as Research Orientation..... .....................................69 Case Study as Data Acquisition Model............. ........................................69 Microgenetic Case Study Design................... ............................................69 Exploratory Practice as Pedagogical Reasoning.... ....................................70 Activity Theory as a Structural Framework for Data Collection and Analysis........................................... ................................................... ..70 Methodological Overview.......................... ...............................................71 Research Setting.................................. ................................................... ................73 The Core Task – Design and Purpose............... .........................................74 The Core Task – Preparation...................... ...............................................79 The Participants................................. ................................................... .....80 Procedural Overview............................... ................................................... ...........82 Measures and Instruments.......................... ................................................... .........83 Trustworthiness.................................. ................................................... .....83 Credibility..................................... .................................................84 Transferability................................. ...............................................87 Dependability................................... ..............................................88 Confirmability.................................. ..............................................89 Instrumentation.................................. ................................................... .....90 Questionnaire................................... ..............................................90 Field Notes..................................... ................................................92 Recorded Interviews............................. .........................................92 Recorded Activity............................... ...........................................93 Data Management................................... ................................................... ............93 Data Reduction and Display....................... ...............................................94 Questionnaire................................... ..............................................95 Audio and Video Recordings...................... ...................................96 Transcription.................................. ....................................96 Dialogic Episodes.............................. ................................97 Integration of Field Notes and Memos........... ...................98 Coding for Themes.............................. ..............................98 Coding for Conflict, Contradiction, and Tension ..............98 Coding for Regulation.......................... ..............................98 Coding for Regulatory Behavior................ ............98 Coding for Regulatory Language................ ...........98 Data Analysis..................................... ................................................... .................99 Thematic Analysis................................ ................................................... ..99


iii Activity Theory Analysis......................... ................................................100 Regulatory Analysis.............................. ................................................... 100 Behavioral Regulation........................... ......................................106 Linguistic Regulation........................... ........................................107 Organization of the Research Findings............. ................................................... 109 Chapter IV ................................................... ................................................... ................110 Data Analysis and Findings........................ ................................................... ......110 Questionnaire – Findings......................... ................................................110 Questionnaire – Biographical Data............... ...............................110 Questionnaire – Motivational Data............... ...............................111 Questionnaire – Technology Data................. ..............................112 Questionnaire – Findings – Summary.............. ............................113 Audio and Video Recordings – Findings............ .....................................114 Thematic Analysis............................... ........................................114 Topics......................................... ......................................114 Topics – Confounding the Topics............... .........115 Topics – Definitions.......................... ...................117 Topics – Foundations and Theories............. ........119 Topics – Reflection on Best Applications...... .....126 Topics – Examples............................. ..................127 Topics – Summary.............................. .................131 Project Instructions........................... ...............................131 Technology..................................... .................................141 Project Plan................................... ...................................146 Reference Materials............................ .............................150 Researcher Presence............................ .............................159 Researcher – Solicited Support................ ............160 Researcher – Unsolicited Support.............. ..........161 Community Support.............................. ...........................164 Motivation..................................... ...................................164 Motivation – Grades........................... .................164 Motivation – Tasks, Tools, and Work Partners..................................... .....................165 Motivation – Tasks........................... .......166 Motivation – Tools........................... ........168 Motivation – Work Partners................... ..169 Motivation – Completion....................... ..............170 Motivation – Overall Program.................. ...........172 Rapport........................................ .....................................174 Rapport – Perceptions......................... .................174 Rapport – Conflict............................ ....................183 Rapport – Conflict – Vanessa................. .183 Rapport – Conflict – Paula................... ....192 Expectations................................... ..................................199


iv Expectations – Effort and Time................ ...........199 Expectations – Project Purpose................ ............204 Expectations – Professionalization............ ..........205 Creativity..................................... .....................................207 Creativity and Design......................... .................207 Creativity and Presentation Format............ .........208 Creativity and Content........................ .................211 Distractions................................... ...................................213 Distractions – External....................... ..................213 Distractions – Internal....................... ...................215 Themes – Summary............................... ..........................218 Activity Theory Analysis........................ .....................................218 Conflicts, Contradictions, and Tensions........ ..................218 Object Change.................................. ................................227 Object Change – Tool-Based Conflicts.......... .....227 Object Change – Rule-Based Conflicts.......... .....227 Object Change – Community-Based Conflicts.................................... .....................229 Object Change – Subject-Based Conflicts....... ....229 Regulation...................................... ..............................................230 Regulation – Behavioral Analysis............... ....................231 Regulation – Linguistic Analysis............... ......................237 Productive Speech............................. ...................237 Constructive Speech........................... ..................238 Destructive Speech............................ ...................238 Private Speech................................ ......................239 Study Findings.................................... ................................................... ..............239 Study Findings – Research Question One........... ....................................240 Study Findings – Research Question Two........... ....................................241 Outcomes.......................................... ................................................... ................242 Chapter V ................................................... ................................................... .................243 Sources of the Problem............................ ................................................... .........243 Individual Obstacles............................. ................................................... .244 Division of Labor............................... ..........................................244 Rules........................................... .................................................24 5 Tools........................................... .................................................24 5 Community....................................... ...........................................246 Participants.................................... ...............................................246 Organizational Obstacles......................... ................................................247 Prior Knowledge................................. .........................................247 Project Instructions and Purpose................ ..................................248 Learning Community.............................. .....................................249 Peer-to-peer Scaffolding........................ ......................................250 Technology...................................... ............................................251 Project Design and Execution.................... ..................................253


v Organizational Mediation......................... ...............................................254 Formative Assessment and Corrective Feedback.... ....................254 Modeling, Co-constructing, and Scaffolding...... .........................256 Structured Co-Construction of Project Requiremen ts.................257 Structured Use of the Collaborative Circle...... ............................259 Working with the Course Professor.............. ...................260 Working with Classroom Peers................... ....................261 Learning to Teach by Teaching to Learn.......... ...........................263 Metacognitive Awareness......................... ...................................264 Implications for Program Design................... ................................................... ...265 Programmatic Evaluation and Change............... ......................................265 Design for Development........................... ...............................................265 Programmatic-level Interim Assessments........... .....................................266 Programmatic-level Articulation.................. ...........................................267 Co-construction and Collaboration Among Faculty.. ..............................268 Accountability – the Meaning of Standards......... ................................................268 Directions for Future Research.................... ................................................... .....269 References ................................................... ................................................... .................273 Appendices ................................................... ................................................... ................290 Appendix A: Video Project Instructions........... .................................................29 1 Appendix B: Video Project Grading Rubric........ .............................................293 Appendix C: Pre-Activity Handouts............... ..................................................2 94 Appendix D: Student Information Form............ ................................................303 Appendix E: Student Technology Survey........... ..............................................306 Appendix F: Questionnaire Data Summary Forms.... .......................................309 Appendix G: Thematic Coding Schema.............. ..............................................311 Appendix H: Sample of Dialogic Episode Coding... .........................................316 Appendix I: Syllabus: Practicum in Foreign Langu age/ESOL Teaching........320


vi List of Tables Table 1: Interactive Perspectives in Reflection... ................................................... ..........40 Table 2: Hatton & SmithÂ’s & Baxter MagoldaÂ’s Taxon omies of Reflection...................45 Table 3: Overview of Research Questions and Relate d Instrumentation.........................91 Table 4: Five Levels of Transition from Intermenta l to Intramental Functioning..........105 Table 5: Regulation Category Definitions.......... ................................................... .........106 Table 6: Instantiations of Productive, Constructiv e, Destructive, & Private Speech.....108 Table 7: Behavioral Regulation..................... ................................................... ...............231


vii List of Figures Figure 1: Exploratory Practice, Reflective Practic e, & Action Research Models............55 Figure 2: Basic Model of Activity................. ................................................... ................63 Figure 3: Leontiev’s Hierarchical Levels of Activi ty................................................. ......63 Figure 4: The Structure of a Human Activity System – Second Generation....................64 Figure 5: Sample Structure of a Unit Plan Writing Activity for Student-Teachers..........65 Figure 6: Tensions, Conflicts, & Contradictions in a Sample Activity System...............66 Figure 7: Interacting Activity Systems As Model fo r Third Generation AT....................67 Figure 8: Overview of Methodological Foundations f or the Present Study.....................72 Figure 9: Wertsch’s (1979) 4 Levels of Transition from Otherto Self-Regulation......102 Figure 10: Model of the Video Project as Envisione d by the Designers of the Curriculum Prior to Activity....................... ................................................... 220 Figure 11: Model of Division of Labor Issues Relat ed to Technology Use...................221 Figure 12: Model of Division of Labor Issues Relat ed to Reference Materials.............222 Figure 13: Model of Difficulties in Reading and In terpreting the Instructions and Rubric............................................. ................................................... .............223 Figure 14: Model of Difficulties in Defining, Desc ribing, Exploring, and Reflecting on the Topics........................... ................................................... ..224 Figure 15: Model of Difficulties in Making and Fol lowing a Project Plan....................224 Figure 16: Model of Personal Conflict Between Vane ssa and Paula.............................226 Figure 17: Transformation of the Object Over Time in Vanessa and Paula’s Video Project Activity Due to Non-Resolution of Conflicts Contradictions, and Tensions....................................... ................................................... ........228


viii Abstract Within the paradigm of Sociocultural Theory, and us ing Activity Theory as a data-gathering and management tool, this microgenet ic case study examined the processes the growth, change, and development – e ngaged in by student-teachers in a foreign language education program as they worked t ogether to complete an activity. The activity involved digital video recording and e diting, mediators which were intended to facilitate the iterative review of and subsequen t reflection and action upon the content of the video during its creation. By investigating the process of contextual interact ion between learners and the mediational elements of their environment as the ac tivity progressed, this study intended to further understanding of preservice teacher deve lopment in at least two important ways. The aims of this study were to discover a) t angible evidence of cognitive transformation (development in the form of regulati on), as well as b) aspects of professionalization into a community of skilled sec ond language teachers (as evidenced by activity). The present study took place in a graduate-level fo reign language/TESOL education practicum course. The activity involved the making of a digital video to explain and exemplify a given second language instr uctional approach, as well as the rationale behind and methods of targeting a specifi c language skill. Using theoretical constructs previously shown to be effective in the pedagogy of teacher preparation, the creators of this task endeavored to design a social lyand artifact-mediated activity with


ix the potential to broaden and deepen student-teacher sÂ’ pedagogical and professional knowledge. The student-teachers failed to engage in meaningful dialogical or critical reflection as they engaged in the task, and made no perceptible regulative movement. What ultimately was revealed in the case of the stu dy participants was a disconnect between the intentions of the core-task designers a nd the outcomes effected by the student-teachers. The data gleaned from this close examination of student-teacher processes was revelatory in terms of the quantity a nd types of factors that appeared to significantly impact the outcomes of the project. These factors have the potential to inform the process of translating socio-cultural th eory into pedagogical practice, and may be of interest to anyone involved in the developmen t of student-teachers, including those who design or deliver preservice teacher curricula. Discussed are the possible explanations for the dis connect between the designers and administrators of the activity and the particip ants in the study. Also considered are the implications for second language teacher educat ion programs and their curricula in terms of the application of socio-cultural construc ts to learning tasks and environments. Recommendations include increased scaffolding by th e course professor through direct guidance, as well as by structuring tasks to facilitate studentsÂ’ ability to collaborate and to perceive and resolve the conflicts, contradi ctions, and tensions that arise during the course of the activity.


1 Chapter I A growing interest in the efficacy and consistency of teacher preparation in the United States has emerged over the last several dec ades, sparked by concerns as to the quality of the nationÂ’s teachers by stakeholders at all levels of society. In the nineteen eighties, these concerns were reflected in A Nation at Risk (1983), an influential report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The findings therein, along with the subsequent recommendations and follow-up report s, posed many questions about the profession of teaching, which generated an increase d call for teacher preparation research and a national board to oversee professional standa rds for teaching. Two decades later, another federal-level report (Spellings, 2006) was issued by the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education that shifted the foc us to the effectiveness and consistency of instruction at post-secondary institutions, and called for increased innovation in instruction, as well as greater accountability rela ting to standards and accreditation of academic programs. Recently, reforms specifically targeting the improvement of teacher preparation programs have been encouraged through f ederal legislation and the Race to the Top Program ("American Recovery and Reinvestmen t Act," 2009). These federal initiatives have influenced the current body and di rection of research on the preparation of teachers, the development of state and national standards for student-teachers and the post-secondary programs that prepare them, as well as the push for institutions to undergo rigorous accreditation procedures.


2 As researchers in recent decades (see Cochran-Smith Feiman-Nemser, & McIntyre, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Dar ling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005a; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005b; T. Russe ll & Loughran, 2007) have examined many aspects of teacher development in the interest of gaining additional insight into teacher preparation processes and outc omes, one important area of focus has been the pedagogy of teacher development. How to s uccessfully teach prospective teachers is of crucial interest to those who design teacher preparation courses and their related activities. Interest in the pedagogy of teacher preparation is indeed reflected in research (see Hoffman-Kipp, 2003; Loughran, 2006; Schn, 1983, 19 87; Shulman, 1986, 1987, 2004), but it is also vigorously measured in the multiple sets of research-based and expertdesigned standards in which the student-teacher is required to demonstrate competence. These standards exist often at the institutional, s tate, and national levels, and are validated by both public and private agencies. It is importa nt to note that these standards often gauge what the student-teacher is able to “do” prio r to entering full-time service. Generally, the competencies in question are determi ned through the assessment of student-teacher products that are produced as part of the course and fieldw ork required in a teacher preparation program. The majority of research in the pedagogy of teacher preparation has focused on the impact of a variety of methods, technologies, a nd approaches on the products of student-teachers (and the satisfaction of the stand ards reflected therein). Of interest in the present study, however, are the processes engaged in by the student-teacher in the course of producing such a product. Rather than merely me asuring the end product as evidence


3 of knowledge, understanding, and meeting a given st andard, it is important to examine how a student-teacher moves through the complex and iterative process of comprehending, at varying degrees of depth, a set o f pedagogical ideas intended to be learned and applied through the production of the p roduct. The process, then, becomes the source of information on how a student-teacher may come to understand and apply a set of pedagogical concepts to generate a product, the final quality of which is ultimately used to gauge whether or not a given standard inten ded to measure the skills of studentteachers has been satisfactorily met. This study was situated in a foreign language educa tion program at a Research I university in the southeastern United States. This program had successfully undergone SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), and state accr editation processes. As such, studentteachers in the foreign language education program were required to meet the standards associated with each of these agencies, as well as those established by the College of Education at the university. These standards were considered to be met through the successful completion of specific courses and their associated assignments and projects. The present study examined the development of forei gn language student-teachers as they produced a particular standards-based produ ct assigned as a project within a specialty-specific course. Grounded in sociocultur al theory, this study took an activitybased, sociocontextual, and technology-mediated per spective in an attempt to reveal aspects of the iterative and incremental processes by which student-teachers might come to know, understand, and apply a given pedagogical approach.


4 Overview and Context of Research Problem Meta-analyses of recent educational research (see Teacher Preparation 2006) have begun to reveal important sites of convergence in the data on teacher preparation programs, pedagogies, and outcomes. Educational sc holars and policy-makers at multiple institutional levels have developed these nexuses into bases for sets of standards aimed at assuring the quality of the professional p erformance of student-teachers and the programs that prepare them for the classroom. In v iew of the currently established goals for student-teachers, as stated throughout the mult iple sets of standards, it is essential to note that many teacher development programs gauge t he attainment of these standards through the assessment of products (i.e. “core tasks”) produced by student-teachers during their course of study. Assuming that we kno w something of the end goals, then, the questions arise: “What of the processes used to reach those goals?” and “What are the means by which student-teachers and their instr uctors attain those ends?” The Pedagogy of Teacher Preparation Grossman (2005) broadly characterizes the pedagogy of teacher development as necessarily encompassing both instructional techniq ues as well as the interactions between instructors, students, and the course conte nt. Techniques and interactions include the nature of instructional discourse, the chosen instructional strategies, the representations of the content, as well as the rela tionships between teachers and students and how they shape what prospective teachers learn. In addition to instruction and interaction, Grossman also includes tasks and assig nments as “a crucial ingredient in the pedagogy of teacher education, as they focus studen ts’ attention on particular problems of practice and introduce...ways of reasoning or perfo rming” (p. 426). In the field of second


5 language teaching scholars have, over recent decade s, begun to explore what teachers of foreign/second languages should know (Freeman & Joh nson, 1998; Tarone & Allwright, 2005), as well as to develop various conceptualizat ions of teacher knowledge (e.g. Richards & Nunan, 1990). The latter tend toward ou tcome/product-based notions of what it means to be a good teacher. This is, howev er, not quite the same concept as what pedagogies teacher educators should employ so that their student-teachers can best acquire this knowledge. Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Preparation The pedagogy of teacher development has traditional ly been, at least in the United States, “focused primarily on the uses of various p edagogical approaches or instructional strategies” (Grossman, 2005). The focus of many st udies has been on the effects of particular pedagogical approaches on student-teache r beliefs and practices (Clift & Brady, 2005). More recently, in the face of the ac countability movement, research interests have turned to the eventual outcomes of s tudent-teacher learning of specific pedagogical approaches (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2 005) – outcomes that are measured against institutional, state, national, an d organizational standards. Within the domain of the pedagogy of education, man y specific instructional approaches have been examined. The most ubiquitous but by no means the only, pedagogical approaches adopted for use in teacher e ducation include laboratory experiences, including microteaching and computer s imulations, case methods, video and hypermedia materials, portfolios, and practitioner research (Grossman, 2005). It is in these widely accepted approaches that the large maj ority of systematic studies have been conducted.


6 Teacher Development in the Course of a Pedagogical Approach Pedagogy in the preparation of teachers, however, h as many more dimensions than a mere list of potential instructional approac hes. How student-teachers should be taught involves complex developmental processes and interactions. As such, researchers have begun to closely examine “how individuals, ins titutions, programs, and ideas are interrelated” (Clift & Brady, 2005; Johnson, 2009). Examining teacher development curricula and pedagogical approaches themselves, an d their eventual outcomes on student-teachers, is indeed important. It is, howe ver, also intriguing to explore, within the domain of the pedagogy of education, the development process of student-teachers throughout the implementation of specific instructi onal approaches. By doing so, we can understand more about how these approaches function to impact student-teachers’ understandings during the learning process. Products versus Processes It is, therefore, of interest to examine how studen t-teachers evolve and develop during the application of common pedagogical approa ches utilized by teacher educators in teacher preparation programs. Such research can inform the design of programs, courses, and activities as teacher educators contin ue to hone their efforts in bringing about what are viewed to be crucial changes in stud ent-teacher beliefs and practices, which are expected to ultimately lead to improved s tudent performance. Within the domain of teacher education pedagogy, it is essential that researchers examine the fundamental processes by which studentteachers deepen their understanding of key pedagogical concepts, begin to see how those concepts fit into the reality of teaching, and enter into membership in their profes sional community. In other words, it


7 is important to learn more about how student-teachers develop their knowledge from that of novices to that of beginning-level professionals in their field. Teacher preparation programs are, therefore, faced with the challenge o f helping their student-teachers cultivate their knowledge from mere comprehension of concept into concept application and eventually to creative, original, and masterful levels of expanded concept development and use To accomplish such learning goals, it is essential that teacher preparation programs oblige student-teachers to engage in compl ex, higher-order cognitive functions as they encounter and interact with program curricu la. So much so, that both institutions and the agencies that evaluate and accredit them ha ve been developing sets of demonstrable standards as a means of raising the ba r in education programs beyond the level of factual knowledge. The teacher preparatio n program in which the present study took place was located within a College of Educatio n at a Research I university in the southeastern United States. The college had develo ped its own set of standards, which tied into state and national standards. The three sets of standards evolved to focus on skills that extended far beyond factual knowledge o n the part of student-teachers. For example, the college standard “Reflection, Analysis and Inquiry” tied into the state standard on “Continuous Improvement” and “Critical Thinking”. Both of these sets paralleled the national standard “Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving”. Obviously, there are multiple ways that those who design curri cula to prepare teachers might meet and promote these application-oriented standards. For example, the foreign language education program involved in the present study did so by emphasizing learner-centered pedagogical models. The curriculum encouraged stud ent-teachers to employ reflective


8 and cooperative learning approaches, as well as eng age with mediational items with the potential to promote critical thought, such as tech nological tools. Purpose of the Study The present study took place in a graduate-level fo reign language education practicum course. The focus of the research was on the processes the growth, change, and development – engaged in by a group of studentteachers as they completed one of the core tasks in the course. The task involved th e making of a digital video to explain and exemplify a given second language instructional approach, as well as the rationale behind and methods of targeting a specific language skill. Rather than looking only at the final products of these student-teachers’ learning as evidence of having met, at least to some degree, one or more of the standards targeted by the core task, this study attempted to examine their journeys to understanding. In their book, Teacher learning in language teaching, (1996) Freeman and Richards assert that “in order to better understand language teaching, we need to know more about language teachers...what they know about language teaching, how they think about classroom practice, and how that knowledge and those thinking processes are learned through formal teacher education ...” [italics mine] (p. 1). Particularly in reference to the latter, Florio-Ruane (2002) called for increased complexity in studies of teacher preparation. She stated that “...the study of...teacher education needs additional light from fields concerned with the social and cul tural organization of thought and learning. Moreover, it needs a focus on the explic it preparation of teachers” (p.210). As such, research in teacher preparation pedagogy that focuses on the multifaceted nature of how student-teachers evolve their understandings fr om those of novices toward those of


9 professionals can provide valuable information to t hose responsible for their development. The more teacher educators are aware of the processes involved in their student-teachers’ growth of understanding, the more finely-tuned teacher preparation curricula can be, which in turn may better meet the required standards. Using Sociocultural Theory as a theoretical foundat ion, Activity Theory (AT) as a data-gathering and management tool, and Exploratory Practice (EP) as a principled reasoning behind the pedagogy, this study examined the processes engaged in by studentteachers in a foreign language education program as they worked together to complete an activity in which digital video recording and editi ng were required. Sociocultural Theory provided a paradigm in which the researcher might e xamine the social, cultural, and historic ( genetic – see below) aspects of student-teacher cognitive change from objectto otherto self-regulation, and internalization of e merging higher mental processes. The framework of AT, a socioculturally-based method, al lowed the researcher to take into consideration the context in which novice teachers might develop their knowl edge. In AT, learning and development occur as a result of e xternal and internal tool use. Mediation through tools, particularly language, in addition to specific artifacts, and interaction within a community, are what bring a le arner to internalize knowledge. The frameworks used in AT to describe the aforementione d were particularly well-suited to describe and manage the highly interactive and comp lex data on foreign language teacher development and pedagogical growth as the study par ticipants worked through a technology-oriented, tool-specific mediated activit y in an interactive, collaborative context. Exploratory Practice provided a principle d reasoning behind the pedagogy used by the developers of the core task in which the stu dent teachers engaged in the present


10 study. In addition, since EP places its emphasis o n “ understanding rather than problemsolving ” [emphasis in original] (Allwright, 2005), it allo wed the researcher to grow to understand the processes by which student-teachers attempted to come to their own understandings. It should be noted that since the 1960s, many studi es involving video use in teacher education have focused on student-teacher r eactions to and reflections on either self-made (see Acheson, 1964; A. R. Davis, 1970; Go ldman, 1969; Sherin, 2004; Sherin & Han, 2004; Wang & Hartley, 2003) or instructor-/c ommercially-made (see Copeland & Decker, 1996; Merseth & Lacey, 1993; Pape & McIntyr e, 1993) video of teaching practices. This study, however, required student-teachers to c reate their own explanatory and illustrative videos. Rather than reacting to r eceived data supplied by their instructors, they were to create their own. What’s more, in add ition to the reflective practices expected around the self-made student teaching vide os traditionally used in methods courses, the student-teachers had the opportunity t o view and review, select and delete, revise and discuss. The present study focused prim arily on the latter, examining processes as evidence for learning and understandin g, rather than focusing solely on products, or merely on student-teacher reflections about those products. Also important to the present study was the notion of “reflection” or “reflective practice”, a frequent line of inquiry in teacher pr eparation (Bartlett, 1990; Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Boud & Walker, 1993; Dewey, 1933; F reeman & Richards, 1993, 1996; Loughran, 1996; Loughran & Russell, 1997; Schn, 19 83, 1987; Tremmel, 1999; Wallace, 1991). The importance of reflection in th is study was in its connection to


11 critical thinking and cognitive change. This was o f particular interest in light of discussion among researchers as to the problematic nature of reflection, in that there may be considerable variation in its operation and qual ity (Boud & Walker, 1993; Fendler, 2003; Orland-Barak, 2005; Sparks-Langer, 1992). In sum, the purpose of this study was to examine, i n a multifaceted manner, the learning processes engaged in by a set of student-t eachers as they completed a technology-based activity designed to promote quali ty reflection, higher mental processing, internalization of concepts, and satisf y in a meaningful way the standards this core task was designed to achieve. Research Questions Q1: What cognitive transformations took place, if any, when student-teachers in a foreign language education program used video editi ng technology to learn about teaching? This study explored the nature of beginning teacher cognition in the study participants. This was reflected in the observatio ns of strategic behaviors and mediational means as they occurred during a technol ogy-oriented instructional activity focused on pedagogic strategies. Q2: What was the nature of the pedagogic transform ations, if any, that took place when student-teachers in a foreign language educati on program used video editing technology to learn about teaching? This study examined the developmental movement of b eginning teachers from externalization to internalization of pedagogic con cepts. This was reflected in the observations of strategic behaviors and mediational means as they took place


12 during a technology-oriented instructional activity focused on pedagogic strategies. Limitations Location of the Study This study was conducted throughout a semester-long foreign language education practicum course. The course was designed to impro ve and solidify the pedagogical knowledge and practices of Masters-level preservice foreign language teachers in a large research-one-university College of Education. Thi s course was chosen because the interest and support of the research at hand by the instructor provided extensive access to participants, as well as cooperation in the impleme ntation of the activity to be used as the unit of analysis in this study. Study Participants The number of participants was limited to those in a graduate-level foreign language education practicum course who consented t o participate in the study. The student-teachers who acted as participants in the s tudy were derived from multiple national, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Th e native-language backgrounds of the student-teachers included English and Spanish (Cuba n, Dominican, & Puerto Rican varieties), and their languages of specialty includ ed Spanish, Latin, & German. Two of the participants already possessed university-level second language teaching experience. All of the student-teachers were required to engage in a minimum thirty-six hour practical field experience during the semester in w hich this study was conducted. Among the participants, comfort and experience with techn ology use ran the full gamut from selfdescribed “technology-phobic” to technology-fanatic The eight participants were sub-


13 divided by the instructor into three working groups that were formed on the basis of geographic distribution. Fortunately for the resea rcher, all graduate student-teachers enrolled in the practicum course that semester cons ented to participate in the study, though one participant withdrew very early-on from the course, leaving seven remaining participants to complete the course of the study. Ultimately, the researcher decided to focus the inq uiry on just two of the seven participants. This decision was made for a number of reasons, the most important of which was that the chosen two were the ones who mos t closely followed the instructions regarding how the task was to be carried out. Institutional and Researcher Bias Standards. As with any research, there are biases on the part of the researcher, as well as those imposed on the researcher by the sett ing in question. In the case of this study, the principal investigator, as well as the i nstitutional and political entities that shaped the setting in which the study took place, h eld the belief that the majority of the standards by which student-teachers’ pedagogical co mpetencies were gauged were valid, research-based goals, that if met in the spirit in which they were written, would indeed improve the outcomes of a teacher preparation progr am. Reflection and Reflective Practice. The principal investigator who conducted this study agreed with and believed in extensive pe dagogical research results, which indicated that engaging learners in reflection impr oved learning outcomes. In particular, the researcher believed that the type of reflection effected must take the learner beyon d “technical reflection” (see Definitions and Chapter 2), to “practical reflection”, and if possible, to “critical reflection” in order to enga ge higher order thinking processes. She


14 believed that critical reflection was fundamental t o deep, meaningful learning and understanding, which might then be extended by the learner beyond the immediate learning situation, and applied to new and unique f uture contexts. Constructivist Principles in Education. The researcher in the present study held the belief that the learner, the educator, and the educational setting were all products of extensive cultural-historical development, and as s uch, could not be examined from a viewpoint external to these processes. In addition the researcher was of the opinion that the co-construction of knowledge by student-teacher s in a learner-centered, expertly guided setting had the potential to lead them into a dynamic and evolutionary Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (see Definitions and Cha pter 2), which held the potential to produce the depth of learning mentioned above un der “Reflection and Reflective Practice”. Definition of Terms action In Activity Theory, an activity is made up of actio ns, which are guided by conscious goals. activity At the macro-level of Activity Theory, the unit of analysis is the activity. The activity is guided by a motive, which is the human need that gives rise to the activity. Activity Theory (AT) Not strictly a “theory”, AT is based in sociocultu ral thought, and is a way of thinking about and graphically representing the col lective work relationship in an activity between an individual and a) the artifacts, tools, and signs of his/her environment, b) the


15 community in which the individual performs work, c) the rules of the work environment, and the division of labor in the work environment. The distinctions between activity, action, and operation became the basis of Leontiev’ s model of activity. core task In the College of Education involved in this study a core task was an assignment in a compulsory course within a degree program dete rmined by expert faculty to meet one or more of the required federal, state, and/or institutional standards. digital video (DV) Video captured in digital, rather than analog, for mat. Exploratory Practice (EP) An approach to teaching and research that designs activities for learners that will promote reflection, and which can be fairly unobtru sively studied by a researcherpractitioner. Unlike Action Research, it is focuse d on understanding a situation as it is, rather than change and its outcomes. genesis In Vygotskian terms, this is the study of the proc ess of development “in all its phases and changes” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 28) Within genetic research Vygotsky distinguishes four domains: Phylogenesis (the devel opment of a group of organisms); Sociocultural History (the cultural-historical deve lopment of mind of a sub-group of organisms); Ontogenesis (the overall development of an individual); and Microgenesis (moment-to-moment development) (see Cole, 1990 for an extensive explanation of these four levels of development).


16 internalization As per Vygotsky, this is the notion that learners first employ mediational tools and signs in their external world to accomplish a t ask. Gradually, as they master the tools and signs (increasing self-regulation), they eventu ally appropriate them as psychological tools, the result of which is actual cognitive chan ge in the learner. It must be made clear that this is not believed to be a pure and direct t ransference of external to internal. Rather, in this process of objectto otherto sel f-regulation, the information or skill is “internalized”, and along the way it is personally transformed for the individual in his or her own mind. Wertsch (1998) states that “the proc ess is one of taking something that belongs to others and making it one’s own” (p. 53) (see also Bakhtin, 1981). learner A term used generically to refer to anyone engaged in learning. microteaching A method of practice teaching in which student-teac hers present short versions of lessons to their classmates for practice, feedback, and evaluation. Microteachings can be live or on videotape. operation In Activity Theory, an action is made up of operati ons. An operation is guided by the conditions required to achieve the goal. Opera tions at first require conscious effort, but can grow to be routinized and automatic. regulation Regulation refers to the development of metaconscio us thought – that is, the higher and culturally organized cognitive functions that are under the voluntary control of


17 an individual. It is believed that this occurs as one “regulates” one’s mental activity by using mediators (artifacts, other people, private s peech, etc.). object-regulation When an individual obtains the information s/he nee ds to regulate thinking from an object. A person at this stage of regulatio n has not yet internalized the concept in question. other-regulation When an individual obtains the information s/he nee ds to regulate thinking from another individual or group of individuals. A person at this stage of regulation may have partially internalized the conc ept in question, but still requires assistance from another individual. self-regulation When an individual obtains the information s/he nee ds to regulate thinking from within through reflection and metacognitive st rategies. Considered the highest form of mental processing, and the point at which someone has fully internalized a concept and made it his/her own know ledge. Sociocultural Theory In brief, the view that human development and cogn itive change (i.e. learning at higher mental functional levels) develops out of so cial interaction within a given historical and cultural context, which helps people to move from objectto otherto selfregulated thought and control. standards


18 In this paper, standards referred to the explicit goals put forth by a variety of agencies for students, student-teachers, teachers, and educational institutions to meet. student A term exclusively reserved to mean the future stu dents taught by the studentteachers in the present study in their eventual pra ctice. student-teacher An individual enrolled in a formal teacher prepara tion program in a college of education within a university. This term was used in place of other, related terms within the literature, such as “preservice teacher”, “teac her candidate” and “learner-teacher”, in order to avoid confusion. teacher development (Crandall, 2000; Wallace, 1991) A process of teacher preparation seen to incorporat e and go beyond the notions of “teacher education” and “teacher training”. It hol ds that student-teachers must be active in their learning and play a role in their own deve lopment. To this end, teacher preparation programs must engage student-teachers i n activities involving acute reflection and awareness-raising, opportunities to adapt practice accordingly, as well as meaningful collaboration with others throughout the preparation program. This approach falls more into a constructivist paradigm, whereby ideas about teaching are coconstructed and reconstructed by the student-teache rs under expert guidance, often with an understanding of the cultural-historical context s in which their own learning and teaching take place. (see also Bailey, 1992; Edge & Richards, 1993; Flowerdew, Brock, & Hsia, 1992; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Sachs, Broc k, & Lo, 1996; Woodward, 1991) teacher education


19 The most traditional form of teacher preparation, “ teacher education” (as distinguished from “teacher training” or “teacher d evelopment”) is a problem-oriented approach that involves raising the student-teacher’ s intellectual awareness of “theoretical principles underlying particular practices” (Widdow son, 1997). Delivery of this type of preparation falls more squarely into a positivist p aradigm, whereby ideas and behaviors can be taught and practiced through top-down instru ctional means. The student-teacher receives the information on various theories and me thods, and may then be required to practice and demonstrate specific behaviors associa ted therewith, often in relatively decontextualized settings. It regularly involves d elaying the application of the theories studied until the student-teacher can acquire actua l classroom experience, which commonly occurs only at the very end or after the c ompletion of the teacher preparation program. teacher preparation This study will use the term “teacher preparation” as an umbrella term for all types of preservice education, training, and develo pment. teacher training An expanded form of “teacher education”, teacher tr aining attempts to instill in student-teachers the requisite “skills to apply [th eir] knowledge to the practice of language teaching, with a limited opportunity to ob serve and practice [a given] theory in actual classrooms or simulated contexts such as mic roteaching (Crandall, 1998). While still falling into a positivist paradigm, teacher t raining is more solution-oriented, given that learner-teachers are offered “practical techni ques to cope with predictable events”


20 (Widdowson, 1997), while the “training” aspect gets at the notion of the importance of linking theory to practice prior to full-immersion in the classroom setting. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) This is a term of Vygotskian origin “which is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent pr oblem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1 978, p. 86). In other words, the stage at which someone can know/accomplish somethin g with the support of another that s/he could not do alone. Organization of the Study There are five chapters in this study. Chapter I p rovides an introduction to the study by outlining the overall rationale and purpos e of the study, the research questions, the limitations and assumptions, and definitions of terms. Chapter II is dedicated to a review of the literature regarding teacher and lang uage teacher preparation issues, such as pedagogies, learning theories, standards and accoun tability, and tool use. Chapter III details the procedures of the study, instrumentatio n, data collection, and analysis. This includes the study’s location and participants, the theoretical underpinnings of the approach to the design and focus of interest, as we ll as that of the proposed unit of analysis. Chapter IV offers a description of the f indings of the study. Finally, in Chapter V, the implications of the results of the study are discussed, followed by recommendations for further research, policy, and p ractice.


21 Chapter II This chapter examines the literature related to the present study in the area of foreign language teacher preparation and teacher pr eparation research. Traditional and recent pedagogical approaches in foreign language t eacher preparation are outlined along with their supporting rationales. These include a n explanation of the fundamental differences between the ideas of teacher education, training, and development. The concept of teacher development is then considered i n light of cognitive and social constructivist theories of learning. Subsequently discussed is the notion of reflection and reflective practice in teacher preparation. Highli ghted are ways in which constructivist and reflective approaches parallel and overlap in t he ideas a) that learners must move from simplistic and shallow understandings of conce pts to those that are increasingly complex, critical, and contextually-situated; b) th at this movement is triggered through iterative exposure to content, dialogue with others and interaction with or creation of related artifacts, and c) that knowledge becomes im plicit in an individual as it is increasingly internalized at differing levels of co mplexity. These pedagogies and their foundations are connected to the specifics of the p resent study. Also discussed is the notion of using a productversus a process-oriente d approach in assessing a studentteacherÂ’s progress in learning and professionalizat ion. Finally, the theoretical foundations of the core task and the research study are present ed in order to provide a clearer context for the study, as well as to support the methodolog ical approaches described in Chapter 3.


22 Teacher Preparation In order to situate the present study, it is import ant to outline the contextual factors that explicate the research being pursued. An essential area of explanation must be on teacher preparation, and the views thereof he ld by those involved in the creation of the setting in which the study took place. Discuss ed below is a brief history, including the shift from a positivist tradition to a construc tivist approach in teacher preparation, as well as the paradigms adopted in the current resear ch setting. Theories of Teacher Education and Training Since the historical approaches to teacher preparat ion follow them quite well, we shall begin by noting Widdowson (1997) and Crandall ’s (2000) distinctions between language teacher education language teacher training and language teacher development According to Crandall, language teacher education “addresses the development of language knowledge and language teac hing and learning”, while language teacher training “emphasizes the development of skills to apply thi s knowledge to the practice of language teaching, with a limite d opportunity to observe and practice that theory in actual classrooms or simulated conte xts such as microteaching” (Crandall, 1998). Widdowson distinguishes the two by deeming teacher education a problemoriented approach that involves raising the student -teacher’s intellectual awareness of “theoretical principles underlying particular pract ices”, and teacher training as solutionoriented, meaning that student-teachers are offered “practical techniques to cope with predictable events” (1997). “Education” and “train ing”, by these definitions, are separate types of preparatory instruction, and are both deem ed essential to any teacher preparation program. On one hand, the “education” aspect certa inly is the most traditional and


23 frequently employed approach, favoring a top-down, theoretical type of teaching and learning. The “training” aspect, on the other hand gets at the notion of the importance of linking theory to practice prior to full-immersion in the classroom setting. This more recent approach to teacher preparation comes out of the work of researchers like Schn (1983; 1987) who hold strong beliefs that student-t eachers must be given ample opportunities to apply the theories they are learni ng about before they can truly absorb their significance. Both teacher education and tra ining, however, fall more squarely into a positivist/behaviorist paradigm, whereby ideas an d behaviors can be taught and practiced through top-down instructional means, and learning occurs as a reaction to external stimuli. The individual student-teacher i s the recipient of the information, and is then “trained” (in a most athletic sense) to use th e theories and methods that have been taught. Theories of Teacher Development More recently, however, researchers in teacher prep aration, such as Edge and Richards (1993) and Woodward (1991), have discovere d another key aspect to successful teacher preparation. This is the notion that in order to fully assimilate the “education” and the “training” provided in a progra m, student-teachers must be active in their learning and play a role in their own develop ment. Acute reflection and awarenessraising is an oft-cited means to this end (see more on reflection below). As such, Crandall (2000), basing her work on Wallace (1991), proposes the term teacher development as a distinctive term referring to this third proc ess in which student-teachers play a role in their own development by actively re flecting on and adapting practice. She states, “...neither traditional education nor train ing are sufficient; also needed are


24 opportunities for teachers to reflect upon their be liefs and practices and to construct and reconstruct their personal theories of language tea ching and learning (Bailey, 1992; Flowerdew et al., 1992; Freeman & Richards, 1996; S achs et al., 1996).” Teacher preparation, then, must extend beyond top-down, pos itivist notions of teaching and learning in order to reach levels of understanding that will extend beyond the university experience and into student-teachers’ eventual real teaching contexts. Theories of cognitive constructivism This latter viewpoint on the goals of teacher preparation comes out of the cognitive cons tructivist school (see Ausubel, 1968; Bruner, 1960, 1966, 1971; Dewey, 1933; Piaget, 1972 ), which suggests that external stimuli activate the cognitive processing of inform ation, which in turn can actually change cognitive structures. These changes in cogn itive structure are what produce modifications in the student-teacher’s understandin gs and resultant behaviors, i.e. learning. Cognitive constructivism is based on two different senses of "construction." First, there is the idea that people learn by actively con structing new knowledge, rather than by passively receiving information provided by externa l sources. Second, constructivism asserts that people learn with particular effective ness when they are engaged in "constructing" personally meaningful artifacts (e.g computer programs, animations) (Clark, 1999). Of the cognitive constructivists, Jerome Bruner’s w ork is of special importance. This is due to its weighty impact on current approa ches to teaching and learning, as well as the resilience of these ideas, even as Bruner hi mself has evolved his own views toward a more social constructivist paradigm (see below). One of Bruner’s key ideas is his


25 notion of the importance of iterative teaching and learning. He denoted this as the “spiral curriculum”, which is one that revisits “basic idea s repeatedly, building upon them until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus t hat goes with them” (1960, p. 13). Another concept of Bruner’s is one that epitomizes the whole cognitive constructivist paradigm education as a process dependent upon th e active construction of knowledge within the individual: To instruct someone... is not a matter of getting h im to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to teach him to participate in the pr ocess that makes possible the establishment of knowledge. We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but rather to get a stud ent to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is a process not a product (1966, p. 72) [italics mine]. Foreign language teacher preparation from a cogniti ve constructivist perspective involves what Crandall (2000) calls an “interpretiv ist approach”, which encourages student-teachers to reflect upon, critique, and rev ise their views of what teachers do in differing contexts. This approach involving teache r inquiry and reflection is “now viewed as important to the development of language teaching theory and appropriate language teacher education” (Crandall, 2000). Theories of social constructivism. In addition to Crandall’s reflective and cognitive constructivist view of the definition of “teacher development”, this study will augment the definition with the notions set forth b y the social constructivists – particularly the sociocultural concepts proposed by Lev Vygotsky (1978). As the term


26 “social constructivism” implies, theorists believe that social interaction among learners is important for cognitive change (i.e. learning). Th e Vygotskian school insists on the idea that learning moves from the external (social and c ultural) to the internal (cognition) by means of mediating tools, the most important of whi ch is language. Rowe and Wertsch (2004) summarize Vygotsky’s contributions as follow s: Cognition must be understood developmentally (i.e., genetically) in terms of its genesis and subsequent development at individua l and cultural levels of analysis. Cognition is ‘mediated’ by semiotic mechanisms, the most powerful of which is language. Certain cognitive processes (such as voluntary memo ry, problem-solving, self-regulation, etc.) have their origins in social activity and interaction. (p. 538) To understand this, it is important to break it do wn into its fundamental concepts. First, like the cognitive constructivists, the soci al constructivists believe that external stimuli result in the cognitive processing of infor mation, which in turn changes cognitive structures (i.e. learning). Humans actively modify the stimuli they encounter, utilizing them as instruments to control surrounding conditions and to regulate t heir own behavior. Vygotsky’s investigations tried to establish how people, with the help of instruments and signs, direct their attention, organize conscious m emorization, and regulate their conduct. The essence of human behavior resides in its mediation by tools and signs. Tools are oriented outward, toward the tran sformation of the physical and


27 social reality. Signs are oriented inward toward t he self-regulation of conduct itself (see Vygotsky, 1978) (Blanck, 1990, p.45). When discussing the Vygotskian school of thought, t he term more commonly employed is “sociocultural”. This is because of the belief that the tools and signs used by individuals to mediate their environments are more than what they appear to be at face value. Behind each tool there is human history and culture. At the most general level, that humans use tools and signs to “act indirectly on the world...and to communicate adaptively advantageous modifications to subsequent generations” (Cole, 1990, p. 92) appears to be a pervasive behavior of our species. Not all cultures within our species, however, employ the same tools and signs, in a simi lar manner, in like contexts. Every culture is the product of its own history. Since t ool and sign use helps to regulate human thought processes, dissimilarities in their use wil l produce variations in thought processes (ways in which different peoples process informatio n and memory, form concepts and interpret the world around them). What’s more, ind ividual experience must be considered, as every person has his/her own unique history. A person’s background drives personal needs and motivations to use partic ular tools and signs to mediate his/her environment in specific ways. At the microgenetic level (see below), how a tool or sign might influence the development of individual psych ological processing during a particular activity is of interest. In sum, socioc ultural theory is about historicallyand culturally-determined mediational processes that bo th govern and arise from practical activity. Of all the tools and signs humans use for control, Vygotsky came to believe that the most important of all was language. Language i s unique in that it bridges the external


28 and the internal worlds of the individual, and help s to organize consciousness. It not only continually converts the external to the internal a nd vice versa, it actually transforms the external as it internalizes (the knowledge changes the cognition of the individual, and the individual personalizes the knowledge). In Vygotsk y’s words, “as soon as speech and the use of signs are incorporated into any action, the action becomes transformed and organized along entirely new lines” (Vygotsky, 1978 p. 24). Bakhtin, a contemporary of Vygotsky and another mem ber of the sociocultural school, emphasized the need to study language in te rms of utterances – phenomena that are inseparable from the contexts in which they are made. Utterances are produced by individuals who have a “‘will’ or ‘intention,’ as w ell as an ‘accent’ or ‘timbre’ ...[that also] reflect the intention and accent of other voi ces” (Wertsch, 1990). Bakhtin states: The word in language is half someone else’s. It bec omes “one’s own” only when the speaker populates it with is own intention, his own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting it to his own seman tic and expressive intention. Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word doe s not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not, after all out of a dictionary that the speaker gets his words!), but rather it exists in other people’s mou ths, in other people’s contexts, serving other people’s intentions; it is from there that one must take a word and make it one’s own (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 117). Language then, does not occur in a vacuum or in a r andom manner. Instead, “any utterance is a link in the chain of speech communic ation” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 84). It is a part of a dependent and mutually reflective system of communication within a genre of social speech, which is embedded within group and i ndividual activity.


29 Language as a mediating tool is tied to a second im portant tenet of the socioculturalists: the belief that social interact ion, especially with more knowledgeable others, is crucial to learning. This is because th e interaction helps the learner to eventually internalize the “tools and rules” of tho ught and behavior (the shared knowledge of a culture) required to function in a g iven context. “Vygotsky argued that there is an inherent relationship between external and internal activity, but that it is a genetic or developmental relationship in which the major issue is how exter nal processes are transformed to create internal processes” (Wertsch & Stone, 1985, p. 163 italics in original). At first the learner develops self-control with respect to the “tools and rules”, in that s/he is able to apply them “in the relative absence of external monitors and structures” (Daz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990). Later, the learner becomes capable of self-regulation which differs from self-control in that there is a “flexible adjustment of behavior to changing situations and also in the act ive use of reflection and metacognitive strategies” (Daz et al., 1990). Self-regulation, then, is not just the internalization of the “tools and rules” of thought and behavior, it is th e cognitive growth that results from the process of first engaging with external mediators ( such as objects and other people), and then with internal mediators (such as reflection). Vygotsky (1978) writes: "Every function in the [learner’s] development appe ars twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, b etween people (interpsychological) and then inside the [learner] (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals" (p. 57).


30 The journey toward self-regulation is about “increa sing mastery of and eventual independence from the stimulus field, accompanied b y increasing mastery over [one’s] own behavior” (Daz et al., 1990). This “developme ntal indeed a culturally determined social process, that is, an i nterpersonal process that becomes internalized as an intrapsychological function” (D az et al., 1990). Moll (1990) states that Vygotsky believed that “higher psychological proces ses develop in [learners] through enculturation into the practices of society; throug h the acquisition of society’s technology, its signs and tools; through education in all its forms” (p. 1). “Society” may of course be thought of in large-scale terms, but m ay also be thought of as smaller subsections of people within a larger society, such as ethnic, interest, and professional groups, each with their specialized sets of technol ogies, tools, and signs (e.g. language). Thus, self-regulation, or consciousness, is the out come of socialization (particularly with a more-skilled other – see ZPD below), rather than biological processes. It implies an ability to engage in higher mental processing – con scious awareness, selective attention and perception, and voluntary memory – and is thoug ht to be key in meaningful learning, long-term memory storage, and ability to access and apply knowledge in novel contexts. It should not be forgotten, however, that this high er mental processing is bounded by the historical and cultural contexts in which the indiv idual proceeds toward self-regulation. Another key feature of social constructivist thoug ht is what Vygotsky called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), a supportive co ncept in the above-mentioned “developmental process”. If a person is at a given level of cognitive development at a specific time, then the ZPD is their immediate pote ntial for learning additional information. Moving from one’s actual development into the next stage (or zone) of


31 understanding is best achieved through social inter action and collaboration. It was Vygotsky’s belief that “maturing or developing ment al functions must be fostered and assessed through collaborative, not independent or isolated activities” (Moll, 1990, p. 3). Vygotsky defines the ZPD as “the distance between t he actual developmental level as determined by independent problem-solving and the l evel of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guid ance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). In Jerome B runer’s (1985) understanding, the ZPD is the period during the development process wh en a tutor or aiding peer serves the learner as a vicari ous form of consciousness until such a time as the learner is able to master his ow n action through his own consciousness and control. When the [learner] achi eves that conscious control over a new function or conceptual system, it is the n that he is able to use it as a tool. Up to that point, the tutor in effect perfor ms the critical function of “scaffolding” the learning task to make it possible for the [learner], in Vygotsky’s words, to internalize external knowledge and conver t it into a tool for conscious control (p. 24). In essence, the ZPD is the area of development with in reach of a learner that exceeds what the learner can attain alone, and which is ach ieved by working in collaboration with another, more-knowledgeable person. In the words o f Moll (1990), the “zone makes possible ‘performance before competence’” (p. 3). The ZPD allows the learner to be an active participant in his/her own education, rather than merely a passive recipient. Pedagogy that encourages an environment in which le arning processes lead development


32 (Blanck, 1990) allows learners to, not only receive what is presented to them, but to elaborate on it and make it their own. Some research since VygotskyÂ’s time also supports a pproximately equal-level peer-to-peer collaboration as being effective in th e ZPD. It should be noted that such collaboration involves active involvement and motiv ation to construct joint or group solutions to problems. Tudge (1990) and Slavin (19 87) have found that under these conditions, collaborative learning is different and more effective than cooperative learning or peer tutoring. Reflection and Reflective Practice Preservice teacher training, education, and develop ment may take place in a variety of contexts and in a variety of ways, but t here is a consensus in at least a few core aspects of recent preservice teacher preparation re search. One of the primary shifts in beliefs about effective foreign language teacher pr eparation has been a move away from more traditional, top-down approaches to models tha t involve future teachers in deeper reflective processes. Crandall (2000) states: Reflection on experience provides a means for prosp ective ... teachers to develop more informed practice, making tacit beliefs and pr actical knowledge explicit, articulating what teachers know and leading to new ways of knowing and teaching. Long ignored, ... reflection [is] now vi ewed as important to the development of language teaching theory and appropr iate language teacher education. The interest in engaging student-teachers in reflec tion while learning to teach (Bartlett, 1990; Dewey, 1933; Freeman & Richards, 1 993, 1996; Gore & Zeichner, 1991;


33 Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005; Richert, 1990; T. L. Russell, 1997; Schn, 1983, 1987; Valli, 1993; Zeichner, 1983, 1996; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), and forming them into ‘reflective practitioners’ (Crandall, 1994; Fr eeman, 1998; Wright, 1987) is wellestablished in the literature. As such, it has bee n included as a key component of learning-to-teach theories in the works of notable theorists as far back as John Dewey (1933). [T]he assumption that acquisition and exercise of i ntelligent capability requires conscious contemplation has remained powerful in te acher education, ...sustained by recent emphases on teacher thinking, cognitive-c onstructivist influences and [others’] promotion of reflection in professional l earning (Tomlinson, 1999b). Indeed, in Ingvarson et al.’s (2005) research on th e impact of teacher preparation on student-teachers’ knowledge, practice, outcomes, an d efficacy, they discovered that “[t]he most important influence on reported impact on practice, apart from knowledge is...the extent to which individual programs provid e many opportunities for active learning and reflection on practice” (p. 14, italics theirs). The most ef fective programs led teachers to actively reflect on their practice and compare it with high standards for professional practice....They provide d time for teachers to test new teaching methods and to receive follow-up support a nd coaching...They included activities that led teachers to deprivatise their p ractice and gain feedback about their teaching from colleagues (p. 15). As such, reflection and reflective practice are inc luded as part of teacher preparation programs nationwide. While the importance that stu dent-teachers engage in reflection


34 appears to be widely accepted, defining “reflection ” and determining its quality, however, has been, and continues to be, a topic of debate am ong theorists and practitioners. Defining reflection in teacher preparation. Many definitions have been proposed, as well as guidelines and taxonomies for determining types or levels of reflection. For example, Dewey (1933, p.9) describ ed reflective thought as engagement in “active, persistent and careful consideration”, that it must be based on evidence, and that it should be able to inform future action (E. A. Davis, 2006). One of the most influential contributors to the top ic of reflection in teacher preparation has been Donald Schn (Schn, 1983, 198 7; 1995) with his notions of technical rationality, reflection-in-action and ref lection-on-action. By technical rationality, Schn means “a context-free view of kn owledge that overemphasizes knowledge gathered through a scientific method in a linear, often formulaic manner” (Bushnell & Henry, 2003). Technical rationality is a positivistic means of matching theoretical information to behavior, and lacks in d epth of understanding of “complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value-con flict” (Schn, 1983, p. 39). In his reflection-in-action concept, The practitioner allows himself to experience surpr ise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain o r unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior underst andings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an e xperiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenome non and a change in the situation (Schn, 1983, p. 68).


35 Reflection-in-action holds within it the idea of “t hinking on one’s feet” – rapidly processing a situation according to the contextual needs of the moment, and making use of ideas and techniques “on-the-fly”. It also enco mpasses the notion of implicit knowledge that the student-teacher has not yet had occasion or need to make explicit, but which s/he possesses nonetheless. Reflection-on-action returns to the more commonly held idea of metacognitive awareness raising of knowledge that occurs separate from the action, allowing time to explore from a distance the details of the events t hat occurred. This separate process allows the student-teacher to form questions, hypot heses, and potential plans for future action, which can then be tested, and again reflect ed upon. Boud, et al. (1985) conceive reflection as a proces s that ties experience (including behavior and emotion) to changes in perspective, an d subsequent commitment to action and application. For proper reflection to take pla ce, there must be some distance from the experience in order to reflect on it. Returning to experience can be seen as an important function in learning because it counteracts a serious shortcoming in experientia l learning: [W]e can make false perceptions, false implications and in the end false learning. Through this process of reflection, false perceptio ns can be detected and the learner can view the experience from other perspect ives and have the possibility to look at the event in a wider context compared to the more concrete context in which it was situated (Hyrup, 2004, p.446). Boud, et al. (1985) also believe it is important in the return to experience to attend to emotions connected to the event under consideration Seeing beyond negative feelings


36 can provide a more rational interpretation of what happened, and recalling positive emotions can “provide the learner with the impetus to persist in what might be very challenging situations and ... might facilitate the learner’s freedom to move to different perspectives of ...experience” (Hyrup, 2004). Fin ally, they encourage what they call “re-evaluation” during reflection: Re-evaluation involves re-examining experience in t he light of the learner’s intent, associating new knowledge with that which i s already possessed, and integrating this new knowledge into the learner’s c onceptual framework. It leads to an appropriation of this knowledge into the lear ner’s repertoire of behaviour (Boud et al., 1985, p. 27). Loughran (2002) argues that student-teachers can en gage in either reflection or effective reflection but that the latter is the only one likely to hav e much long-term impact on student-teachers, since it is the only fo rm that engages them actively as learners. He states, “Simply being encouraged to r eflect is likely to be as meaningful as a lecture on cooperative group work” (p. 33). He exp lains, however, that “[e]ffective reflective practice is drawn from the ability to fr ame and reframe the practice setting, to develop and respond to this framing through action so that the practitioner’s wisdom-inaction is enhanced and, as a particular outcome, ar ticulation of professional knowledge is encouraged” (p.42). Tomlinson (1999a) echoes Lough ran here that if conscious forms of strategic knowledge are indeed t o inform action and, still more crucially, to become consolidated within the studen t-teacher’s repertoire of action dispositions, then they given ample...opp ortunity for repeated attempts at the implementation strategies, i.e. at ‘doing’ t hem, but with provision of


37 feedback, analysis and guidance sufficiently close to the action to influence it effectively (p.540). In Mezirow’s (1990) work, learners are encouraged to extend their thinking to critical reflection. In so doing, learners can bec ome aware of the historical, social, cultural, and political contexts within which an ev ent has occurred. In critical reflection the individual challenges the validity of his presu ppositions, and is concerned not with the how or the how-to of action, but with the why, the reasons for, and the consequences of what we do (Mezirow, 1990). When this level of reflection is met, Mezirow believes that the level of learning is deepened and the lear ner can actually be transformed. “Reflection may imply reconstruction of knowledge, but critical reflection may imply changes in the very psychological mechanisms that c onstitute the basis of our interpretations of the world” (Hyrup, 2004). "Perspective transformation is the process of becom ing critically aware of how and why our presuppositions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel about our world; of reformulat ing these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise acting on thes e new understandings. More inclusive, discriminating permeable and integrative perspectives are superior perspectives that adults choose if they can because they are motivated to better understand the meaning of their experience" (Meziro w, 1990, p. 14) Such critical awareness can then lead the student-t eacher to actively reframe future action in an effort to promote better learning for themsel ves and their students once equity and social justice issues have been taken into account.


38 It should be noted at this point that several theo rists (see particularly Schn's concept of knowing-in-action 1983; 1987) have toyed with the idea that student-teacher reflection can also involve some implicit learning. “In contrast to applying technical or scientific rationality” (Hatton & Smith, 1995) when considering a given event, a more “tacit knowledge is derived from the construction a nd reconstruction of professional experience” (Hatton & Smith, 1995). This involves the notion of the “professionalization” of a student-teacher. Hatton and Smith (1995) state that this intuitive understanding and/or internal and immedia te reflection-in-action and subsequent adjustment of behavior may be characterised as part of the artistry or int uitive knowledge derived from professional experience (Gilson, 1989) and includes engaging in a reflective conversation with oneself, shaping the situation in terms of the reflector’s frame of reference, while constantly leaving open the pos sibility of reframing by employing techniques of holistic appraisal” (Alrich ter & Posch, 1989). Tomlinson (1999a) questions the near-exclusive emph asis on conscious thinking and learning in teacher education, and calls for resear chers to attempt to “grapple with the difficult issues of balance and interplay between i mplicit and explicit facets of processing” (p.533). He argues that it is time to more closely examine implicit learning “not just passively, but by seeking to harness such features as the ‘exquisite sensitivity’ connectionist studies point to in huma n awareness. Along with other aspects of transfer and generalisation, these may h ave important lessons for us to take to teacher preparation, especially if they can be combined with


39 complementary ideas from recent work in Activity Th eory and sociocultural psychology” (p.534) (See below for more on AT). Finally, the notion that reflection occurs on an in dividual level is clear in most theories. What is more implicit, however, is the i dea that interaction with others brings very valuable dimensions to the reflective process. Hyrup (2004) notes that “the core processes of reflection – critical opinion sharing, asking for feedback, challenging groupthink, learning from mistakes, sharing knowled ge and experimentation – only can be realised in processes of interaction.” An atmos phere of trust is an important consideration when having individuals reflect inter actively. For truly productive reflection to emerge, it must occur within “a cultu re that makes it possible for people to be challenged constantly without fear of retaliatio n” (Raelin, 2002). Rogers states that “the reflective process appears most likely to be s uccessful when both individual and environmental factors are managed so that the conte xt provides an appropriate balance of challenge and support” (2001). Table 1 (adapted fr om Hyrup, 2004) considers reflection from an interactive perspective. It is important to note that individual and interactive reflection are complimentary, rather th an mutually exclusive. Amobi’s (2006) summary of Roger’s (2002) work on reflection ties t he element of continuity to interaction: The two elements that make an experience educative are interaction and continuity. Interaction with another person or eve nt brings about change, a sense of disequilibrium that causes one to make sense of the experience. Continuity is closely linked with interaction: it entails the acc umulation of meanings from past


40 Table 1 Interactive perspectives in reflection Reflective Processes Interactive Setting Situation – collaborative culture Encouraging a culture of reflection. A climate of trust, support, and visibility of feedback processes. Separation – distance from experience Stepping back from events to ponder the meaning of what transpired. Action – inquiry and experimentation Sharing of design ideas. Collective planning, analysis, and decision making. Interaction during experimentation, feedback, and revision processes. Synthesizing different kinds of experience and sharing knowledge. Feeling – attention to emotions Attending to emotions concerning the problem, as well as those related to the group environment (particularly anxiety related to disclosure of idea s, potential errors, or fear of threatening common values). Critique – seeking out assumptions (critical reflection) Challenging groupthink and breaking through assumptions. (Difficulties may arise as internal and external group power relations are exposed and questioned). experiences that are brought to bear on the meaning -making of a new experience. The sources of information for meaning-making of ex perience are not limited to the lessons gleaned from past experience; they incl ude one’s knowledge about the world and the knowledge of more knowledgeable other s. It is to be noted here that the previous two concep ts presented in relation to reflection – implicit learning and interaction – ar e related to key notions in socialconstructivist theories of learning. The Vygotskia n concepts of object-, otherand selfregulation, the role of learning mediators, and the Zone of Proximal Development echo the views on “effective” reflective processes. Als o, what Alrichter and Posch call “a


41 reflective conversation with oneself” (1989), Vygot sky (1986) called “egocentric speech,” now better known to modern scholars as “pr ivate speech”. For Vygotsky, private speech is the mechanism by which learners b ridge external information to internal cognitive processes. “[P]rivate speech operates as an intermediate stage of development between social speech and inner verbal thought, int o which it is transformed” (Berk, 1992). As such, it is a potential window into what will become implicit thinking. “The same language that mediates social interaction betw een individuals is used to mediate cognitive activity within individuals” (Daz & Berk 1992, p. v). Though Vygotsky and others have primarily examined this phenomenon in c hildren, there is recent evidence that “the strategic cognitive uses of language for self continue throughout the lifespan” (John-Steiner, 1992 p. 285). Though apparently les s frequent in older learners, private speech does appear to be used by adults, particular ly when faced with new and/or difficult tasks, and in greater amounts when the sp eaker is in less inhibited contexts (John-Steiner, 1992). That private speech acts as a bridge between social language and inner language emphasizes the initial need for exte rnal interaction as the impetus for learning. In sum, most recent definitions of quality reflecti on involve the individual interacting with others in a “low-risk” environment to a) define a problem (or as per Seibert and Daudelin (1999), engage in a ‘developme ntal experience’); b) connect the problem to past experience; c) elaborate “the meani ng of ideas in relation to one another” (Hyrup, 2004); d) form a plan for future action; e ) test assumptions; and f) reconsider events through a continuous feedback process.


42 Taxonomies of reflection in teacher preparation. Faced with an as-yet imperfect set of concepts, teacher educators and re searchers of teacher education pedagogy are interested in promoting in student-tea chers an advanced form of reflection during their studies that may continue to function as they engage in actual teaching practice. Amobi (2006) suggests that teacher educat ors at least choose a “rendition of reflection [that] positions the student-teacher not just as a consumer but also as a coconstructor of the knowledge of and about teaching. ” Identifying what advanced reflection on the part of a student-teacher looks l ike isn’t easy. It is difficult as a teacher educator or researcher to precisely measure the dep th and degree of reflection engaged in by a particular learner, since any evidence thereof cannot be observed directly, but rather must be ascertained through secondary means, such a s clues in discourse and/or performance/products. Davis (2006) suggests lookin g for indicators, such as “the integration of ideas about multiple aspects of teac hing, such as learners and learning, subject matter knowledge, assessment, and instructi on...[as well as] how analytic the reflection is.” She agrees with Hatton and Smith ( 1995), who themselves were heavily influenced by Dewey, van Manen (1977), and Schn, t hat in trying to understand and identify the nature of student-teacher reflection, it is important to recognize that there may be several types of reflection. Hatton and Smi th (1995) identify four main types of reflection, but insist that they are developmental, not hierarchical. “Their ...taxonomy includes technical rationality, reflection-on-actio n (descriptive, dialogical, and critical reflection), and reflection-in-action” (E. A. Davis 2006). These descriptors match fairly evenly with the work of Baxter Magolda (1999) who a lso proposed four developmental phases of epistemological growth: 1) absolute knowi ng, 2) transitional knowing, 3)


43 independent knowing, and 4) contextual knowing (Bus hnell & Henry, 2003). First, technical rationality, or absolute knowing, refers to what student-teachers often do at the beginning of their preparation experiences – that i s, they consider their most basic skills and competencies as they relate to received knowled ge on theory and research. This corresponds to the Vygotskian notion of “object-reg ulation” – a particular locus of control that is unlikely to activate the ZPD and pr omote much internalization of concepts. Next, reflection-on-action encompasses three subtyp es: descriptive, dialogical, and critical reflection. Descriptive and dialogical re flection correspond to Baxter Magolda’s (1999) transitional knowing and independent knowing respectively. In descriptive reflection, the student-teacher goes beyond a mere report of an event, and attempts to provide some evidence or rationale for the actions that have occurred. Dialogical reflection often includes interaction with another, and involves consideration of alternate explanations and points of view. Critical reflecti on, as noted above in the discussion of Mezirow’s work, puts the action under consideration into a historical, social, cultural, and political context, which can lead to a new awarenes s that allows the student-teacher to reapproach a teaching event with ideas for enhancing positive social change, encouraging equity, and promoting greater social justice. Crit ical reflection aligns well with Baxter Magolda’s (1999) concept of contextual knowing. Th e latter two forms of reflection correspond to Vygotsky’s concept of “other-regulati on” at which point the learner is able to move into his/her ZPD and internalize some of th e concepts, but only with the help of and interaction with others. Finally, reflection-i n-action is the “thinking-on-one’s-feet” concept that was first proposed by Schn (1983), an d which is a type of reflection that occurs on the spur of the moment. This type of ref lection is thought to occur when an


44 individual accesses knowledge that has already been internalized, through either explicit or implicit means of learning. This knowledge is r etrieved and made use of more on an intuitive level, than a metacognitive one. This no tion matches Vygotsky’s level of “selfregulation” – a more fully automatized, internalize d level of higher mental processing. Table 2 summarizes Hatton and Smith’s (1995) and Ba xter Magolda’s (1999) taxonomies. It bears repeating here that neither t axonomy is considered to be hierarchical in that one form of reflection is deemed superior t o another, or that a learner should strive for one kind of reflection and dispense with the ot hers. Rather, these taxonomies are viewed as developmental in nature. For example, a learner may be more likely to pursue technical rationality first in the reflective proce ss before attempting critical reflection. This does not imply, however, a type of linear slop e where one type of reflection occurs prior to another until an endpoint is reached. Ins tead, these types of reflection are thought to occur in more of an upward spiral fashio n, in that they are revisited iteratively at increasingly complex levels of understanding and development. Rogers (2001) echoes this view: The process of reflection does not always have a de fined beginning and end. Thus, it should be viewed as continuous, much like an ever-expanding spiral in which challenging situations lead to reflection and ultimately to new interpretations or understanding. These new unders tandings may then lead to new challenges and additional reflection. Each new exp erience with reflection should lead the individual to broadened and deepened under standing, an enhanced array of choices, and a more sophisticated capacity to ch oose among these choices and implement them effectively.


45 Table 2: Summary of Hatton & Smith’s and Baxter Magolda’s ta xonomies of reflection Reflection Type and Nature Possible Content Hatton & Smith (1995) Baxter Magolda (1999) Technical Rationality Technical (decision-making about immediate behaviors or skills) drawn from a given research/theory base, but always interpreted in light of personal worries and previous experience. Absolute Knowing Knowledge is external to self, factual, and absolute. Beginning to examine (possibly with peers) one’s use of essential skills or generic competencies as applied in controlled, small scale settings. Reflection-on-action Descriptive Descriptive (social efficiency, developmental, personalistic) seeking what is seen as ‘best possible’ practice. Dialogical Dialogic (deliberative, cognitive, narrative), weighing competing claims and viewpoints, and then exploring alternative solutions. Critical Critical (social, reconstructionist), seeing as problematic, according to ethical criteria, the goals and practices of one’s profession. Transitional Knowing Knowledge can be held by everyone and is relative and personalized. Independent Knowing Knowledge comes from within and is not about what (facts, right answers) but about how (ways of thinking, supporting positions with data and reasoning). Knowledge is a process, often involving hearing the voices of others and debating ideas. (Haynes, 2006) Contextual Knowing Knowledge built through a process of reasoning based on socially-constructed judgments and values, which are ever open to reconsideration and reinterpretation. Analyzing one’s performance in the professional role (probably alone), giving reasons for actions taken. Hearing one’s own voice (alone or with another) exploring alternative ways to solve problems in a professional situation. Thinking about the effects upon others of one’s actions, taking into account social, political, and/or cultural forces (can be shared) Reflection-in-action Contextualization of multiple viewpoints drawing on any of the other types of reflection applied to situations as they are actually taking place. Dealing with on-the-spot professional problems as they arise (thinking can be recalled and then shared with others later).


46 Again, in Vygotskian terms, the movement from “obje ct-” to “other-” to “self-regulation” also shifts back and forth from moment-to-moment, a lthough it is expected that over time, self-regulation will eventually be the outcom e. Applying Reflection in Teacher Preparation. In spite of the difficulty of pinning down an exact definition of quality reflect ion, it remains a key component of teacher preparation programs. The NCATE Standards, for example, require of programs that they “encourage collegiality, reflective pract ice, continuous improvement, and collaboration among educators, learners, and famili es” and of preservice teachers that they be able to “reflect on practice, and act on fe edback” ( NCATE Standards 2006 p.4). Also, ACTFL/NCATE Standard 6a stipulates specifical ly that student-teachers engage in “reflection as a critical tool for growth”, and tha t ideally they should “systematically engage in a reflective process for analyzing studen t work and planning future instruction...[and] identify possibilities of class room-based research to inform practice” ( ACTFL/NCATE p. 36). Note that in both instances, student-tea cher reflection is called for, but in no instance in either document is it de fined. In addition to the problems associated with precisely defining it are the diffi culties of priming and persuading student-teachers to engage in reflective practice i n such a way as to promote real learning – challenges which fall squarely in the lap of teac her preparation programs to resolve. Dawson (2006) states: In practice, efforts to promote teacher reflection often fall short for a variety of reasons (Fendler, 2003). These reasons include, but are not limited to, prospective teachers merely focusing on the logistical issues a ssociated with teaching, ignoring the contextual factors in school-based env ironments, displaying shallow


47 thought unaccompanied by action (Zeichner, 1996), a nd failing to reflect in systematic and intentional ways (Dana & Silva, 2003 ). What’s more, an additional challenge lies in gettin g student-teachers to carry on with deep reflection into practice after graduation.. “ Teacher educators may focus on the tools to survive in the classroom and meet the requiremen ts for the label “highly-qualified teacher” without simultaneously instilling the tool s for self-renewing growth and reflective thinking (Amobi, 2006). Research and Implementation There have been changes not only in the theoretical approaches to teacher preparation, but also its actual practice. As such research findings appear to favor the concepts delineated above under the present study’s conceptualization of the term “teacher development”. Rather than present methods and approaches that fut ure teachers must simply absorb and imitate, where they are merely “passive recipients of transmitted knowledge” (Crandall, 2000), there has been a move toward more learner-centered models of teacher preparation. In these models, there is a shift awa y from “transmission, product-oriented theories to constructivist, process-oriented theori es of learning, teaching, and teacher learning” (Crandall, 2000). Wideen, Mayer-Smith, a nd Moon (1998), in their metaanalysis of ninety-three empirical studies on learn ing to teach state that, based on their findings, “traditional programs of teacher educatio n have little effect upon the firmly held beliefs of ...beginning teachers”. They found, how ever, that successful programs were ones that innovated and involved student-teacher re flection and collaboration. Examples include Hollingsworth (1992) who examined the posit ive role of conversation in learning


48 to teach, Johnston (1994) who found that dialogue w as needed in practicum in order for student-teachers to develop self-awareness in their teaching, and Schneider & Ammon (1992) who examined the evolution of pedagogical un derstanding in their studentteachers, whose thinking best developed through con flict (a key notion of Activity Theory – see below). Successful teacher preparatio n, then, appears to correspond with approaches in the cognitive and social constructive epistemologies. Wideen et al. (1998) state: …in fact, constructivist theory has provided the ne w conceptual ideology for many in teacher education, both in how research is undertaken and in program development. Following the conceptual lead of rese archers such as Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, and Scott (1994) and von Gl aserfeld (1987), proponents reject the positivist view that meaning can be pass ed from teacher-educator to learner-teacher. Beginning teachers construct thei r own knowledge about teaching (p.161). In summary, based on current thinking, a quality te acher development program is epistemologically located within a paradigm that is constructivist and process-oriented, where learners have multiple opportunities to make transfers from theory to practice, are highly reflective, are active participants in the c onstruction of meaning (in learning by reconstruction), and collaboratively problem-solve at levels just beyond their current levels of understanding. The program, course, and core-task under examination in the present study were developed in accordance with thi s model.


49 The Context of the Study The teacher educators involved in developing the f oreign language education curriculum pursued by the participants in this stud y designed the program and its course content to foster teacher education and training, a s well as development. Within each course they designated a set of fixed core tasks, w hich the students were required to successfully complete. Each task was aligned with the preservice standards set forth by the college, the state, and the various secondary e ducation accreditation agencies. These tasks were designed to further not just factual kno wledge and offer opportunities to put theoretical concepts into practice, but also to enc ourage quality reflection, often through the social construction of knowledge and artifacts. The Course and Core Task The course in which the present study took place wa s the graduate level of the Foreign Language Practicum. One of the primary aim s of this course was to prepare student-teachers for their final internship experie nce in the foreign language education program. As such, student-teachers were encouraged to take this course in the semester immediately preceding the final internship. The co urse included both universityand field-based work. The “core tasks” were a key means at this particula r university of assessing student-teacher competencies related to the standar ds across the various evaluative agencies. The present study concerned itself with a single core task encompassed within the Foreign Language Practicum. For the graduate st udents taking this course, a video project was required as one of the assignments (see Appendix A for Assignment Description).


50 The Practicum video project was completed in groups each of which chose as topics both a ‘best-practice’ teaching strategy and a second language skill. Each group was to research the foundations and rationales behi nd the topics, then videotape an explanatory segment (getting at the notion of “educ ation”). This was to be accompanied by brief classroom practice-based samples of the st rategy and of the skill as supporting evidence (getting at the notion of “training”). Wh ile videotaped microteaching is a longobserved practice in teacher preparation, the uniqu e feature of this task was to be the compilation and editing processes involved in makin g the final “film”, which was designed to be shown to and further instruct their undergraduate peers. This latter feature was deemed important by the course designers becaus e it was thought to hold the potential to move the student-teachers out of the t echnical rationality type of reflection. The need to iteratively consider their explanations and examples and to discuss and actively choose and edit specific exemplary video c lips was believed to foster descriptive and dialogical reflection, moving them into ever ne w Zones of Proximal Development. Finally, the project instructions and rubric requir ed the student-teachers to consider and present their topics in light of varying contexts. They were to analyze the possible diverse needs, abilities, proficiencies, and backgr ounds of students, which was meant to encourage critical reflection. In the end, the mul tiple types of reflection coupled with the social interaction with and construction of artifac ts was intended to promote in the student-teachers a broad, deep understanding of the ir topics. As mentioned above, the idea was to have student-teachers take information that they had been presented in previous courses and elaborate on it in order to ma ke it their own. The ultimate goal was


51 to help them to become self-regulatory and thoughtf ul in their applications of these approaches once in actual practice. The completed “movie” was assessed based on a rubri c (see Appendix B), which the student-teachers were given in advance. When s uccessfully completed, the studentteachers responsible were considered to have met th e requirements of this core task. Receiving a passing grade on this assignment then i mplied that a given student-teacher had met the standards (national, state, and in-hous e) designated for this core task by the teacher educators in the program. The evaluation o f the end-product of this task, therefore, carried a great deal of weight as a meas ure of the cognitive/psychological change (i.e. learning), and the pedagogic transform ations (i.e. professionalization) deemed necessary for future success on the part of the student-teacher. The Research It is the opinion of this researcher, however, that the final product alone does not provide a complete picture of the student-teachers’ learning. It is, after all, only the outcome of the task. Many learning theorists belie ve that learning lies in the process of creating the product. The end may justify the mean s, but according to teacher preparation research, as discussed above, the means is where mo st of the learning is taking place. As such, the processes need to be examined in order to understand the types and levels of understanding and change taking place. Information such as this is crucial to teacher educators who may wish to create and tweak learning environments that promote multiple types of reflection and ensure levels of u nderstanding that will eventually translate into practice for the student-teachers in volved. Without an understanding of the processes engaged in by student-teachers in complet ing a task, teacher educators cannot


52 be completely certain that the task itself is desig ned in the best way possible to promote the best type of learning possible. This is consist ent with Vygotsky’s views that learning is not a state of being, but rather a process. The program, course, and core task involved in this study were created by teacher educators with sociocultural constructivist views, who were aiming for the studentteachers therein to engage in increasingly complex, reflective tasks designed to eventually promote deep understanding of concepts a nd self-regulative professional skills. How to conduct research on learning in suc h an environment is well-stated by Rowe and Wertsch (2004): Vygotsky postulated that uniquely human psychologic al processes (‘higher mental processes’) must be studied as they originat e and develop in social activity. The approach that has developed from Vyg otsky’s work can be characterized as the developmental analysis of how processes that originate in social action shaped by semiotic mediation (primarily language) are transferred to the individual plane and shape higher mental processes (p. 539, italics in original). It is, therefore, just such a research approach tha t was undertaken in the present study, affecting its design, research questions, an d selection of instrumentation and analysis procedures (see Chapter 3 for details on m ethodological implementation). Case Study. It should be noted that one means of accommodatin g the research requirements of context-based development over time is through qualitative inquiry, which offers methodological approaches that do not purport to isolate the researcher or the participants from the surrounding context or fr om one another. Researcher bias and


53 subjectivity are understood to be not just inevitab le, but important by most qualitative researchers. In the 20th century version of the hermeneutic tradition, the Heideggerian view is that “[k]nowledge is always perspectival an d situated. There is no escape to an absolute view without presuppositions. Human knowle dge is always an interpretative clarification of the world, not a pure, interest-fr ee theory” (Hjrland & Nicolaisen, 2005). Knowledge in context is also an important notion in social constructivist theories, and encourages a kind of “effective” reflection on the part of the researcher. The most appropriate research strategy is one that can best respond to the purpose of the study and the related research questions. M arshall and Rossman (1995) offer a guide (p. 41) to aligning the study purpose and que stions to appropriate research strategies. In the instance of both exploratory an d descriptive research – as is the situation in the present study – this guide deems c ase study to be the strategy of choice. Case study is the collection and presentation of de tailed information about a particular participant or small group, frequently including th e accounts of subjects themselves. A form of qualitative descriptive research, the case study looks intensely at an individual or small participant pool, drawing conclusions only ab out that participant or group and only in that specific context (Becker et al., 2005). Th is also corresponds to the Vygoskian notion of genetic analysis (see below). (Micro)Genetic Analysis. One of Vygotsky’s four domains of human development toward higher mental functioning is kno wn as ‘microgenesis’, which is defined as the “moment-to-moment changes of underst anding when performing a task” (Dong, 2004-2006). From this concept emerges the n otion of microgenetic research designs, which can aid the researcher in studying c hange processes and individual


54 differences in development. Lavelli, et al. (2005) endorse and explain microgenetic research designs as being specially aimed to allow the researcher to closely observe processes of change instead of products As the name implies, microgenetic designs are fo cused on the microgenesis of development, that is, on the moment-by-moment c hange observed within a short period of time...(p. 42, it alics in original) From a sociocultural point of view, microgenetic an alysis also serves an important function as a “dynamic assessment of a [learner’s] ‘zone of proximal development’” (Lavelli et al., 2005, p.44), which has implication s for practice. What’s more, learning more about the small, microdevelopmental mechanisms and conditions that produce development leads to increased understanding of mor e long-term, macrodevelopmental changes in an individual. Exploratory Practice Note Vygotsky’s notion that cognitive developmen t (i.e. learning) occurs during periods of problem-solving, particularly in socially-mediated contexts, as well as Leontiev’s beliefs that larger problem-solving is interspersed with multiple periods of contradiction, conflict, or ten sion, and that these “turning points” are the opportunities at which development may take pla ce (more on this in AT below). How researchers, particularly those also in the role of practitioners, go about examining and understanding these microgenetic processes have var ied from Schnian reflective practice to Nunan’s (see Nunan, 1996; 1997; Schecte r & Ramirez, 1992) concepts of action research. For those who take a reflective a pproach on the part of the practitioner and/or the student-teachers, the goal is to think a bout action in order to understand it. The action research approach, on the other hand, is less about understanding, and more


55 about doing in order to solve a problem. In the ac tion research perspective, a problem is identified which requires solving, and the practiti oner and/or student-teachers embark on a path of innovation as a means of changing things, hopefully for the better. Dick Allwright (see Allwright, 2003a; 2003b; 2005; Allwr ight & Lenzuen, 1997; EP 2006; Tarone & Allwright, 2005), however, has proposed a third option for practitionerresearchers. In Allwright’s view, both thought and action are required in order to gain understanding, as seen in Figure 1. Action provides the setting for microgenetic study of processes, which leads to understanding. Allwright sees research, not as problemoriented, but “puzzle”-oriented (not everything hap pening in a classroom is, after all, a problem, but it is still important to gain access a nd understanding of what is occurring). Figure 1 : How Exploratory Practice relates to Reflective P ractice and Action Research Models ( EP 2006)


56 Allwright calls his approach Exploratory Practice ( EP), since it is concerned with the exploration of processes for the purpose of improvi ng understanding of what is happening in a given situation. Also important to Allwright’s EP is the notion, which coincides with sociocultural theory and case study approaches that observations should occur in a natural setting. The research should oc cur as part of normal classroom activities, imposing minimally on the naturalness o f the setting, as well as on the behaviors of those involved. Allwright’s EP offers “a sustainable way of carrying out classroom investigations that provides ...teachers (and potentially the learners also) with a systematic framework within which to define the are as of ...teaching and learning that they wish to explore, to refine their thinking abou t them, and to investigate them further using familiar classroom activities, rather than ‘a cademic’ research techniques, as the investigative tools” (Allwright & Lenzuen, 1997, p. 73). Since the goal of this study was to understand proc ess, rather than seek out and test possible solutions to perceived problems, EP p rovides a means of pursuing this goal by the researcher and participants being both activ e and reflective. Activity Theory. Any study that proposes to examine and describe c omplex processes requires a way to make meaning out of the data gathered. It is the belief of this researcher, and of the program designers in which t his study is conducted, that a sociallyand artifact-mediated, collaborative environment co ntributes to learning. The framework for the data analysis of a study conducted in such a context must be one suited to organizing data from the research of the social con struction of knowledge. Among the research frameworks available for handling this typ e of data, Activity Theory offers a lens through which to examine the concept of proces s in learning. This is because it


57 allows the researcher to consider how a learner int eracts with the elements of a given context en route to a goal, which is an important a spect of cognitive development in the sociocultural paradigm. Activity Theory has been used to study areas such a s ergonomics (Bedny & Karwowski, 2004; Engestrm, 2000), human-computer i nteraction research (see Bannon & Bdker, 1991; Bdker, 1991; 1996; Nardi, 1996), i nformation systems design (see Iivari & Lyytinen, 1998), computer supported cooper ative work (see Kuuti, 1991; Kuuti, 1992), artificial intelligence (Star, 1996), and he althcare (Engestrm, 1993). Since Activity Theory is relatively new to educational re search, it offers a view into learning processes that may have been heretofore as yet rela tively unexamined. Some work has been done in the areas of education (Cook, Smagorin sky, Fry, Konopak, & Moore, 2002; Flavell, 2001; Hung, Tan, & Koh, 2006; Pearson, 200 5; Roth & Lee, 2007) and inservice teacher development (D. L. Russell & Schneiderheinz e, 2005). A handful of researchers have paired activity theory with teacher preparatio n (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999; P. Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Putna m & Borko, 2000; Utley, 2006). Daniels (2004), however, poses a strong argument fo r the use of AT by researchers in teacher development when he says: activity theory provides an important perspective o n the problem of developing practices which are frequently observed to be desir able but remain difficult to develop... [A]ctivity theory directs attention to p oints of integration that might not otherwise be considered... For many educators it pr ovides important tools for the development of an understanding of pedagogy. Impor tantly, this body of theoretical work opens up, or rather insists upon, a pedagogic imagination that


58 reflects on the processes of teaching and learning as much more than face-to-face interaction or the simple transmission of prescribe d knowledge and skill (p.121). It is important to note that the term “Activity The ory” is a somewhat misleading translation of the original Russian. “Activity” he re refers to the German and Russian meanings of the words Ttigkeit and dejatel’nost respectively, which translate as “doing in order to transform something”, rather than a mor e general interpretation of action (Kuuti, 1996). AT is also not a formal theory, “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” ( "theory" 2006). It is, rather, “a collection of basic ideas for con ceptualising both individual and collective practices as developmental processes” (Mwanza & Eng estrm, 2005). As such, it is a flexible, yet consistent a priori framework, which allows for greater generalization and comparison, making it a “powerful and clarifying de scriptive tool” (Nardi, 1996, p. 7). Origins and theoretical underpinnings of activity t heory. While perhaps not yet used extensively to examine teacher development, Ac tivity Theory has been emerging and evolving over many decades. AT’s original mani festations are located in early 20th century Soviet psychological theories that were con cerned with the roles of culture and history in human consciousness and cognition. The principle groundwork was laid by Lev Vygotsky, who was profoundly influenced by the works of Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Engels (Kuuti, 1996). Led by Vygotsky, they worked together to “discover the way natural processes such as physical maturation and s ensory mechanisms become intertwined with culturally determined processes to produce the psychological functions of adults” (Luria, 1979). They felt that tradition al behaviorist and psychoanalytic approaches to psychology at that time did not go fa r enough in the explanation of human


59 consciousness. They suggested that previous researc hers had tried to emulate other fields in making psychology an exact science, and in so do ing, were confined to looking at mental activity as something occurring solely “with in the organism”. This view of consciousness, as previously explored by the likes of Pavlov, Freud, Piaget, and Dewey seemed inadequate to Vygotsky and his adherents. Th e socialist influences of these Soviet researchers’ time and place led them to cons ider “collective” and “cooperative” labor and its products, and how the individual func tions within a work system rather than independently of history, culture, and other people Alexander Luria wrote, “It seems surprising that the science of psychology has avoid ed the idea that many mental processes are social and historical in origin, or t hat important manifestations of human consciousness have been directly shaped by the basi c practices of human activity and the actual forms of culture” (Luria, 1976). In their new paradigm, the Soviets concluded that, once a motive and a goal have been identified, any attempt to carry out a task be gins with an individual’s pre-existing notions of things and tools, both of which have bee n shaped by the surrounding society/culture. Both internal and external struct ures, then, already have focus, scope, and direction before an individual begins, physical ly and/or cognitively, to set about any task. In addition, the task itself is not accompli shed in a vacuum. One is likely to select and carry out a series of actions as a means of att aining an object. These actions will likely involve tool use as well, and may even invol ve cooperation with other people. It is important to consider at this point that, for the V ygotsky School, the actions, tools, and people are all also products of history and culture In Vygotsky’s words, “Historical and social experience are not in themselves different e ntities, psychologically speaking, since


60 they cannot be separated in experience and are alwa ys given together… [T]heir mechanisms are exactly the same as the mechanism of consciousness, since consciousness must be regarded as a particular case of social experience” (Vygotsky, 1925). This said, Vygotsky arrived at the conclusi on that consciousness and cognition were best studied in context, since much more seems to be at play than just the individual. As for cognition and learning then, members of the Vygotsky School went on to say that people engage their consciousness when the y have a motive to accomplish an object (goal). Note that again in this instance th ere is an awkward translation from the Russian of the concept of “object”. In AT, the obj ect is like the object of a game (i.e. the goal or the objective). This consciousness undergo es a transformation as people undertake actions that they believe will accomplish the object, both through internal mental (intramental) engagement with the problem, a s well as external (intermental) engagement with tools (particularly language), and often, other people. This model proposes that actions are motive-driven, object-ori ented, and artifact-mediated, as well as carried out in a socio-cultural context. What’s mo re, all of these forces working together can lead to conscious awareness, which enhances cog nitive processes, and therefore increases knowledge – learning is, therefore, trans formative. Social interaction, then, is the source of the development of higher mental proc esses in the individual. Human activity is extraordinarily complex, therefore rese archers must consider that explanation cannot be atomized into individual elements, but ra ther must include the rich web of interconnected ideas and actions that take place in the complexity of social contexts. Thus, key elements of their work that have contribu ted heavily to Activity Theory are: 1)


61 the importance of looking, not just at individual c onsciousness in the abstract, but consciousness as a product of one’s cultural-histor ical foundations; 2) consciousness as a product of social interaction; and 3) consciousness as something that is mediated by external events. After his untimely death, Vygotsky’s work on activ ity was continued and expanded on by his colleagues who pursued their own extensions of his foundational work, such as Luria, Zaporozhet, Galperin, Bozhovic h, Lisina, and Davydov (Lompscher, 2006). Among these colleagues who were inspired by his work was Alexei Leontiev. Leontiev’s contributions played a significant role in the present forms of AT. His studies of animals and humans led him to note that those wi th apparent higher mental functions engage in multiple “actions” (which are made up of “operations” and driven by a “motive”) as a means to eventually reach an “object ” (goal). The “actions” by themselves appear disconnected from the “object”, b ut combined are the means to the end goal. The compound “actions” that result in the att ainment of an “object” constitute an activity, which is ultimately the unit of analysis. What is different, however, about AT is that the activity as unit of analysis also includes a minimal meaningful context in which the activity takes place. As such, “the object of our research is always essentially collective even if our main interest is individual actions” (Kuuti, 1996 p.26). The structure and function of an activity At the most expanded level, an activity is the overall structure of “doing directed to an object ” (Kuuti, 1996 p. 27, italics mine). The object of an activity is, essentially, its objective or goal. An object can be “a material thing, but it can also be less tangible (s uch as a plan) or totally intangible (such as a common idea) as long as it can be shared for m anipulation and transformation by the


62 participants of the activity” (Kuuti, 1996 p. 27). A subject cannot attain an object without the mediation of some kind of artifact or tool (i.e. people use tools in order to accomplish goals). This concept of mediation is key in the works of th e Soviet psychologists Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria. It is the idea that artifacts (e.g. instruments, signs – including language, procedures, machines, methods, laws, tools, etc.) (Kuuti, 1996) are used to mediate between elements of an activity. F or example, a person cannot directly bring about an object. Rather, s/he must make use o f (even creating or transforming) some kind of artifact in order to bring the object into being. In addition, the artifacts themselves are the products of the cultural-histori cal contexts in which they are created, and as such, their functions and uses are limited, thus impacting the potential influence on the object. In the words of Engestrm (1999), “[m] ediation by tools and signs is not merely a psychological idea. It is an idea that bre aks down the Cartesian walls that isolate the individual mind from the culture and the societ y.” The use of these artifacts, in the eyes of Vygotsky, is significant to higher order le arning. “Because this [mediating artifact] possesses the specific function of revers e action, it transfers the psychological operation to higher and qualitatively new forms and permits the humans, by aid of extrinsic stimuli, to control their behavior from the outside ” (Vygotsky, 1978 p. 40, italics in original). Engestrm (1999) summarizes: “The idea that humans can control their own behavior – not ‘from the inside’, on the basis of biological urges, but ‘from the outside’, using and creating artifacts.” A basic mo del, as conceived of by Engestrm ( CHAT 2005), can be seen in Figure 2.


63 Any given object of an activity, however, may be a ttained through different actions, which depend on the situation. There may be, therefore, more than one way to reach a given object. Leontiev wanted to create a model (Figure 3) that would include the shorter-term processes that make up an activity (actions and operations), as well as the features that guide each level. At the macro-l evel there is the whole activity, which is guided by a motive. The motive is the human need t hat gives rise to the activity, for example, cooking a meal. An activity is made up of actions, which are guided by conscious goals. An example of an action may be ch oosing a recipe or purchasing the Figure 3 : LeontievÂ’s hierarchical levels of activity necessary ingredients. Finally, an action is made up of operations. An operation is guided by the conditions required to achieve the go al, such as julienning carrots or caramelizing onions. Operations at first require c onscious effort, but can grow to be Figure 2 : Basic Model of Activity


64 routinized and automatic, such as learning to shift a standard transmission on a car. There is a constant flux between the levels and what guid es them resulting in a dynamic system. When an activity is complete that is, the object is attained then the object is transformed into an outcome Engestrm (1987, p.78) developed Leontiev’s conc epts into the well-known triangular model used throughou t AT-based research (Figure 4). In this second-generation model, additional contextual factors affecting and mediating the activity are accounted for, such as instruments and tools, rules and requirements, the individual and his/her community and co-workers, an d division of labor. Figure 4 : The Structure of a Human Activity System – Secon d Generation In practice, a given individual’s work activity sys tem may look something like the collaborative unit plan activity designed for a stu dent-teacher in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5, the outcome of the activity is a potentia lly dynamic target produced by an individualized, contextual, and flexible system. A dding yet an even more flexible feature to the model of the system is a means of reflecting the key notion that change and development (i.e. learning, or in Vygotskian terms, objectto otherto self-regulation) on the part of the subject depends largely on the reco gnition and resolution


65 Figur e 5: Sample Structure of a Unit Plan Writing Activi ty for Student-Teachers of tensions, conflicts, and contradictions that ari se in the system as it is executed. Engestrm ( CHAT 2005) states that internal contradictions are the “driving force of change and development in activity systems.” The t ensions, conflicts, and contradictions that arise in a system are important for researcher s to note, since they are the turning points at which development is poised to occur. Th ese difficulties are usually represented in the models with a solid (indicating a resolved c onflict) or a dashed (indicating an unresolved conflict) arrow in an activity system. Figure 6 shows where conflicts arose at different points in an activity system, and whether or not they were resolved. Another feature of the activity system that can be represen ted in the model is change in the object over time caused by tensions and conflicts in the s ystem. Russell and Schneiderheinze (2005) explain this concept clearly in their own st udy of an inservice training project:


66 Transformation of the object in a work activity sys tem can occur in four ways: widening, narrowing, switching, and disintegrating. Widening of the object relates to the object expansion while narrowing refers to o bject contraction. Switching involves a shifting of the object in response to te nsions in the system, and disintegrating refers to fragmenting or splitting o f the object. Note that Figure 6 also shows where one of the key conflicts for this particular subject – time – was not able to be resolved, and resulted in the subject having to narrow the scope and detail in his/her object. Figure 6 : Tensions, Conflicts, and Contradictions in a Samp le Activity System As researchers and theorists continue to explore t he possibilities of AT, new questions have arisen in terms of accounting for ne tworks of interacting activity systems. Engestrm has proposed a two-dimensional model of h ow activity systems might interact, as seen in Figure 7. Of course, this mod el simply shows the potential interaction between two systems, while in reality interactions are likely to occur among multiple systems.


67 Figure 7 : Two Interacting Activity Systems As Minimal Model for Third Generation AT ( CHAT 2005) While the path to self-regulation and internalizat ion have typically been the focus of those pursuing Vygotskian research, there are ad ditional concepts set forth by Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria, which have only rece ntly come to light. These are the notions of creation and externalization that can arise from internalization, setting up a cyclical pattern of learning and creating. (Many w orks in Soviet psychology were suppressed until the early 1990s. For an entire co llection of translated Russian works that deal with creation and purposeful externalization, see Lektorsky, 1990). Engestrm (1999, p. 26) states, “the most important aspect of human activity is its creativity and its ability to exceed or transcend given constraints an d instructions...There has been very little concrete research on creation of artifacts, production of novel social patterns, and expansive transformation of activity contexts.” Organization of the Research Procedures In the next chapter are presented the methods of da ta collection and analysis which hope to get at the above questions concerning the processes engaged in by studentteachers as they complete a given standards-driven core task. The measures and instruments presented hope to reveal something of t he quality of reflection and degree of individual movement from otherto objectto selfregulation.


68 Chapter III By investigating contextual interaction between lea rners and the mediational elements of their environment as an activity progre ssed, this study intended to further understanding of teacher development in at least tw o important ways. The aims of this study were to discover a) tangible evidence of cogn itive transformation (development in the form of regulation), as well as b) aspects of p rofessionalization into a community of skilled second language teachers (as evidenced by a ctivity). Traditional, positivistic methods of investigation involve attempting to observe a subject/phenomenon in isolation from other extraneo us variables, including the researcher’s own subjective views. “Vygotsky point ed out that such a method could allow the experimenter only to observe a given phen omenon in its finished, habitual state ” (Blunden, 2001, bold in original). The present s tudy, however, was concerned with process rather than product. The focus of interest was i n uncovering “the genesis of a phenomenon — how and under what conditions it was brought into being, and through what stages and forms it developed” (Blunden, 2001, italics in original). As such, this study did not attempt to isolate phenomena, but rat her attempted to explore them in their natural complexity. Situated within sociocultural theory, the present research was concerned with context and consciousness – the soci al bases of knowledge construction. In such a study, data evolved from social construct s developed through the relationships among the researcher, research participants, resear ch context (including its historical antecedents), and the means of data collection (Sma gorinsky, 1995, p. 192).


69 Research Design Sociocultural Theory as Research Orientation The present study was a socioculturally-oriented in vestigation that embraced a constructivist view that knowledge is embedded in, defined by, and developed within culturally and historically-determined social conve ntions. An exploration of knowledge development processes within highly a contextualized social experience r equired a research paradigm that could accommodate considerab le complexity, while at the same time still reflect individual human perceptions and change from a microgenetic perspective. Case Study as Data Acquisition Method This study’s research questions were directed towar d discovering more about the processes in which the student-teachers engaged, as well as identifying important behaviors, structures, and turning points with the potential to contribute to their cognitive and professional development. Case study allowed f or the learning process to be viewed more holistically, which tied in with the sociocult ural paradigm. As such, the investigator was not a neutral entity in the resear ch – rather, she was a participant observer that was even occasionally drawn into the activity as a mediational artifact. Microgenetic Case Study Design Discovering more about the processes in which the s tudent-teachers engaged also involved learning about the mechanisms and conditio ns with potential to produce development. An additional requirement to the case study approach was a method for studying change while it was occurring.


70 Combining the holistic nature of case study with mi crogenesis in a sociocultural paradigm allowed for the creation of information ab out the process of change in individuals and those to whom they were connected i n a given situation. Exploratory Practice as Pedagogical Reasoning The fundamentals of Exploratory Practice served as the principled reasoning behind the pedagogy employed in the present study. The researcher acted in the role of guide for the portion of the course involving the c ore task. As such, the researcher was a participant-observer, embedded in the social intera ction in the learning context, thus conducting the research in an integrated manner. O bserving student-teachersÂ’ actions as they progressed through an activity, and noting the occurrences of and responses to (including reflective moments) turning points, brou ght sociocultural theory, microgenetic case study, and EP together as a means to explore t he phenomena that occurred in the activity. Activity Theory as a Structural Framework for Data Collection and Analysis The nature of a case study of a complex social con text required a system for making meaning out of the data by providing structu re. AT provided a means of organizing the multiple, interrelated sociocultural constructs and their interactions in an activity system, such as the core task (see below) involved in the present study. By using the multi-noded AT model ( CHAT 2005), the researcher was able to organize the microgenetic observations and examine them for patt erns of relationships with potential to lead to developmental change over time during th e work activity. This particular framework permitted the researcher to record inters ections of consciousness and activity, and the potential turning points for development.


71 In order to investigate the learners’ processes an d uses of mediational tools throughout the activity, the present study recorded participants’ interactions with one another and the artifacts at their disposal as a me ans of providing insight into their shortterm development during the learning task. The elem ents of the “Activity” (in Engestrmian terms) were 1) the student-teachers an d their groups, 2) the rules (directions) of the activity as a subset of the rul es within their current academic setting, 3) interaction with one another, the professor, and th e researcher, 4) the wide range of reference materials at their disposal, and finally, 5) the technological equipment with which they created and completed the activity. Methodological Overview Sociocultural theory, then, provided the backdrop for all sub-selections of methodological approaches in this study. Contained herein were the key Vygotskian concepts of genetic method, [regulation,] mediation, internaliz ation, and the zone of proximal development, [as well as an] additional concept, ac tivity, which was discussed by Vygotsky in several of his writings, [and which] ha s recently emerged as a theory in its own right—activity theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p.18). Case study was the approach chosen by the researche r as the best means with which to observe the activity in question, and to identify t he moment-by-moment changes signifying potential turning points for development In addition, credence was given to Allwright’s notion of Exploratory Practice as an ap propriate means for a researcher/practitioner to conduct a study in a min imally invasive way, while using the


72 Figure 8 : Overview of Methodological Foundations for the P resent Study


73 activity as the bridge to understanding. In addit ion, EP provided a principled means of structuring the creation of a pedagogic task to inv estigate, as was the case with the activity that was the focus of this study. An over view of the relationships between these concepts is presented in Figure 8. Research Setting The study was integrated into a Practicum in Foreign Language/ESOL Teaching course, taught in the College of Education at a lar ge, southeastern, Research I university. The Practicum was designed to prepare student-teach ers for their final internship. As part of their preparation, the course required a 36-hour field experience, and several assignments designed to heighten the student-teache rsÂ’ awareness of the requirements and realities of the classroom, as well as reinforc e their professional knowledge. The semester-long class met in a regular classroom in t he College of Education on Monday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 7:50 p.m. Due to fluctu ating enrollments, this course was taught jointly with its undergraduate equivalent, Practicum in Foreign Language Teaching in the Secondary School meaning that both undergraduate and graduate student-teachers attended the same class, though th eir assignments differed. The overall class size was relatively small, with undergraduate student-teachers in the majority. The number of graduate-level student-teachers present w as eight at the outset, but early on dropped to seven when one left the foreign language education program to pursue a degree in another area of secondary education. In the semester in which the research was conducted, the course was taught by an experienced foreign language education instructor. The majority of her experience in educ ation had been in teaching second language methods courses, as well as some experienc e teaching the Technology in the


74 Foreign and Second Language Classroom course. As such, she was extremely wellversed in the content of the required core task (se e below), as well as with the technology required to complete it. She had never, however, p reviously taught the Practicum course. The Core Task – Design and Purpose As previously mentioned, the foreign/second langua ge education program in the College of Education implemented a number of strate gies designed to meet institutional/programmatic accountability requireme nts. In addition to these institutional requirements, this program was designed to maximize opportunities and offer ample support for the student-teachers enrolled therein t o meet their own sets of preservice teacher standards. One of the program’s strategies developed to accomplish these goals was the establishment of core tasks within each pro gram course. These tasks were connected to specific state standards, which corres ponded to those at the national and college levels. They were implemented in an effort to maintain continuity and quality in content and requirements across time, instructors, and/or course delivery methods. The core task that was the focus of this investigat ion was a video project required only of the graduate level student-teachers in the course. The student-teachers were to form small groups for the project. Each group was then asked to choose one each from a list of foreign/second language teaching strategies as well as a list of linguistic skills necessary to foreign/second language learner profic iency. The groups were then asked to make a two-part instructional video explicating the ir topics in depth for the undergraduate students in the course. The concept behind the task was to expand on the tr aditional components of teacher education and training by attempting to cre ate a setting that would better promote


75 development. The task designers were aware that al l the students in the Practicum course had already been exposed, throughout several previo us courses, to the concepts at hand. The basics of the strategies and linguistic skills, then, were assumed to be familiar topics for everyone in the class. Graduate student-teache rs in particular were thought to be entering the practicum course having already previo usly understood and reflected upon these concepts at least at the level of ‘technical rationality’ (see Table 2 above). There was also the assumption by the core task designers that perhaps the student-teachers may have even achieved some self-regulation in their in ternalization of the concepts through iterative exposure to them at a basic level of comp rehension and use. The core task, then, was designed to ‘develop’ the student-teachers’ existing knowledge and skills (learned through previous educ ation and training). Building on their prior knowledge, the student-teachers were to define and explicate the concepts, as well as offer clips of themselves enacting them in a classroom setting. In order to develop the student-teachers’ understandings, however, the project also required that their ‘definitions’ be expanded beyond the basic textbook material into explanations of the foundations of the theoretical premises behind the practices/skills in question. They were to include the socio-historical contexts in which t he practices developed, and came to be viewed as appropriate and desirable in the modern f oreign/second language classroom. By requiring them to be able to explain the foundat ions of their topics, the task designers hoped to push the student-teachers into a mode of m ore complex ‘descriptive reflection’ (see Table 2 above) as they worked to translate the ir ideas into the video medium. In this manner, they were expected to go beyond what they h ad learned previously, not just reiterating ‘received knowledge’, but engaging in a bit of scholarly research and coming


76 to a more complex, situated understanding. Having to present this new information in a comprehensible fashion to their peers was intended to solidify this knowledge (moving from objectto other-, and possibly to self-regula tion) by exposing gaps in their understanding as they as they worked to put this in formation into words, text, and video. Next, the requirement that the project be completed in groups was an attempt to engage the student-teachers in ‘dialogical reflecti on’ (see Table 2 above). The reflective dialogue and resulting variations in perspectives a nd ideas were intended to raise conflict, tension, and contradiction between different studen t-teacher’s interpretations as they worked together to build clear explanations of thei r topics for their video. These problematic moments, according to theories of ‘effe ctive’ reflection and sociocultural learning, would hold the potential to advance the s tudent-teachers’ understandings, or in Vygotskian terms, access the ZPD. The act of worki ng through these conflicts would get the student-teachers to expand and deepen their kno wledge as they compared, confirmed, and adjusted their perceptions. By having them consider their topics as having beco me relevant to their field within a given socio-historical context, the core-t ask developers also hoped the studentteachers might engage in ‘critical reflection’ (See Table 2 above). Critical reflection was also the goal of the aspect of the core-task that r equired the student-teachers to provide explanations in their video of “when, why, and with whom” the use of the strategy or the focus on the specific language skill would be appro priate, inappropriate, or problematic. The student-teachers were asked to consider whether their chosen teaching strategy or linguistic skill would be the best strategy to employ or a required skill to be taught in all instructional situations with all students. As with the subject matter, the studen t-teachers


77 had previously been exposed to the concept of indiv idual differences in terms of students’ cognitive development, learning styles, motivation, attitude, etc. Modifications and accommodations for students with different types of special needs and/or English and second language proficiency levels (including herit age learners in the foreign language classroom) were also topics in previous and concurr ent courses. In spite of prior exposure to the concepts at hand, each of the types of reflection mentioned above can be engaged in iteratively at in creasingly complex levels of understanding and development. For example, one m ay engage in dialogical reflection on a given topic on multiple occasions with a varie ty of people, each iteration holding the potential to deepen understanding. The core-task d evelopers intentionally chose the production of an instructional video with the expec tation that the nature of video editing would require the student-teachers to engage iterat ively with the content and footage. Unlike traditional “record-view-critique” approache s to student-teacher-made video, the product would not be created as a single, unedited video clip. It was believed that the components of the final video would have to be view ed repeatedly in the process of creating, selecting, cropping, and organizing the f inal product. What’s more, the selected clips would need to exemplify and reinforc e the detailed explanations of the specific practices assigned to a given group. This would mean multiple viewing of the same teaching video, and numerous opportunities for critique, debate, and revision – including the chance to research the topics more th oroughly, or even to record new video should existing footage be inappropriate or inadequ ate. Descriptive, dialogical and critical reflection would all be key in making the presentation come together, and iterative exposure to the materials during their cr eation, selection, and organization would


78 offer the student-teachers ample opportunity to dis cuss, reflect, critique, and make changes. From an anecdotal perspective, in the researcher’s past experience as a professor of the Practicum course, each group of student-teac hers reacted to, approached, and accomplished the video core task in a very differen t manner. Although there was considerable individual variation in the processes chosen by the student-teachers, in each instance the end products met the parameters of the assignment requirements. Particularities materialized in a variety of forms, such as a) extremes in the technological literacy required and in the levels of comfort ther ewith; b) creative uses of features of the technologies to emphasize particular pedagogical po ints; c) creative, and often humorous, uses of self-made video clips to illustrate example s and non-examples of appropriate teaching strategies; d) differences in the choices of “storylines” the groups felt were necessary to illustrate their topics; and e) wide v ariations in skills and interests in working cooperatively to complete the project. The core-task, then, was designed to place in the s tudent-teachers’ path obstacles/conflicts which would require them to use the tools, rules, and people at their disposal as they were forced to consider basic conc epts in foreign/second language education in new and more complex ways. The nature of the technology-mediated delivery format for the project was considered impo rtant to the process due to the iterative nature of watching, selecting, formatting and editing video, which would offer multiple opportunities for discussions, questions, clarifications, changes, and enhancements. The task was intended to expand and d eepen the student-teachers’ knowledge and understanding (i.e. learning, or in V ygotskian terms, objectto otherto


79 self-regulation), as well as enhance their contextu al awareness of appropriate application (i.e. professionalization). The Core Task – Preparation The video project was introduced to the student-tea chers during the first class meeting. The professor of the course discussed it as part of the required course assignments listed in the syllabus, and indicated w here the student-teachers would find detailed instructions online for this and all other required tasks. Toward the end of the second session, the undergraduate student-teachers were dismissed and the researcher was invited in to go over the instructions and requ irements of the video project again in more detail. The student-teachers were told by the professor that the researcher was there for two purposes: 1) to act in the role of an extra guide to whom they would have access throughout the semester for any additional help the y might need in order to complete the project; and 2) that the researcher would like to c onduct a study with them related to the core task. The student-teachers were told that the researcher was, like the professor, fully versed in the requirements of the course, the coretask, the technology, and the subject matter, and that she would be available to help any one with their project, regardless of whether they decided to participate in the study. The researcher then explained the study, and its purpose and basic procedures. The researcher then provided the student-teachers w ith hand-outs (See Appendix C) designed to help them prepare for, plan, and exe cute the task. These included step-bystep instructions on the use of the digital video c amera and the video editing software. The researcher made clear that she had already made arrangements with the staff of the state-of-the-art technology center housed within th e college for the student-teachers a) to


80 check out equipment (laptops with DV editing softwa re, DV cameras, tripods, etc.) as needed, and b) to make use of work space at the cen ter where they would have access to a staff of technology experts for any technical suppo rt they might want. Also included in the handouts was an explanation of storyboarding, a long with several blank storyboards for the student-teachers to use in planning their p roject. Finally, the researcher provided a calendar that included recommended dates for comp leting different stages of their project, and dates and times when they could reserv e space in the technology center to meet and work. The researcher also noted a four-we ek window near the start of the semester when she would be available to work with t heir individual groups to prepare for the activity phase of the project, such as making a plan and storyboard, discussing content, reviewing/tutoring them in the use of the technology, etc., and encouraged them to schedule time with her for this purpose. The Participants The eight graduate student-teachers initially regis tered in the Practicum course were all female and between the ages of 25 and 41. They were all seeking certification as Foreign Language teachers, three of which were focu sed in Spanish, four in Latin, and one in German. Three of the participants had no pr evious teaching experience of any sort, two had some experience as language tutors, o ne had two and a half months of classroom experience as a substitute Spanish teache r, and one had one semester of classroom experience teaching beginning-level Spani sh at the university level. Only one had experience as a language tutor (one and a half years), as a primary level Spanish teacher in a private school (two years), and as a b eginning-level Spanish instructor at the university (one and a half years).


81 All eight student-teachers agreed to participate in the study. Within the first two weeks of class, however, one of the Latin Language Education majors decided to drop the course and, therefore, to remove herself from the s tudy. The participants all signed consent forms agreeing to participate in the study, to be videotaped, and that they understood the steps taken to protect their privacy and the limitations thereof. Of course, participants were made fully aware of the possibili ty of opting out of the study at any time with no repercussions for doing so. The students self-selected one another for groupin g, basing their decisions primarily on residential geography to make scheduli ng and meeting easier. Two participants joined together because they both live d in a smaller city approximately fortyfive minutes west of the university, and two others joined because they both lived near the university. The remaining three were drawn tog ether as outliers in terms of distance – one living one and a half hours to the east, one li ving two hours to the northeast, and one living two hours to the northwest. The first two a lso happened to have in common that they were both Spanish language education majors, a nd that they both had experience teaching at the university level. The second pair had in common that they were both Latin education majors with no prior classroom teac hing experience. The triad was diverse with Latin, German, and Spanish language ed ucation majors, one with no experience, one with tutoring experience, and one w ith a brief classroom teaching experience. As previously stated, the pool of participants was narrowed to one group because they were the only ones who followed the instructio ns in terms of process. Specifically, they were the only ones who worked on the task over time, and since the researcher was


82 interested in process rather than product the two groups that were eliminated provided little data on cognitive change and professionaliza tion over time through multiple opportunities to review, reflect on, and adjust the ir content and its presentation. Procedural Overview Data collection began once the study participants had been established. First, background data was collected on each of the partic ipants. Next, each individual was interviewed prior to beginning the activity. Then, the researcher planned to work with the student-teachers as a practitioner-guide as the y prepared for their task (See Appendix A for Video Project Instructions). Data collected during these first three phases was intended to provide background information on the p articipants, possibly revealing some initial contradictions, conflicts, and tensions tha t were present as the student-teachers began the video editing activity. The next, and most significant phase of data collec tion was during the actual editing process as the student-teachers worked to c reate their videos. In this period, the researcher videotaped, collected field notes, and i nformally engaged with the studentteachers as they did the video editing activity. D ata collected from the videotaped recordings were transcribed and analyzed in terms o f a) the themes that emerged over time; b) the potential developmental turning points brought about by contradictions, conflicts, and tensions, and their resolutions or n on-resolutions; and c) the strategic behaviors and use of language indicative of regulat ive activity engaged in by the participants. Finally, the researcher conducted po st-interviews in order to clarify researcher conclusions of activity features, in add ition to individual interpretations of activity outcomes.


83 Measures and Instruments The primary instrument in any case study is, of co urse, the practitioner/researcher. Guided by the theoretical orientation of the study, she determines the questions to be answered, the data collected that she believes will answer those questions, the selection of instruments used to gather the data, as well as how to interpret the accumulated data. As previously stated, the researcher, in the role o f participant-observer, was not a neutral entity. Rather, from a sociocultural perspective, she, like all of the other mediational tools, individuals, and rules involved, was a produ ct of the sociohistorical/cultural milieu in which the study took place. In order to mitigat e this bias as much as possible, the researcher attempted to triangulate the data by exa mining multiple sources of information with a variety of lenses, enhancing trustworthiness through the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the findings. Trustworthiness Qualitative inquiry, such as was pursued in this s tudy, is subject to questions of soundness and value, just as is true in the positiv istic paradigm. Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to this as the “truth value” (p. 290) of a study – that is, “its applicability, consistency, and neutrality” (Marshall & Rossman, 1 995, p. 143). The constructs typically associated with the conventional quantita tive paradigm are internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. L incoln and Guba (1985), offer alternative constructs that roughly match these concepts, but w hich are better matched to the qualitative paradigm – credibility, transferability dependability, and confirmability. Credibility. Credibility is, essentially, about the believabil ity of the research findings to those involved in the study. In the so ciocultural paradigm, reality is created


84 and acted upon within a given cultural-historical s ystem, meaning that truth exists for the actors therein. “Since ... the purpose of qualitat ive research is to describe or understand the phenomena of interest from the participant's ey es, the participants are the only ones who can legitimately judge the credibility of the r esults” (Trochim, 2006). In the words of Lincoln and Guba (1985), the research must be “c redible to the constructors of the original multiple realities” (p. 296). Achieving high credibility in a study requires sys tematic and disciplined inquiry, and, according to Patton (1999): depends on three distinct but related inquiry eleme nts: rigorous techniques and methods for gathering highquality data that are carefully analyzed, with attention to issues of val idity, reliability, and triangulation; the credibility of the researcher, which is depende nt on training, experience, track record, status, and presentation of self; and philosophical belief in the value of qualitative in quiry, that is, a fundamental appreciation of naturalistic inquiry, qualitative m ethods, inductive analysis, purposeful sampling, and holistic thinking (p. 1190 ). Rigorous techniques and methods mean that the resea rcher must make sufficient observations and record adequate quantities of data in order that others, both expert interraters and study participants may judge the quality of the results, while reaching consensus as to their meanings. The researcher mus t devote enough time to making “persistent observations” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), a s well as collect high quality data from a wide enough variety of sources as to make tr iangulation possible.


85 In the present study, credibility was sought a) by the researcher taking an active role in the class as a “participant-observer” over the course of the semester, offering adequate time and access to gather quality data; b) through audio and video recordings of events, along with field notes, which allowed the r esearcher to iteratively review data for confirmation of emergent patterns, themes, and prob lems; c) by collecting data from a variety of sources, such as a questionnaire, interv iews, and unsolicited verbal protocols recorded through audio or video, which allowed for triangulation of findings; d) by requiring expert inter-raters to review and negotia te the meanings of the data; and finally, e) by involving participants in “truth and accuracy ” negotiations and confirmations. As for inter-rater reliability, two separate raters were enlisted to examine and code a substantial segment of data. Both held expertise in the area of second language teacher preparation, both as teacher educators and as exper ienced researchers in the field. In both instances, the researcher provided a segment of dat a along with a very brief training on the application of the codes. The raters were then tasked with independently reviewing and coding. When they had completed the task, the researcher and the raters discussed points of difference, and, in several instances, we re able to develop intersubjectivity on the discrepant items. Most often, lack of agreemen t was due to either the researcher or the rater overlooking an opportunity to apply a cod e. In some instances, however, there was genuine disagreement on the codable meaning of an utterance in question. For the first inter-rater, the first independent round of c oding produced a percentage agreement of 83 percent, which increased to 87 percent after dis cussion. For the second inter-rater, the first independent round of coding resulted in an 84 percent agreement level, which increased to 94 percent after discussion. These ra tes of agreement between the researcher


86 and two independent coders lent increased credibili ty to the researcher’s interpretations of the data. The credibility of the researcher is a key feature in the credibility of a study. This is important, since the researcher is a primary ins trument in data collection, and must, therefore, be as dependable as possible as a tool f or research. Of additional significance to establishing the cred ibility of the researcher, is the importance of revealing (as consciously as possible ) what the researcher brought to the study. First, a researcher may improve reporting a ccuracy and reduce bias if s/he he has had some prior training as a qualitative observer, which was the case in this study. In addition to qualitative training and practice, as a former instructor of the Practicum course, this researcher also held intimate knowledg e of the setting in which the study was conducted. This knowledge may have been a dual-edg ed sword in that, on one hand, it certainly influenced the direction of the study and the findings of interest. On the other hand, however, it may also have helped to reduce “n oise” in the data, since some patterns were likely already established anecdotally in the researcher’s mind from having worked in previous semesters with student-teachers on the core task involved in this study. It was intended that researcher bias in this instance woul d be minimized through quality data collection, triangulation, and other-rater verifica tion. As Patton (1999) stated, credibility also is greatl y improved when the researcher rigorously prepares for a study. In terms of physi cal preparation for the present study, first, there was rigor in case selection, which inv olved


87 explicitly and thoughtfully picking cases that [wer e] congruent with the study purpose and that [would] yield data on major study questions. (Patton, 1999, p. 1197). In addition, the researcher was intimately familiar with the situation and questions to be studied, having not only taught the course and guid ed the core task several times, but also having collected and analyzed informal field notes and video data about the activity in question. As such, the study questions, setting, p articipants, and procedure were subject to some prior fieldwork, and appeared to merit addi tional study. The initial instrumentation was also already prepared, includin g the field-tested questionnaire, a set of foundational questions for the pre-interview, an d the means for digital video collection (see below). The framework for identifying higher order thinking was established and tested in a similar setting by Herrington and Olive r (1999) in their study, Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking Patton’s (1999) quote of Louis Pasteur: "In the fi elds of observation, chance favors the prepared mind,” sums up the mental, inte llectual, and psychological dimensions of prior preparation. In the present st udy the researcher was a) prepared to make the observations at the designated times; b) t rained in qualitative inquiry, and c) a firm believer in the value of inquiry within interc onnected, complex sociallyand artifact-mediated contexts. Transferability. Case study is by nature quite particularistic, ma king it difficult to generalize one’s findings to other contexts or s ettings. In qualitative research, the degree to which transfer or generalization is possi ble is known as transferability. While difficult, transferability is not impossible, and a ny degree to which it can be done


88 enhances the trustworthiness of the study. From th e researcher’s perspective, thoroughly “describing the research context and the assumption s that were central to the research” (Trochim, 2006), collecting detailed data (sometim es called thick description), and finding multiple points of triangulation enhances t ransferability. By doing so, ... those who make policy or design re search studies within those same parameters can determine whether or not the ca se[s] described can be generalized for new research policy and transferred to other se ttings, while the reader or user of specific research can see how the findings tie into a body of theory (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 144). In the present study, attempts to enhance transfer ability were made primarily through the constructs of Activity Theory, which pr ovided a common vocabulary and a simple, but powerful hierarchy for describing activ ity that was concerned with the development and function of individual consciousnes s, while emphasizing naturalistic study (Nardi, 1996). The assumptions and framework of AT can be used in multiple research contexts, allowing for simplified comparis on across cases. The classroom context, participants, and core task parameters wer e also thoroughly described, as well as the sociocultural theoretical precepts that frame t he study. Video and audio data and their transcriptions and coding provided abundant detail, and triangulation of the data it was hoped would “strengthen the study’s usefulness for other settings” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 144). Dependability. Another issue in qualitative research is the dependability of a study, rather than its positivistic cousin reliability which assumes that a study should be replicable. Since qualitative inquiry takes place under particularistic circumstances, and

PAGE 100

89 since within the approach lies the “assumption that the social world is always being constructed, the concept of replication is ...probl ematic” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 145). What a researcher can do to enhance the depe ndability of the research to make it as useful as possible for its consumers is to “account ...for all the changing conditions in whatever is being studied as well as any changes in the design of the study that were needed to get a better understanding of the context ” (Brown, 2005). In order to best be able to describe any changes that arise in the stud y context, and how they may have affected the researcher’s approach, Brown recommend s three means of enhancing the dependability of a study: use of overlapping method s, stepwise replications, and inquiry audits. In the present study, overlapping methods (question naires, observations, interviews, recordings, etc.) were intended to “cre ate overlapping (and therefore crossvalidating) data” (Brown, 2005). Stepwise replicat ions were effected by gathering data over the course of the whole semester to aid “in ex amining the consistency of the data and interpretations over time” (Brown, 2005). Final ly, an inquiry audit took place by enlisting outside raters to “verify the consistency of agreement among data, research methods, interpretations, conclusions, etc.” (Brown 2005). Confirmability. An additional means of enhancing the trustworthin ess of a qualitative study is through confirmability. Essen tially, the researcher must reveal the data on which she based her interpretations and res ults. This is so the consumer of the research may examine the data for him/herself and c onfirm the conclusions drawn by the researcher. “Thorough record keeping and preservat ion of data for potential inspection are crucial to this strategy” (Brown, 2005).

PAGE 101

90 In the present study, the researcher enhanced her c redibility by presenting and appending data (e.g. exemplary transcripts, field n otes, instructions, etc.) in the final report. (Please see excerpts in chapters four and five, as well as the appendices). The researcher also employed additional raters to corro borate her interpretations of the data, in addition to obtaining participant verification o f researcher understandings. Instrumentation As discussed above under “trustworthiness,” triangu lation was an important component to this study. Triangulation was pursued by varying the types of data collected, and by using a variety of lenses with wh ich to examine that data. Table 3 overviews the connection between the research quest ions, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis. Questionnaire. Background data were gathered for each participan t starting with a questionnaire distributed at the very beginning o f the study. There were two components to this questionnaire. The first form ( See Appendix D) asked the studentteachers to: a) provide basic contact information; b) identify and rate their language proficiencies (by skill); c) indicate the language they intended to teach; d) note the type and describe any previous teaching experience; e) s pecify the type and provide information on their previous foreign language educ ation experience; and f) state their expectations of the Foreign Language Practicum Cour se. In the second portion, (See Appendix E) they were asked to complete a survey of their technology skills, which had them rate their perceived skills, anxieties, intere sts, and experience with a variety of technologies. They were also asked to state their perceptions of the likelihood that they would use a given technology in their future classr ooms. This information was gathered

PAGE 102

91 Table 3: Overview of research questions and related instrume ntation Research Questions DataGathering Instrument Unit of Analysis Data Provided Background Questionnaire Factual Information Demographic Data Student-Teacher Experience Teacher Experience Technology Experience Field Notes Supplementary background to video & audio data Record of salient events in non-video or audio-taped sessions Semi-structured interviews – audiotape Supplementary background to video & audio data Stimulated prediction and recall of events for clarification Q1: What cognitive transformations took place, if any, when student-teachers in a foreign language education program used video editing technology to learn about teaching? Videotaped activity sessions Dialogic Episodes Operations defined as strategic behaviors representing examples of movement between objectotheror self-regulation Thematic Data AT Model Data Behavioral data Linguistic data Background Questionnaire Factual Information Demographic Data Student-Teacher Experience Teacher Experience Technology Experience Field Notes Supplementary background to video & audio data Record of salient events in non-video or audio-taped sessions Semi-structured interviews – audiotape Supplementary background to video & audio data Stimulated prediction and recall of events for clarification Q2: What was the nature of the pedagogic transformations, if any, that took place when student-teachers in a foreign language education program used video editing technology to learn about teaching? Videotaped activity sessions Themes/ categories/ prompts as evidenced by thick description for operations within Activity System nodes. Thematic Data AT Model Data Behavioral data Linguistic data

PAGE 103

92 in order to provide background information on the p articipants, including preliminary biographical and motivational data. Also of intere st were responses that might indicate any conflicts, contradictions, or tensions, particu larly with the mediational tool of technology (specifically DV and DV editing). Field notes. The researcher also made use of field notes as a means of a) recording data that might have been missed by other means, and b) corroborating data gathered by other means. They served as an initial guide for identifying emergent patterns and themes, and allowed the researcher to record questions about the activity that could be followed up on in the post-interviews and in the discussion segment of the final report. Recorded interviews. A semi-structured pre-interview was conducted wit h the participants prior to their beginning work on the v ideo project. A set of questions was designed a priori in order to provide a basic structure to the inter view across participants. While these questions guided the interviews of all the participants, the researcher did allow for flexibility in participant-lead responses and follow-up questions, e.g. some student-teachers provided lengthy responses and/or tangential information, while others were quite succinct. One purpose of the pre-interv iew was to get to know the studentteachers somewhat before they began the process of creating the videos. Another, more important aspect to the pre-interviews was an attem pt to look for any initial conflicts, contradictions, or tensions at any of the AT node p oints. Finally, the interview gave the researcher the opportunity to follow up on the data provided by the student-teachers in the questionnaires, allowing for clarification and confirmation.

PAGE 104

93 A semi-structured post-interview was also carried o ut with the participants after the object was met and the outcomes had become more evident. Again, a set of questions was constructed prior to the interviews, based on o bservations made throughout the activity across all participants, as well as follow -up questions regarding particular individuals. As with the pre-interview, the resear cher allowed enough flexibility for the participants to be able to voice thoughts and feeli ngs that might offer additional insight into the activity. Recorded activity. Since the activity system was the primary focus i n this study, during the activity phase when the most crucial mic rogenetic data were collected, the participants were videotaped and their dialogue tra nscribed as they engaged in the project process. In each case, two cameras were focused on the student-teachers; one in front of them to capture voice, nonverbal, and paralinguisti c data, and one just behind as back-up data for the first, as well as to capture additiona l information not visible from the first camera. This was so that fine detail might be coll ected and submitted for iterative visual and auditory re-analysis. During transcription, th e researcher made every effort to transcribe all audible and/or intelligible speech, make note of pacing and silences, and record salient nonverbal and paralinguistic data (s ee Data Display below). Data Management Qualitative data are often “contradictory, subjecti ve, unruly” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 26), and notoriously voluminous. As such, they must undergo a certain degree of processing before they can be subjected to interpre tation. “Raw data...must be processed before they are available for analysis” (Miles & Hu berman, 1994, p. 51), that is to say, organized and written up into an “intelligible prod uct” (p. 51). This product can then “be

PAGE 105

94 read, edited for accuracy, commented on, coded, and analyzed...”(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 51). The overall view of data analysis in this study was based on the models and recommendations of Miles and Huberman (1994), who o ffer a system of qualitative analysis, which incorporates generally accepted pra ctices. Their view is that there must be “three concurrent flows of activity: data reduct ion, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification” (p.10). Their system was well-suited to a qualitative microgenetic case study of this type, which require d concurrent, iterative, and flexible data analysis. This was due to the cross-examinati on of data with multiple instruments and the nature of emergent problems, patterns, and themes. Data Reduction and Display First, data reduction is a means of coping with the mass of data collected, from which meaning must be made. Data reduction “refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transformin g the data that appear in ...field notes or transcriptions” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.10). Data reduction spans the life of the entire project, from the planning phases up until t he final report is produced. As such, in this study, data reduction began even before data c ollection occurred, merely as part of the decisions the researcher made as to theoretical framework, research questions, and the like. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to this phas e as “anticipatory data reduction.” Then, “[a]s data collection proceeded, further epis odes of data reduction occurred (writing summaries, coding, teasing out themes, mak ing clusters, making partitions, writing memos)” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10). F inally, data reduction continued past the time of data collection, until the final a nalysis was complete.

PAGE 106

95 The second concurrent flow of activity, as per Mile s and Huberman (1994), was data display, which is “an organized, compressed as sembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action” (p. 11). The abovementioned NSF publication (Directorate for Education and Human Resources: Div ision of Research Evaluation and Communication, 1997) explains that: A display can be an extended piece of text or a dia gram, chart, or matrix that provides a new way of arranging and thinking about the more textually embedded data. Data displays, whether in word or diagrammat ic form, allow the analyst to extrapolate from the data enough to begin to discer n systematic patterns and interrelationships. At the display stage, addition al, higher order categories or themes may emerge from the data that go beyond thos e first discovered during the initial process of data reduction. Questionnaire. Due to the quantity of data reported in the techn ology portion of the questionnaire, efforts were made to reduce them into more useable form. First, the responses to the technology questions were graphed by technology type for each individual participant. This allowed the researche r to make comparisons related to type of technology for a given individual. Next, this i nformation was again reduced to a single graph that compared all of the variables acr oss all of the technologies for a single participant. This was to clarify the comparisons r elated to technology type for a single person. Another set of graphs was then created to view each type of technology by the six variables and the seven initial participants. This was done to ease comparison of the participants’ views toward each type of technology (See Appendix F).

PAGE 107

96 The student-teacher’s personal background informati on, including gender, age, foreign/second language education background, previ ous teaching experience, language proficiencies, summary of relevant technology skill s, and self-described expectations of the Foreign Language Practicum Course, was moved in to a Data Summary Form (see Appendix F for the participants included in the stu dy). In addition, a breakdown of a student-teacher’s overall views on technology, and specific views on the use of digital video cameras and editing software were included in the form. Also added were a summary and a full quote of the written “expectatio ns of the Foreign Language Practicum course” that was elicited in the questionnaire. The Data Summary Form was made to simplify, clarify, and somewhat standardize the pre sentation of this preliminary background data across participants. Next, in light of the sociocultural paradigm, unde rstanding as much as possible about what participants, as products of their socie ty, culture, and experience, were bringing to the project was important. Participant data were reviewed for evidence of background experience and motivation as a means of establishing background on an individual student-teacher. The preliminary tools, rules, and people acting as mediators for the student-teacher in the planned activity wer e then examined for potential contradictions, conflicts, and tensions. Audio and video recordings Transcription. The researcher made detailed, verbatim transcriptions of the tape-recorded prea nd post-interviews with individual participants, as well as the video-taped group-base d editing sessions. In addition to the audible words found in normal speech, the transcrip tions also included disfluencies such as interjections, false starts, filler words, and d iscourse markers, such as reformulations,

PAGE 108

97 stressing, and backchanneling. In the event that t he participant did not speak loudly enough for the researcher to hear, the word “inaudi ble” was transcribed. When the researcher was unable to determine the exact word(s ) used by a participant, the word unintelligible was transcribed. Miles and Huberman (1994, p.56) note that “transcriptions often erase the context along with some crucial nonverbal data. What you ‘see’ in a transcription is inescapably selective.” Also noted in the transcriptions, therefore, were prominent paralinguistic cues, such as speech speed, loudness, and inflection. In addition to verbal data, the resear cher also attempted to record salient nonverbal behaviors by the participants – as perceived by the researcher. Such behaviors included gestures, body orientations, facial expres sions, and eye gazes. Emphasis should be placed here on the word salient since it was not the intent of the researcher to reflect in the transcript an exhaustive account of all para linguistic and non-verbal behaviors in order to do an in-depth semiotic analysis. Rather, they were included as a means of providing additional context in hopes of increasing the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretation of meaning and intent in the partici pants’ speech given the ‘inescapably selective’ nature of qualitative data extraction an d reduction (See Trustworthiness above). Finally, the researcher also attempted to include i n the transcripts information about the passage of time. Time markers were placed in the t ranscriptions at one-minute intervals, as were spaces relative to the length of silences a nd salient movements. Gaps in speech were reflected by the use of ellipses for short pau ses, spacing between words for longer breaks, and spacing between lines for the longest s ilences. Dialogic Episodes The transcripts were then broken into dialogic e pisodes in order to set up an initial unit of analysis – the d ialogic episode being an utterance the

PAGE 109

98 beginning and ending of which is marked by a change in subject (Bakhtin, 1981; Moro, 1999; Wertsch & Stone, 1985). These episodes were labeled by topic, and then thei r content was briefly summarized. The entire text of the transcripts was moved into a table format in order to give additional visual clarity to the boundaries be tween episodes, as well as to provide textual space for recording information about the e pisode. Integration of field notes and memos. Field note data was then merged into the table to match time markers to events occurring whe n notes were made. The researcher also used this space to memo throughout the analysi s process. Coding for themes. Based on the topics and summaries of the dialogic episodes, the researcher created a set of codes (See Appendix G) that represented themes that emerged in the data. The transcribed data were the n coded and the results were recorded in the table of dialogic episodes. Coding for conflict, contradiction, and tension. The dialogic episodes also provided markers of actions and operations taking p lace during the activity. These were reviewed and noted in the table for salient points of conflict, contradiction, and tension. Coding for regulation. (See Regulatory Analysis below). Coding for Regulatory Behavior. Next, the researcher reviewed the dialogic episodes for evidence of regulation in the behavior s of the participants. In an effort to label their actions as object-, other-, or self-reg ulative, the researcher followed the regulative category definitions presented in Table 5 below. Coding for Regulatory Language. Finally, the student-teachersÂ’ language use was then examined for evidence of regulation. These li nguistic behaviors were coded in the

PAGE 110

99 transcripts as productive, constructive, or destruc tive, with a separate notation for private speech. (See Appendix H for an example of the table of coded data). Data Analysis The third concurrent flow of activity necessary to this analysis was conclusion drawing and verification. The researcher made deci sions about the meanings of the data, “noting regularities, patterns, explanations, possi ble configurations, causal flows, and propositions” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.11), all w hile attempting to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and openness to alternative vie ws. As the data accumulated and the conclusions amalgamated, meanings gained clarity an d improved the researcher’s confidence in their legitimacy. These conclusions, however, had to be “ tested for their plausibility, their sturdiness, their ‘confirmabili ty’ – that is, their validity ” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.11, italics in original). This w as accomplished by a) the researcher iteratively reviewing and checking notes; b) callin g for “argumentation and review among colleagues to develop ‘intersubjective consen sus’”(Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.11), that is, inter-rater reliability; and c) par ticipant verification that the researcher did indeed correctly interpret individual language and actions. Thematic Analysis For the thematic analysis, the researcher followed the procedures outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994), including first-level co ding, second level coding (creating pattern codes), memoing (general thematic derivatio n), and developing propositions (see Coding for Themes above). “First-level coding is a device for summarizing segments of data. Pattern coding is a way of grouping those su mmaries into a smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). While coding, the researcher

PAGE 111

100 became aware of broader themes by, often abruptly, perceiving connections between the codes. These perceptions were briefly recorded as “memos”. “Memos...tie together different pieces of data into a recognizable cluste r, often to show that those data are instances of a general concept...They are one of th e most useful and powerful sensemaking tools at hand” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.72 ). The researcher was then able to perceive a number of key themes, which offered impo rtant insights into the participants and their relationships with the artifacts and peop le involved in the activity. Activity Theory Analysis Largely guided by the themes, the researcher then f ocused on points of conflict, tension, or contradiction between the participants, tools, rules, community members, division of labor, object (goal), or outcomes invol ved in the activity. As previously explained, in Activity Theory conflicts, tensions, and contradictions are theorized to be important points for potential development. The th inking and problem-solving required to resolve these difficulties are what opens the do or to a learner’s Zone of Proximal Development. The points of conflict, and whether o r not the participants were able to resolve them, were the basis of a set of models tha t graphically represented Vanessa and Paula’s potential for cognitive change and whether or not they were able to actualize it. Regulatory Analysis Regulation concerns an individual’s locus of contro l, that is, where s/he gets the information to regulate thinking (Frawley, 1997). In Vygotsky’s (1978) experiments, child learners, when confronted with a problem that was just beyond their ability to solve alone, exhibited a variety of strategic behaviors t o gain control through mediation and internalization. They made direct verbal appeals t o an artifact (p. 30), the experimenter

PAGE 112

101 for help (p. 29), and to themselves (p.27). Learni ng, according to the Vygotskian school, is first object -regulated, then becomes other -regulated, before it is self -regulated. The goal was to reveal evidence of movement away fr om objector otherregulation (that which occurs on the semiotic and i nterpersonal level) towards selfregulation (that which occurs on the intrapersonal level). Evidence of such movement would have indicated student-teacher microgenetic g rowth in the ZPD (Erben, 2001) which, according to Vygotskian sociocultural theory would have been an indicator of cognitive development. Holzman (1996) explains how Vygotsky’s concept of t he movement from otherto self-regulation can be mapped: The well-known...claim of Vygotsky’s—that all highe r psychological processes appear on the interpersonal level first and then on the intrapersonal level—is taken seriously by... researchers: They ask, how? W hat is the process by which the [learner] comes to ‘internalize’? Also from Sov iet psychology comes the procedure, the ‘microgenetic’’ approach. For Vygot sky, the way to discover what something is [is] to study its history. As Soviet p sychology has developed, this has become the ‘genetic’ approach, the study of pro cess. One form of the genetic approach is the microgenetic one, where the transit ion from interto intrapersonal can be charted over the course of a relatively brie f interaction (p. 80). The present study made use of just such a microgene tic approach, and charted this movement based on previous models proposed by Werts ch (1979; 1980; 1985), Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), and Erben (2001). Wertsch’s mo del was created around child

PAGE 113

102 development in accordance with Vygotsky’s own work. In his 1979 model (see Figure 9), Wertsch determined four levels in the transitio n from otherto self-regulation: 1) The child fails to interpret the adult’s uttera nces in terms of the goal of putting the puzzle together. 2) The child understands that the adult’s utteranc es are connected to the task in some way but does not have the same understanding o f the task and communicative situation to make full use of these u tterances. 3) The child has taken over some of the responsibil ity in the task (e.g., asks “Where does the black one go?”) and can follow rath er implicit directives that the adult uses (e.g., after the child asks, “Where does the black one go?” the mother says, “Where’s the black one go on this one?”). Other-Regulation Self-Regulation 4) The child is able to complete the puzzle withou t any assistance from the adults. Figure 9 : Wertsch’s (1979) Four Levels of Transition from Otherto Self-Regulation From there, Wertsch (1980) noted that otherto sel f-regulation corresponded to the degree to which intersubjectivity was shared betwee n more and less competent participants. Rowe and Wertsch (2004) summarize: [D]uring learning activity, a transfer of competenc e – or the transfer of strategic responsibility (Wertsch, 1979, p. 12) – from expert to novice occurs. In the process, both the learner and the activity are tran sformed (Cole, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978). In order for this transfer and transformati on to take place, both the learner (novice) and the teacher (expert) must be active pa rtners in the dialogue surrounding an intersubjectively agreed upon task” (p.551). In his 1985 work, Wertsch delves further into the t opic of the degree of intersubjectivity required to produce change (move the learner into t he ZPD), diverging from Vygotsky’s notions of intersubjectivity as the primary path to intermental functioning. “Effective communication, he claims, comes about through parti al, not complete, intersubjectivity; the tension of the incompleteness is a factor that leads to successful joint cognitive activity” (Holzman, 1996, p. 81). In his 1998 work Mind as Action Wertsch states:

PAGE 114

103 While few would dispute that increasing intersubjec tivity is one dimension along which ...development occurs, several investigators have begun to argue that research focusing on this issue is missing some ess ential aspects of interaction and change. As Matusov (1996, p. 26) has argued, a sin gle-minded focus on intersubjectivity, where intersubjectivity is under stood as sharing common understanding, may ‘limit researchers to study only consensus-oriented activities and to focus on processes of unification of the par ticipants’ subjectivities.’ In a similar vein, Smolka, de Goes, and Pino (1995) have argued that some of the most important developmental landmarks for [learners] ma y arise through conflict rather than consensus (p. 118). This notion goes hand-in-hand with Leontiev’s conce pt of a need for contradiction, conflict, and tension within an activity system to spur on cognitive change. Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) adapted Wertsch’s mode l to their own needs in a second language learning context. Like Wertsch, th ey were interested in evidence of a learner moving “away from reliance on the tutor, or other-regulation, and towards reliance on the self, or self-regulation” (p. 470). They determined this by noting the “frequency and quality of help that the learner eli cited from the tutor in the correction of the same error in subsequent episodes in the same t utorial session and in subsequent tutorials” (p. 470). From their data, they were ab le to elicit five general levels, which parallel Wertsch, indicating transition from interm ental to intramental functioning. Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) were then able to furt her reduce these five levels to three general stages of development:

PAGE 115

104 The first stage, encompassing levels 1 through 3, r epresents other-regulation in which the learner must rely in some way on another individual in order to perform. Without help from someone else, the indiv idual is not able to notice or correct his or her errors. The next stage is parti al self-regulation, encompassing level 4. At this stage learners are fully capable of detecting and correcting their own mistakes without outside feedback: their perfor mance, however, is not automatized. The third, and final developmental st age, is that in which the learnersÂ’ performance, including corrective behavio r, is completely self-generated and automatized and mistakes emanate from legitimat e slips of the tongue...rather than from incomplete learning (pp. 470-471). ErbenÂ’s (2001) model of transition from otherto s elf-regulation closely parallels that of Aljaafreh and Lantolf, with adjustments for his participants as, not just language learners, but student-teachers in a foreign languag e education program learning about pedagogy through the medium of a second language. In the present study, the researcher consulted all three models of indicators of otherto self-regulation, and adapted ErbenÂ’s (200 1) version as a basis for a new model for use in analysis in the present study. This new model (Table 4) was heavily adapted with regard to the notions presented in Activity Th eory as they might manifest themselves throughout a task aimed at student-teach er development. These general levels were broad enough to allow for analysis of multiple constructs, such as cognitive change around pedagogical knowledge, t echnology use, and professionalization of behavior or language.

PAGE 116

105 Table 4: Five levels of transition from intermental to intra mental functioning Level 1 The student-teacher is not aware of the need for or able to execute an operation or action (within the existing conditions and/or at the level of a conscio us goal), even with intervention from a more knowledgeable peer. At this level, the student-teac her does not have a sufficient basis from which to interpret the more knowledgeable peerÂ’s moves to pr ovide help, and likely has no awareness that there is a problem, conflict, or contradiction. The more kno wledgeable peer must assume full responsibility for carrying out the operation or action in order to co ntinue the activity. Rather than providing correcti ve help, the more knowledgeable peerÂ’s task is to expl ain why and how s/he is carrying out a given operation or action and merely begin the process of co-constructing the ZPD with the student-teacher. Level 2 The student-teacher is aware of the need for the ex ecution of an operation or action but cannot carry it out, even with intervention. The same is true for r esolution of conflicts and contradictions. This in dicates some degree of development, but in contrast to leve l 1, an opening is provided for the more knowledgeable peer and the student-teacher to begin negotiating the feedback process and for the student-teacher to begin to progress toward self-re gulation. The more knowledgeable peer must explain how to carry out a given operation or action. The h elp required tends to be explicit rather than impli cit. Level 3 The student-teacher is aware of the need for the ex ecution of an operation or action and is able to ca rry it out, but only under other-regulation. The same is t rue for resolution of conflicts and contradictions. The student-teacher understands the more knowledgeable peerÂ’s intervention and is able to react to the feedback offered. The levels of help needed to carr y out a given operation or action move toward being more strategically implicit. The level of intersubj ectivity between the student-teacher and more knowledgeable peer/expert is higher than at levels 1or 2. Level 4 The student-teacher aware of the need for the execu tion of an operation or action, is able to carry it out with minimal, or no obvious feedback from the more knowledgeable peer/expert, and begins to assume full responsibility for choosing and/or performing particular operations or actions within the activit y. However, development has not yet become fully intra mental, since the student-teacher often chooses operations and actions based on flawed assumptions, and/or performs operations and actions with inaccuracies. S/he may still need the more knowled geable peer to confirm the appropriateness of decisions or correctness of work produced, and/or t o help resolve conflicts and contradictions. Abbreviated directives are not always understood. T he student-teacher may even reject feedback from th e more knowledgeable peer when it is unsolicited. Level 5 The student-teacher becomes consistent in correctly performing operations and actions across contexts within the activity. In most cases, the individualÂ’ s behavior at the operational level is automatized, the student-teacher has no problem following abbreviate d directives. Whenever aberrant performance does arise, however, noticing and correcting of conflict s and contradictions do not require intervention by someone else. Thus, the individual is fully self-re gulated.

PAGE 117

106 Behavioral regulation. Getting at the notions presented in Table 4 above, a contextually modified version of Erben’s (2001) reg ulative category definitions (see Table 5) was used to investigate the behaviors of t he participants as they engaged in activity system operations. This allowed the resea rcher to examine instances of object-, other-, and self-regulation that arose in the audio /video data, which gave insight into which concepts the participants were able to intern alize. Table 5: Regulation category definitions (adapted from Erben (2001). Situation Object-Regulated (code: OBJ) Other-Regulated (code: OTH) Self-Regulated (code: SLF) When faced with conflict, contradiction, or tension within an operation or action... • The student-teacher was controlled by pedagogic source material, and strict interpretation of the core task instructions. S/he was satisfied with what was decided and produced by other group members. S/he was bound by the language in the outside or peer-produced texts / materials and could not see ways in which to improve them. • The student-teacher let him/herself be guided by a peer. The peer provided strategic assistance, or scaffolding, for the student-teacher to advance towards completion of the task at hand. • The student-teacher was capable of independent problem-solving. S/he could identify content and/or technological difficulties and provide corrective / alternate options. In terms of understanding the motive of the activity, the conscious goals of the actions, or the conditions required to achieve the goals... • The student-teacher had an inadequate or incomplete grasp of the motive, goals, and/or conditions of the task at hand. S/he relied on the instructor-generated instructions and/or directives. • The student-teacher did not yet fully comprehend the motive, goals, and/or conditions of the task at hand. S/he was unable to revise or contribute fully on his/her own initiative, but could achieve a certain degree of control over the task at hand thanks to peer assistance and extensive use of other tools/signs. • The student-teacher internalized the motive, goals, and/or conditions of the task at hand. S/he had clear ideas of how to achieve the group’s objectives, and had full control over their execution. As far as understanding the content of the topics accepted by the group... • The student-teacher did not understand the fundamentals of th e • The student-teacher was able to recall fundamental features of • The student-teacher understood the topic, knew what it should

PAGE 118

107topic, did not know how to design the content in terms of practice, and could not translate the content into actual practice. the topic, and had some idea of how to design the content and translate it into practice. S/he might have confirmed or expanded his/her knowledge through help from a peer, but mostly allowed him/herself to be led through the task at hand by the other group members. look like in practice, and was able to actually translate the content into practice. In terms of technology skills and/or understanding how to best use the technology to present the content of the topics accepted by the group... • The student-teacher had no or very rudimentary technology skills, and/or had trouble connecting the potential uses of the technology to the task at hand. • The student-teacher was able to use the technology with peer and/or instructor assistance. S/he could connect the technology to the task at hand in a basic manner. • The student-teacher was comfortable and skilled with the technology. S/he could employ the technology in unique and creative ways to deal with the task at hand. In terms of completion of an operation or action... •The student-teacher was satisfied with his/her contribution, while having little idea as to its appropriateness or accuracy in the overall activity. •The student-teacher could accept suggestions for revision from peers or tutor but sometimes problems arose due to the student-teacher’s limited understanding of the content, the technology, or the task. •The student-teacher was capable of guiding other members of his/her group, and of providing scaffolding to less regulated group members. Linguistic regulation “Vygotsky believed that both consciousness and self regulation are dependent on ‘psychological tools,’ such as language” (Holzman, 1996, p. 79). It is for this reason that this researcher be lieved that a study of language use might also reveal individual movement toward self-regulat ion. Table 6, adapted from Erben (2001), offers a guide to the types of collaborati ve language use indicative of participant regulative movement, or in the words of Erben (2001 ) “instantiations of student-teachers’ socially-derived mental functioning”. Private spee ch was added to the model, since it was an indicator of the student-teacher attempting, at an early stage, to gain control over external tool use. “Instantiations of student-teac hers’ socially-derived mental

PAGE 119

108 functioning” included, but were not limited to, exa mples of language used to support and/or Table 6: Instantiations of productive, constructive, destruc tive, & private speech Other-Mediation Self-Mediation Productive Speech Constructive Speech Destructive Speech Private Speech 1. Provision of support, e.g.: prompting assisting coaching confirming encouraging suggesting guiding interpreting 2. Requesting support/feedback 3. Construction of a shared referential perspective, e.g.: use of deixis use of common referring expressions use of context informative referring expressions negotiating meaning 4. Facilitation of strategic interactions, e.g.: scaffolding modeling drafting editing recapping 4. Management of strategic behavior, e.g.: negotiating rules 1. Affirmation 2. Agreement 3. Approval 4. Inclusion 5. Courtesy 6. Humor 7. Pragmatic Appropriateness 8. Small Talk 9. Conceding 10. Offering 11. Sharing a discovery 12. Apology/Repair 13. Compliment 1. Discourtesy 2. Resistance 3. Apathy 4. Incoherence 5. In-cohesiveness 6. Rapid pace 7. Topic shifts 8. Non-sequiturs 9. Inappropriate pragmatics 10. Inattention 11. Imperatives 12. Interruption 1. Audible selftalk 2. Mouthing words – inaudible self-talk

PAGE 120

109managing operations moderating pace refocusing undermine the construction of collective and/or ind ividual knowledge. Examples of this dialogic construction are characterized by three ty pes of collaboration: productive, constructive, and destructive (see also Smagorinsky & O'Donnell-Allen, 2000). Productive collaboration is defined as any interact ion or utterance that contributes to the facilitation of shared knowledge and establi shment of intersubjectivity. Instantiations of productive strategic behaviors re presented movement toward selfregulation. Constructive collaboration promotes so cial cohesion with the group and destructive collaboration undermines the groupÂ’ s social cohesion. Examples of productive, constructive, and destructive collabora tion can be seen in Table 6. Organization of the Research Findings Explained above was the theoretical framework of t he study, and how that organized the research process and guided the data collection, management, and analysis procedures. The following chapter presents the fi ndings from the analyzed data.

PAGE 121

110 Chapter IV This chapter provides details of the study findings Included herein is background information on the participants, followed by the fi ndings from each of the analyses conducted, including the thematic and activity theo ry analyses, followed by those done on behavioral and linguistic regulation. The chapt er concludes with an examination of the research questions in light of these findings. Data Analysis and Findings As previously stated, the pool of participants was eventually narrowed to one group of two student-teachers due to the appropriat eness of the data they provided in light of the study design. Henceforth, they shall be ref erred to by the pseudonyms “Vanessa Carrera” and “Paula Cordero”. Questionnaire – Findings Questionnaire – Biographical Data. One of the participants was Vanessa, a 26year-old female seeking a Master’s degree in Foreig n Language Education, specializing in Spanish. Her previous post-secondary educationa l experience had been at the university for her Bachelor’s degree in Spanish Lan guage and Literature, her completed courses for the M.A., and one paid workshop on teac hing foreign language with technology completed at a state foreign language te acher’s conference. Vanessa had more previous teaching experience by far than any o f the other participants. Though she had never taught in a public K-12 setting, she had tutored (1.5 years – junior college level) and taught (2 years – private primary school ; 1.5 years – beginning-level

PAGE 122

111 university) Spanish prior to the study. Vanessa in dicated that she held full nativelanguage proficiency in English and Spanish in all skills. Vanessa’s partner was Paula, a 25-year-old female who, like Vanessa, was seeking a Master’s degree in Foreign Language Educa tion with a specialty in Spanish. Her previous post-secondary educational experience had been at the university for her Bachelor’s degree in Spanish Language and Literatur e, and her completed courses for the M.A. Paula had no previous public or private schoo l teaching experience, but had taught beginning-level university Spanish for one semester Paula indicated that she held fullnative proficiency in English, advanced proficiency in Spanish, and low proficiency in French across all skills. Questionnaire – Motivational Data. The fact that Vanessa had voluntarily opted to complete a paid workshop on technology in FLE may have indicated a strong motivation to learn by advancing her professional k nowledge and skills – as would her attendance at a state conference for teachers. Wh en asked to state her overall expectations of the Practicum course, she wrote, “T o prepare me better for the upcoming internship. To have a better understanding of what is expected of us as teachers”. Understanding her role as a language teacher, and p erhaps many of the tasks associated therewith – what might be termed “readiness” – appe ared to be a personal objective in taking the practicum course. Of the twelve course objectives stated in the syllabus (See Appendix I), only the last two were related in any way to Vanessa’s response: “11.) To prepare the student-[teacher] for internship;” and “12.) To examine and develop effective procedures for record-keeping and improving classro om management.” In sum, expanding her pedagogical tool base, gaining practi cal knowledge on practice, and

PAGE 123

112 professionalizing herself appeared to be of interes t to Vanessa based on her previous experiences and educational choices. Her expectati ons of the course, however, indicated a possible narrowing of interest to practical knowl edge on practice. In terms of pedagogy, little in the questionnaire g ave insight as to Paula’s objective. Her expectations of the Practicum cours e were stated, “To receive more observation experience for my target language.” Ha ving more opportunities to watch experienced teachers in practice appeared to be a m otivation for taking the practicum course. Her perspective appeared to be passive, m entioning only observation rather than hands-on, real-world practice and experience. Of t he twelve course objectives, only the first related in any way to Paula’s stated expectat ion for learning: “1) To provide structured observations of actual classroom teachin g.” In sum, observation of other, more experienced professionals appeared to be of interes t to Paula. Questionnaire – Technology Data In terms of technology, Vanessa rated herself as highly skilled and very comfortable, inc luding DV recording, playback, and editing. She indicated that she had very little ov erall curiosity about learning more about technology, and no interest in learning anything mo re about DV. There was a possible implication for motivation in Vanessa’s responses c oncerning her lack of curiosity or interest in learning anything more about DV (or mos t other technologies presented in the questionnaire). This appeared to contradict somewh at with Vanessa’s previously stated educational experience (which implied a natural cur iosity and desire to learn in that she had actively sought out an opportunity to expand he r knowledge beyond the basic requirements for the degree or for certification). The researcher made note of this and attempted to follow up with it in the pre-interview

PAGE 124

113 Paula, like Vanessa, generally rated herself as ski lled and very comfortable with technology. For DV specifically, she indicated tha t she had advanced skills and considerable experience with recording and playback but only intermediate skills and little experience with DV editing. She showed a mi ld curiosity in learning more about DV recording and playback, and more curiosity about DV editing. Unlike Vanessa, Paula reported considerable interest in learning mo re about most of the newer technologies presented in the questionnaire. Again there was a possible implication for motivation in Paula’s responses due to her reported interest in learning more about a variety of technologies. The researcher noted that this may have been an indicator of a personality with a natural curiosity and desire to learn more about new things, with implications for motivation to engage in the video project through the use of the primary mediational tool (DV). Questionnaire Findings – Summary. In sum, the student-teachers of interest in this study were Vanessa and Paula, two women in the ir mid-twenties seeking an MA in Spanish Education. Both had previous Spanish-langu age teaching experience prior to the Practicum course, and both listed narrow expectatio ns for the Practicum course. Vanessa felt a bit more comfortable with DV recording and e diting than Paula did, but neither was anxious in any way about the technological tools th ey were to use. Both women expressed, in one way or another, a natural curiosi ty and interest in learning, though, in terms of technology, Vanessa contradicted this, whi le Paula indicated it exclusively.

PAGE 125

114 Audio and Video Recordings – Findings Thematic Analysis Once the researcher had broken the pre-interview activity, and post-interview transcripts into dialogic episod es, a variety of themes began to emerge from the data. From these episodes came an invento ry of recurrent themes, which was then converted into a list of codes. The research er then coded the data accordingly. The following are the most prominent themes that arose in the pre-interview, activity, and post-interview. (Note that the themes gleaned from the interviews were heavily dependent on the interview questions). Topics. Of all the themes that emerged from the activity, t he topics that Vanessa and Paula were working on were understandably the m ost frequent to arise. They chose as their two topics 1) Comprehensible Input as a Te aching Tool; and 2) Listening Skills as a Critical Target Language Skill to be Taught. For both topics, the instructions required them to fully explain the terms in the con texts of second language acquisition and instruction. They were also directed to discus s the theoretical foundations, seminal supporting research, as well as points of divergenc e or disagreement among researchers and practitioners. They were asked to consider whe n, why, and with whom their topics might be more or less appropriate. Vanessa and Pau la experienced considerable difficulty in defining and organizing the presentat ion of their topics, usually confounding the two. In the end, their lack of organization an d planning coupled with their failure to use the tools and people that were readily at their disposal resulted in what were, for the most part, incompletely developed ideas and concept s, and a product that adhered very tenuously to the instructions and the grading rubri c.

PAGE 126

115 Topics – Confounding the Topics. A serious problem that plagued them throughout the activity was the trouble they encoun tered in differentiating between the two topics. Their struggle began immediately durin g their first meeting when Vanessa questioned whether the notion of “learner character istics” would apply to the use of comprehensible input in the classroom or the teachi ng of listening skills to students (see References below). Vanessa noted that, in her opin ion, “its kind of hard to separate them.” Paula then suggested that they not try to s eparate the topics, but rather, “do listening as part of comprehensible input.” Moment s later, as they began discussing issues of presentation sequence for their video, Pa ula offered, “before we start showing clips of the video we can actually …show an example of the listening portion of comprehensible input … through a day in a universit y Spanish class, for Spanish One…” Vanessa then said that they should begin by talking about “Krashen” and “describe the theory.” Paula interrupted to say that she must me an the theory behind both comprehensible input and listening skills because, “Krashen covers both of them, cause that’s his thing…cause we have to do theory for bot h [topics]”. Vanessa hesitated, then fumbled over her words, finally saying that she tho ught they should “at least at the beginning” try to separate comprehensible input and listening, and then tie them together later. Paula agreed saying, “Okay…And then for the sixth part, maybe we can … show …comprehensible input, listening, for, uh, comprehe nsible input.” As they continued to work, the notion that listenin g skills were just a part of the larger idea of comprehensible input began to streng then. For instance, as they tried to approach the project plan a second time, Paula aske d, “Are we just gonna talk about comprehensible input, and sub-areas, listening?” H ere she appeared to view listening as

PAGE 127

116 a sub-section of comprehensible input, rather than a skill to be taught and learned in its own right. Almost immediately, her confusion prese nted itself again when she tried to talk her way through the sequence in which they wou ld present their topics, examples, and the like: Paula: …good listening, how do you say, like, good listeni ng teaching skills, like You know, it’s also good that a teacher uses a lot of gestures, speaks slowly, And outputting good…listening methods, that’s not w hat I want to say Vanessa : Outputting Paula: I know, there is comprehensible output, so … Vanessa later decided to add to the video her versi on of a ‘clear’ connection between comprehensible input and listening skills a s follows: “[Comprehensible input] is crucial for language students because without a cle ar understanding of what is being said, students will lose interest and stop listening to t he teacher.” Later as Vanessa began working on the listening po rtion she engaged in a bit of self-talk as a means of refocusing herself, and sai d, “What was I defining? I was defining, uhh, listening.” To which Paula responded “Yes. Or really defining comprehensible input, actually.” When it came time to create the “slide” to introdu ce the topic of second language listening skills, it was clear that they had comple tely entangled the two topics, essentially obliterating listening skills as an independent con cept, while reducing comprehensible input down to a perfunctory, one-dimensional, decon textualized ‘to-do’ list. As Vanessa began the title of the slide, Paula suggested, “Oh, just write ‘comprehensible input’. If

PAGE 128

117 you wanna put a colon, ‘listening’ […]. Comprehensi ble input in relation to listening.” Vanessa agreed, and then used the following bullet points to explain listening skills: Gestures Situations Background Knowledge In the end, they wound up presenting and exemplifyi ng comprehensible input and listening skills in nearly the same way. In both c ases, they interpreted both of the topics to be actions taken by a teacher to help students t o understand what s/he might say in the classroom. Topics – Definitions. One of the many reasons why Vanessa and Paula confounded comprehensible input with listening skil ls may have been their inability to accurately define either of their topics in the fir st place. For example, as they attempted to formulate a basic plan for their video, Vanessa stated that they should “define listening” before proceeding. At this moment in th e planning phase, Paula suddenly decided to improvise a definition of listening: Listening occurs to me, like, the best definition I would think of, unless you have something better, would be ‘the student interceptin g (voice volume rose slightly, seemed struck with a good idea, smiled, dipped head to one side and continued waving) and putting into memory what you’re saying. ’ Vanessa suggested changing “intercepting” to “inter preting”, and both appeared to be very satisfied with their creation. They made no a ttempt to verify or expand this definition. They continued through to the end of t he project, seemingly unable to differentiate between the physical act of listening and the teaching of target language

PAGE 129

118 listening skills to foreign/second language student s. Over time as they worked, the locus of control shifted from the students “interpreting what [the teacher is] saying,” to what the teacher could do to be comprehensible to studen ts when speaking. After their attempt to define listening skills, the y then continued by attempting to formulate a definition for comprehensible input. P aula, speaking rapidly and gesturing, said, “And then, like, we need a way that we can ti e this into comprehensible input because basically the purpose of comprehensible inp ut is teaching the language to where students can understand it…” This portion of the d efinition, while extremely narrow, did approach Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, which states t hat in order to acquire a language, one must have comprehensible input in that language (Krashen, 1985). They continued: Vanessa : (Overlap) Yeah, well, comprehensible input helps… Them…understand… Paula: (Overlap) Understand what Vanessa : …and interpret what is being said… Paula: said Vanessa : …and put it in, so…The comprehensible input is th e aid […] And actually, it’s an aid for both …It’s an aid to help the teacher stay in the target language …And it’s an aid for the student to unders tand what is being said. Vanessa continued with a basic example of comprehen sible input in a manner that appeared to be more thinking out loud than an actua l explanation for Paula’s sake (possibly evidence of an attempt at self-regulation ):

PAGE 130

119 Because if, if…(lifted book, cover toward Paula) yo u have an actual book, and you can say “libro”, they know what the book is…and they, they know that it’s a book…and so you don’t need to say “libro” is “book” You can just say “libro.” Paula’s own interpretation of comprehensible input appeared to define it as language used by the teacher that might have real-life applicatio n and meaning for the learner: (Rapid speech, waved pencil for emphasis) The way I always understand comprehensible input is something [the students] ca n use in real life, you know, if you talk about traveling, people are gonna travel… Like you were saying, even “book” because they go to school – book, and if we’ re talking about scientific theory, and none of them are science majors, its go nna be like, “When am I gonna use this?” As with listening skills, they made no attempt to check to see if their definition of comprehensible input was correct or complete. The source of their definitions for both their topics then, appeared to be a mixture of piec emeal recollections of the subject matter from previous coursework combined with what seemed to be an attempt to make up something that sounded commonsensical based on t he names of the topics themselves. Topics – Foundations and Theories. Vanessa and Paula offered evidence that they were able to summon up from memory a few isola ted concepts related to the idea of comprehensible input, but they were not able to rec all much about the fundamental tenets of the original theory. All in all, they made note of three to four general techniques of making input comprehensible--the use of pictures, g estures, writing, and speaking slowly--which they considered to be models of compr ehensible input in practice. They were not able to recall anything about the skill of target language listening, nor were they

PAGE 131

120 able to conjure up any listening strategies that mi ght be taught and practiced with language learners. In the end, they reiterated Pau la’s earlier invented definition (students being able to interpret what a teacher says), follo wed by a recasting of their explanation of comprehensible input (important for teachers to try and make their speech comprehensible in order to ease the act of listenin g for the students). Omitted was the notion of listening as a fundamental skill to be ta ught and practiced in the second language classroom (just like speaking, reading, an d writing in the target language). In both cases, they neither researched the topics, nor explored alternate or expanded points of view. They also appeared to give no considerati on to variations in application according to context, such as modifications to the means of making auditory or text-based input comprehensible to students at different profi ciency levels. As far as any theoretical foundations on their topi cs went, Paula was able to recall that Stephen Krashen was linked to comprehensible i nput: I’m, just briefly gonna talk about Krashen’s theory I’m, I’m pretty sure these are the four main things, and I’ll just kinda like brie fly say these are the main, kinda, listening, but then I’ll just say, ‘the importance of comprehensible input in the classroom is la, la, la’, and that’s it right? And later she recalled Krashen again, and made an a ssociation between comprehensible input and his Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis: I may do […] why, comprehensible input’s important to do, you know, from the beginning of, like, learning another language, so b ecause, you know, I can talk about how, you know, the first thing, you know, the first point of Krashen’s

PAGE 132

121 theory is, like, you know, students can learn a lan guage, but acquiring it is different, and you acquire it through blahblahblahb lah, all that crap, you know. Paula did eventually flip through the index of Vane ssa’s methods textbook in search of “Krashen,” then turned to the segment of the book w here he was mentioned. From this she gleaned that he had posited “three different hy pothesis, hypothesises, hypotheses,” which moments later she changed to “the four differ ent parts of the acquisition theories, such as you know, the four, the five, hypotheses.” Based on this cursory investigation into Krashen and his theories, Paula then directed Vanessa to build a slide for their video to “explain” comprehensible input by listing the Ac quisition/Learning Hypothesis, The Monitor Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis, Th e Input Hypothesis, and The Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985). She d irected Vanessa to highlight “The Input Hypothesis.” They did not explain any of the hypotheses in terms of what they theorized, how they related to one another, or what they might mean in a practical setting. One other isolated notion that they were able to r ecall from previous courses was that of background knowledge. Paula in particular gave considerable attention to the idea, and worked to incorporate it into their prese ntation. This began while they were reviewing classroom footage in search of example cl ips, when Paula eagerly remarked that the students in her class had made use of thei r background knowledge to respond to Vanessa’s video comprehension questions. She expla ined to Vanessa that the verb, hacer that she had just conjugated for them in the pret erit, was the background knowledge they needed in order to be able to compre hend the video clip and the comprehension questions that followed. Later, Paul a again connected the video of her

PAGE 133

122 preterit conjugation on the board to background kno wledge as an example of comprehensible input: I could probably say that the preterit, the reason why it could be considered as comprehensible input, is for the fact that, you kno w…that’s because we talk in the past, a bridge, if we’re gonna talk in the past ten se, that’s important, that’s something they’re gonna use everyday, you know, the y can’t just continue to learn the present. In another instance, they came to a section of vide o where Paula, using an overhead transparency with pictures and correspondi ng clothing vocabulary, mentioned buying clothes at a department store to the class. At this moment, Paula remarked with lan that she had again connected comprehensible input to the students’ background knowledge at that point because the students alread y knew “what Macy’s is.” It should be noted here that Paula appeared to be either conf ounding background knowledge with the practical future usability of the vocabulary an d grammar of the language, or making the assumption that, since the students understood and could use the notion of the past in their own languages, they would be able to apply th at background knowledge to Spanish. Later, Paula summarized how the verb conjugation an d the clothing vocabulary had given the students the background knowledge the y needed in order to comprehend Vanessa:

PAGE 134

123 So then we can say if we’re going to be discussing the preterit, that is like the background knowledge of everything we’ve taught so far. We’re starting off with that […] What you’re doing is background knowledge as well as me teaching the clothing, cause they learned that the day before. That’s all background knowledge…Cause for you to as k them, ‘oh Qu hicieron?’ they’re gonna have to use background kno wledge, that’s something I just taught them…So that’s what we can say, that’s how we can kinda introduce that, cause I was, like, how are we gonna introduce the preterit? In this manner, Paula found a means of explaining h ow her having conjugated the preterit of the verb hacer was not only comprehensible input, but also a foun dation for listening skills as evidenced in the following audi o segment she recorded on comprehensible input and/or listening: As you just saw in the previous clip, and as you wi ll see in the next one, for our project for comprehensible input, one of the compon ents, as stated earlier, is background knowledge. For this we are teaching the students the preterit, or past tense, so we are, at this point, setting up ba ckground knowledge, which you will see in the future clips in our video presentat ion, how this will come in handy, because they will now need to know how to be able to listen in the past tense and answer in the past tense. Paula reiterated this point later when Vanessa que stioned how the clip of her asking display-style questions of the students rela ted to background knowledge, by saying “Past tense, cause you talk to them in the p ast tense.”

PAGE 135

124 At one point, Vanessa attempted to connect the noti on of background knowledge to listening skills. While the connection to prior knowledge was never developed, Vanessa did appear to have a momentary insight abou t what they were supposed to do with the listening skills topic: [The students] need to have background knowledge, a nd then you need to, to teach them how to listen. And I think that somethin g else that we need to put in here somewhereÂ…is how do you teach them to listen, to be better listeners? Here, for the first time, Vanessa seemed to underst and that listening skills were something to be considered in their own right, and that how to teach students to be better listeners in the target language was the foundation and the purpose for the second half of their project. She seemed to grasp that while the use of comprehensible input with second language learners might support listening co mprehension, it was just one thread tying together the two separate concepts. Unfortu nately, at this moment, Paula was still confounding the two topics, and drew both of them a way from VanessaÂ’s moment of clarity: [I]f we have to define listening and explain the t heory behind it, through the theory we can sayÂ… it is important for students to be good listeners, and the way that we can help them be good listeners is through gestures, and ta-da-ta-da-ta-da, so I guess that would go, (looked to rubric, leaned in, tapped rubric with pencil point) like, right here, in the theory. Â…[A]fter y ou explain the theory behind it you can talk about, making them good listeners. Paula suggested that for their segment on listening skills, they first talk about how to help the students understand, and that then they might discuss how to help them to be

PAGE 136

125 better listeners. Unfortunately the latter half of this idea was dropped, leaving only a restatement of the definition of listening-based co mprehensible input. As with idea of background knowledge and comprehens ible input, Vanessa and Paula seized on the notion of repetition as a key f actor in teaching listening skills because it was a means to support student comprehension. I n one example, they were reviewing the segment of their teaching video wherein Vanessa was asking the class general comprehension questions about a video they had just viewed. Vanessa had asked a question, and received no response from the student s, so she wrote the question on the board so they could see the verb form and recognize the verb hacer in the preterit form (which Paula had just conjugated for them prior to the showing of the video): Vanessa : (Pointed to screen) See there, I had to write it on the board again because they, like … Paula : (Interrupted) Repetition, (nodded affirmatively) repetition’s a part of listening. Vanessa : (Proffered an acknowledging hand gesture – a voil opening of the palm). Paula : (Glanced at the computer, then back at partner, a nd gesticulated as she spoke revelatory) But at least you tried, you lis tened, and once they saw ‘Qu hicieron?’ written, they were, like, ‘ohhhhhh’, you know, they just got it, so without having to tell them it means what they do. You know? Vanessa : Right Vanessa and Paula were able to remember that comp rehensible input was linked to second language acquisition theorist Stephen Kra shen, and that the ideas of

PAGE 137

126 background knowledge and repetition were important to helping students understand. They were also able to list from memory a handful o f strategies to support comprehensible input, such as gesturing while speak ing. They did not, however, recall, seek out, or attempt to understand or report even t he basic tenets of either topic, let alone identify and explain fundamental theories, provide alternate perspectives, or give examples of confirmative or contradictory research. Topics – Reflection on Best Applications. A significant part of the video project assignment was to have the student-teachers reflect on their topics from a variety of second language teaching perspectives. For compreh ensible input, they were to consider factors such as 1) What is the premise behind why i ts use is considered “best practice”?; 2) When, why, and with whom are different forms of it appropriate or inappropriate to use?; 3) When might its use be problematic?; etc. For listening skills, they were to consider factors such as 1) Why listening skills ar e important for language learners; 2) When during second language learning can these skil ls be developed?; 3) How would development need to change with proficiency?; 4) Wh at are some of the most effective ways to teach these skills?; 5) When might it be i nappropriate or problematic to teach listening skills; etc. Vanessa and Paula appeared to have difficulty with these issues. For the most part, they appeared to ignore them completely. Oth er times, they oversimplified them, such as when Paula responded to the rubric point of “when, why, and with whom” comprehensible input should be used by saying, “Wit h comprehensible input, I mean, it’s best at all times.” Finally, they occasionally rem oved the topics from the context of second language learning entirely, such as when Van essa stated that, “listening skills can

PAGE 138

127 be taught at a very early age, [and] should become better and more detailed” and “Listening is a skill that […] the students […] wil l use the rest of their lives.” They appeared to believe, however, that they had c overed these topics thoroughly in their presentation. The source of this disconne ct was unclear, but a few possible explanations are explored in Chapter 5. Topics – Examples. When it came time to choose examples from their tea ching video that exemplified the topics they were trying to explain, Vanessa and Paula appeared to rationalize the use of what they had, rather tha n critique it and determine if it was, indeed, the best material. One instance of forcing the material they already had to bend to their needs was Vanessa’s mention throughout the project of using s till images as examples of comprehensible input. The source of these images w as a “picture file” she’d been required to make for another class consisting of a variety of concrete vocabulary: Vanessa : …Books, Newspaper, And other things […] I got the maracas, like, the r ealia, […] the globe for, like…another form of realia, like the map and stuff or […] the CDs if we mention music. Having a teacher show realia when working with lowe r level concrete vocabulary does support comprehensible input in a sense. In t heir video, however, these images were just shown one after another as an example of “realia”, and in no way connected to how or why they would support comprehensible input. Not only did they not explain the presence of the visuals they showed on the screen a s examples, Vanessa and Paula made no attempt to think beyond this to consider how to make non-teacher-centered linguistic

PAGE 139

128 input comprehensible, such as an actual book, newsp aper, or song, nor how or why the input would change in accordance with student profi ciency levels, skills, etc. The clearest example, however, of their determinati on to use material they already had was how they chose the video segment of Paula c onjugating the verb hacer on the board in the preterit to demonstrate comprehensible input. At first, they wanted to use the clip because they felt that Paula writing the v erb conjugations on the board as she said them helped to make her speech more comprehensible to the learners. Paula rightfully had doubts at the outset about using it as an examp le of comprehensible input: Maybe…honestly, I would probably say, looking at th is video, maybe a nonexample of comprehensible input would have been jus t flat out teaching the preterit. I was just writing on the board. Which, of course, was my purpose. I wanted to give them the rules first, but that would n’t be comprehensible input. […] ‘this is the preterit, tadatadatada’, you know, that’s not really comprehensible input, it’s just telling flat out what this is. So that could be a non-example we could use later on. This insight that Paula had on her own teaching was important. She had simply conjugated the verb hacer in the preterit on the board in front of the class There was no evidence of her being aware of the notions of i+1, connecting new information to previously learned vocabulary, providing contextual information to indicate that she was showing them the verb endings for a past tense, etc The issue of using this clip arose again in their second meeting: Vanessa : Okay, so for your, for you, the comprehensible in put in this was you writing on the board.

PAGE 140

129 Paula: (Stared at screen) Vanessa : Okay? Paula: Unintelligible language, right (raised brows questioningly)? Vanessa : Right Paula: (Leaned back, hesitated, with confused, doubtful ex pression) (Rapidly spoken) I don’t know if I would really say that’s comprehensible input, like…(questioning, doubtful scowl) I mean, would yo u? Writing? I guess. (Looked back at screen, with pained expression) We were covering, auh, (rocked head, expression fell to serious) I guess so. Vanessa : Well, isn’t that (gestured back at partner’s note s) what you put, too? Listening, reading, and writing, and speaking? Paula: (Leaned back, put crook of arm on top of head, look ed at screen, and sighed as she spoke) I mean, those aren’t really co mprehensible input. In this case, the iterative review of the video cli ps was having the effect for which it was designed: to offer the participants an opportunity to reflect on their initial choices, and question, verify, and make changes when necessary. In this instance, however, the participants were able to perceive a potential prob lem with the example, but instead of examining, reflecting, verifying, or even deleting it, they worked to rationalize its use unchanged. When the time came for them to begin in tegrating clips of their teaching to use as examples in the video, Vanessa began with th e segment where Paula was conjugating on the board. At this point, Paula cea sed to protest at its inclusion. She appeared to find a new rationalization for its use as they played it back another time, perking up, smiling, and saying in a self-satisfact ory manner, “That can cover speaking.”

PAGE 141

130 The clip was ultimately chosen as an example, thoug h Paula still voiced a few reservations about its use even as they edited it. Later, even as Vanessa had moved ahead to other work, Paula was still concerned that the u se of the conjugation video would be misinterpreted. She changed her mind from her prev ious rationalization for its use to it being an example of her establishing background kno wledge for the sake of comprehensible input. Like I was saying, maybe for introducing the next v ideo you can just […] tie it to background knowledge, so that way, [our professor’s ] gonna be, (inhaled, expression of realization) “Ohh, okay, now I see wh y they were showing this clip of her just writing on the board.” That’s not list ening skills or comprehensible input. But the purpose that we’re trying to make i s that, (chopped right hand into left palm) I was establishing background knowledge, cause we keep saying, background knowledge is key, background knowledge i s key. Cause when you (meaning Vanessa) start talking, you’re (snapped fi ngers) automatically doing the preterit tense, and [… the book] says one of the fa ctors involved in the comprehension process is short tem memory.” Vanessa disagreed here, saying, “No, let’s not, cau se we’re not doing memory […] I wanna just keep focusing on what we talked about be fore, like, background knowledge and teacher clarity.” Paula agreed. Later, Vaness a stepped out momentarily, and Paula sat at the computer and tried to compose a segment on listening for Vanessa to record. Still unable to let the conjugation clip go, she wo rked in, “In the previous clips that you saw, Paula began to establish background knowledge for the past and the preterit.”

PAGE 142

131 As stated above, Vanessa and Paula seemed to be det ermined to use pictures and teaching video they had already collected before be ginning the project. Rather than composing a sturdy, well-researched and considered foundation on their topics, and then examining the video for any possible examples, they ordered the explanations around the examples they had. Topics – Summary. In both instances, Vanessa and Paula offered incomp lete or incorrect explanations of their topics. For compre hensible input, they demonstrated only a superficial “technical rationality”, omitting man y of the key points of the theory and its recommended classroom applications. Never once in any of their discussions did they note the origins or essential tenets (e.g. i + 1, K rashen, 1985) of either topic, or how they came to have relevance to the fields of second lang uage acquisition and instruction. Neither did they examine or explain related princip les (e.g. natural acquisition order, Krashen, 1985), or describe what were the generally accepted views and findings of seminal research in the field either supporting or critiquing the theories. Finally, they disregarded the requirement that they discuss the m onitoring and adjustments necessary for the efficacious application of their topics in practice so as to appropriately meet student needs. Project Instructions. Overall, Vanessa and Paula had trouble following th e instructions for the project, as well as interpreti ng the rubric. They followed very few of the recommended procedures for completing the proje ct, and they frequently forged ahead without first thinking through what they were supposed to be doing (i.e. recording teaching sample video before making a plan; making the project plan before reading the project instructions, etc.). The instructions and t he grading rubric for the project were

PAGE 143

132 distributed to the students and discussed with the professor on the first night of class, and also made available online through the Practicum we bsite. One week later, the researcher visited the class to go over the instructions with the students, explaining them in detail and offering examples of what was going to be requi red. During the activity, however, the instructions were rarely consulted by any of th e participants, Vanessa and Paula included. Instead, they opted to glance at the rub ric, but then only sporadically and in an unsystematic manner. They seemed reluctant to refl ect on the meaning of the rubric topics, or to take note of the varying point levels for the depth of coverage for each item therein. At no point was it observed that any of t he participants referred to the instructions while examining the rubric in order to clarify the items. When asked in the pre-interview, Vanessa stated tha t the project instructions were clear, and that she liked that they gave direction, while allowing room for creativity: It kind of gives everyone a guideline, but then the rest of it, it gives you a lot of wiggle room, and a lot ofÂ…creative freedom and so i t's just, giving us the topics, it's not telling us how specifically to do it Â… we have freedom in that. The researcher felt that perhaps VanessaÂ’s apparent interest in the creative aspect of the project might also have been a motivation for her t o engage in the activity (see Creativity below). Paula had little to say on the instruction s other than that they didnÂ’t seem too hard, but that if she had any questions she would a sk the professor. In the same interview, she indicated that she had not really re ad them through. Two causes came to light for not thoroughly reading the instructions or rubric: 1) overconfidence that they already understood what wa s required; and 2) veering off-topic whenever the subject of the instructions arose.

PAGE 144

133 In the earliest example of trouble with the instruc tions, the problem was simply that they only gave them a very superficial glance, and then only after having already begun to work. It was well into their first meetin g, after they had made their outline for the sequence of the video presentation, that Vaness a decided to look at the project instructions. She cursorily read them aloud, skipp ing over segments of text: …’purpose: To create, demonstrate, document & prese nt focused samples of appropriate second/foreign language teaching practi ces, the process & product…will exemplify’ nananananaaa… ‘To enhance y our technology skills,’ blah blah blah… […] Practical Application: demonstr ation’ nanananana ‘lesson segment delivered through the specific’ okay. […] ‘ Each of the above skill-based’ nanananana okay. With the word, “okay,” Vanessa appeared satisfied t hat she knew what to do. Getting sidetracked was another common cause for no t examining the instructions. In one instance, Vanessa and Paula h ad chosen, extracted, and edited the segments of their teaching video that they wanted t o use to exemplify their topics. Vanessa suggested that the next thing to do was to go back and “in between we’ll add explanations,” followed by “so how are we gonna do this?” Paula responded, “Can we start with the instructions I forgot, ummm, maybe l ook in there?” Before they could do so, however, Paula reminded Vanessa, “So did you wa nna do your little talking thing about comprehensible input? Like, you had the litt le intro you were gonna do, talking about what we were gonna do.” Vanessa was distract ed off onto this, and then decided that they should record all their audio clips and m ove them into the editing software before proceeding any further. The opportunity to review the instructions before

PAGE 145

134 proceeding with the activity was again derailed. Many misunderstandings arose from not completely re ading and attempting to understand the instructions. One confusion that em erged was between what was expected of Vanessa and Paula as student-teachers w orking on the video, and what was expected of them as teachers in the instructional e xamples. For example, when Vanessa read aloud that one of the purposes for the video p roject was “to enhance your technology skills”, Paula interpreted it as though she was bei ng asked to demonstrate in the video that she was able to use technology in her teaching The enhancement of their technology skills through the project was to come from their h aving to use digital video cameras and editing software as tools with which to create thei r product. Whether or not their example video clips in the classroom showed them us ing technology in their teaching was not the focus of interest. Paula mentioned sev eral times throughout the activity, however, that they might meet the technology requir ement of the project because they had used an overhead projector and transparency, as well as a commercial DVD video in their teaching examples. For instance, as they wer e reviewing the video they recorded of themselves in the classroom, Paula said “that’s sho wing proof right there that we’re using a DVD…so [our professor] can see that we’re using t echnology, we’re using TV as technology, so we’re using a variety of modes of te chnology.” She then insisted on them placing still pictures of the transparency and of t he cover of the DVD video in their presentation as examples of comprehensible input. In another example, even after the researcher inte rvened with an explanation and examples, Vanessa continued to struggle with the se gment on teaching TL (Target Language) listening skills. She and Paula both app eared to be particularly stuck on the

PAGE 146

135 “when, why, and with whom” notion on the rubric. H ad they referred back to the project instructions, they might have been able to clarify this as it was stated quite explicitly, “provide background information and explanations of why [listening] is an important skill for language learners, when during the proces s of language acquisition can this skill be developed, what are the most effective ways to t each/learn this skill, etc.” As it was, however, their apparent lack of understanding cause d them to gloss over this important item: Paula: But you’re talking about with whom, you don’t reall y need to describe… And this, (pointed to what Vanessa had typed on the screen) I don’t understand all this right here, seems more like a ‘why’. […] with whom, you can say, like, pretty much, I would say, like, with whom, should s tart, like, at the beginning level of any, you know… Vanessa : (Interrupted, pointed to screen) Well that’s what I say here…’listening can be taught at a very early age, as students grow their listening skills should become better and more detailed.’… Paula: (Inhaled, sighed as she said) With whom should list ening be taught? (Looked fixedly at partner) It should be taught to all language students. Vanessa : Mm. Paula: (Glanced between screen and partner, gave a disgust ed expression with an eye-roll and a lip curl) I mean, it’s kind of a sho rt answer… Vanessa : (Interrupted) That’s why I said, ‘all students ne ed to develop’ soooo…

PAGE 147

136 Immediately thereafter, Paula interjected, with a w hine in her voice and pleading look on her face, “I think it sounds really hard fo r me to talk about comprehensible input and when, why, and with whom.” Additional problems developed when their misinterpr etations were coupled with the difficulties they had in understanding one anot her (see Rapport below). For example, Paula correctly seized on the notion that they were to do the video in two parts, focusing first on the teaching strategy and second on the la nguage skill. Vanessa at first agreed that they had two topics to cover, but then said th at she didn’t think the video had to be in two parts. There appeared here to be a miscommunic ation between them as Paula had so confounded the notions of comprehensible input and listening that she was concerned that the instructions were indicating that they were not actually one and the same. Vanessa, on the other hand, appeared to know that they were two separate topics, but believed Paula was asking whether they must make two separat e videos. Yet another problem came out of what appeared to b e a general reluctance on their part to ask for or accept clarification or he lp, relying instead on their own interpretations of the instructions or the rubric. For instance, after a discussion in which the researcher had voluntarily attempted to help th em understand what was meant by the portion of the rubric that dealt with considered co ntextual application, Paula suggested they not bother covering it at all. She recommende d that they just respond verbally during the showing of the video if the topic arose. Her rationale was, “[The professor] didn’t really say, you know, it wasn’t like our, ou r mini-lesson we had where we need[ed] to talk about how does this affect ESOL students, h ow does this affect this, so I think maybe we could just cover, you know, if some people ask, what listening is, what are

PAGE 148

137 ways to do that, and use the ESOL example, or whate ver.” This led to a narrowing of the project scope by choosing to interpret the professo r’s meaning on their own, ignoring the instructions and the rubric, and failing to verify if their suppositions were correct. Another serious misinterpretation of the instructi ons by Vanessa was her pressure throughout the project to say little in the explana tory pieces and “let the video do the talking.” In one instance, Paula expressed her wo rry with this saying: …the only thing is… [the professor] could potential ly ask us questions, you know, it would be good to go ahead and get them out you know? Cause …she might not, she might see it, or she might be, like, ‘well, how are you really showing this and that’, unintelligible I would say, well, see I was pulling my clothes, I mean (wrinkled nose) I don’t know. Yet another example of how their decision to inte rpret the instructions on their own caused a serious omission in their final produc t occurred near the end of their second meeting. After having recorded their audio segment s “explaining” their topics and introducing their example videos, they assessed wha t they had completed and what remained to be done. They recalled from memory tha t the rubric had asked for examples and non-examples, and began to discuss how they wou ld add them into what they already had: Paula: We kind of use examples, but we didn’t do non-examp les, you can just… Vanessa : But the non-examples would just be the opposite Paula: Actually, you kind of did. Vanessa : Speaking too fast. Paula: I mean, in a sense, when you’re saying ‘notice how I’m speaking slowly’, but if you wanna really get into it, just to kinda cover the rubric, […] at the very

PAGE 149

138 end of all these just say, […] ‘you notice how Paul a and I have given you examples of […] comprehensible input and listening, now some nonexamples […] would, of course, be speaking too fast, not rea lly giving them the chance to really input what we we’re saying, you know… Something like that. Um, not using visuals could b e, you know…That, and not establishing background knowledge, for example, jus t maybe be, like, asking them ‘oh, Qu, qu hicieron?’, and they’re, like, (looked lost) ‘Qu hicieron?, like, if they don’t know the preterit, you know. Paula’s comment above, “…just to kinda cover the r ubric,” may reveal an additional aspect of their perception of the projec t. The rubric did contain gradations, indicating that one could cover an item at differen t depths, and receive corresponding points for it. For Vanessa and Paula, however, the gradations seemed unimportant, focusing instead on just getting something related to the rubric point into their project. They seemed to feel that even the most cursory cove rage of an item would be enough to merit them full points. For instance, their final ‘coverage” of non-examples in the video was: Throughout the video, you have seen examples of thi ngs that a teacher should do in order for their students to be able to understan d them. Non-examples would be to speak too fast, or to speak in a way that the st udents could not understand. Also, this could include slang that has not been pr eviously explained to the students. Another non-example would be not using v isuals, such as transparencies, PowerPoints, pictures, or flashcard s. Those, of course, help the students to be able to visualize the vocabulary tha t is being used. […] It is also

PAGE 150

139 important for the teacher to build on background kn owledge. Students use that background knowledge in order to piece together new material that is being presented. Without that background knowledge, a st udent could lose the meaning of what is being said, and therefore lose interest in the topic that is being discussed. On a related note, as previously mentioned, Vaness a had set a creative goal for herself that she would present the required informa tion in a ‘fluid” manner. Her desire to avoid addressing the rubric points one by one in or der to produce a more polishedlooking delivery may have led to the glossing over or omission of important points, and the inclusion of irrelevant information. For insta nce, as Vanessa was creating an explanation of listening skills she composed aloud: ‘Listening is a skill that’, um, I’ll put ‘the stu dents’ instead of ‘they’…‘That students will use the rest of their lives. In the foreign language classroom students need to listen to the teacher speak in the target language in order to acquire the language and be able to speak near to t hat of a native speaker.’ […] ‘Listening is a skill that all students need to dev elop. Special cases with hearing impaired students accommodations will need to be ma de, for example, the teacher could tape-record themselves during class and allow the student to listen to it later’. ‘At a volume that is appropriate for them?’ This passage lightly grazed the idea of comprehensi ble input (“listen […] in the target language in order to acquire the language”), missin g or misinterpreting, however, the majority of that concept, and skimmed the surface of listening by saying that it was a skill that students need to develop. The example of adju sting the teaching of listening skills to

PAGE 151

140 the needs of learners was narrowed to a single exam ple of a modification that might be made for a hearing impaired student. In a sense, V anessa appeared to believe that she was “fluidly” covering several of the items in the rubric, when in fact she was barely scratching the surface of what was expected. In their final work session, Vanessa said that she had, on her own time, gone over the rubric, and determined that they had covered ev erything. Paula cautioned that they should take care to not say too much or use too man y examples because, “I think we have enough.” Near the end of this session, as the rese archer asked them two separate times if they felt they had checked everything thoroughly ag ainst the instructions and the rubric and were confident in the content. Paula responded affirmatively, saying that she felt sure of the content, and that her only concern was ultimately how it flowed together as a single video. In the post-interview, when asked specifically if t he project instructions and rubric had been clear about what was expected, Vanessa sai d that she thought they were “fairly clear,” and that the researcher coming into the cla ss and going over everything also “really helped to clarify.” When the same question was posed to Paula, she asked if the researcher was talking about the rubric. The resea rcher clarified that she was asking about the instructions and the rubric, and Paula answered that the wording of the rubric was hard to understand. The researcher then asked when during the process they had read or double-checked the instructions or rubric. Paula noted that, “we looked at them at the very beginning, but of course we have a lot of projects that we have to do so we can only remember so much.” She then added that they h ad double-checked the rubric while they worked just to be certain that they had covere d everything.

PAGE 152

141 When asked pointedly if she had connected the item on the rubric that dealt with adjusting comprehensible input or listening skills instruction according to learner needs to special needs or English language learners, Vane ssa said: Yeah. Â… Umm (cleared throat). I was trying to foc us more how, on how we could make it work in the foreign language classroo m umm, where most of the students, their first language is English and theyÂ’ re learning Spanish. UmÂ….but, I think, but then at the same time, a lot of the info rmation that I was pulling that from came from my ESOL classes. So, its sort ofÂ…I g uess it can go in between. I guess if, if you really use the comprehensible in put correctly, um, then it can go from either an ESOL class with them, you know, lear ning English to another to the foreign language class where theyÂ’re just learn ing Spanish. Paula stated simply that they had not made the conn ection. In sum, Vanessa and Paula made only a few sporadic efforts to read and follow the project instructions or to refer to the rubric as they worked. Where they had questions, they failed to cross-reference the cours e materials or to seek assistance. As a result, they struggled to cover their topics as com prehensively as was expected. Technology. Due to the nature of the activity, technology was a frequent theme throughout the project. During the interviews, the discussion centered on their technological knowledge and interests. In the acti vity, however, the focus was on the functionality of the hardware and software. Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s interview responses on technolo gy generally corresponded to their questionnaire data in that, overall, they wer e very comfortable in using it, felt they knew most of the more recent technologies quite wel l, and believed that learning a new

PAGE 153

142 technology, or more about one with which they were already familiar, would be quite easy. Vanessa, specifically, had no interest in le arning to use older technologies saying, “… I mean, if I'm going to learn anything, I'd rath er learn…something looking more to the future”. This matched her interest in learning more about the editing software. She was also uninterested in learning a new technology, such as a software program, when she already knew how to use one that paralleled it in functionality. This corresponded to her insistence on using her own DVC, laptop, and ed iting software. Paula, on the other hand, said, “I would just be in terested in knowing more about it because it doesn't hurt to know more … I'd proba bly be … fascinated to find out how it works.” Paula also expressed a small amount of anx iety around video editing and making a DVD due to the fact that they were relativ ely new to her, but that she did want to know how to use these technologies. During the activity, however, Paula learned very little about any of the technologies, perhaps parti ally due to her anxieties, but more likely due to Vanessa’ monopoly on all of the equipment. S ince the laptop belonged to Vanessa, and since she knew how to use the editing software, the editing process defaulted completely to her. This caused a) her fear of an i mbalance in labor to come true (see Rapport below); b) Paula to learn little about the technology because she never used it herself. Though Vanessa had said that she was familiar with the video editing software that she already had installed on her computer, she still struggled from time to time to make it do what she wanted it to do, or to understa nd why it did something that she had not foreseen. The frequency of incidents of this t ype occurred from the very beginning as they designed their introductory screens and the li ke, but increased markedly once

PAGE 154

143 Vanessa began to crop and edit the video they had r ecorded of their teaching and of the audio they recorded to correspond to text on the sc reen. In her struggles were opportunities to learn, and she did employ strategi es to help herself do so. One strategy that Vanessa frequently used to help herself throug h her difficulties with the software was self-talk or private speech. (For background on pri vate speech, see Vygotsky's seminal work, Thought and language 1986) (For information on the use of private speech by adults, see John-Steiner, 1992)) Private speech use is important because it is often an indicator of an effort toward self-regulation. For example: (To Paula) Editing is what takes so long.(Self-talk sighed) Why is it not working?Â… Aw, come on. (Facial expression of annoyance and fr ustration)Â… (Voice sing song and frustrated, brow knit) Why isn Â’t it working? ThatÂ’s weird. And later (Self-talk) Okay, so to one-oh-nine All rightÂ…so letÂ’sÂ… Oy, unintelligibleÂ… [Â…] OkayÂ…Undo what I just did (chuckled)Â… Then IÂ’ll move that out of the wayÂ… Pull thisÂ…this wayÂ… (Softly to self) Oh s***. Why is it not workingÂ…any more?Â… Okay, there, thatÂ’s a better way of doing itÂ…OkayÂ… ItÂ’s easier to add them in that way thanÂ…this wayÂ…O kayÂ…

PAGE 155

144 Vanessa was not able to self-regulate in all instan ces, however, complaining from time to time that, though she had gotten the softwa re to do what she wanted it at some previous time, she had difficulty recalling how she did it when she needed it again. In one instance, while working, she said: What is it doing?! Whenever I get it to work, I ne ver know how I did it. So then I, I get to that point again, you know what IÂ’m say ing? ItÂ’s, like, one of those things, like, I didnÂ’t, I did nothing really that s pecial to get it to work, you know? [Â…] And you know itÂ’s nothing they would have in t he help menu either. PaulaÂ’s interest in the editing software was displa yed only very sporadically in the project as they were making decisions concerning th e aesthetic features of their video. She asked about and directed Vanessa to try various buttons and features, and at times even appeared to have more intuition about how to m ake the software function than did Vanessa. For example: Vanessa : (Having difficulty with a transition) Why does it keep doing that? Paula: Why donÂ’t you stretch it out first and then move it over? Vanessa : I did. Paula: No, no, no, not the, not the comprehensible input p art, the, umm, the, the slide effect. Like, see if you can move it out, move it out the o ther way, like, stretch it out (sweeps extended arm in front of her to right) this way first Vanessa : Okay. Wait. What? Try this one? That, and weÂ’ll stretch that out to where we want. Paula: Okay, then, add that in there.

PAGE 156

145 Vanessa : And this one. Paula: No, I’m saying, stretch that out, but… Vanessa : But takes… Paula: (Pointing)…like, on this side. And later: Paula: There’s a way to slow that down, isn’t it? Vanessa : Yeah, I think so, there has to be a way Paula: Maybe…Duration? Oh, that’s not, it’s something else … Oh, that’s six seconds. Oh! Hit up on duration and see if that makes it last longer. […] Yeah, that, see if it makes it slower…It did! Ah! And later: Paula: Oh! What is the T down there, let’s see what happen s. Absolutely nothing Oh! It’s a new text box Vanessa : A, a new text box Let’s see Paula: Just hit CTRL Delete and that’ll get rid of it In her post-interview, the researcher asked Vanessa “Did you have to learn more about how to use [the technology] than you thought you would?” Vanessa responded that she’d had some trouble here and there, but it was m ore an issue of remembering how it worked than of learning something new. She said, “ I mean, with technology, even if you’re familiar with it, there’s always some frustr ations, I mean even if you’ve had many, many years of experience.” When asked if she would be taking any new technology

PAGE 157

146 skills away from doing the project, Vanessa said “n ot really.” She stated that there were things that she had hoped to learn, and that she di d take the time to try and figure them out, only to discover that the software she had was a pared down version of a more premium program, and it simply was not able to do t hose things. Paula understandably responded that she had not lea rned any new technology skills, since Vanessa used her own camera and editi ng software and Paula did not work directly with either of these. Project Plan. A plan for the project was an important tool that V anessa and Paula were unsuccessful at building and using. All of t he participants had been given a calendar and verbal instructions at the beginning o f the semester encouraging them to follow certain steps and complete them by certain d ates. This guideline was offered to help them to avoid procrastination and to make the project easier through organization and planning. Included in the steps was a four-wee k window near the beginning of the semester when they were encouraged to meet with the researcher for help with preparing a plan and storyboard. Out of all of the participa nts, Vanessa and Paula included, no one chose to make use of this resource, and no one made a storyboard. During the pre-interviews, the researcher asked Van essa and Paula where they felt they were in the process of beginning the activity. At this point, the researcher was aware that Vanessa and Paula had not thus far opted for t ime in the technology lab, and they had not chosen to meet with either the professor or the researcher to help them create a plan or a storyboard for their video (recommended proced ure). Paula’s interview was first, and she indicated that she had not yet read the instructions. Vanessa stated that the two of them were going to have their first meeting

PAGE 158

147 after that interview. The researcher remarked offh and, “you don't have any video yet”, thinking that this first meeting would be one in wh ich Vanessa and Paula would create a plan. Surprisingly, Vanessa responded that they di d, indeed, already have video that they would edit into the project. She continued that sh e knew that they were doing things out of order, and went on to describe the video they to ok. Her explanation indicated that she felt they would have adequate footage to use. The researcher, concerned, made a point to remark that their footage might be adequate for the portion of the project that asked for demonstration of their topics in practice, but that they would still need to do quite a bit of additional work on the foundational information. V anessa acknowledged this, then repeated again that she was aware they were “workin g somewhat in reverse”. At the beginning of their first meeting, Vanessa an d Paula had considerable trouble getting organized and focused. Occasionall y and unsystematically referring to the project instructions and the rubric, they were fina lly able to haphazardly sketch out a very ill-defined outline for their presentation. In this outline, they essentially listed, in a very unspecific way, the order in which they though the topics ought to be presented. Before they could flesh out any of the critical details of their plan, however, they launched immediately into the design of their opening page, and discussed creative options for the overall presentation delivery. After a great deal of time and effort perfecting th e design of the introductory screen, they realized that they had no plan for wha t should come next. They discussed several ideas, and made a few ill-conceived and dis parate attempts to move ahead, but ultimately got nowhere. For example, at one point, after abandoning the idea of videotaping themselves that day because of how they thought they looked, Vanessa

PAGE 159

148 decided to record just her voice for an introductio n. Paula suddenly asked, “So do you know what you’re going to say pretty much?” to whic h Vanessa replied, “No…Hey, I’m being honest.” At this point, they abandoned the r ecording altogether and decided to view the video they had previously obtained of them selves teaching. From this video, they chose and groomed a collection of clips that t hey felt would exemplify their topics (“about four and a half minutes” worth), and Paula noted a short time later, “we have the edited video, that’s the big part” (See Expectation s – Effort and Time below). Vanessa stated that the next step would be to go back and a dd explanations in between the examples. This struck the researcher as forcing th e explanations to correspond to the examples they happened to have, rather than constru cting a substantive foundation on the topics, and then reviewing their video to see if th ey could extract any valid examples (and re-taping if they should find them to be insufficie nt). This haphazard approach to creating their video con tinued right up until the end of the project. This caused some additional frictio n between them as they discussed what should go where, tried to determine where they were in the process of completing the video, as well as contributed to the difficulties t hey had with confounding the meanings of the two topics. For example, as Vanessa was wr iting an explanation of comprehensible input, she asked Paula’s opinion of what she had done. Paula responded, sighing deeply and showing her irritation, “I thoug ht we were gonna uh, shouldn’t we just go ahead and do the video first, and then talk about why?” She and Vanessa went back and forth, Vanessa trying to understand what Paula was getting at, and Paula trying to explain that by showing the video before the explan ation, that they would be establishing background knowledge for their viewers. Vanessa fi nally agreed to this presentation

PAGE 160

149 order. In another example, near the end of their s econd editing session, they were still frequently reassessing what they had finished and w hat still needed to be done (in addition to still confounding the two topics): Vanessa : Okay, so, should we, after you do your clip, shou ld, we should do one introducing mine? Since it’s me doing the video doi ng a different skill, doing listening? Paula: Yeah, if, like, you’re going to define listening ac cording to the storyboard then you’re gonna go more in depth with listening. (By “storyboard” she meant the written outline of the topic presentation seque nce they made during their first meeting.) Vanessa : I thought I already defined listening. Paula: Nope, you just did a brief thing on comprehensible input. I mean, I define what comprehensible input is, but you talk more ab… Vanessa : (Interrupted) Oh! That’s right, cause what I did before, right. By the time they had reached their fourth and last editing session, they were still not clear on everything they needed to do. It occu rred to them that they had not planned for a conclusion to their video, and decided to mak e one up by reiterating what they had said in the previous clips. This seemed to strike them as being a bit thin, so then they decided to add several images, such as still images from a picture file Vanessa had created for another course, as well as a photo of t he cover of the DVD and one of the textbook used in Paula’s class. The picture file im ages were supposed to be examples of comprehensible input, the DVD cover was supposed to exemplify listening skills (in that the students had been asked to watch the DVD and an swer comprehension questions

PAGE 161

150 using the preterit of hacer ), and the book cover was supposed to be “interesti ng” to their viewers. Paula seemed to realize, on some level, that what they were producing was not what they had originally said they would do. She r eacted at one point to what they were making, pursing her lips and saying, “Mmm. (Rapidfire delivery, unenunciated) It just really seems a little uhhm it looks like something different that we were talking about when we wrote it down.” This apparently was not en ough of an impetus, however, to reconsult their plan, the project instructions, or th e rubric. In the end, the lack of a realistic plan caused the m to reverse the appropriate emphasis in the project. They chose to put togethe r a collection of teaching segments and examples, interspersed with an occasional text-base d slide highlighting what they perceived to be the basics of the topics covered in the clips. The project instructions, however, encouraged just the opposite, asking for i n-depth explanations and critical analyses of theories, concepts, and applications, w ith a few interspersed teaching examples to reinforce the concepts. Reference Materials. Vanessa and Paula struggled with all aspects of the ir topics throughout the activity, including everything from basic definitions to appropriate applications. Clearly, Vanessa and Paula were awar e on some level that they were having some trouble with their topics, yet they per sisted in the notion that in-depth research, or even verification of their assumptions was unnecessary, preferring instead to rely on their interpretations of their prior knowle dge. This was in spite of having had immediate access (either in physical or electronic form) to reference materials through textbooks, the Internet, and full library access.

PAGE 162

151 The first instance in which it became clear that th ey were aware that they were struggling occurred almost immediately during their first meeting. Vanessa was stumped by whether a book topic she had marked (learner cha racteristics) applied to the use of comprehensible input or the teaching of listening s kills: Vanessa : Would that be for comprehensible input, or would that be for? … Listening? Paula: Let’s try comprehensible input. Cause we’re talkin g about different people that we’re supposed to teach… No, I guess l istening, actually. You know…we probably could ask people to do an activity such as comprehensible input and listening. …(Leaned back in chair, put h ands in lap, screwed up face) Maybe both together?…(Relaxed face, gestured lightl y with hand in lap) Cause listening is a sub-field of comprehensible input, s o, I mean, I guess we can just cover it under comprehensible, you know, I guess we can cover it under listening… Vanessa : See, since they’re going hand-in-hand it’s kind o f hard to separate them. Paula: Yeah. Paula in particular then continued to struggle wit h how listening skills could be part of comprehensible input. Vanessa was attempti ng to plan, when Paula was suddenly seized by a related memory, and said questioningly, “Glisan’s studies on foreign language…education?” Vanessa, distracted, replied, “in foreign language acquisition.” Paula then refined her idea once again, “acquisitio n…second language acquisition,” then followed it with, “And that’s Krashen’s theory righ t there.” Vanessa distractedly agreed by saying, ”Basically.” Unfortunately, neither of them appeared to consider this in any

PAGE 163

152 more detail, make any coherent connections to compr ehensible input, or access any of the reference materials at their fingertips to confirm or expand this memory into something appropriate for their project content. The one reference material they did attempt to use was a foreign language methods textbook from a previous course. Their suc cess, however, with even this resource was limited due to tensions in their relat ionship, difficulty in maintaining focus, and what was apparently some trouble with discernin g relevant information. Their difficulties began to become apparent even be fore they met for the first time to work on the project. Vanessa had marked a few p ages of a textbook that she thought might contain information relevant to the topics, b ut she had not done anything specific with the material. They began by glancing at this textbook, but less than three minutes into their first meeting they had already twice bee n distracted from the book. The first time was in trying to clarify their topics from mem ory. The second time, Paula focused on a point in the rubric and began talking about wh ere in the video sequence she would deal with particular issues. Vanessa quietly attem pted to keep looking through the textbook, but Paula continued to talk about the rub ric and presentation order. Vanessa finally abandoned her efforts and joined her partne r in the discussion of the presentation sequence. The book was closed and remained so for the remainder of that meeting. Vanessa merely mentioned the book one additional ti me in that meeting when she recalled a connection mentioned therein between com prehensible input and background knowledge. In their second meeting, Paula picked up VanessaÂ’s textbook and flipped to the index. After a quick glance, she veered off onto a bit of gossip she had heard about

PAGE 164

153 another student, to which Vanessa gave no response. Shortly thereafter, Paula discovered a passage from the book she thought was meaningful, ” Oh! I like that! The theory behind this, which comes from Krashen, is it really would focus on how learners actually … ‘connect grammatical form with their meanings’ …tha t’s a good quote right there.” Her understanding of this passage eventually revealed i tself in her example of writing a conjugation of the preterit form of hacer on the board while saying the pronoun and verb (writing was interpreted as comprehensible input in that it supported her oral conjugation of the verb in front of the students). Soon after P aula found another passage that grabbed her attention: ‘Intake is language that comprehended and used by l earners to develop a linguistic system that they can use to produce outp ut in the language’…Ahhhhh (smiled, satisfied) […] Nice. So the purpose of co mprehensible input is to output knowledge. Well into their second meeting, then, Paula had fin ally done enough “research” to find passages that expressed a limited technical knowled ge of one of their topics. Very shortly thereafter Vanessa asked, “What did it say about listening in there?” Paula, in between a myriad of distractions, had a l ook at the index: Paula: (Read aloud) ‘…assessment of, listening, technologi es for, bottom-up models of, developing’ …‘Factors involved’… ‘Listener-based variables, social process’ … “Strategies for”, that’s what you need, right? Vanessa: Yeah

PAGE 165

154 Paula: Pages 163-165 The researcher found it interesting (albeit perplex ing) that they passed over several leads that might have proved fruitful, and may have even led to more in-depth reflection and examination on the topic, opting instead for, “Oh, ‘Strategies for comprehending, comprehending and interpreting.’ Even “strategies” however, might have led them to think about how a teacher might help learners to de velop and practice those strategies, but they were still confounding comprehensible inpu t and second language listening skills. Paula: That’s, really it’s comprehensible input. Vanessa: Strategies for... Oh, yeah. Paula, therefore, began to interpret strategies req uired by learners as strategies teachers might use when speaking to them: Paula : Ooo, it says this van der Geest, which I know is not Krashen, van der Geest studied, ‘van der Geest’s studies reveal that novice conversation partners demonstrate higher use of kinetic, kines, kinesthet ics, body language, goal Unintelligible request or petition for rephrasing, simplificatio n, Unintelligible hypothesis Unintelligible or ask for additional input Unintelligible’ […] Mmm, anyway, let’s just, for listening we mayb e wanna talk about, you know, how like… Or comprehensible, I guess probably we really should talk about how gestures, repetition, you know? Vanessa : Yeah that’s comprehensib, isn’t it?

PAGE 166

155 Paula : For yeah, for listening …I guess the biggest thin g you maybe wanna do is maybe say, like, you know, for listening it’s impor tant but, like, as you know… Vanessa interrupted here and exhorted Paula to be s ure she also look for information corresponding to the rubric items on considering co ntext and varying learner needs and abilities. The researcher found it interesting tha t Vanessa cited these items, nearly verbatim, without looking at the rubric, but also t hat she added a term not present in the text: “level” (referring to learner proficiency lev el). It appeared then, that Vanessa did understand this rubric item to be asking them to re flect on carefully considered application in varied contexts. Paula appeared to not really hear her say this, and continued reading from the index: ( Concentrated on text) Cause it has, like, a thing a bout, like, (read from index) ‘instructional strategies and interaction of listen ing, examples, non-examples.’ …‘ Unintelligible reprise, continua, continuation of signal.’ At one point the researcher pointedly asked if they had done any research on the topic of second language listening. She mentioned that there was considerable scholarly work in the areas of how to teach learners to read, write, and speak in the target language, but that there was also a body of work on teaching them how to listen. She offered some examples, and Vanessa replied that she had found mo re material on what the teacher might do to be clearer to students as they listened rather than on what the students might do (or learn to do) to be better listeners. Vaness a went on with several examples of what teachers might do, such as slowing the pace of thei r speech and avoiding slang, essentially describing the features of foreigner ta lk (Ferguson, 1971). Vanessa then took

PAGE 167

156 the conversation down a lengthy sidetrack, and the subject of researching more about teaching and practicing TL listening skills was los t. As mentioned above, another problem they appeared to have was in being able to look at the limited “research” (i.e. related passag es from a single textbook), and extract what was relevant to them at that time. For exampl e, Vanessa looked over one of the textbook segments on listening, and chose the follo wing to work into their presentation: “Listening skills can be taught at a very early age as soon as growing, or listening skills should become better and more detailed.” While it is true that listening skills can be taught at an early age and developed over time, the typical second language teacher (which included Paula and Vanessa) is more interest ed in developing second language listening skills and strategies in older children a nd adults. As Vanessa was trying to compose her segment on li stening skills, Paula again picked up the textbook and began to search. She ca me across a passage that explained that TL listeners and readers use their knowledge o f the TL and their background knowledge to interpret a text. She then cursorily noted the words “short-term memory” further on in the book. This appeared to lead Paul a to conclude with confidence that they had done everything recommended by the book for lis tening skills, that is: 1) Vanessa required the students to use their knowledge of the target language to listen and comprehend her questions; 2) Paula’s lesson on the conjugation of hacer in the preterit was the background knowledge her students needed to be able to listen to Vanessa’s questions; 3) their background knowledge was locate d in the students’ short-term memory because Paula had only just presented the pr eterit. Paula added that the fact that Vanessa had to write the questions on the board bef ore the students were able to respond

PAGE 168

157 proved that they were accessing short-term memory, “it’s like they forgot, when you wrote it on the board, they got it. Like, it’s sho rt-term memory, that’s how it…goes into that.” In their post-interviews, both Vanessa and Paula c onfirmed that they had built the project out of their prior knowledge of the topics, and that the only reference they had consulted had been a methods textbook (though Paula could not correctly recall which book they had used). Vanessa gave more details on the use of the textbook than Paula, saying, “I wanted to make sure that I was very specific, and really go back and check my…my answers and things like that so, […] I starte d it off with [my prior knowledge], but then to give it some good meat and potatoes I d ecided to go to the book to get specific things and to quote specific things from the book.” Vanessa claimed that they’d used some online resources “for ideas of things we could do in the class, or ways to expand it.” When asked when she had gone online, she said, “onc e we had already had everything and we were actually looking for more examples or n on-examples, I went online just to see what else I could find, but it was towards the middle of the project.” Again this was not observed. They did take some images from the Internet, but only after stating that non-examples would just be the opposite of the exam ples they had already given. Paula’s response was that the only real use they’d had for references of any sort was as a resource for “how to properly word” what they already knew t hey wanted to say. Also in the post-interview, the researcher directly asked them both if they thought that having found some academic articles on their t opics might have been able to deepen their understanding of the concepts or expand on wh at they already knew. Vanessa answered:

PAGE 169

158 I think it might have helped a little bit, but I th ink it would have given just more, like, research and more statistical information. M ost of the information, especially the part where we’re defining comprehens ible input and listening skills, that, that we got from the book and I think that, t hat was fine. It probably would have helped, it probably would have been nice to ha ve had more, you know, ‘According to so-and-so’, you know, in this article umm, blah, blah, blah, but, I dunno. Actually I did my annotated bibliography fo r [the Methods professor] with listening and things like that, and so I did find articles, but it was after the video project was done. But reading those articles it, it really didn’t say too much different than what we found in the book, so… Paula’s response was that she supposed it would ha ve helped: but I mean, honestly, I kind of feel like what we w ent over wasn’t that hard. Comprehensible input is not that hard to comprehend what it is and how to do it. [As for the listening], its pretty much you read it and find out what it is, its not one of those definitions or practices that you have to do a lot of research on or get a deep explanation of it to understand it. You kno w what it is […] I mean, it could have enhanced it with some different ways as to how to present it, methods to do it, but at the same time, it wasn’t, you know …I can’t really say it would have deepened my knowledge, I pretty much got it, I mean to say, you pretty much understood it once you knew what it was.” The researcher then probed further asking if there had been any content or concepts that they had felt the need to check against a reference source. Vanessa responded, “Not really. Actually, if there was anything, either Pa ula or I could pretty much clarify it for

PAGE 170

159 the other one.” When asked what specifically they had clarified for one another, she said, “She clarified the part that she talked about [whic h] was Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition, she was more up-to-date on th at. I think she had a class recently that talked more recently than when I took it, and so she’s like, ‘Yeah, remember we learned this in this class’, and I was like, ‘Oh, o kay that’s right.’ When asked if she had clarified anything for Paula she hesitated, and the n said, “No, not really. She was really knowledgeable of it as well, and I think its becaus e now she’s also taking [an ESOL class], and so, again a lot of this is things that we’ve learned recent[ly].” When Paula was asked if she had learned anything from Vanessa or vice versa, she responded, “I can’t really say this was the kind of project where we could learn anything from each other, really. I mean it was more so like you know everything about the subject I don’t think there’s necessarily anything where we can lea rn something from one another, I don’t think it was that type of project, quite pers onally.” The researcher felt that these post-interview comments were very revealing as to t heir perceptions of the topics, the depth of their own knowledge, and the real purpose of the project. Their unsystematic, cursory attempts to examine a s ingle reference material coupled with their struggle to accurately choose an d interpret even this limited information, resulted in serious misunderstandings and representations of their topics. Researcher Presence. In the pre-interview, when asked if there was anyth ing about the researcher’s presence, the study, or bein g observed that made her uncomfortable, Vanessa responded that, on the contr ary, she was happy to have someone to ask for help. The researcher felt it was intere sting, however, that Vanessa specifically said:

PAGE 171

160 Vanessa : You're kind of an extra help, an extra person...t o ask, you know, instead of it all falling on me,… I can ask you about the t echnology, and things like that. The specific mention of help with the technology, r ather than that of a more general nature, or help with the content was more salient o nce the study was complete, since this was the primary type of help requested of the resea rcher. As for Paula, she indicated no interest whatsoever in the researcher’s presence, and specifically stated that her thoughts were like ly elsewhere when the researcher first visited the class to explain the project and the re search study. Their feelings were borne out in their behaviors d uring the activity. During the project, Vanessa and Paula often appeared to forget that the researcher was present or that the cameras were on. This may be one reason why th ey rarely made a bid to the researcher for help or support. This was evidenced in their occasional comment that they had forgotten about the cameras, usually after sayi ng or doing something embarrassing on tape. It was also confirmed by the infrequency with which they asked for help, and the inattention given to unsolicited support offere d by the researcher. Researcher – Solicited Support. When they did ask for assistance from the researcher, it was most often for assistance with t he technology tools, or to borrow items, such as pieces of blank paper or a microphone, to s upport them in their work. There were only two occasions when they asked the researcher a bout anything directly related to their video. In the first instance, they asked how long the example video clips should be. The second time was when Vanessa was working alone, and she asked the researcher’s opinion on the use of a specific graphic.

PAGE 172

161 Researcher – Unsolicited Support. There were times during the activity when the researcher intervened in an effort to clarify somet hing for the participants. The first clear instance of this was in the second meeting when Van essa told Paula to find information that would help them with the portion of the rubric dealing with application in varied contexts. The researcher asked them if they really understood what the item on the rubric meant. Vanessa answered that she thought it referr ed to “different type[s] of learners.” The researcher agreed, adding that it could refer t o learner differences, or learning styles, such as those proposed by Gardner (1983). She adde d that it could also refer to special needs students, such as those with learning disabil ities, or a physical impairment, particularly a hearing impairment in the case of li stening skills. She also mentioned that they might consider ESOL students from non-TL backg rounds, and offered the example of a local high school where she had encountered an ESOL student of Vietnamese origin in a mainstream high school French class. She was going to add that they should consider heritage language learners and native spea kers, but was sidetracked when Vanessa digressed onto the topic of former French c olonies in Asia and Africa. The researcher again told them that she would be happy to help with anything at all, and both Vanessa and Paula responded positively. They then turned to one another, and referring to the previous discussion about the rubric said: Vanessa : (Laughed and looked back to partner) I didn’t eve n think about that. Paula : Me neither, cause you know what? Vanessa : Hearing impaired students. Paula : [The professor] wants us to do that for our obse rvations of a high school. Unintelligible like, ESOL, or a special needs student.

PAGE 173

162 As previously mentioned, the notion of accommodat ing varied learners and making lesson modifications where necessary was not new to the participants, having encountered and practiced doing so in previous cour sework. Vanessa then turned to Paula and the researcher and asked, ”How do you help a…hearing impaired student learn a language?” The researcher then offered an exampl e of a hearing impaired student she once had in a language class, and how, in that inst ance, the solution involved planned physical placement of the student in the classroom for different types of activities in order to maximize the student’s limited hearing. Vanessa then said in a slightly frustrated tone, “See, comprehensible input is easier, because if yo u have a visual…and audio, and, you know, like that.” The researcher offered another e xample for accommodating a hearing impaired learner, to which Vanessa responded, “I di dn’t even think about that.” Paula intervened at this point to ask Vanessa, “I mean, d o you wanna cover all of the bases? I mean, cause, like, for example, like, the video tha t we have is of my college class, and, like, everyone there is just, you know, there’s no problem.” Whether Paula was suggesting here that they not follow the instructio ns for the project because they did not have any example video of accommodation-making was unclear to the researcher. Paula then went on to recount that she had encountered so me physically impaired students in a high school Spanish class that she had observed, an d then recalled that she had a Japanese learner of English in her university Spanish class who did quite well. Both Vanessa and the researcher asked what sort of modifications she made to her lessons or materials for this student, such as whether she used spoken Engli sh in class or written English in assignment or assessment instructions. Paula ackno wledged that she did use English for these things. The researcher then offered some exa mples of how Paula might help that

PAGE 174

163 student to better understand the English used in th e course, noting that consistently using the target language instead would put all the stude nts on an equal footing. Paula remarked that she did try to use Spanish in class, and noted, “Like, that’s what you’ll see, you’ll see our video, like, when we do clothing, I try to do a lot of gestures.” They continued to struggle with the notions of how to mo st efficiently and appropriately apply the concepts in practice with varied learners. At o ne point, they concluded that listening skills were something that all students needed to d evelop. The researcher noted here that they might consider what accommodations and modific ations might need to be made to the execution of a lesson designed to teach and enh ance target language listening skills if a deaf student were present. They acknowledged her but did nothing with the information. In another instance, the researcher a sked them directly if they had done any research on the topic of listening, but Vanessa ste ered the conversation away from the topic. At one point, Vanessa became very frustrated when s he found that her clips were starting too late and cutting off too soon once she had inserted transitions between them. Paula’s suggestion was to go back and remove the tr ansitions and see if the problem still occurred. The researcher intervened at this point to explain that transitions would overlap the video on each end of the clips they were connec ting. She suggested that instead of cropping each video segment to the precise point wh ere they wanted it to begin and end, they leave the equivalent of a tab for the transiti on to latch on to. Ultimately, this was the only suggestion made by the researcher that they ch ose to use, and it was related to the technology, not the content. In the end, Vanessa and Paula appeared to be quite comfortable with the

PAGE 175

164 researcher, but they did not particularly take adva ntage of her presence. When they asked for help on the project, it was usually related to a technology problem that Vanessa was struggling to solve. When the researcher offered s upport, direction, or advice, they largely ignored it, except when it related to techn ology. Community Support. In addition to making very little use of the many r eference materials at their disposal, Vanessa and Paula also made very little use of the many people available to them, such as the researcher, t he professor, and their peers. Before their fourth meeting, Vanessa had sent out an email to some of the other student-teachers in their class letting them know when she and Paula would be working on their video. She did this, she said, to let them know that they could chat online about the project if they wanted to. In the end, one person in particul ar contacted them, both by cell text and by online chat, but they did not discuss the projec t. Motivation. Motivation was a recurrent theme throughout the stu dy, though the large majority of data came from the pre-interviews While a few mitigating factors were identified, overall, neither Vanessa nor Paula was exceptionally motivated to do the video project and said so clearly in their preand postinterviews. Motivation – Grades. When asked directly in the pre-interview to describ e what their motivations were in doing this project, Vanes sa and Paula’s responses were akin to those of the other participants in the study. Vane ssa found the question somewhat amusing, and then asked if it meant anything other than a good grade. Paula’s response was more succinct: “I want a decent grade, so that' s the reason.” Other discussions with the participants revealed ad ditional information about grade-based motivation. In her preand post-inter views, Vanessa projected an image of

PAGE 176

165 herself as a very conscientious student. She descr ibed some negative group work experiences in which she had been forced to do most or all of the work in order to get a project done to a standard with which she could be satisfied (even describing the act of writing what to say in a presentation for an unmoti vated group member). She indicated that she was willing to do whatever it took to achi eve high grades on her work, but she could also enjoy the creative process when paired w ith the right partner. According to her responses then, a high grade was of key importa nce to Vanessa’s sense of success. Paula mentioned grades less than Vanessa, but still indicated that a high grade was important to her. For example, she stated that she knew that Vanessa was just as serious about her grade as she was. She clarified in her p ost-interview, however, that her interest in getting a good grade was not tied to her desire to learn, rather, “It was more so like okay, let me just look at the rubric, see what I ha ve to do, and get a good grade.” Ultimately, however, their actions did not bear thi s out as a primary motivation in the video project assignment. Motivation – Tasks, Tools, and Work Partners. In their interviews, the participants revealed other potential sources of mo tivation. Vanessa appeared to often seek out the positives in a situation or person, or at least to soften the negatives. Whether this was due to a generally optimistic personality, or a deep dislike of conflict (see Rapport below) was unclear. She described herself in several instances as someone who could be energized by a stimulating task, an intere sting tool, or when working with an industrious, like-minded partner. Paula, on the ot her hand, held what seemed to be a more dichotomous outlook in that she was either int erested in doing an activity, or she

PAGE 177

166 was not. If she was not, then she was also relativ ely uninterested in any potential positive outcomes associated with the task. Motivation – Tasks. In the present case, the project did not appeal to Vanessa. At the beginning of the pre-interview, she indicated t hat she was not keen on doing the project because she felt that she had done somethin g similar in another course She even stated that she had considered dropping the course and re-enrolling as an undergraduate (graduate students were permitted to apply one unde rgraduate level course toward their degree, and the undergraduate version of the Practi cum did not require the video project.) just to avoid the activity, “But then, that kinda w ould've been a cop out, so I decided I'd just stay with it and do the video project.” Towar d the end of the pre-interview, when specifically asked about her motivation to do the a ctivity, she commented that she was “go[ing] into it a little disgruntled”, and that sh e’d “rather be able to do other things.” Like Vanessa, Paula also found the task unappealing In her case, however, rather than lack of novelty, Paula simply found it tedious and of little practical value. In her preinterview she stated, “I guess I'm the kind of pers on where, if it's something that just really interests me, then I have a lot of passion f or it and everything, and I'm not going to say I'm not interested in [the video project], but… its not rea lly grabbing me.” It was interesting, however, that while both of the m declared their disinterest in the content of the task, the product did make it mo re palatable. Vanessa noted in the preinterview: I think it's sort of a fun ending to the semester, too, where we can see other people's videos and laugh with them, and laugh at t hem in the video, and that sort of thing, so I think's more fun than just lis tening to someone rattle off the

PAGE 178

167 information and then watching the tape. Again, it' s not just someone rattling off the information […] or reading out of the book. Paula echoed this view in her pre-interview as well when she said, “[I]t looks like it's at least a more a fun kind of project that I would rat her do.” This view held up for Vanessa, but not for Paula in the post-interview. When asked if she would have preferred another delivery format, such as a research paper, Vanessa’s answer was clearly no: I enjoy the technology too much, and you know, and, and its sort of, even though it was more time consuming. The research paper, yo u know, I could have cranked that out a lot quicker than, than this vide o project, but it was sort of, it was more up my alley, it was more fun more of a fun project to do than just researching and writing another research paper. She added that with a research paper, “You can’t re ally own it as much as a video, because with a video you’re like, I made that video .” When the same question was posed to Paula, her response revealed one possible explan ation for why they had failed to research their topics, as well as why they had not used the video medium to its potential. Paula stated that, while it was better than a resea rch paper because, “I don’t like to write, personally,” she did not feel that the video had be en a good method for presenting considering how “narrow” the topic had been: Just for the topic itself and how brief it was I fe lt like to go through all this video and editing it was too much for this one little sub ject. If it was something that was a bit more broad I could understand. Like I sa id, my personal opinion is we could have done the same thing with a PowerPoint pr esentation, and it would

PAGE 179

168 have still conveyed the same message in you know le ss time and less of work, you know. Motivation –Tools. Vanessa was, however, somewhat motivated by the use of the tools (i.e. the digital video camera and editing software ). While she stated that she already knew how to record and edit digital video, she felt that there was at least some potential to learn more. She stated in the pre-int erview, “I like the technology aspect of it anyway, it would be more practice for me for doing videos, just getting better at it, so I'm just trying to get the positives out of it, you kno w. That was the way I kind of…[tried to] make it better in my mind.” While the object of th e activity as envisioned by the designers of the curriculum did not particularly in terest her, she decided on a goal for herself that did. “I want to find a way to challen ge myself, and to learn something new about the [software] program that I'm using, maybe some feature that I didn't know existed, and to try to apply it to this, so that's a personal goal.” Another aspect of the technological tools that appeared to motivate Vanes sa was the potential for creativity in the digital video editing software. She stated th at editing the video would be the easiest part of the project because “it's the most fun part of it.” She said that the technology was conducive to “let[ting] the creative juices flow,” while exploring “all the little gadgets, and the little cool things with video.” She felt t hat she had an advantage over some of her classmates in that she was already familiar with th e software so she would not have to grapple with learning the basics of how to use it. She could use her time in learning more about the software gadgetry by playing with the mor e advanced features. Near the end of the pre-interview, Vanessa compared the completed v ideo to “artwork” in which one would feel pride and a sense of accomplishment. Pa ula had less to say about any

PAGE 180

169 motivation to the tool set, saying simply, “I would just be interested…in knowing more about it because … it doesn't hurt to know more.” Motivation – Work Partners. Vanessa described in both her preand postinterviews the type of motivation she had received from project partners in previous activities as having come from a like-minded, share d understanding and trust that gradually built up a level of “mutual excitement.” She stated in her pre-interview, however, that she anticipated that this would not b e the kind of relationship that she and Paula would share. In her interviews, Paula descri bed no such motivation from other people. Though they did appear to lack the type of shared v ision that Vanessa described, there were instances in the early phases of the vid eo project when Vanessa and Paula momentarily enlivened one another. They were, howe ver, unable to sustain these moments of “mutual excitement.” Paula was the one to initially dampen their temporary burst of fun and creativity by checking the rubric to make certain that there would be points for engaging in it. Once it was noted, how ever, that there were points for maximizing the potential of the video format, Paula renewed her interest in some of the creative aspects of the project. She then joined V anessa in offering aesthetic advice and humorous, often creative suggestions for directions they might take with the video. Their creativeness waned as the project got underway, in spite of the potential for “points.” Both of them continued to make small suggestions fo r the design of various segments of the video, but creativity on a larger scale faded a nd disappeared. Their interest in “completion” increasingly superseded all other cons iderations, and the spark of “mutual excitement” was extinguished.

PAGE 181

170 In her post-interview Vanessa again described in so me detail an example from previous situations in which working with a highly compatible partner ultimately created a level of excitement between them: “neither of us wanted to do the project, but once we were working on it, it sort of got fun,” and “With Maria (a previous work partner) it was really fun because she and I just really understood each other.” She then added that this had not been the situation with Paula. “With Paula she was, like, ‘okay lets get this done’, and I think I was more in that mindset, too. […] ‘I wanna have a really good end product, but lets just finish this.’” In the end Paula and Vanessa were unable to create much zeal for the project between them, and both ul timately settled for “completion” as their primary goal. Motivation – Completion. “Getting it over and done with” was a motivation fr om the start of the project. At the end of the pre-in terview, Vanessa expressed her hopes that the project would not take too long to complete bec ause she did not want it to “linger on.” During the activity the interest in “completion” ap peared to overshadow reading the instructions, attempting to interpret the rubri c, researching, confirming, or expanding information on their topics, or asking for help. I n the last work session, Paula was clearly the most anxious to be done, telling Vanessa to ski p certain tasks or to ignore some of the refinements of the design elements. For example, h er response to Vanessa asking for input on things was often, “whatever.” In Paula’s post-interview, the researcher began by asking her to summarize the experience doing the project. Her response was, “I ’m glad its done [because] it was a pain.” Later in the interview she said that her bi ggest frustration was with the editing process “when it took forever for something to get done, cause this wasn’t my most fun

PAGE 182

171 project, so I wanted [it] to be done and over with. ” In an answer to another question, Paula again touc hed on the notion that her primary goal was simply to get the project done. Th e researcher followed up asking how Paula might rank her priorities for the project whe n it came to rapid completion, grade, and learning something new. Her very candid respon se was: I know for me, personally (paused briefly, inhaled deeply) I didn’t really care to learn anything new, I mean it was interesting, you know, and it was something I can take with me when I’m teaching, I’m not gonna s ay I haven’t learned anything at all, but I didn’t really see it as, you know, oh okay let me learn as much as I really can plus get a good grade. It was more like okay, let me just look at the rubric, see what I have to do, and get a goo d grade. Like I said, this wasn’t like my most fun project to do. And if a project f or me is not very fun, I don’t really try to get the most I can out of it, I just do what I have to do. My main concern was just to do what I have to do and get th e best grade that I can. The researcher recalled that Paula had said in her pre-interview that group work typically went well when everyone involved was inte rested. She asked if that had been the case in this activity. Paula’s answer was: I’m gonna change ‘interested’ to more, not necessar ily ‘interested’ as in ‘motivated,’ [but] more so ‘interested in getting i t done.’ “We wanted to get it done and do the best we can, so I think that we wer e both interested on doing the best we can on that, and we were both trying to go by the guidelines of the rubric and do it done in a time manner because we both als o have other classes and other deadlines.

PAGE 183

172 Paula, then, was clearly motivated by what it woul d take to get the project done within the minimum specified requirements. Vanessa on the other hand, appeared, at least at first, to be motivated from the very start by the creative and learning possibilities offered by the technology, but this waned considera bly over time, and was eventually crowded out by the simple desire to be done. Motivation – Overall Program. Some of their responses and behaviors during the study may have revealed something about their overa ll attitudes and aptitudes in the foreign language education program as a whole. As a part of their general demeanor, these would certainly be difficult to divorce from their drive to do the video project specifically. In a potentially revealing discussion during the po st-interview with Vanessa, the topic of her prior teaching experience arose. The researcher noted, “You taught before you had professional training, […] and that gives y ou practical experience. Now you’ve come [to the university] and done stuff with theory and then you’re gonna launch back out into practical experience, but this time with theory.” Vanessa added, “And experience.” Vanessa then went on to say: There are a lot of things that I learned on my own, I figured out on my own in my two years of teaching that I also learned here. I’ m like, ‘oh yeah, right, I didn’t know that there was a name for it.’ I thought I wa s original, you know, but then there were also things that we learned that everyon e was like, ‘oh wow,’ and I’m like, ‘Yeah, right! That would never work,’ you kno w, or ‘that’s not true’, or ‘that’s in this fantasy teacher world,’ because, in the real world, this is what I experienced. You only wish you could have a lesson plan that you’re gonna do

PAGE 184

173 exactly how you imagined it in your little head, an d you’re gonna get all the material you wanted to get done, done because your students are going to sit there perfectly soaking in (lilting speech) all the information you have to give them. The researcher felt this was interesting in several ways. First, Vanessa appeared to take her prior experience and compare it to the content of her teacher education curriculum. Where the curriculum content matched her experience she felt validated, and where it did not, she discounted the content completely and retained her belief in her prior experience. To her detriment, this appeared to com e through in her execution of the video project as well. She relied on her prior kno wledge and perceptions of the topics, rather than verifying her assumptions, or seeking o ut additional information and examining it from alternate perspectives. During the activity itself, Paula mentioned on a c ouple of occasions her progress in other classes or other assignments. While they may have been a form of ritual complaining (Tannen, 1986) or posturing, they may a lso have been indicators of her general motivation as a student-teacher. For examp le, in the second meeting, she mentioned that in another class she would be turnin g in her work late, adding, “Please let me pass this class, even with a C. I’m happy with that at this point.” Shortly thereafter, in reference to the video project, she mentioned th at she could do a section on Krashen’s theory saying, “I can BS that.” Perhaps it was post uring, but it may also have signaled that she was not a conscientious student. Later, P aula was thumbing through a textbook when she discovered a quote that she wanted to use in the video and said, “[The professor] doesn’t read the whole book, she doesn’t know the whole thing, she doesn’t know where I got it.” Again, the notion of “gettin g away with” something was present.

PAGE 185

174 This same attitude emerged again partway through th eir fourth work session when Paula interrupted Vanessa as she was working to broach th e topic of a unit plan assignment that was required for another course. Once again, Paula presented herself as someone who preferred ruse to real work, saying that she could “BS” her way through the task, and that she would just resurrect an old unit plan that she’ d used previously (“ Tomar un Viaje ”). She then went on to describe another lesson plan sh e had done, complaining that the professor had not given her much feedback in spite of a low score. Both Vanessa and Paula conveyed a sense of themsel ves as student-teachers whose primary interest was to reach the end of the foreign language education program in order to be credentialed teachers. Vanessa did exp ress a desire to expand her knowledge of topics that interested her (i.e. voluntarily tak ing a technology in foreign language teaching workshop and attending the state foreign l anguage teacher conference), while at the same time ignoring information that did not mat ch her personal interest or experience. Paula, however, expressed little interest in learni ng of any kind, and projected the image of an indolent and unprofessional student-teacher c oasting through the program. Rapport. The rapport between Vanessa and Paula was an import ant factor in the activity. Preconceived notions about one another a ffected their ability to communicate well, which impacted their ability to successfully accomplish the task. Rapport – Perceptions. The young women went into the project each with cer tain assumptions about the other, and about their relati onship. These impressions were significant because they would affect how they enga ged with and reacted to one another. In the pre-interview with Vanessa, when asked by th e researcher to discuss her thoughts on working with Paula, she hesitated and w as visibly uncomfortable. She

PAGE 186

175 continued to hesitate for another few moments, then offered a positive statement, “Umm, you know, I like Paula a lot, and we worked all sem ester, also.” This was immediately followed by: Ummm, but sometimes I feel like she's not... I don' t know, she doesn't really have her heart into things…and she just puts things off, and puts things off…and I kinda felt like I was going to be the one pulling t he load for this project…ummm, in this project, this video project. Vanessa voluntarily went on to describe other past group work experiences, spending the majority of her time discussing two si tuations that had been positive. What was positive about these experiences for Vanessa wa s primarily that she felt that she and her partner were alike in a variety of ways. For e xample, “When I have to work with a group, like if I'm working with Sara, we, we're lik e an extension of the other, we think the same, we know how to work with technology the same. ” She added, “Sara, it's, I mean, it's like working with a clone of myself. Really! And, and, you know, we work excellent together.” She continued, “Other situations, like, with the group with Maria umm, Maria and I are the same.” When there was a difference i n skill set, Vanessa indicated that she could overlook it if the other person was able to t ake on another aspect of a project, thus equalizing the workload. For instance, “…even thou gh [Maria] was less technology savvy, she was willing to pull the load in other th ings so, we, we balanced each other out.” The second most salient feature of positive group work experiences for Vanessa appeared to be the ability to trust her partners. She spoke of Sara, “We work together, but if she says she's gonna do it, I know its gonna be done.” In sum, her description of a good group dynamic was one in which the members hel d a fairly equal balance of

PAGE 187

176 knowledge and skill, as well as a high level of tru st Vanessa’s unsolicited explanation of group work tha t had gone well in the past appeared to be an indirect way of stating that her expectations of Paula were quite the contrary. She seemed to be saying that she did not share a sense of sameness with Paula (of purpose, skill, or otherwise), and that she did not trust that her partner would do her share (at least not to a level of quality that Vane ssa would like). Vanessa’s next words seemed to confirm these ideas as she again noted pa st experiences before mentioning her current situation, seemingly in order to provide a precedent for her concerns about Paula. “I've been in some groups where... it's... you know I feel like if, if I don't do it, it's not going to get done.” She continued, “I feel like I' ll just, I'll do everything, and I end up taking the initiative and wanting to do everything, cause I know that if I do it, it's going to be done the way it should be, or the way I think it should be.” She was then able to return to the topic of Paula when she added: I kinda feel like she's just... not..... into it as much…but she kind of has, ummm, at the beginning of the semester, it was just like, "o h, I don't care. Oh, whatever. Oh, take whatever topic is left for me to talk abou t", or this and that, and just kind of that, "I don't care" mentality, and that kind of worried me at first, ummm...... but, you know... I don't, I hope... it's not going to be that way, uh, and I hope today when we're doing the editing that she will have input, and she will give her opinions, and pull some of the load, so…I hope she proves me wrong. She concluded, “ [ The] only thing I can base it on is, just like that where she was "oh, I don't care, angh." That kinda made me a little nerv ous cause if she doesn't care then she's not going to put effort into it, and, and I don't w ant that to also to affect my grade either.”

PAGE 188

177 Vanessa’s concern that she might have to shoulder the majority of the responsibility in the project was later reiterated indirectly. The researcher was asking about Vanessa’s feelings concerning the researcher’ s presence or the existence of the study. Vanessa replied that she was pleased by the researcher’s presence “you're kind of an extra help, an extra ask, you know, instead of it all falling on me, I can ask you.” Her reply seemed to indicate that she expect ed “all” the work to “fall” on her, and that she felt more reliance on the researcher than on her partner. On the whole, prior to beginning the project, Vane ssa’s expectations of and trust in her project partner were low. As it turned out, her suspicions were largely well-placed, and Paula was not a particularly hard-working, reli able partner. In some ways, however, Paula contributed on a greater scale than Vanessa h ad initially expected. For example, from the beginning of their second meeting until th e end of the project, Vanessa and Paula often appeared to be on different wavelengths each concentrating on separate work for the project (or in Paula’s case, often not atte nding to anything project-related). While seeming to be generally unfocused, however, Paula w as actually relatively aware of what Vanessa was doing. For example, at one point in th eir second meeting, Vanessa made what appeared to be an indirect bid for Paula’s inp ut. She said aloud that she was struggling with the fluidity of her phrasing becaus e she did not want it to appear as though she was addressing the rubric points one by one. Paula was quiet for a moment, and then began to compose aloud an alternative to w hat Vanessa had, “Mmph. It is important for the student and the teacher, it is im portant for a teacher to develop good listening skills to be able to teach it to their ch ildren because…auh, I know unintelligible what you’re trying unintelligible as well to say it.” Vanessa appeared surprised an d said,

PAGE 189

178 “Oh, you’re, uh, uh (looked back at screen and poin ted to self) helping me?” Paula replied, “Yeah,” to which Vanessa quickly said, “I thought you were doing your thing. Oh, okay. No, okay, well then, let’s go through th is…” Vanessa seemed genuinely surprised that Paula was paying attention to her. In her post-interview, the researcher referred back to Vanessa’s early concerns about wor king with Paula, and asked if her worries had been justified. Overall, Vanessa said that she thought it had gone better than she had expected. On one hand, she felt as though Paula had really come through much more than she had supposed she would when it came t o the editing process. While we were editing I thought back to the first i nterview and I thought, gee, I feel bad because I really didn’t expect much from h er and then she’s actually doing things that I didn’t expect.” “I’d be doing things and she would actually suggest, ‘Oh well how about we do this?,’ or ‘Why d on’t you do that?,’ and there were a lot of times I was really surprised because I really didn’t think that she would really care enough. In large measure, however, Vanessa was ultimately correct about Paula’s desultory approach to the project as well as her in difference to the content. For example, moments after arriving unapologetically late for th eir second meeting, Paula as a complete non-sequitur, suddenly said, “When are we supposed to define comprehensible input?…You wanna talk about the strategy for compre hensible input, like, listening, writing. I’ll talk about Krashen’s theory, okay, n o problem, I can BS that.” In her postinterview, after mentioning that Paula had done a b it more than she had expected (see above), Vanessa went on to say that she did have to push Paula to get her to meet or to participate at times. She also noted that, particul arly toward the end of their project, Paula

PAGE 190

179 was apathetic and inattentive. Vanessa recalled Pa ula’s very long disappearances to chat on her cell phone, while she continued to work: “He r phone rang and she went outside and she was talking on the phone a long time. I wa nna say about a half and hour or so, and I was like, ummm, well, let me keep working b ecause this is a half an hour that, I don’t have time to lose you know, and so I kept doi ng as much as I could without her there.” As often happened when Vanessa spoke of so mething that bothered her, she then tried to be fair to Paula by saying that she suppos ed that she too had taken time away to feed and change her baby. She then remarked on Pau la’s late arrivals to their meetings, One time I think was half an hour, and the other ti me it was forty-five minutes, which, I can’t really talk much because (laughed) I’ve been late, too, but, its just…especially when we said the time, two o’clock. I understand t wo-fifteen, two-twenty, that’s, you know, but I mean, for two-forty-five and then there are times that I didn’t hear from her and it was two-thirty and I’m like…ummm?” Vanessa concluded, “So, in that way, it sort of happened the way I expected it to and then, in other ways she sorta surprised me. It should also be mentioned that Vanessa’s expecta tions may have led her to behave in a way that somewhat discouraged Paula’s f ull participation. The primary example of this was Vanessa’s insistence on using h er personal digital video camera, laptop, and editing software for the project. Sinc e she knew how to use them all, and Paula did not, recording, uploading, and editing th e video fell exclusively to Vanessa. In her post-interview, Vanessa clearly stated that Pau la may not have supported her much in the realm of technology issues, but to hold it agai nst her would be “unfair in the sense that she really didn’t know the technology that I w as using.”

PAGE 191

180 Vanessa’s expectations of Paula may have had yet a nother detrimental effect on the overall project. She had said in her pre-inter view that when previous project partners did not do their share she simply did it for them t o ensure a high overall project grade. In this case, however, Vanessa appeared to want to gua rd against being exploited by her partner, and took steps to try and let Paula know t hat she would have to do her share. For example, prior to their first meeting, they had dis cussed that they would both do some background research on their topics and bring what they found to form a foundation for the project. Vanessa stated in her pre-interview t hat for her own “research” she had simply gone to an old textbook and “dog-eared” page s that contained what might be relevant information. She had not yet read or extr acted anything prior to their meeting because she did not believe that Paula would do so. She stated that she assumed that Paula would arrive to the meeting having done nothi ng at all, and this would force them to extract the information together. In the post-i nterview, the researcher asked Vanessa about her concern that Paula would not do her share of the research, and her having marked pages, but written nothing prior to their fi rst meeting. Vanessa thought a moment, then replied: There was really nothing that I can remember that s he had prepared before she came in. A lot of what we ended up saying we wrote together. I’m not gonna say I did it on purpose, but when I was finding the inf ormation, I would mark in the book […] so then when she got there I would say, “O kay this is what I found.” “What are we gonna say about it”, because really, I wasn’t gonn a sit there and write out the whole script for her to say. […] I r eally wanted it to be more of a group effort. […] In a way I probably did less th an I normally would have if I

PAGE 192

181 were doing the project with someone else. It proba bly would have been, like, okay, look, I’m gonna look this up and write this s cript and you look this up and you write this script and I know that that other person’s gonna have it when I get there. I sort of didn’t expect her to have it, and then, I was right, and so then, I was glad, but at the same time I wasn’t. […] It wa s sort of my way of not…how can I say… making me carry the load. And this way it took longer. I think we would have been done in a lot shorter amount of tim e if it had been done in advance. If I had done it and said, “Okay, look her e I found this, I wrote this, you say this, I say this. Vanessa, therefore, did the minimum in order to eve n the playing field with Paula, thinking that it would make clear that she would no t be manipulated into taking on more than her share of the workload. As it turned out, Vanessa had been absolutely correct about Paula showing up with nothing but excuses. U nfortunately, she was also correct to say that she “probably did less than she normally w ould have.” In the end, the outcome was that neither of them wound up doing any researc h of consequence, which resulted in a partially inaccurate and profoundly incomplete vi deo presentation. The difference was quite poignant in Paula and Van essa’s expectations of one another as working partners. Initially, Paula, lik e Vanessa, noted that the majority of her previous experience working in groups had been posi tive, and that she actually preferred collective to individual work, particularly when “t he people that I'm working with are…people I know or people that are hard-working l ike me who have the same visions, because it's good to get different opinions …and id eas, maybe, you know, I understand the, the assignment one way, someone else understan ds it another way.” She had little to

PAGE 193

182 say concerning negative group work experiences exce pt that, like Vanessa, on occasion she had encountered “other people that just, whatev er, don't care. It's frustrating, because you may find out you're doing more work or putting a little bit more effort into it.” Both of them, then, had described themselves as hard-wor king learners that enjoyed group activities with like-minded, industrious partners, and disliked situations in which they had been forced to shoulder an unequal amount of the wo rkload. The similarities in their responses ended there, however, with Paula’s opinio n of Vanessa as a partner. She stated simply, “I know that she's just as serious about he r grade as I am, about working.” In her post-interview, when asked if working with Vanessa had gone as she had expected, Paula replied that it had. She added tha t they worked well together and balanced one another out, “You know she handled cer tain things, I handled certain things.” She noted that Vanessa had done most of th e editing of the video because she was more familiar with the software, but “would try to help her out the best I could.” Paula noted pointedly, “and she offered that, too.” She described her own contribution as “editing, and [the] creative side,” as well as havi ng been the one to offer her classroom and lesson plan for the class they videotaped. Pa ula’s description of events was one of fair distribution of labor and resources, contrasti ng with Vanessa’s view of what had happened. In the end, Paula stated that she and Va nessa had experienced very little conflict over the design and execution of the activ ity because, “we wanted to get the project done and you know cover as much of the rubr ic as you can.” Paula stated this as a positive, while Vanessa had described this “justget-it-done” mindset as having detracted from her normal attention to detail.

PAGE 194

183 All told, it was clear that Vanessa and Paula’s pe rceptions of their relationship and of the activity were very different from one an other. Where one was guarded and apprehensive, the other was unconcerned and trustin g. Where one felt that she had not been able to live up to her usual potential for fea r of being taken advantage of, the other felt they had divided the tasks fairly and been abl e to do what they’d been asked to do. Their disparate perceptions and expectations of one another resulted in a kind of tension that made it difficult for them to resolve the conf licts and contradictions encountered in the activity. Rapport – Conflict. Vanessa and Paula’s perceived levels of rapport ha d a significant impact on their ability to notice and r esolve conflict. This affected the process to such a degree that they were not only unable to expand and deepen their knowledge of their topics, but in some aspects, unable to reach even a basic level of “technical rationality.” Rapport – Conflict – Vanessa. An important theme that emerged from Vanessa’s pre-interview was the notion of how an individual m ight react and cope in a situation involving conflict with another group member. The researcher asked Vanessa if she would speak to another group member who was not doi ng his/her part. Her response was that she would not because a) she would “feel bad” doing so; and b) she feared the person would be angry with her. Vanessa explained that in situations like that, she would not say anything to the person she felt was slacking – rather, she would just take over and do whatever needed to be done in order to get the grad e that she wanted. She stated that she would also not say anything to the professor. I would probably just do [the work myself]…[laughed ] cause you're working in a

PAGE 195

184 group, and then it's, you know, go to the professor […] and then it's their word against mine so I just kind of zip the lips, and ju st kinda just do it... and then, if it's a speaking part, I'd rather give it to them, here's your part" [laughed], "read over it, and make sure it's OK". Vanessa then qualified her response by saying that she would say something to someone she knew well and felt close to because of the diff erence in the length and depth of the relationship. For her, speaking out when the relat ionship was likely to be temporary wasn’t worth it, but for a close, long-term friends hip, she said that she would not have to worry about the person “turning on” or “bailing on” her. Interestingly, she did go on to say that, even in the case of someone close to her, she would approach the conflict somewhat indirectly by making a joke or by asking i f there was something wrong, and could she help. When asked directly about how she thought she might respond to any conflict with Paula, she stated, “I know Paula, but I don't know her that well where I would seriously go to her and say, ‘Hey, why haven' t you done this’?" Generally speaking then, Vanessa stated that when f aced with a conflict with a work partner with whom she was not very close (in t his case, Paula), she would opt to stay silent and take on whatever share of work that she felt that individual was not doing. Her view appeared to be that the extra workload was preferable to possible retaliation on the part of another group member in the form of ani mosity or abandonment. During the activity, it was true that Vanessa very rarely questioned, contradicted or confronted Paula, since, as she stated, she did not feel she knew her well enough. The first example of a failure to challenge Paula c ame almost immediately during their first meeting when they were having trouble d ifferentiating between using

PAGE 196

185 comprehensible input as a teaching strategy and tea ching TL listening skills to students. Paula suddenly said, speaking rapidly and not enunc iating clearly: Well, why don’t we just not bring it in at all? Wh y don’t we just say, oh, you know, the best, you know, kinds of, you know, metho d to do listening as part of comprehensible input. You know, tie it together, y ou know, is when this, when that, when this, when that… How about that? Vanessa looked over at Paula and hesitated as if sh e were trying to make sense of this. Finally, rather than ask for clarification, she just said, “Okay.” Paula continued: Paula: You know, that way we’re not really separating it. Vanessa : Not separate. Paula: Yeah. Vanessa again hesitated, then said, “okay”, followe d immediately by changing the subject, rather than questioning or contradicting P aula. By just agreeing to something she did not understand, the opportunity was lost to see k out additional clarification from reference materials, their peers, the researcher, o r the professor. From that point forward, they confounded the use of comprehensible input, as a strategy for use by teachers, with the teaching of listening skills to students, as a learning/communication strategy for use by language learners. Even when it came to issues other than those relat ed to content, Vanessa still had difficulty voicing her own views. In one instance, Paula very much wanted to use a particular font, so she asked if Vanessa had it on her computer. They found it, to Paula’s delight, but Vanessa immediately saw that its thinlined curly-cued style was not a good design for the video presentation. She started to say, “But that’s kind of…” then briefly

PAGE 197

186 bared her teeth in slight disgust. She then said, more to herself than to Paula, “Oh, okay, we can, we can change it.” Vanessa obviously disli ked the font, but rather than stating this openly, or explaining why it might not work fo r a presentation format, she caught herself and made a qualified agreement. The issue arose again later, and Vanessa was slightly more direct when she said “I think that te xt is kind of hard to read,” and then added “even though it’s pretty” as a means of softe ning her critique. Paula did not agree to do away with the use of the font altogether, but responded that they didn’t have to use it throughout the video, and the issue was dropped. At times, the concerns Vanessa had voiced in the pr e-interview about not wanting a work partner to be angry with her or to “bail” on her appeared to come into play. At one point, Vanessa tried to tell Paula that an audi o segment that she’d recorded was a bit wordy by saying, “Okay, no offense, but that was te n seconds to get into (chortled lightly) what you wanted to say about background kn owledge.” Paula asked her what she meant, and Vanessa replayed the recording for her. Vanessa : Do you see what I’m saying? Paula: Mm, what, you wanna cut it out? Vanessa : No… Paula: Well, then why would I be offended? Vanessa : No! Uhgh. Paula: (Leaned back, smiled, wagged finger in the air) Hey Ya’ll say I talk fast. Now I talk too slow? Ya’ll better make up your mind s. Paula’s response seemed to imply that if Vanessa we re to edit what she had recorded, then she would take offense. Vanessa then made a s econd attempt:

PAGE 198

187 Vanessa : No, no, no, no, but, I’m saying, just like, a lot of fill there, like, (changed briefly to narrative voice) ‘for our proje ct on comprehensible input’, you see what I’m saying, like, you’re kinda, like, addi ng, like… Paula: I mean, if you wanna cut no, cut some of it out. Vanessa : No. Paula: We can. Vanessa : No. Paula: It’s not a big issue to me. Vanessa : Nah. Don’t worry about it. Vanessa raised the issue twice, but then abandoned the subject. Had Paula been more conciliatory, agreed that the passage needed to be changed, and/or offered suggestions for improvement, it is possible that Vanessa may have f elt comfortable enough to pursue the issue. In one other instance, the very retaliation and aba ndonment that Vanessa had feared briefly materialized. As Vanessa was trying to compose a passage explaining listening skills, she asked for input, and was surp rised when she got it, from Paula. Paula offered a couple of comments, but was very soon dis tracted by unrelated things as Vanessa was speaking. Vanessa continued to compose aloud, but hearing nothing more from Paula, looked back to find her apparently deep ly engrossed in a minute examination of her lower leg. Vanessa laughed very lightly, t hen softly said, “Okay,” and turned back to her computer as if she understood that Paul a wasn’t going to help much after all. Paula, after a moment’s hesitation, leaned back, si ghed heavily, and said curtly and in a rapid-fire manner, “This is your task okay,” and looked at Vanessa’s screen with a brief,

PAGE 199

188 sneerish smile. Vanessa responded, “I know, I’m…”, but was interrupted by Paula who appeared to be trying to make a repair by repeating back what Vanessa had read out earlier, “listening is a skill that all students ne ed to develop.” They then shifted the subject to the rubric, avoiding both the topic and the conflict. In yet other instances, Vanessa experienced confli ct, not over project decisions, but from direct irritation at Paula. Oftentimes, V anessa’s aggravation was well-founded, but she rarely said anything bluntly to Paula, and at times said nothing at all. For instance, near the end of their third work sess ion, Vanessa and Paula were seated together and had just discussed an audio rec ording that Vanessa was preparing to make. She set up the camera, microphone, and lapto p. Vanessa only wanted the audio track, so she aimed the video camera at something u nimportant, in this case Paula’s keys. As soon as she pressed “record”, but before she cou ld speak, Paula picked up her keys and rattled them, saying in Spanish, “ Llaves .” Vanessa just shot her an annoyed look and tried again to begin recording herself. Just then, Paula turned to her own laptop and began noisily clattering away at the keyboard. Van essa waved at her to stop, but she did not. Finally, Vanessa paused the recording, and lo oked at Paula quizzically, with mild irritation. Paula finally looked over at her, at w hich point Vanessa began to tap her fingers on the table as if she were at a keyboard. Paula responded, “I keep forgetting. It’s the nails, girl, it ain’t even me, it’s the na ils,” and tapped her own nails on the tabletop. Vanessa just smiled and said, “The nails are part of it.” Paula, seeming to realize that she’d crossed some boundary with Vanes sa, rapidly changed the subject to what they might write for the conclusion, and it wa s some time before Vanessa could return to her recording.

PAGE 200

189 Another example took place at the start of their se cond meeting, which was in Vanessa’s home. Vanessa had gone to the trouble to make snacks and lemonade, and had asked her mother over to care for her infant son. She readied the workspace (the kitchen table), setting up her laptop and laying out their planning notes, equipment, and the like. Paula was very, very late, and had not telephoned t o explain or ask for directions. Vanessa was annoyed and clearly expressed her irrit ation to the researcher. When Paula eventually arrived over thirty minutes late, Vaness a, completely masking her annoyance, got up and served Paula some food and a drink. Pau la then mentioned that she had just eaten at a meeting for the teaching assistants at t he university. Vanessa replied in a slightly aggravated tone, “Okay. That’s why you go t here late”. Immediately, she laughed as if to diffuse any anger that might have come through in her comment. Paula answered, “That, and me getting lost.” Vanessa was silent for a moment, and then said in a serious tone, looking away from Paula, “ All righ t….No, that’s fine. We’re cool. At the start of their fourth meeting, again at Van essa’s home, Paula’s lateness was even more egregious. This time, Vanessa had not pu t out any snacks or drinks, but she had set up their workspace at her kitchen table as before. Paula was even later than before, and again had not phoned. Vanessa was unde rstandably perturbed, and had gone ahead and begun to work alone. When she did finall y arrive, Paula came in with no apologies or explanations and settled herself at th e table with a large clamshell of takeout food and began to eat. Vanessa said nothing to reproach her directly, but began explaining in detail what she had done during Paula ’s absence (which was to formulate a conclusion). During this entire time, Paula contin ued to eat, saying nothing, save to ask if Vanessa had photographed her transparency. When Vanessa paused a moment to close

PAGE 201

190 a computer file, Paula asked, “[Can you get] someth ing to drink for me?” Vanessa got up to get it for her, then returned to the table and c ontinued to explain what she’d done during Paula’s absence. This time, though Vanessa had openly expressed her annoyance before Paula arrived, she said nothing directly to her, and in no way indicated her irritation. Vanessa did appear to relax somewhat toward Paula near the middle of the project, and she was then able to speak out more on design issues. At first, she almost always chose an indirect approach, such as offering to help, but she eventually managed to take a more direct, but joking and friendly tone indicating that her trust and confidence in Paula had increased. For example, Paula attempt ed to write a piece on listening for Vanessa to read as she recorded herself. When Vane ssa read what Paula had written, her comment was, “Okay, that’s like, run-on sentence……c ity (smiled). Paula responded, “Didn’t I tell you I’m not good at writing papers?! (laughed, waved off with right hand).” This exchange appeared to remain friendly, no offen se was meant or taken, and they went on to rework the passage together, though Paula was self-deprecatory throughout (e.g. “I don’t know why I wrote it like that;” “I didn’t rea d what I wrote. It was in my head”;, etc.). By the middle of the third session, Paula began ex hibiting an increasing number of behaviors that appeared rude and inconsiderate, as well as increasingly disinterested in the project. Now that Vanessa felt closer to her, s he was able, to some extent, to voice her irritation with Paula on two occasions. In the first instance, they were reviewing their t eaching video in search of segments to use as examples:

PAGE 202

191 Paula : I was getting sarcastic with this class. Vanessa: (Glanced back at Paula, smiled) That’s not really P C, I don’t really wanna put that in [our video]. Paula : (Flippantly) I don’t know. (Played with earring) Why? What did I say? Vanessa: Huh? Paula : What did I say? Vanessa: (Exasperated) Are you blind!? Paula : Oh. Vanessa appeared to be annoyed that Paula had remar ked on her own sarcasm, and then seemed to pretend that she had no idea wha t she’d said that was offensive. There was no effort at any kind of repair after thi s exchange, an unprecedented behavior on Vanessa’s part. The second instance occurred after Paula had become increasingly absorbed with her cell phone, mostly sending and receiving text m essages from someone. At one point, she left Vanessa to work by herself and went outsid e to talk on her cell phone. She was gone for approximately forty-five minutes, during w hich time Vanessa became increasingly annoyed. When Paula finally returned to the worktable, she apologized for being gone so long. Vanessa did not look at her an d answered in a low murmur, “That’s okay.” The conversation continued as follows: Paula: I didn’t mean to take that long. My foot is killing me. All right, whatcha got? Vanessa : (Seriously) All right. Sit.

PAGE 203

192 I uhhh… Paula: Did you just tell me to sit? Vanessa : Yeah, sit. Okay. Paula: You not my mama (chortled, then sat, refocused on c ell phone screen). Both of them laughed briefly, but perhaps less than sincerely, at Paula’s comment, and that was the end of it. Vanessa’s description in the pre-interview of her d islike of confrontation in general, and her inclination to avoid it completely with people with whom she did not share a close relationship, was an accurate predict ion of her behavior with Paula. By the time Vanessa began to feel enough of a rapport with Paula to speak up, the serious decisions as to the project’s direction and depth h ad been made. What’s more, unlike Vanessa’s description of her behavior in past unsuc cessful group projects, she did not take up the slack in the project work. She seemed determined from the start to protect herself from overload (see above). The repercussio ns of Vanessa’s dislike of confrontation, coupled with her determination to no t take on work that she felt that Paula should do, were serious in terms of the project’s s uccess. Rapport – Conflict – Paula. When Paula was asked in the pre-interview how she would respond, generally, if a partner failed to sh are the workload, she answered much as Vanessa did that she would speak up only if she kne w the other person well. When asked directly about Vanessa, Paula said, “it would be ea sy to talk to her because I've known her since last semester and we're pretty cool with each other, and also I k now that she's just as serious about her grade as I am.”

PAGE 204

193 Vanessa was unable to speak up when faced with tens ion or conflict with Paula because she felt that she did not know her well-eno ugh to be able to trust that she would not take offense, or worse, become hostile or vindi ctive. Conversely, Paula’s perceptions of their familiarity and like-mindedness appeared t o facilitate her ability to offer her opinions and suggestions. It may also, however, ha ve contributed to her digressions offtopic into gossip, food, dating, and the like, as w ell as her distracting behaviors such as dancing around, emailing and texting friends, and d oing work for other courses. While Paula may have stated her opinions in a more direct manner than Vanessa, she still frequently used language and paralanguage to soften any aggressive overtones. For example, when commenting on the length of a tex t segment written by Vanessa, she said: The only thing I know, that [the professor], umm, m ay have to criticize us on, is, I’ve seen it done, is you don’t want to write every thing that’s going to be shown, you wanna just, like, write, like, brief points, we can say this stuff, but I know, like, in a presentation, you don’t wanna, like… Vanessa : We shouldn’t have it written out. Paula: Yeah (briefly looked down). In another instance, Vanessa was composing her audi o piece on listening when Paula became very animated and participatory. She tried to think of connections between their video clips and what they wanted to say about compr ehensible input and listening. She began throwing out ideas, prefacing them with confl ict-avoiding qualifiers such as, “Well, maybe you disagree with this, but…”, and “I think, in my opinion, personally, you can disagree with what I say…”.

PAGE 205

194 On other occasions, Paula spoke harshly, but seeme d to catch herself and immediately offer some kind of repair, such as the incident mentioned above when Vanessa had asked for help. Paula’s response was a sharp, “This is your task okay,” but it was immediately followed by an attempt to help. There were even moments when Paula offered Vanessa encouragement, concern, or comfort. For example, as Vanessa worked on her audio piece on listening skills, she was struggling to record herself evenly and smoothl y without making mistakes. She was frustrated, but Paula offered her reassurance, “I t hink you said it really well, actually, what you said.” And later: Vanessa : I am acting so retarded when I’m talking. Paula: (Laughed). Vanessa : I’m so stupid. Paula: No you’re not. You can just say you use methods… Vanessa : (Overlap) I just I think too much. Throughout their third meeting, Vanessa had a terri ble headache. Paula offered support and comfort: Vanessa : Oh God (placed hand over eyes) I’m like (rested f orehead on open palm while looking at screen). Paula: (Reached over and briefly rubbed Vanessa’s back) Ar e you sure you don’t need some [aspirin]? Vanessa : Mm mm, I can’t. I can’t take anything. What’s more, Paula also seemed to feel comfortable enough to occasionally make friendly jibes at Vanessa, as well as share persona l stories and gossip. The problem with

PAGE 206

195 this was in the difference in their perceptions of their relationship. Where Paula may have simply been giving Vanessa a friendly ribbing, Vanessa appeared completely nonplussed, or to take offense. The very first instance of this occurred at the sta rt of their second meeting. Vanessa was looking on her computer for a file she wanted to open, and was having trouble finding it, when Paula slipped in a jibe: Vanessa : What happened to all the video that I had captur ed? Paula: You replaced it with your baby, that’s what you did Vanessa : (Tone moderately irritated) No I didn’t! Paula: (Tone slightly mocking) All your baby pictures (Smi led). Vanessa : Ungh (Surprised/annoyed facial expression, did no t turn away from computer). Vanessa did not reply, and continued to look for he r file, focusing on the computer. Paula appeared to realize that Vanessa h ad not taken her comment as a joke. She then apologized after a moment with, “I’m sorry (very light laugh) that was rude”. Vanessa looked confused, but said nothing in respon se. A similar incident occurred near the beginning of their third meeting. The following exchange took place, again seeming to cat ch Vanessa off guard: Paula: (Stared at her own computer screen, looked sad, sai d softly) I hate you so much right now. Vanessa : (Looked over at Paula)…Hm? Paula: I hate you so much. Vanessa : (Startled) Me?

PAGE 207

196 Paula: (Seriously) Yes. Vanessa : Why? Paula: (Smirked, then grinned) Cause you unintelligible (turned to Vanessa and laughed) thought to run to Burger King before class Vanessa : What?! Paula: You went over to Burger King before class. Vanessa : (Miffed tone, said vehemently) You had time to go Paula: No, I shouldn’t spend any money at all, like, I’m l ike, on a budget so bad. Vanessa : Ungh (Lifted fingertips to forehead, and pulled p alms down over face). Paula appeared to be trying to make a joke. Vanessa was surprised and irritated, and was unable to relax even when it became clear t hat Paula had only been kidding. As mentioned above, there was a small window betwee n the midpoint and the completion of the activity when Vanessa appeared to relax a bi t with Paula. It was during this time that Paula was able to tease her a bit without prov oking her. For example, Vanessa had made several attempts to record herself, but had re peatedly fumbled over her words causing her to want to stop and start again. She w as ready to make another attempt at recording, this time with a written script, when Pa ula said, “Don’t flub it up this time.” Vanessa seemed to take this fine, and responded, “I know, I won’t. Hopefully he won’t talk either (referring to her baby nearby).” To a lesser degree than Vanessa, Paula also appeare d to have her moments of irritation with her partner. One source of apparen t annoyance was a subtle note of competitiveness that arose between them at times. The source of the tension often appeared to be in comments on Vanessa’s part relate d to her own assiduousness as a

PAGE 208

197 student. For instance, on one occasion, in referen ce to the video they had made of her teaching, Paula began to talk about the differences between the students in her two classes. She noted that the early morning students were lively and engaged, while the two p.m. students were dull and reluctant to partic ipate. The researcher mentioned that the time of day may have something to do with it, n oting factors such as mealtimes and self-selection of course times by students. Vaness a looked back at the researcher and intervened at this point saying, “I was such a dork cause I always took the early morning classes.” At this point, Paula made a face with he r lips pressed tight, chin down, and eyebrows raised. A sort of competitiveness seemed to arise between them as Paula said, looking out into the room, “Well, I think I may hav e, too, cause that’s all there is (looked back at partner, serious, with eyebrows raised) ava ilable.” Vanessa interrupted Paula and countered with a comment that appeared to be stress ing that she’d attended the early classes by choice “But I lived, but I lived closer, I lived in [the same city as the university] at the time.” Paula looked down, and t hen back up at Vanessa with the same serious expression and said “Well, okay” as if surr endering. Vanessa added, interrupting Paula again, “But living here I’d get a later class because, to give me a commute time, but…” In what appeared to the researcher to be a d efensive kind of attempt at impression management (Goffman, 1959) Paula interrupted her in turn, “Even when I first got in college, I was, like, okay, eight a.m., cause you k now, I’m still in that high school, like, you know, by seven a.m. [mode].” She then added, “ And I worked in the afternoon, but, like…” During this moment of hesitation, Vanessa r ocked her head to the side and arched one eyebrow, which appeared to the researche r to convey a level of skeptical superiority. Paula concluded, “I would say, it’s t he, I would rather deal with the morning

PAGE 209

198 classes, I would rather get my classes done in the morning… like, cause I hate taking evening classes.” In another instance, Vanessa was starting to describe to the researcher a classroom observation she had recently made. Pau la suddenly interrupted saying, “You observed already?!” Vanessa replied that she had, and Paula responded petulantly, “I hate you. You were supposed to email me two things and you didn’t.” Vanessa responded in a parallel manner, “Oh there you go, w ell you didn’t remind me either, so mmmm,” and then she smiled. There was an adolescen t playfulness in the exchange, but the researcher also felt there was, again, a note o f competition. In the ensuing minutes Vanessa went on at some length to animatedly descri be how wonderful her observations had been, while Paula increasingly showed signs of boredom and distraction, and finally irritation, sharply raising her eyebrows, muttering under her breath, and finally rolling her eyes and lolling her head to one side. The only other apparent source of direct irritation seemed to be frustration with Vanessa toward the end of the project when she spen t time tweaking the video presentation, while Paula just wanted to be done. In their relationship, Vanessa stated from the beg inning that she did not feel close enough to Paula to speak up should conflict or tens ion arise between them, while Paula said the opposite. Had they been close friends in Vanessa’s eyes, Paula’s casual behaviors, comments, and jokes might have been inte rpreted as camaraderie, sociability, and friendly jibes. As it was, however, her remark s appeared to do little to bolster their mutual rapport. Vanessa, on the other hand, appear ed to provoke Paula from a more competitive, slightly supercilious angle rather tha n any direct aggression or destructive behavior. These unequal levels of mutual trust and confidence may have ultimately

PAGE 210

199 contributed to misunderstandings and tensions that damaged their ability to perceive and resolve conflicts and contradictions in their proje ct content, their design, and with one another. Expectations. Vanessa and Paula not only began with certain expec tations of one another, but also of the amount of effort and time that would be required to complete the project, the potential outcomes of their efforts, a s well as their beliefs about the purpose of the activity. The participants’ expectations an d beliefs were borne out in some cases, but not so in others. More importantly, however, t hese prior notions colored the activity through their choices, behaviors, attitudes, and co ncerns. Expectations – Effort and Time. Neither Vanessa nor Paula appeared to ever have any real idea of how much effort or time would be n eeded to complete the project. They continued to underestimate what would be required f rom the moment they started until they ran out of time at the end of their last work session. In terms of effort, Vanessa stated in her pre-inte rview that, in general, the project would not be hard to complete. When pressed as to what she thought would be the most difficult element of the project, she said that it would be in recording enough video with which to work. As for the simplest aspect, she sta ted that the editing would be the easiest because it would be fun to do (see Motivation above ). Paula, however, was far more prescient and stated right from the beginning of he r pre-interview that she felt that the project was going to involve a great deal of work. She did remark, however, that perhaps she had an advantage in that she was comfortable wi th the technology, and that she had the convenience of currently teaching on campus. W hen asked specifically about it, Paula responded that the most difficult part would be editing the video clips into a single

PAGE 211

200 video. For her, the easiest part was what Vanessa had said would be most difficult: getting the video with which to work. Echoing her earlier statement about advantages, Paula felt that the easiest part of the project wou ld be “just teaching and … recording, I mean…I gotta teach every day.” In her post-intervi ew, Paula confirmed that the editing had been the most difficult aspect of the project. She mentioned how difficult and time consuming it was to tweak even one small aspect of the video. Their assessments of the workload may have guided their early behaviors in the activity, which had repercussions for the overall o utcome. First, Vanessa’s worry that it would be difficult to gather enough video may have influenced their decision to record their teaching examples before they ever met to wor k or make a project plan. Without the plan, however, there was no guarantee that what they recorded would appropriately exemplify what they were going to discuss. Vanessa confirmed this in her post-interview saying that they expressly wanted to record first s o they would have a lot of footage from which to choose examples. She confirmed that once they had the video, they then sat down and listed what would go where and who would e xplain or introduce the topics and their corresponding examples. In the end, their ef forts to match the video that they already had to the explanations of their topics may have contributed to a narrowing of their focus to such an extent that they failed to v erify their assumptions or expand their understandings. Their underestimations of the amount of time that would be required matched those of the estimated workload. When Vanessa said in the pre-interview that they had their example video but had not yet met or done any work, the researcher remarked that, even if the video might provide the teaching exampl es, there would still be a great deal of

PAGE 212

201 explanatory and foundational work that would be req uired for the project. Vanessa replied, “We'll see if, if we can get that done tod ay” (Note that the pre-interview with Vanessa was scheduled just prior to her first forma l meeting with Paula to work on the project. This meeting was to last approximately tw o hours). That Vanessa felt that she and Paula would be able to plan, research, compose, record, and edit together the remaining pieces of t he project in one afternoon was indicative of either a critical misunderstanding or a significant underestimation of what was required. At the end of the interview, Vanessa reiterated her hope that the project would not require too much time, as well as her exp ectations that they should be able to complete it in one, or possibly two meetings. Paul a was less clear in her pre-interview about her expectations of the time required. In ac cordance with her anticipation that the project was going to involve a lot of work, she did state that she felt it was important that they get an early start. Even once they began work on the activity, neither Vanessa nor Paula appeared to develop a sense of the amount of time that the proj ect would require to complete. Even nearing the end of their first meeting, when all th ey had actually completed to that point was a title page, Paula suggested, “maybe next Frid ay, if we can get everything else set up, then, […] tape ourselves, and then just add it in that day… and then we’re done.” She seemed to be, like Vanessa, condensing the required research, organization, and editing that would need to be done into a vague notion of “ everything else.” Their perceptions appeared unchanged well into their second meeting. They were thinking of a way to avoid being on video that day, so Paula suggested:

PAGE 213

202 Paula: If you wanna, like, record all this stuff, like, on another day, I mean, you know, it’s up to you. Vanessa : Aye yay yay, I wanna get this done. Paula: No, what I mean, if we can get everything else done and we’re pretty sure what we’re gonna do, I mean…[ italics mine ] Vanessa : Oh yeah. Paula: That way we can have it written out, and, like, the recording won’t take long once we have things written out. Near the end of that same session, little had chang ed as the topic of continuing on for more time arose. Paula’s response was, “I don’t wa nt to be here too much longer.” She decided, however, to stay long enough to record her audio piece on comprehensible input, “cause then pretty much all you have to do is work on [doing] the same thing [for listening] and just type in the little stuff.” Mom ents later she reiterated, “I think after you do your part about the listening it’s not gonna tak e that much time (waved off with hand, dismissive head shake and facial expression) to int roduce the videos.” Vanessa agreed with her. When they reached the end of their time for the third session, they realized they still were not done and that they would have to mee t again. Paula said: The only thing we need to do is the conclusion, so I’m thinking, if you want to, why don’t we go ahead and, like, record the conclus ion today, so next time we meet, all it really is gonna be a matter of, like, the slides, and where to put them. That way we can have at least all the recordings it ’s done. A few minutes later she added:

PAGE 214

203 We’re probably gonna plan right now, tentatively, f or two more hours next Wednesday cause we’re almost done all we have to do is, like, write up the conclusion and then we just have to record it. And then it’s just, like, a matter of adding the transitions of the slides and so we’re h oping we can get done next week. Once again, they did not seem to appreciate the amo unt of time it would take to complete the remaining work. Hours into their fourth work session, the mismatch between their expectations and reality in terms of time seemed to become apparent, at least to Paula. She indicated her impatience with the project by be coming agitated and telling Vanessa to just abandon or narrow the scope of what they we re attempting to do. For example, when Vanessa was having trouble opening a file, Pau la sharply said, “Aw who cares?” Minutes later as Vanessa was tweaking a photo: Vanessa : It’ll just take one second. (Several seconds passed) Paula: (Sighed loudly through nose, irritated)… Vanessa : It doesn’t seem to want to do… Paula: You know, just forget it, I mean, just, whatever. […] I mean, seriously…That’s good, then you have th e pictures there and all that stuff. Summing up their experience in her post-interview, Vanessa stated: The hardest thing for me was the time, was making s ure that we would have enough time, especially toward the end when I was l ike, okay we have three hours, we have to get it done in these three hours, and then those three hours come

PAGE 215

204 and go and we got half of what we thought we’d get done. It was like, ‘Ohh, man!’ So then it was like, ‘okay so when can we mee t again?’ and look at the calendars, ‘well its due here and I really wanna ge t it done by this time. So that ended up being the hardest part. One of the apparent causes of their inability to es timate the amount of effort and time that would need to be invested was their inade quate plan. Their plan (see Planning below) had been so sketchy that they not only seeme d to take for granted the small jobs in between the larger tasks, but they continued to uncover and add on new tasks. Their failure to ever establish a substantive plan (let a lone a storyboard, as was recommended) seemed to play a significant role in their inabilit y to comprehend how much time they would need, because they not only never fully under stood what they had completed, they were not able to gauge what remained to be done. It should also be noted that their inability to est imate effort and time also caused them to have to narrow the object of the activity. According to Vanessa in her postinterview, time was the reason they chose not to go ahead with their original news anchor idea (see Creativity below). “We just ended up usi ng the audio and then showing things on the screen and that made it easy because we coul d just do that where we were at and didn’t matter if we had make up on or not or if our hair was in a mess or not.” Expectations – Project Purpose. One of the topics broached by the researcher in the pre-interview was the purpose of the assignment When directly asked to give her opinion as to why this project had been included as part of the course and what she believed the designers of the curriculum had hoped she might learn from it, Vanessa stated, “… if you spend a lot of time on a particul ar topic, you'll learn that topic inside

PAGE 216

205 and out, and so, I think it gives you an opportunit y to really research it, and to really develop information for that specific topic.” Pau la’s response was less reflective: “I have no idea to be honest. I mean, I'm sure there' s a reason behind it, I don't know what, time maybe will clarify some things but, at this ti me, I'm not that sure.” Their responses could not have been more different. On one hand, Vanessa appeared to fully grasp that she was to look beyond her current levels of understanding of the topics, and delve into an in-depth, critical in quiry in order to “develop” her knowledge. On the other hand, Paula stated that sh e did not know the purpose at all. Expectations – Professionalization. The researcher asked the participants both before and after the activity if they thought they might take anything away with them from the project into their teaching. She then fol lowed up with a question about whether completing the project would affect their sense of themselves as knowledgeable professionals poised to enter the teaching professi on. In the pre-interview, Vanessa was unspecific, firs t bringing up her prior teaching experience, then referring to the foreign language education program in general saying that she’d learned “a lot from my classes in differ ent strategies, and different things to do.” In the post-interview, when asked specificall y if she thought she would employ the concept of comprehensible input or work to enhance her students’ listening skills in her future teaching, Vanessa replied that doing the pro ject had made her more aware of comprehensible input (she did not mention listening skills). She said that doing the project took the notion from just a recommended pra ctice to “more of a clear view of how and why exactly it should be used, and good ways to use it.” When asked if the project had professionalized her in any way, she replied th at it had not, then added, “Well, it

PAGE 217

206 doesn’t help, that mostly, at least towards the beg inning it was (dejected voice, slumped body) another project we have to do, and thank God this is going to be my last semester that I’m taking classes.” She added: I think I’m going to feel more teacher-ized once I finish the internship, and actually have had another cl-, well, I’ve taught be fore, but to have another class…that’s… sort of…’mine’ quote, unquote, and it ’ll be in a different setting, too. I taught elementary before so teaching in hig h school is going to be a different experience altogether. I think then I’ll feel more professional because I would have taught K through eight, and then high sc hool, and then I’ve taught here in college so, it’s like I’ve been all, the wh ole spectrum. In Paula’s pre-interview, the only thing she stated that she might take away with her from doing the project was perhaps more skill w ith technology. When asked pointedly if she would take anything from the conte nt of the project into her teaching she very succinctly said, “no.” In the post-interview, Paula also only responded on the topic of comprehensible input, saying that the project, p articularly in the making of the example instructional video in her class, had led h er to “try and use it as much as I can now.” Later in the same interview she said that sh e’d learned a lot this semester, “and not because of this project, but because of the cla ss overall.” She then added, “I mean, it definitely helped me be able to teach a little bit better to my class, so I did learn a little bit from it, yeah.” As for the question on professiona lization, Paula’s response was a straightforward, “No…. I just saw it as a project t hat I had to do for class, I can’t say it made me a better professional.”

PAGE 218

207 Creativity Due to the visual nature of the project, the part icipants were frequently involved in dialogue concerning its desi gn and presentation. Indeed, these topics were already under discussion before Vanessa and Paula had even established a rudimentary presentation plan. Creativity and Design. Throughout the project, Paula offered considerabl e input on design features, such as transition types and sp eeds, background screens, text fonts, sizes, and colors, and the like. Paula was willing to pay attention to the basic design features above because she seemed to view them as a normal part of putting together a video. Paula often wanted to add variety by changi ng the elements from screen to screen, and choosing features such as pretty, but difficult to read fonts, and attractive, but busy backgrounds. As the project drew to a close, howev er, and her impatience with being done increased, she not only lowered her design inp ut to a minimum, she began to discourage Vanessa from spending time on anything b ut the most basic features. Vanessa, on the other hand, appeared to have a bet ter sense of design elements for the purposes of consistency and clarity, such as ma intaining a uniform background color, font type, and transition format throughout the pre sentation. To Paula’s occasional mild disappointment, Vanessa chose a bold, easy-to-read font, a basic background to contrast well with the text, and a single, simple transition type. An example of their differences can be seen in the following exchange as Vanessa wa s connecting their “slides” to the video examples: Paula: Let’s see some cool [transitions]. Vanessa : I’m just gonna use the same one, just to make it consistent.

PAGE 219

208 […] Otherwise you get all kinds of different transi tions, (looked up at researcher), it looks kind of funky. Paula: See, yeah, I’m all about consistency but, I just th ink it’s boring after awhile (laughed) I guess, I don’t know why. To Paula’s greater annoyance, however, this attenti on to detail and consistency required time to go through the video and match features in order to get it right. This was time that Paula saw as wasted, but Vanessa was insistent on taking. Creativity and Presentation Format. The majority of their early activity in the project was oriented toward aesthetic decisions and creative wording, rather than content. For example, Vanessa’s first priority when they beg an editing the video was to choose a background for their title screen. Eleven backgrou nds later they agreed, temporarily, on an ocean-like screen. Paula joined in for this par t, animatedly offering her opinions and suggestions on colors, fonts, and playback lengths and speeds. To conclude their opening screen, Vanessa wanted to avoid writing “By Vanessa and Paula” as she saw it as too “elementary school.” It was Paula, however, who ca me up with a humorous and creative means of adding their names with, “How about ‘Carre ra-Cordero Productions’?” A critical drawback in their attention to creative detail was that they gave it priority over the far more significant work they ne eded to do with the content. Had they used the time instead to look into their topics, an d verify, correct, and deepen their understandings they would have likely enjoyed a gre at deal more success with the final product. Aesthetic choices and creative wording not only out weighed content, they also overshadowed the planning process. For example, du ring their first meeting, they had

PAGE 220

209 settled down to discuss an outline of the presentat ion and to make a plan to follow as they worked. Paula frequently interrupted with disjoint ed ideas on specific content and design issues. Vanessa attempted to return them to the pr ocess of planning the sequence of the video project, but Paula steered them back into a d iscussion of design by suggesting they videotape themselves speaking, but insert text over their heads so their input would be “comprehensible” to their viewers. Vanessa counter ed that they could instead just have text on the screen, with audio recordings of their voices playing in the background. Vanessa immediately contradicted her own idea and s uggested, laughing, that perhaps they do the whole video presentation in the role of news anchors. She added that she thought that doing so would “keep people’s attentio n better, too.” Paula appeared to like the idea, but stopped first to look at the rubric t o see if there were any points for creativity. She discovered that there was a sectio n on using the video format to its potential, and then agreed to the idea, adding, “I think [the professor] would get a kick out of that.” Vanessa agreed saying that if she we re the professor she would enjoy it. This was an important moment because it was then th at both Vanessa and Paula became (temporarily) motivated by the potential for creative enjoyment in doing the project as exemplified in the following clip of dia logue: Paula: You can play music while that’s going on…you know…a little…theme. […] (Inhaled sharply, opened mouth and briefly lift ed fingertips to lips) Oh my God! I just had this good idea, unintelligible we could put it right on the thing (pointed to screen) umm, what is it called, an edit orial, what is it called when it’s a special edition, kind of news? Vanessa : Newsflash?

PAGE 221

210 Paula: Or a newsflash, or something like that, or, like, a special report…comprehensible input and listening skills, a special report by…(smiled) Minutes later, Paula added: Paula : You know what if you can find a news, kind of Vanessa : Music in the background? Paula: Yeah, like, dodoododoododoododoo, (laughed aloud wh ile speaking) a little typing in the background. Paula continued to interject creative ideas, such a s putting still photos of themselves on the screen while playing audio in the background, i n the style of a remote news correspondent calling in with a report. Paula stay ed focused even as Vanessa exuberantly digressed, suggesting things like using scrolling t ext “like, Star Wars, where it’s going up the screen” to explain their topics instead of audi o. Paula agreed that this would be humorous to do, but that it would distract from the ir news anchor theme, which she reiterated she would very much like to do. The significant downside to this creative excitemen t was that both young women were completely distracted from their original, cri tically important task of making a plan for the project. Unfortunately for them, they were never able to create more than an abstract, fragmentary plan, which was a problem tha t plagued them until the final moments of the activity. Another adverse development was that, in addition t o losing their focus on the content and the planning aspects of the project, th e time they had spent on creative notions for presentation was almost entirely wasted Vanessa and Paula’s plan of pretending to present the topics in the role of new s anchors wordlessly seemed to fall by

PAGE 222

211 the wayside, giving way to a more lackluster delive ry. The creative use of the video medium to deliver their information quietly reverte d to Vanessa’s first suggestion of showing a text-based screen supplemented with recor ded audio. The creative aspects of the project were then reduced to basic design choic es, such as selecting screen backgrounds and font sizes, and the level of excite ment dropped precipitously. There was a corresponding fall in their level of creativi ty-inspired motivation, which was gradually subsumed by the goal of finishing as quic kly as possible. For example, in the third meeting, Vanessa proposed that she might have some “classical baby music” on her computer that they might use in the background, to which Paula responded with relative indifference. Later, as Vanessa was trying to figu re out a way to have text appear on the screen to match the audio, Paula said, “You don’t h ave to do this whole [line by line thing], you can just…girl, save the work on yoursel f, just have it all come up at once.” While there was no guarantee that it would have mad e any difference whatsoever to their content, had they gone with the news ancho r plan, they would have at least met the rubric requirements that a) “Graphics, realia, visuals explain and reinforce the presentation;” and b) “Uses video enhancement featu res to reinforce presentation (uses video to potential).” As it was, they went with a PowerPoint format, showing text-based slides and still images, interspersed with an occas ional “example video.” Creativity and Content. Paula, however, appeared to have a better sense o f where to be brief and where to be wordy, whereas Vanessa erred in both by trying to place too much text on a page, or not saying enough and tryin g to let the “video speak for itself”. Once they completed their introduction screen, the y were then forced to consider what would come next. They reviewed their plan, wh ich contained some information

PAGE 223

212 about sequence, but none about design. Vanessa : Should we define [comprehensible input] with the text on the screen? […] Or should it be one of us defining it? Paula: I think [the professor] would want us to be more cr eative, she doesn’t want just someone talking instead of just text all the time, you know? Vanessa : Right During their second meeting, Vanessa mentioned th at she was having trouble phrasing things the way she wanted to because she d idn’t want to sound as though she was addressing the rubric point by point, rather sh e wanted to try “to incorporate it all in without making it so…obvious.” It should be noted that while this may have been a worthy goal in terms of harmonious and fluid design it perhaps did not serve them well in the end when they were assessing how well they h ad met the requirements in the rubric. In Paula’s interview, the researcher recalled her e arlier comment that the project was constraining because the content limited the po ssibilities for creativity, and asked if there had been more freedom in some way would she h ave enjoyed the activity more. Paula replied: I think just cause of what we had to be able to ach ieve, this wasn’t fun. I mean, better if it could be about a lesson, that’s always so fun, you know, I mean that’s always so interesting. I mean, in terms of being c reative, I don’t know, I mean, it’d be different if you telling people, okay, make up a TV show and videotape it. But asking if we covered, this, this, this, that I would see as more constraining. I

PAGE 224

213 mean, you really only allow so much freedom when pr etty much youÂ’re being told, okay, talk about this subject. The researcher found this interesting because Vanes sa and Paula had originally planned to do their video as news anchors on a TV show, but abandoned the idea. The other issue was that she appeared to want to make a video on so mething of her own choosing, such as a lesson plan (though the project did involve th e delivery of a lesson). In the end, their interest in creative design and delivery at the outset of the activity usurped the need to construct a project plan, as we ll as to override the necessity of researching their topics. It also consumed valuabl e time, which was ultimately wasted anyway as their creative ideas were abandoned in fa vor of a text-based format. Distractions. Distractions appeared to play a role in Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s difficulties in staying focused on the project as a whole, as well as in staying with an idea long enough at a stretch to analyze, investigate, r eflect on, and revise or enhance it into a more fully developed concept. Some of the sources of distraction came from outside sources, and were usually out of their control. Ot her sources came from within themselves, and were related to things such as bodi ly needs, personality (particularly sociability), and attitude toward the activity. Distractions External. Throughout the project, there were many distracti ons from exterior sources. Sources of distraction rang ed from room temperature, to other people, to the video itself as they were editing. Unfortunately, these distractions occasionally came along during moments of serious d iscussion, and resulted in a complete derailment of the conversation and train o f thought. Vanessa and Paula were rarely able to recover from distractions and return to their original points of discussion.

PAGE 225

214 For example, in their first meeting, they were disc ussing the sequence of their presentation and the content of their conclusion. While speaking, Paula caught sight of herself on camera as the video was being played bac k on Vanessa’s computer. She switched instantly from her ideas for the conclusio n to “This is me in the second class here.” They began to discuss the person doing the videotaping, and then an example they might use for comprehensible input, thus completely altering the thread of their conversation. In the second meeting, they met at Vanessa’s home. Vanessa’s mother was there for the day taking care of Vanessa’s infant. The c hild offered minimal distractions apart from an occasional cry or gurgle audible through th e baby monitor Vanessa had nearby and the times she was required to break to feed him Toward the end of their meeting, Vanessa’s mother had to leave, so the baby was move d to a swing next to the worktable. He then became a much larger distraction, cooing an d crying as they tried to record, and a source of interest for Paula. In their fourth meet ing, the baby was present the entire time, though he slept for part of it. When he awoke, Van essa was frequently distracted by the sounds he made, and launched into several stories a bout the baby and his various activities and behaviors. Starting with their third meeting, Paula was increa singly distracted by communication with outside people and by other, non -related work. She brought along her own laptop computer and set it up beside Vaness a’s. She was already typing away at her computer before they even began their meeting, and continued as Vanessa played back and tweaked segments of their video. She offe red occasional interest and feedback, but her attention was clearly divided. Paula’s ce ll phone was a distraction as well, with

PAGE 226

215 the occasional buzzing, and Paula slipping out for significant stretches (fifteen minutes or more) to answer her phone. In their fourth meeting Paula avoided looking at her cell phone for the first hour, but then began sending an d receiving text messages. At one point, she left the room and went outside to talk o n her phone for approximately fortyfive minutes. Vanessa had told some of their class mates that they would be working on the video so they could chat online together if the y wanted to discuss the project. Vanessa soon realized that all of the chatting was off-topic anyway, and that it was more of a distraction than a real help. Distractions – Internal. Other types of distractions came from within the participants themselves. Paula was most prone to t hem, and they increased in frequency as the activity progressed. Hunger and food were recurrent sources of distracti on throughout the project. When food was available, such as happened with the snacks Vanessa provided in their second meeting, both of them were prone to losing t heir train of thought as they reached for a bite of something. When food was not availab le, Paula often talked about food, either in terms of hunger, particular favorites, nu tritional information, or diets. Exhaustion and physical pain were also frequent the mes during the project. Again, Paula seemed to experience more trouble in t hese areas. Throughout the second and fourth meetings, Paula looked tired, and often stated how sleepy she was. She often had trouble staying focused on the project, her gaz e very frequently wandering off and her attention with it. In one example: Vanessa : Okay so that could…introduce one of mine, right?

PAGE 227

216 (Glanced between Paula and screen) Paula: (Still resting head on fist, looked bored or tired, stared into space, unresponsive) Vanessa : The background knowledge, unintelligible to use background knowledgeÂ…Or I could put that after one of myÂ… Paula: (Lifted head slightly) Let me hear it againÂ… In terms of pain, Paula seemed to be having consid erable discomfort with her hair, even commenting how much her scalp hurt. She could often be seen massaging her head, completely distracted from the work Vanessa w as doing. Vanessa began their third meeting with what appeared to be a very bad headach e, causing her to frequently rub her forehead and eyes. Throughout the meeting, she was irritable, often sighed sharply and used an occasional expletive. To VanessaÂ’s detriment, PaulaÂ’s personality could be somewhat distracting at times. She occasionally hummed, or sang, played a little clapping slapping game on her hands and knees, or danced around. More significan tly, Paula would frequently interrupt VanessaÂ’s focus with an incongruent comment or ques tion. For instance, Vanessa was working at the computer, getting the equipment set up for them to begin uploading and editing video: Vanessa : OkayÂ…Now, the only thing I, I didnÂ’t do was, ummm I, I didnÂ’t Paula: (Interrupted, asked loudly) Listening, reading, wri ting, speaking? Vanessa : (Turns to look at partner questioningly, then mak es a lost, then slightly irritated expression). Paula: Sorry, talking out loud, please go ahead.

PAGE 228

217 Paula was also prone to spontaneously offer up comm entary on other assignments, classes, classmates, or other unrelated gossip. Wh en this happened, Vanessa largely ignored her or offered distracted backchanneling as acknowledgement. This began to happen so frequently that Vanessa be gan to use low or inaudible self-talk as a means of maintaining some focus on h er work, while continuing, but reducing, the distracted backchanneling to Paula in acknowledgement. For example, Vanessa was working on writing more for their intro duction, while Paula was intermittently looking over the textbook for inform ation on comprehensible input: Paula : So. Vanessa : (Began inaudible self-talk while typing). Paula : So it is believed (Vanessa stopped typing and coc ked head toward partner), I’m going to say ‘it is believed…’ Paula said nothing after this for several moments, so Vanessa finally tried to return her focus to her writing, using inaudible self-talk to re-read what she wrote. Vanessa’s most troublesome internal distraction was an occasional tendency to begin talking about one thing, but get sidetracked onto other topics, sometimes at such length that the original topic was forgotten in the process. A prime example of this was when the researcher asked the girls pointedly if th ey had done any actual research on developing target language listening skills in stud ents. Vanessa responded that what she had discovered thus far was related more to what a teacher might do to be comprehensible when speaking to students. This was an important distinction to make, and revealed a gross misunderstanding of the concep t of target language listening skills. The opportunity to become aware that they were not on the right track and to clarify their

PAGE 229

218 understanding was immediately lost, however, when V anessa suddenly and excitedly launched into a lengthy description of an observati on of a French class she had made at a local high school. The connection was that she was pleasantly surprised at how well she was able to understand the teacher (to add to the d istraction, this was interrupted by a small side conflict with Paula, as well as multiple deviations from the main topic to add many descriptive details to her account of the clas sroom setting, the students, the teacher, etc.). She continued on animatedly describing in d etail what she had observed, and then segued into a lengthy description of another class, this time Spanish, that she’d visited, including the details of a successful classroom rea ding activity. Paula, meanwhile, had begun to exhibit tired, bored, and somewhat annoyed body language, bringing Vanessa to eventually refocus and say suddenly, “All right. We need to get working here,” to which Paula replied, “Yes, cause I’m asleep, [and] I don’ t want to go to sleep, cause then I won’t sleep at home.” By this time, the original t opic of listening skills was long forgotten. Themes – Summary. By extracting and examining the themes that emerg ed from the data the researcher was able to gain some impor tant insights into the process. This helped to reveal how numerous, diverse factors came together to impact Vanessa and Paula’s learning and professionalization. Activity Theory Analysis. Conflicts, Contradictions, and Tensions. As stated in Chapter Two, an activity is an individualized, c ontextual, and flexible system. Activity Theory models are a means of graphically r epresenting the interacting factors in an activity, as well as a means of reflecting some of the conflicts, contradictions and tensions that arise therein. These conflicts, cont radictions, and tensions are important

PAGE 230

219 because they are the turning points at which develo pment is poised to take place. It is the act of resolving these problems that may bring abou t change in people (i.e. regulation). Vanessa and Paula experienced many conflicts, contr adictions, and tensions throughout the activity, offering many opportunities for learn ing as they might work to resolve them. Figure 10 illustrates an idealized model of Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s activity as envisioned by the designers of the curriculum. This model can th en be used to contrast against models of their actual activity, which illustrate the conf licts they experienced while working. Several conflicts arose between the participants an d the tools they needed to use to complete the project. In the case of technologi cal tools, the problem arose less with the tool itself than with the division of labor rel ated to it. As previously stated, Vanessa insisted on using her own camera, laptop, and editi ng software to create the video. As such, this barred Paula access to the technology. All of the technology-related tasks then fell to Vanessa, who alone had the opportunity to d eepen her knowledge in this domain, by resolving small moment-to-moment conflicts in he r understanding of the workings of the software. (see Figure 11). In the case of reference tools, Vanessa and Paula h ad nearly everything they could need, literally at the tips of their fingers throug h their laptops. They had instant access to materials on the Internet, as well as to thousands of electronic publications available through the university library. Instead, Vanessa p roduced a lone methods textbook for them to use together to extract data. Due to a ser ies of distractions, coupled with a lack

PAGE 231

220 RULES Project Instructions Grading Rubric Project Due Date General Academic Conventions COMMUNITY Practicum Professor Project Researcher Classmates Methods Professor DIVISION OF LABOR VanessaÂ’s Responsibilities PaulaÂ’s Responsibilities OBJECT Completed Instructional Video DESIRED OUTCOMES Student-Teacher: Reflects on, questions, clarifies and internalizes basic knowledge of topics. (Solidifies understandings of fundamental tenets of subject matter). Expands from technical rationality to descriptive r eflection on topics. (Understands and can explain the subjects to others and can offer and justify examples). Explores and reflects on other points of view of th e topics through research and dialogue. (Seeks, learns about, assimilates, and ca n explain alternative points of view on the subjects). Examines, reflects on, and questions the foundation s, permutations, and applications of the topics in consideration of cont ext. (Engages in critical reflection on subject matter, both in light of the restricted environment of the classroom and its denizens, and of the broader cult ural, political, societal, and historical contexts in which the notions were conce ived and espoused). Demonstrates skill at accurately and clearly convey ing information to others. Demonstrates skill at appropriately applying theori es in a classroom setting. Expands or deepens technology skills. Expands or deepens self-confidence as a knowledgeab le professional. Classmates: Develop new understandings of and engage in reflect ion about the topics presented. Figure 10 : Model of the video project assignment as envisio ned by the designers of the curriculum prior to act ivity. TOOLS Technology : Digital Video Camera Computer Connector Cables Digital Video Editing Software Reference Materials: Personal Library University Library (Stacks & Worldwide Digital Acce ss) Internet Project Plan: General Plan Storyboard SUBJECT Vanessa Carrera or Paula Cordero

PAGE 232

221 DIVISION OF LABOR Vanessa insisted on using personal equipment. Use of the equipment was limited to Vanessa. All tasks related to recording, uploading, editing, rendering, and recording to DVD fell to Vanessa alone. OUTCOMES Vanessa: Vanessa did all the technology-related work in the project. Vanessa likely attained some level of self-regulation in the use of the technology. Paula: Paula was able to avoid her anxieties related to DV editing and DVD recording. Paula did not have an opportunity to learn more on the use of the technology. Figure 11 : Model of division of labor issues related to tec hnology use. TOOLS Technology : Digital Video Camera Computer Connector Cables Digital Video Editing Software VANESSA COMMUNITY COMMUNITY DIVISION OF LABOR Paula relinquished all control of the technology to Vanessa. TOOLS Technology : Digital Video Camera Computer Connector Cables Digital Video Editing Software PAULA

PAGE 233

222 Figure 12 : Model of division of labor issues related to ref erence materials. DIVISION OF LABOR Vanessa provided a foreign language methods textbook for use as a reference. Vanessa feared (correctly) that Paula would not do her share of the work to prepare for the project, and intended to force her to participate. Vanessa intended for she and Paula to review the textbook and extract relevant information together This failed to happen as planned. Once the activity began, Vanessa appeared to allow the majority of the ‘information gathering” to fall on Paula. OUTCOMES Vanessa’s concerns over Paula’s lack of participation may have ultimately affected her own willingness and ability to properly research the topics. They ultimately achieved a low-level, object-regulated technical rationality on the topic of comprehensible input only. They ultimately participated in an oversimplified, incomplete, and object-regulated level of descriptive reflection. They were unable to engage in dialogical or critical reflection. TOOLS Reference Materials: Personal library – textbook. DIVISION OF LABOR Paula was not motivated to adequately research the topics. o Paula failed to do her share of research prior to first meeting. o During the activity, Paula skimmed the index of the textbook for related pages, referred to some relevant information in the textbook, but was largely unable to correctly interpret it for the project. o Paula largely relied on her memory for information about the topics, and from this source produced the large majority of information used to describe the subject matter and to rationalize examples in the video. TOOLS Reference Materials: Vanessa’s personal library – textbook. COMMUNITY VANESSA PAULA

PAGE 234

223 of organization, they were unable to glean much fro m the text together. In later meetings, it was primarily Paula who skimmed this book not so much for information as for “ideas for wording.” Their choice to avoid doing even bas ic research appeared to be founded in their belief that they already knew the topics thor oughly, and that all they needed to do was to present this knowledge in video format accom panied by a few teaching examples (see Figure 12). This belief may have presented another conflict, th is time between the participants and the rules of the activity, in that they failed to thoroughly read the instructions or to confirm their understandings of the rubric, preferr ing instead to be guided by their impressions (see Figure 13). Their belief that they already knew the topics thor oughly also contradicted Vanessa’s statement in her pre-interview on the pur pose of the project: “If you spend a lot of time on a particular topic, you'll learn tha t topic inside and out, and so, I think it gives you an opportunity to really research it, and to really develop information for that specific topic.” In reality, they spent little tim e on the actual topics, did next to no research, and were unable to develop their understa ndings. In the end, there were many OUTCOMES Participants did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of fundamental tenets of topics. Participants did not adequately explain or exemplif y the subject matter. Participants did not seek out alternative perspecti ves on the topics. Participants did not show evidence of reflection on the subject matter, nor did they consider the topic s contextually. Participants did not present the information in a logical, well-organized sequence. Participants did not use the video medium to its potential. VANESSA and Paula OBJECT RULES Project Instructions Grading Rubric Figure 13 : Model of difficulties in reading and interpretin g the instructions and rubric.

PAGE 235

224 conflicts and contradictions in their knowledge of the topics, but they were unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to resolve th em (see Figure 14). The third major conflict of this type was tied to t wo tools that they first needed to construct and then make use of – a project storyboa rd and a project plan. They did not make a storyboard, and the plan they attempted to m ake was little more than a superficial outline of the order in which they would present th eir topics. This lack of direction as OUTCOMES Participants did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of fundamental tenets of topics. Participants did not adequately explain or exemplify the subject matter. Participants did not seek out alternative perspectives on the topics. Participants did not show evidence of reflection on the subject matter, nor did they consider the topics contextually. VANESSA and Paula OBJECT RULES Selected Topics Comprehensible input as a second language teaching strategy to build students’ knowledge of the target language through considered and supported use of the target language Listening as a second language learning skill to be taught and practiced with students. Figure 14 : Model of difficulties in defining, describing, e xploring, and reflecting on the topics. OUTCOMES Participants did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of fundamental tenets of topics. Participants did not adequately explain or exemplif y the subject matter. Participants did not seek out alternative perspecti ves on the topics. Participants did not show evidence of reflection on the subject matter, nor did they consider the topics contextually. Participants did not present the information in a logical, well-organized sequence. Participants did not use the video medium to its potential. Figure 15 : Model of difficulties in making and following a project plan. VANESSA and PAULA OBJECT TOOLS Project Plan: General Plan Storyboard

PAGE 236

225 they moved through the activity contributed to thei r difficulties in covering the topics adequately (see Figure 15). In terms of conflict with community, the primary te nsion was between Vanessa and Paula. As stated above under Thematic Analysis VanessaÂ’s distrust of Paula made it difficult for her to question or challenge PaulaÂ’s contributions to the project. As such, the necessary debate over content and examples was not able to take place, and they were unable to engage in the type of reflection that mig ht have led to deeper understandings (see Figure 16). Conflicts between the subject and the object of the activity were due primarily to lack of motivation and expectations that they would learn little from doing the task. One contradiction within this conflict was the fact tha t Vanessa stated in her pre-interview she understood the purpose of the project was to do indepth research on the topics in order to develop her understanding of it. In Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s case, there were many instan ces of conflict, contradiction, and tension. Vanessa likely was able to resolve mo st or all of the conflicts she experienced with the use of the video editing softw are, allowing her to experience a positive change in her abilities. Apart from this, however, no other conflicts were ever completely resolved, which was indicative of very l ittle change or development on their parts.

PAGE 237

226 Figure 16 : Model of personal conflict between Vanessa and P aula. OUTCOMES Vanessa’s concerns over Paula’s lack of participati on may have ultimately affected her own willingness and ability to properl y research the topics. Vanessa’s perception that they were not close may h ave led to fear of contradicting or engaging in conflict with Paula, w hich resulted in a lack of debate or discussion. Paula’s belief that they were close may have led he r to behave in a very casual manner, which was misperceived by Vanessa as rude. Paula’s belief that they were close may have led he r to behave in a very casual manner, which actually was rude. Their lack of rapport may have contributed to their motivation to complete the activity as quickly as possible, which led to a narrowing of creativity, scholarship, “mutual COMMUNITY VANESSA PAULA COMMUNITY

PAGE 238

227 Object Change. Vanessa and Paula’s inability to resolve satisfacto rily the large majority of their conflicts led to a change in the object over time. In the majority of cases, the object narrowed, with some shifting and disintegration as well (see Figure 17). Object Change – Tool-Based Conflicts The conflicts Vanessa and Paula experienced with the tools in the activity certainl y impacted the object. As for the technology tools, Vanessa took complete control of them, with Paula’s permission, causing all of the video editing tasks to default t o her alone. The editing was a very timeintensive task, and occupied the large majority of Vanessa’s work time in the activity. This appeared to be one of many contributors to the narrowing of the object due to time constraints. Vanessa and Paula’s inability or unwi llingness to consult reference materials was another source of object narrowing, and in some aspects object disintegration. Their inability or unwillingness to construct a detailed project plan led to their omitting critical details, as well as their wasting time as they stru ggled to determine what they had completed and what remained to be done. This contr ibuted to both a shift in the object due to lack of clear direction, as well as a narrow ing of the object due to time constraints. Object Change – Rule-Based Conflicts. As with the tools, the conflicts Vanessa and Paula experienced with the rules were also unre solved and contributed to object change. In the first place, neither of them appear ed to give much attention to the project instructions, which were abandoned in short order a nyway in favor of using the grading rubric as a guide. As for the rubric, they also ga ve it scant attention, and when they had questions about it, they sought no help or clarific ation from any source. When it came to their selected topics, they relied primarily on inc omplete memories or improvised information that appeared to them to be logical. B y largely ignoring the instructions and

PAGE 239

228 Figure 17 : Transformation of the object over time in Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s video project activity due to non-reso lution of conflicts, contradictions, and tensions. Technology : Lengthy editing of video related to time constraints. Narrowing. Subject : Lack of motivation related to incomplete/ inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing & Disintegration Project Plan: Unwilling or unable to create a detailed project plan led to struggle to maintain focus on what was complete and what remained to be done. Related to both incomplete/inaccurate coverage of topics and time constraints. Narrowing & Disintegration Selected Topics : Certainty of the comprehensiveness of their prior knowledge on the topics, coupled with serious confusion between them, related to incomplete/ inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing & Disintegration Reference Materials : Unwilling or unable to either identify or extract relevant information from their single source related to incomplete/inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing & Disintegration Community : Certainty in their ability to comprehend their topics and the requirements of the project may have led to lack of effort to seek guidance or support from members of the community related to incomplete/ inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing & Disintegration Project Instructions : Inattention to project instructions and cursory reliance on rubric related to incomplete/inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing. Subject : Frustration over effort and time required related to incomplete/inaccurate coverage of topics and time constraints. Narrowing & Shifting Community : Mismatched levels of trust and closeness between Vanessa and Paula related to incomplete/ inaccurate coverage of topics. Narrowing & Disintegration Idealized Object Idealized Activity Unresolved Conflicts at the Beginning of Vanessa & PaulaÂ’s Activity Unresolved Conflicts at the End of Vanessa & PaulaÂ’s Activity Realized Object

PAGE 240

229 composing the subject matter explanations out of th eir “prior knowledge”, the object narrowed considerably, and partially disintegrated (particularly in the area of listening skills). Object Change – Community-Based Conflicts. The most salient conflict related to community was certainly the difficult rapport betwe en Vanessa and Paula. Vanessa’s distrust of Paula led her to avoid researching the topics. Her lack of closeness to Paula contributed to her reticence to confront her, leadi ng to a lack of crucial discussion and debate. Their lack of communication with the surr ounding community was less a conflict than perhaps a contradiction, but it was y et another readily available and critical source of help and information of which they did no t take advantage. The shortage of trust on Vanessa’s part, coupled with the lack of d ialogue between them and the larger community was yet another contributing factor to th e narrowing and partial disintegration of the object. Object Change – Subject-Based Conflicts. Finally, conflicts between the participants and the object itself also affected th e object. While briefly motivated by a kind of “mutual excitement” kindled through the cre ative idea of designing the video around a news anchor theme (which was abandoned), n either Vanessa nor Paula was able to maintain any real enthusiasm for the project. Wh ile not particularly motivated, they both expected the project to be relatively easy to do, and to not require all that much time to complete. When this did not turn out to be true they experienced frustration, and became wholly focused on just getting it done. The lack of motivation along with their frustration was another reason for the narrowing an d shifting of the object.

PAGE 241

230 For the most part, neither Vanessa nor Paula appear ed to be aware of the changes in the object, apart from the disintegration of the ir original plan to construct the presentation around a news anchor theme. Had they been able to construct an actual storyboard, or at least a clear plan of action, the re is a possibility that they might have been able to work more efficiently, and ultimately have prevented some of the object changes. Regulation. The search for evidence of positive changes in the regulation levels of the participants was another important aspect of the data analysis. As previously stated, it was Vygotsky’s view that a learner would engage in strategic behaviors to gain control of a difficult situation when the problems encountered therein were just beyond his/her ability to solve alone. He believed that t hese strategic behaviors involved making use of mediators in order to “regulate,” or overcom e, the problem. For example, if the learner should turn to an artifact (e.g. a book, a computer, a set of printed instructions, etc.) for answers, then in that instance, s/he woul d be considered to be “object-regulated.” Similarly, should the learner look to other people for help, then s/he would be “otherregulated.” In either of these situations, the lea rner would need to rely on something or someone else in order to achieve what s/he could no t do alone. By using external sources for support, the learner is able to do, and by doin g the learner is able to, hopefully, increase his/her competence over time. As competen ce increases, the learner can rely less and less on external crutches, and more and mo re on internal, or cognitive, resources. As the learner does so, his/her behaviors and langu age begin to emulate those of people more competent than themselves. This movement from the external to the internal, from other to self, is theoretically indicative of cogni tive change (i.e. learning).

PAGE 242

231 In the present study, the researcher conducted both a behavioral and a linguistic analysis in an effort to pinpoint how the participa nts were regulated throughout the activity. It was hoped that noting the levels of r egulation and any changes thereto over time would offer insight into the student-teachers’ learning process as they moved through the video project activity. Regulation – Behavioral Analysis Based on the situations presented in Table 6, Regulation Category Definitions, the researcher exa mined and coded both Vanessa and Paula’s behaviors for evidence of the types of regu lation in which they engaged throughout the activity. By and large, both Vaness a and Paula were object-regulated or other-regulated throughout the activity. Vanessa a lone was able to achieve some selfregulation, but only in the area of technology use. The regulation category situations are briefly described and exemplified in Table 7 below. Table 7: Behavioral regulation Situation: When faced with conflict, contradiction or tension within the activity: Object-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: were largely satisfied with what was produced and decided by one another. Example: Paula : Maybe one of the things you say about listening i s that it’s okay to teach [the students] by writing […] like, basically using what you just taught them. For example, they just learned how to say, “ Que hicieron?” and then you’re just doing the same thing, “Oh, Que hiciero n?” then you just unintelligible oh unintelligible Vanessa: Right Paula : So, something like that. Vanessa: (Pointed to screen) See, the, there I had to write it on the board again because they, like… Paula : (Interrupted) Repetition, repetition’s a part of listening. Vanessa: (turned back to screen with an acknowledging hand g esture – a voil opening of the palm) Paula : (Gesticulated as she spoke revelatory) But at l east you tried, you listened, and once they saw ‘Que hicieron?’ writte n, they were, like, ohhhhhh, you know, they just got it, so without having to te ll them it means what they do. You know? Vanessa : Right were bound by the Example:

PAGE 243

232language produced by one another. Vanessa : Okay, so, what’s our introduction gonna be? Paula: Should we just do comprehensible …colon…listening? Vanessa : (Sounds out while typing) Comprehensible input: l istening. Listening skills? Paula: Mhmm Vanessa : Okay. were bound by the language of the textbook they used as a resource. Example: Paula : (Glancing through textbook) Oh! I like that! The theory behind this, which comes from Krashen, is umm, it really would f ocus on how learners actually process input into quote unquote ‘connect grammatical form with their meanings’ …that’s a good quote right there. were unable to see significant ways of expanding or improving upon any of the above. Example: Vanessa : Does this make sense? (Reading what she just wrot e) ‘In the foreign language classroom students need to listen to the t eacher speak in the target language in order to acquire the language and its a ccents’. Paula : (Nodded slowly). Vanessa : Does that make sense, or … Paula : Mhmm Vanessa : You know what I mean? Acquire a language and its accents, like, how can I say that better? Acquire the language and … Paula : Aaaand… developmlalalah, uh, develop, no…and be a ble to speak in the target language with…an accent similar to that of a native speaker Vanessa: Okay. Thanks. Other-Regulated each allowed themselves to be guided by the other. Example 1: Vanessa : Okay, so for your, for you, the comprehensible in put in this was you writing on the board. Paula: (Stared at screen) Vanessa : Okay? Paula: Unintelligible language, right (raised brows questioningly)? Vanessa : Right. Paula: (Leaned back, confused, doubtful expression) I don’t know if I would really say that’s comprehen sible input, like…(questioning, doubtful scowl) I mean, would yo u? Writing? I guess. (Vanessa gestured with brief wrist movement possibl y acknowledging statement). Paula: (Looked back at screen, with pained expression stil l) We were covering, auh, (head rocked, expression fell to ser ious) I guess so. Example 2: Paula: Maybe if you do, like, a little transition right th ere in that unintelligible part, it would kinda, like, look cool. Vanessa : (Overlap) Unintelligible transition here? Paula: Yeah, in that open space Vanessa : Just, like, a zoom back out type of thing? Paula: Yeah, or, like a, no, like we could do a little sli de over (passed vertical arm in front of body). Vanessa : Oh, okay Self-Regulated Vanessa: was capable of independent problem-solving. Was able to identify difficulties and provide corrective options. Example: Vanessa : Why is it not working…any more? Okay, there, that’s a better way of doing it Okay

PAGE 244

233options. It’s easier to add them in that way than…t his way. Summary: When it came to conflict, contradiction, or tensi on, Vanessa and Paula were primarily objectregulated throughout the activity. When they were other-regulated, they usually led one another astra y, rather than closer to self-regulation (with the exc eption of technology decisions). Vanessa was the o nly one to show much evidence of self-regulation, but this was only in relation to the functionality of the ed iting software. Situation: In terms of understanding the motive of the activity, the conscious goals of the actions, or the conditions required to achie ve the goals: Object-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: had an incomplete grasp of the motive, goals, of the actions, or the conditions required to achieve the goals. Example from pre-interview Paula Researcher : Why do you think somebody made this project part of the course? Paula : I have no idea to be honest. I mean, I'm sure th ere's a reason behind it, I don't know what, time maybe will clarify some thi ngs, but, at this time, I'm not that sure. Example from post-interview Paula Researcher : You said at the beginning that you couldn’t see why this project was in the curriculum. […] Do you still think that way? Paula : Yeah. And the reason why is because, […and] mayb e there’s more deeper meaning to behind it, my understanding of th e purpose was to teach this to the undergrads, and the way I see it is, if we’r e sharing a class with the undergrads, they could have easily learned the same type of thing as we would do, without us having to do a video project for them. I guess personally, I don’t really see necessarily, I mean…You know yeah, it’s a good way to use technology, it’s a good way to be creative and to w ork with others, and you know even with the topics that we had, we definitel y could learn something from it that we can take with our teaching lives, t eaching professions, excuse me. But I guess I…definitely don’t understand why the graduates have to do something to entertain the undergraduates when they could easily do the same thing. I guess that’s why I really didn’t see much point to it cause I don’t see it as something that its so difficult that only we wou ld understand it to where they wouldn’t. I think that they could learn the e xact same things, they could even do the same things with technology you know I don’t think its something that only graduate students can do. So I guess its probably why I didn’t really see a point of the video, and I still don’t understa nd to this day. I mean, if it’s a part of the project, I mean, certain things like ob serving, I know why we observe teachers. It helps us understand what we’r e learning the books in the classroom and see it in practice. You know I’ve le arned a lot from that. Doing the video project to show to people, if it was just a technology class, and we were using, like, more technology, you know, as you use I could understand it I would say okay then its purpose is this. Its not a technology class. Example from pre-interview – Vanessa Vanessa : If you spend a lot of time on a particular topic, you'll learn that topic inside and out, and so, I think it gives you an opp ortunity to really research it, and to really, develop information for that specifi c topic. Example from post-interview – Vanessa Vanessa : I think maybe having [the project] as part of a t echnology course would have been more, I don’t wanna say appropriate …but I know that there are people that aren’t as familiar with the technol ogy, and for them it was sort of a double project because, “Oh my God, I have to learn this technology” and then, by the way, we have to do the project as far as the content. […] But I think also that sort of technology you’re not real ly gonna use in your classroom

PAGE 245

234as far as, I mean unless you do have your kids do a video project, but mostly you’re not really gonna tape yourself teaching some thing, and then have to edit it and use it like that. Summary: Paula appeared to be completely unaware of the go als of the activity and how to achieve them, Vanessa was able to state in the pre-interview that she understood the purpose of the activity to be to research the topics and learn them in depth. She a lso knew they needed some kind of plan. She was no t able, however, to effectively set up the conditions necessary to achieve this. Situation: As far as understanding the content of their selected topics: Object-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: did not understand the fundamentals of comprehensible input Example: Paula: See, pretty much, like, the way I always understand comprehensible input is something they can pretty much use for the m in real life, you know, if you talk about traveling, people are gonna travel… Vanessa : Right Paula: …so they can think, oh, this is just, like you were saying, even book because, you know, they go to school – book, and if we’re talking about, you know, scientific theory, and none of them are scien ce majors, its gonna be like, “When am I gonna use this?” Vanessa : Right Paula: So. Vanessa : Well, and that was part of what was said in the b ook here. Paula: Use gestures, too, yeah. Vanessa : Well, gestures, but also the background knowledge Paula: Yeah. Vanessa : They need to have background knowledge, so, like you said, if they’re not science majors, how are you gonna… Paula: Exactly. Vanessa : …explain that to them if they don’t have backgrou nd knowledge? did not understand the fundamentals of listening skills Example: Vanessa : (Reading what she wrote) When teaching listening skills, teacher clarity is crucial for foreign language students, b ecause without a clear understanding of what is being said, students will lose interest and stop listening to the teacher. This is where comprehensi ble input is an important part of listening skills. Listening skills can be taught at a very early age. As the students grow, their listening skills should become better and more detailed. It is a skill that all students need to develop, and w ill use the rest of their lives. […] Paula: That was good. did not know how to explain comprehensible input in terms of practice Example: Paula: I’m gonna talk about comprehensible input blah blah blah, then we’re gonna talk about what we view, you know, what could be used as comprehensible input, such as transparency, PowerPo int, pictures, flashcards… did not know how to explain listening skills in terms of practice Example: Vanessa : (Reading what she wrote) ‘In the previous clips t hat we saw, Paula began to establish the background knowledge for the past tense of the target language. Now, they will have an understanding of how to speak and listen in the present and past tense. In the upcoming clips, I ask students questions relating to a video that they watched. I use the pa st tense as well as the present, since they now have been introduced to it.’ could not translate use of comprehensible input into actual practice Example: Paula : …then we can show an example [of comprehensible input]…like, you know, with me doing the whole writing in the preter it tense or whatever like that, you know.

PAGE 246

235practice could not translate instruction and practice of listening skills into actual practice Example: Paula: To target the listening part of comprehensible inpu t, I am speaking to them only in the target language […] not only am I speaking in the target language, but I’m slowing down and using repetition as Vanessa stated which is important to do, but as you see I am using gestu res. Other-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: were able to recall fundamental features of comprehensible input Example: Paula: I’m just briefly gonna talk about Krashen’s theory were able to translate some aspects of comprehensible input into practice Example: Vanessa : Because if you have an actual book, and you can s ay “libro”, they know what the book is… Paula: Mmm Vanessa : …and they, they know that it’s a book… Paula: Right. Vanessa : …and so you don’t need to say “libro” is “book” You can just say “libro.” Paula: Yeah, exactly. allowed themselves to be led by each other without expanding their knowledge Example: Vanessa : Well, first cover the method behind using compreh ensible input in the classroom. Paula: Mhmm…the importance of it. Vanessa : And then, the importance of … Paula: Glisan’s studies on foreign language…education? Vanessa : gin foreign language acquisition Paula: acquisition … second language acquisition. Vanessa : Yeah. Paula: Okay, cool. And that’s Krashen’s theory right there Vanessa : Basically. Summary: When it came to understanding comprehensible inpu t as a teaching strategy and listening as a skill to be taught and practiced with second langua ge learners, Vanessa and Paula were primarily objec tregulated. To a small extent, they did recall a fe w fundamental, though highly disconnected and gross ly incomplete, notions about comprehensible input. As they remembered these disparate bits of informatio n, however, they offered them up to one another and we re received without doubt or question as facts whic h need not be verified. Situation: In terms of technology skills and/or un derstanding how to best use the technology to present the content: Object-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: had trouble connecting the potential uses of the technology to the task at hand. Example 1: Vanessa : I’m doing a slide one at a time. The same slide, I’m repeating it, and I’m trying to …fix it to where it’s in the same spot so it looks like it’s (rotated finger) a PowerPoint. Example 2: Paula : Like I said, my personal opinion is we could have done the same thing with a PowerPoint presentation, and it would have s till conveyed the same message in you know less time and less of work, you know. Other-Regulated Vanessa:

PAGE 247

236 was able to use the technology with assistance. Example: Paula: There’s a way to slow that down, isn’t it? Vanessa : Yeah, I think so, there has to be a way. Paula: Ummm…Maybe…Duration? Oh, that’s not, it’s something else. Oh, that’s six seconds. Oh! Hit up on duration and see if that makes it last longer. Cause it’s only for six seconds, so maybe…Yeah, tha t, see if it makes it slower. It did! Ah! was able to connect the technology at hand to the task in a basic manner. Example: Vanessa : But, in part of defining comprehensible input, I think we should show, either pictures, or, like, clips of ummm… of comprehensible input…like, for example…(briefly placed hand on tra nsparency). Self-Regulated Vanessa: was comfortable and skilled with the technology. Example: Vanessa : (Softly) I think I did something that’s gonna wor k, hang on… (Self-talk) Ahh! Yes… (Self-talk) Okay what is it the video (Self-talk) Save… (Self-talk) So then, this…I can take out, actually… (Self-talk) And then…hang on… I think I’ve got it (Played video) (Smiled and briefly put her arms up) Ah, Yes! Okay! Summary: When it came to using the technology, Paula playe d only as small role as other-regulator, since Vanessa controlled all of the equipment and softwar e. Vanessa self-regulated quite well when it came to the operation of the technology. When it came to u sing the technology to its potential as a tool, Van essa and Paula experienced a brief moment of other-regula tion that was moving toward self-regulation (plan f or the news anchor theme), but then both returned to o bject-regulation in their decision to construct the video like a PowerPoint presentation. Situation: In terms of completion of an operation or action: Object-Regulated Vanessa and Paula: were largely satisfied with their contributions, while having little idea as to their appropriateness or accuracy in the overall activity. Vanessa : And then we need to define listening. Paula: Listening’s the student……it’s the student, you know (waved hand toward self, over shoulder) intercepting what you’r e saying pretty much, I mean, I’m sure it’s probably talking about a defini tion, but […] Vanessa : (Overlap) I mean, we don’t have to take something from here (rested hand on methods textbook), like, if we can come up with, like, a good definition of it I think that would be…just as good Paula: I think, what might work, because I know right now that we’re trying to separate it, but, like, maybe, you know, after you briefly define the thing you could say how this ties in with comprehensible inpu t. Vanessa : Oh, of course. Paula: Yeah. So, like, listening occurs to me, like, the best definition I would think of, unless you have something better, would b e the student intercepting (voice volume rose slightly, seemed struck with a g ood idea, smiled, dipped head to one side) and putting into memory what you’ re saying. Vanessa : Okay, so let’s write that down before we forget i t. Paula: Okay. So, listening: definition: So, your student s intercepting – a very good word, or interpreting. Vanessa : Interpreting Paula: In ter pret ing what is being told to them, or said to them. W hy did I

PAGE 248

237say “told to them?” That was bad grammar, and putti ng it into working memory (Said sharply, with relish and a smile) Ah! I’m so good. We’re so awesome (raised left palm to Vanessa for a high five) Vanessa : (returned the palm slap, laughed) Okay. Other-Regulated were able to accept suggestions from each other, but still experienced problems due to their limited understanding of the content, the technology, or the task. Example: Vanessa : The previous clip, where Paula was teaching backg round knowledge, is the basis for my lesson (looked over to Paula fo r confirmation)… Paula: ( Shook head) That wasn’t teaching background knowled ge. That was establishing it. Vanessa : Yeah, okay. Paula: How about, “In the previous clips… Vanessa : previous clips…Paula began teaching… Paula: (Overlap) to establish a background knowledge for t he preterit tense… Vanessa : There you go (smiled and nodded head once, satisf ied). Summary: When executing an operation or action, Vanessa an d Paula were largely object-regulated, choosing to rely on their own perceptions rather th an investigating or verifying their choices. They did regulate one another on occasion, accepting each oth er’s ideas, yet the ideas were often object-regulat ed to begin with. Regulation – Linguistic Analysis In addition to looking at their behaviors for evidence of regulation, the researcher examined and coded the language used by Vanessa and Paula as they worked through the project (see A ppendix H for coding example). Examples of language that either supported or under mined the construction of their collective/individual knowledge offered insight int o their strategic efforts to gain control within the activity. Productive Speech As stated above in Chapter Three, productive col laboration is an interaction or utterance that contributes to the facilitation of shared knowledge and establishment of intersubjectivity, and which may i ndicate movement toward selfregulation. As stated in Chapter 3, productive spe ech behaviors drive an activity forward, supporting the co-creation of an object through act ions, such as providing or requesting support, constructing shared references, engaging i n strategic interactions, and managing strategic behaviors. In Vanessa and Paula’s case, they engaged in a considerable amount of productive speech. Both employed supportive lan guage, such as prompting,

PAGE 249

238 confirming, suggesting, and guiding. Both made use of shared references and worked to negotiate meanings. As for strategic interactions and behaviors, they worked to draft sections of the video, they edited each otherÂ’s wor k, and stopped periodically to recap. Of the two, Vanessa was more likely to request feed back from Paula, and she was also generally the one to pull them back on track after a digression. In spite of this, however, their productivity was extremely limited, resulting ultimately in a greatly diminished object (see more below). Constructive Speech One of the factors that appeared to contribute t o the amount of productive speech in which they were able to eng age was the use of constructive speech. Particularly toward the beginning of the p roject, they were generally courteous to one another, offering help, agreeing with one an other, conceding to one anotherÂ’s ideas and suggestions, etc. Toward the end, there was a diminishment of constructive speech, which went hand-in-hand with a decrease in the need for productive speech as the project was underway, as well as an increase in destructive speech. Relating back to the section on Conflict above in the Thematic Analysis, it shou ld be noted here that occasionally what was likely an attempt at Constructive Speech t urned into Destructive Speech because of how it was interpreted (See Destructive Speech below). Destructive Speech In the beginning of their activity, the majority of what could be categorized as destructive speech was related to issues of focus. Both engaged in detractive behavior, such as sudden topic-shifting and occasional resistance to the suggestions of the other. Paula, however, was part icularly responsible for frequently interrupting the course of events with non-sequitur s and topic shifts, occasionally accompanied by rapid-fire, incoherent conversation on items ranging from off-topic

PAGE 250

239 suggestions for the video to office gossip. As the project continued, Paula in particular, engaged in increasing amounts of apathy, inattentio n, and occasional discourteousness. Added to this were, as mentioned above, Paula’s occ asional attempts at constructive dialogue in the form of friendly jibes, which Vanes sa often appeared to interpret as discourteousness. Private Speech In light of Paula’s distracting speech, Vanessa often engaged in self-talk, audible and inaudible as a means of main taining focus on something on which she needed to concentrate. At these times, she wou ld either not respond at all to Paula, or she would offer distracted and inattentive backchan neling. At other times, Vanessa appeared to engage in private speech as a means of self-regulating her activity, but only in the domain of the use of the software. In sum, Vanessa and Paula’s Destructive Speech out weighed their Constructive Speech, but not seemingly enough to cancel out all of their Productive Speech. In the end, however, their product was still inadequate. A closer examination of their Productive Speech may offer insight as to why this was. The linguistic markers of Productive Speech were, indeed, present. The subst ance of that speech was, however, relatively devoid of the content required to succes sfully meet the requirements of the assignment. It would seem that they knew something of the linguistic structures involved in carrying out such as task, but were unwilling or unable to endow those structures with the substance that would make them successful in th eir endeavor. Study Findings In light of the present study then, it is to be not ed that the “short-term, preservice intervention” (Wideen et al., 1998) that was the fo cus of interest, required that student-

PAGE 251

240 teachers 1) recall language teaching approaches enc ountered prior to the practicum; 2) expand and deepen their knowledge concerning the th eoretical foundations of these topics; 3) explore and explain the interpretations of these theories, including their endorsements and criticisms; 4) actively and collab oratively construct and reconstruct video-recorded microteachings to explain and exempl ify these approaches, 5) reflect on this experience throughout and after completion of the activity. The focus of interest was the process engaged in by the student-teachers as they collabo ratively recalled, reinforced, designed, planned, constructed and reco nstructed the video, as well as the development of their understandings and professiona l knowledge. Study Findings – Research Question 1 What cognitive transformations took place, if any, when student-teachers in a foreign language education program used video edi ting technology to learn about teaching? Ultimately, there was little evidence that the two chosen participants in this case study, Vanessa and Paula, were able to expand or de epen their content knowledge. Observations indicated either insufficient or ineff ective use of mediating artifacts and productive strategic behaviors. Multiple factors a ppeared to come into to play in explaining why this occurred. One contributing fac tor was their cursory attention to and lack of understanding of the project’s instructions objectives, and purpose. Another element was the shallow understanding of the topics that they brought with them to the project, which was exacerbated by their apparent pe rceptions that their prior knowledge was actually quite sufficient. This seemed to conn ect to their disinterest in researching or reflecting on their topics in any meaningful way, s ince they were quite satisfied that the

PAGE 252

241 knowledge they already had was adequate for the tas k. This may also explain why they failed to ask questions or seek help from anyone in their learning community. What’s more, Vanessa and Paula brought with them to the pr oject very low motivation to engage in the task, and inaccurate expectations of the amo unt of effort and time required to complete the activity. Aggravating to the situatio n were the frequent distractions with which they met, both from internal and external sou rces. Finally, their unequal perceptions of rapport made communication and coope ration still more difficult. The only clear indication of cognitive transformation w as in Vanessa, and then only in relation to the digital video editing software she used to construct the video. Paula was not able to enjoy this same technology-related cogn itive transformation, since she was not given the opportunity to engage with the techno logy. Study Findings – Research Question 2 What was the nature of the pedagogic transformation s, if any, that took place when student-teachers in a foreign language educati on program used video editing technology to learn about teaching? In terms of pedagogic transformations, or professio nalization, on the part of the participants, there appeared to be no change to the ir sense of themselves as professionals during the process of completing the video activity Without meaningful reflection or discussion, Vanessa and Paula were unable to demons trate movement from external to internal knowledge of the concepts involved. In th e end, they were neither able to deepen their understandings of the topics or the technolog y, nor were they able to fully appreciate the potential for the practical applicat ion thereof to actual classroom practice.

PAGE 253

242 Outcomes The following chapter will discuss additional expl anations for the activity outcomes. This will include discussions of theory and the application thereof, as well as possible implications for teacher educators, curric ulum designers, and teacher education program components.

PAGE 254

243 Chapter V Using theoretical constructs previously shown to b e effective in the pedagogy of teacher preparation, the creators of the core task involved in this study endeavored to design a sociallyand artifact-mediated activity w ith the potential to broaden and deepen student-teachersÂ’ pedagogical and professional know ledge. In order to explore what might be learned from observations of how the enter prise unfolded in actual practice, the present study attempted to closely examine the proc ess engaged in by student-teachers as they worked through this activity. What ultimately was revealed in the case of participants Vanessa and Paula was a disconnect bet ween the intentions of the core-task designers and the outcomes effected by the studentteachers. Sources of the Problem In the end, Vanessa and Paula did not fully meet th e requirements of the project object (product), and they did not visibly benefit from the intended outcomes of engaging in the activity. They appeared, however, to be full y satisfied with their work, and were confident in their success at having done what was required. Close examination of this disparity between the stu dent-teachersÂ’ perceptions and actions and the intentions of the core-task designe rs may offer critical insight for those engaged in teacher development. Chapter Four prese nted some of the student-teachergenerated factors that appeared to contribute to th is discrepancy, but it is also important to explore issues sourced in the design and executi on of the project itself. Individual obstacles

PAGE 255

244 Several disadvantageous factors converged in the pa iring of Vanessa and Paula. These exacerbated the difficulties they encountered in engaging with the artifacts at their disposal in order to carry out the project, and mad e it difficult for them to resolve the associated problems. Inability to resolve their co nflicts, contradictions, and tensions appeared to contribute to their remaining primarily object-regulated throughout the activity. Division of Labor. One issue was the unequal division of labor betwe en the participants, due primarily to VanessaÂ’s insistence on using her personal equipment to construct the project. All of the recording, uploa ding, editing, and rendering of the video became VanessaÂ’s sole responsibility, which seemed to distract her from other aspects of the project (listening), and which did nothing to f oster PaulaÂ’s skills in technology. Paula appeared to be content to let these tasks be fully usurped by Vanessa, which may have been partially due to a) the anxieties associated w ith learning more about video editing and DVD creation that she expressed before the proj ect began; and/or b) her complete lack of interest in the project, possibly coupled w ith her apparent general indolence in relation to the foreign language education program overall. Once the technological tasks were firmly placed in VanessaÂ’s court, the next div ision was of the topics. Paula was primarily responsible for choosing comprehensible i nput for herself, and for assigning listening skills to Vanessa, seeming to disregard t he quantity of labor her partner was already contributing to the editing process. Vanes sa in no way protested this division, and actually seemed content to have full control ov er the technology, in spite of her concerns that the labor would be unfairly divided i n PaulaÂ’s favor. The relevant outcomes of their arrangement were that a) Paula le arned nothing new in the realm of

PAGE 256

245 technology; b) Vanessa felt the need to scale back their original creative plans for the project because of time constraints, possibly relat ed to the quantity of work involved as sole editor; c) Vanessa spent her time on the techn ological aspects of the project, and gave little attention to the topic of listening ski lls; and d) Vanessa may have relied on Paula too much to provide the content of the video. There was a positive outcome for Vanessa in that the time and effort spent editing g ave her greater self-regulation over that process. Rules. Another issue was Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s disregard f or the majority of the rules of the project (aside from the basic structur e of the video and the assignment due date). Once they began the activity, they did not give due attention to the project instructions, relying instead on their own interpre tations of the grading rubric for what was required in the project. (This was in spite of specific direction and intervention by the researcher as to what was being asked of them b oth before the inception of the project, as well as during the work activity). As such, it appeared that they did not grasp that the assignmentÂ’s purpose was to broaden and de epen their knowledge of the topics, to consider them from a variety of perspectives in terms of validity and applicability, and to reflect on how they came to be recognized as val ued and accepted practice within the field of second language acquisition and teaching. Tools. As per Vanessa and PaulaÂ’s post-interviews, it wo uld seem that they misconstrued the task as simply an exercise in the use of technology as a means to reiterate what they and their perceived audience al ready knew on the subjects. As such, their attention may have been overly directed towar d demonstrating their prowess with the technological tools. In addition to the post-i nterview data, PaulaÂ’s frequent concern

PAGE 257

246 during the activity that they show their use of tec hnology (e.g. the overhead projector) in their example video clips would seem to confirm thi s supposition. This would also explain to some degree why so little effort was mad e on their part to make use of reference tools to explore, research, or verify the ir assumptions about their topics. The focus on technology does not, however, seem to account for Vanessa and Paula’s choice to not make a storyboard, or their l ack of success at making a practicable project plan. Personality factors (see Participant s below) may have had more to do with why they were unable to make use of these two tools which likely would have helped them to better focus, stay on task, and perhaps eve n see problematic issues with their content. Community. Again, if Vanessa and Paula viewed the purpose of the activity to be a demonstration of their technological skills, r ather than an opportunity to consolidate and expand their understandings, then it may also o ffer a reason why they appeared to have no interest in making use of their community a s a resource. Indeed, the only significant project-related help they solicited of their most easily accessible community member, the researcher, was in the realm of technol ogy. This may also explain why unsolicited help and advice on other aspects of the activity were not accepted or acted upon. Participants. Finally, what the participants themselves brought to the activity appeared to contribute significantly to their lack of success. Both were unmotivated to engage in the activity from the start, and neither was able to spark in the other any sustainable level of “mutual excitement” as they pr ogressed, even when spurred on by their desire to be creative. Issues of rapport be tween them also seemed to create

PAGE 258

247 problems in their ability to resolve difficulties. Paula trusted in Vanessa’s dedication and skill from both an academic and technological point -of-view, felt that they were close enough to be considered as friends, and behaved acc ordingly. Vanessa, however, distrusted Paula’s sense of commitment to the proje ct, and perhaps to some extent her academic drive. Ultimately, her distrust of Paula’ s work ethic led Vanessa to hold back some of her own effort as a device to put them on a more equal footing. The result, however, was not increased effort on Paula’s part, but rather insufficient action and reflection on both their parts. Organizational obstacles Another aspect of teacher preparation illuminated b y the outcomes of the video project is what is within the control of teacher ed ucators and designers of teacher education curricula. As mentioned above, the idea was to have student-teachers take information that they had been presented in previou s courses and organize and elaborate on it in order to make it their own. The ultimate goal was to help them to become selfregulatory and thoughtful in their applications of these approaches once in actual practice. In addition to explanations derived from the observations of the studentteachers engaging in the process, it is important t o examine the project itself for possible weaknesses, and to explore some potential avenues o f improvement. Prior knowledge. One flaw in the core task design was the assumpti on that the student-teachers would bring with them a conceptual framework of the topics – knowledge at least to the level of basic “technical rationality” (Schn, 1983). In Vanessa and Paula’s case, they, too, assumed that they knew the fundamentals of the topics. In Paula’s post-interview she stated that she and Vane ssa were quite comfortable with their

PAGE 259

248 topics because they had studied about them in recen t courses and, “because […] comprehensible input is not that hard to comprehend what it is, and how to do it. [ and the listening skills] you read it, and find out what it is, its not one of those definitions or practices that you have to do a lot of research on or get a deep explanation of it to understand it.” Project instructions and purpose. Another flaw in the design was the assumption that the student-teachers would be able to fully comprehend the instructions for and the purpose of the project. In spite of th e professor and the researcher explaining the instructions and going over the project expecta tions in detail, the student-teachers did not have an opportunity to deconstruct them and ful ly assimilate their meaning. Instead, they garnered an overview, made an interpretation t hereof, and then used the grading rubric as a checklist rather than as a barometer by which to gauge the breadth and depth of differing aspects of their treatment of the topi cs. The student-teachers were told at the outset that t he goal of the activity was to make an explanatory video geared toward teaching th e undergraduates in the course. The reason for this was to give them an audience (diffe rent from the expert audience of the professor) to whom they were to direct the content. The primary purpose of the project, as stated in the instructions, was to explore and e xemplify second language teaching methods from theory to practice. The secondary pur pose was to enhance the studentteachers’ technology skills and confidence therein, and to hopefully encourage them to consider the creative use of technology in their ow n future classrooms. As Ainley and Pratt (2005) state,

PAGE 260

249 “[t]he purpose of a task is not the ‘target knowled ge’ within a didactical situation […]. Indeed it may be completely unconnected with t he target knowledge. However, the purpose creates the necessity for the learner to use the target knowledge in order to complete the task, whether th is involves using existing knowledge in a particular way, or constructing new meanings through working on the task. The notions of audience, of learning more about the ir topics, or of improving their technology skills, at least in this case, were not sufficient to motivate the studentteachers. As stated previously, Paula said clearly in her post-interview that she’d learned nothing from the project in terms of content or tec hnology, and that my understanding of the purpose was to teach this t o the undergrads, and the way I see it is, if we’re sharing a class with the unde rgrads, they could have easily learned the same type of thing as we would do, with out us having to do a video project for them. […] I definitely don’t understand why the g raduates have to do something to entertain the undergraduates when they could easily do the same thing. I really didn’t see much point to it cause I don’t see it as something that its so difficult that only we would understand it to wh ere they wouldn’t. Learning community. Another erroneous assumption was that the student teachers would seek help and advice from the profes sor, the researcher, their peers, or others when faced with difficulties. This was part icularly in light of the fact that help was clearly offered and readily accessible. This, however, implied first and foremost that the student-teachers would be able to perceive a ne ed for assistance. As stated above, Vanessa and Paula did not feel a need for support w ith the content because they felt quite

PAGE 261

250 well-versed in its foundations and practice. Also, if indeed they believed the primary focus of the project to be a demonstration of their technological skills, then this would also account for the fact that the few requests for help that they did exhibit were oriented toward technology. It also helps to explain why th ey did not heed the unsolicited support offered by the researcher in terms of their content On an additional note, the task designers had inco rporated a peer-review task for the projects. During the class session in which th e videos were shown to everyone, all of the student-teachers in the course were given copie s of the grading rubric and asked to complete them anonymously concerning their peers’ v ideos. The rubrics were then collected by the course professor for comparative r eview. In short, their student-teachers in the course were unable to perceive serious omiss ions, incomplete or inaccurate coverage of the topics, design problems, etc. in th eir peers’ work, even when guided by a rubric. Peer-to-peer scaffolding. Also in this vein was the assumption, based in so cial constructivist principles (Vygotsky, 1978), that Va nessa and Paula would be, at least some of the time, able to scaffold one another as t hey worked in order to iron out conflicts, contradictions, and tensions. Again, th is was assuming that, in the first place, the student-teachers would be able to perceive thes e problems. With the complications they were able to notice, they did exhibit some of the forms of productive collaboration, but the substance of their dialogue did not contain substantive solutions, resulting in little, if any, regulative movement. This supports similar findings by Erben (2001) and Siekmann (2004), which found that “scaffolding is l ess important than the quality of the dialogic engagement.”

PAGE 262

251 Technology. There was also a fault in the premise that the vid eo editing technology would provide multiple opportunities to review, reflect on, discuss, and modify their content and examples as the student-te achers deepened their understandings thereof over the course of the project. After all, “[a] basic premise in constructivism is that meaningful learning occurs when the learner st rives to make sense of the presented material by selecting relevant incoming information organizing it into a coherent structure, and integrating it with other organized knowledge (Mayer, 2003). In Vanessa and Paula’s case, the only teaching example video t hat provoked any second thoughts was the one of Paula conjugating in the preterit. Paula’s initial (correct) instinct was to leave it out of their project video because it was not appropriate as an example. The discussions that arose from the use of this clip ev olved throughout the project, but failed to contribute to any development in their thinking. On the contrary, Vanessa and Paula went through several iterations of rationalizations for how the clip was appropriate (incorrect), until it was finally included as an ex ample. The iterative viewing, therefore, had no positive impact on them because it did not p romote any deeper understandings. A second apparent problem with the technology used in the project was that instead of it serving as a mediating artifact, a to ol to help the student-teachers regulate their understandings and internalize the concepts, it was perceived as an object itself. The strongest evidence of this was in the post-inte rviews where both Vanessa and Paula stated that they felt that this activity belonged i n a technology course rather than the Practicum or even a Methods course. This raises an important issue about the choice to have the student-teachers employ digital video as a means to organize and pre sent their topics. “Like with any

PAGE 263

252 assignment, questions […] surface about whether stu dents will get caught up in the process and miss the learning outcomes" (Guthrie, 2 009). In Vanessa and Paula's case, however, the trouble may have related more to their inability to perceive the primary goal of the project. They may have given the technology some level of emphasis because they could see little importance in the topics themselve s. It may have just been an assumption on their part that the technology use was the whole point of the activity, since, in their view, the topics were not. Interestingly, however, they were not motivated to maximize the potential of the video as a medium of expressio n either, based on their final product. As such, it would seem that, in their case, they di d not particularly "get caught up in the process" at the expense of the content. Generally speaking, however, any kind of mediatio nal tool (technological or otherwise) must be carefully considered before inse rting it into the instructional process. After all, a well-designed learning task only uses technology if it is "driven by specific objectives related to instruction and learning with direct linkages to the curriculum” (Duhaney, 2000). When considering mediational too ls, educators must carefully choose “[t]echnologies as tools that amplify and extend fu ndamental human capacities to observe, understand, and communicate about the worl d – tools that give us rich data, help us manipulate and think about it, and connect us wi th others around it in new and powerful ways” (Tally, 2007). In the case of the c ore task in the present study, the technology was carefully chosen for its potential t o help the student-teachers do just this with both the course objectives and the preservice teacher standards related to the content and their technology proficiency. Tally (2007) fai rly and cogently argues for the judicious application of technology, particularly i n socio-constructivist-based learning

PAGE 264

253 tasks since “the work of cognitive and brain scient ists in the past two decades has greatly strengthened the evidence that this is indeed how p eople learn: by building and testing models of the way things work, in social settings, and gradually substituting ‘better’ models for ‘worse’ ones (see also Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Guidance and scaffolding by the course professor, however, may have made a considerable difference (see Organizational mediati on below) in encouraging the studentteachers to maximize their use of the technology as a mediational tool, while giving appropriate attention to the subject matter. What’ s more, since technology proficiency is part of the preservice teacher standards, the stude nt-teachers may also have benefited from help in seeing that the technology they used a s a project tool might one day be useful in their own classrooms. Project Design and Execution. Problems with the activity design included critical mismatches between the type of object the student-teachers were to construct, and the nature of both the intended and actual process and environment in which they were to create it. To clarify, while the student-teachers were to be engaged in an artifactmediated, social-constructivist-oriented activity t o make an instructional video, the pedagogical nature of the video they were asked to make was conversely, permitted to be top-down and didactic. What’s more, the environment in which the student-t eachers were to execute the project did not wind up being the artifact-mediated social-constructivist activity it was intended to be. This was likely due to a combinat ion of missing structural elements commingled with the participants’ unwillingness or inability to perceive the need to make appropriate use of the artifacts/resources at their disposal.

PAGE 265

254 Organizational mediation While nearly impossible to account for elements suc h as personality and motivation, the teacher educator does still retain some elements of such an activity under his/her control. The difficulty is in how to create an activity that is flexible enough to accommodate individual learner idiosyncrasies, whil e at the same time standardized enough to be realistically applied by teacher educa tors. Formative assessment and corrective feedback. Critical elements missing from the activity as it was executed in this study were the use of required formative assessments and the provision of corrective feedbac k. In the present study, offers of and opportunities for support were woven into the recom mended timeline and procedures of the activity. It was, however, not mandatory that the groups avail themselves of this guidance. Only one group chose to meet with the re searcher prior to beginning the activity, and then only once. In this meeting, the y requested help with the concepts of storyboarding, and explored a few creative ideas fo r a theme into which they might weave the delivery of their content. Since they re quested no follow-up, there was no opportunity to determine if the participants had in deed correctly made use of the planning tools, and more significantly, to determine if the content they were preparing to present was accurate or complete. As previously mentioned, support solicited during the activity was rare and most often related to technology, and unsolicited support was not heeded. The mere availability of guidance, therefore, was not adequate. Formative interim assessments would be a means of c ompelling the studentteachers to interact with the community (the profes sor or other more knowledgeable individuals with the skills and knowledge to scaffo ld), even if they should feel it

PAGE 266

255 unnecessary. By offering them opportunities to per ceive erroneous or incomplete ideas, and giving them a chance to iteratively research, d iscuss, and reflect, they would be more likely to internalize the information as they engag e in the production of a better product. Since, in the pre-interviews, all of the participan ts initially included in the study reported that their primary (and often only) motiva tion to engage in the project was in order to get a passing grade, it follows that a lik ely means of getting them to seek and accept help, at least initially, would be to attach a grade to doing so. Breaking down the project into a series of required segments with att ached due dates and grading rubrics would a) force the student-teachers to engage with the material over time, allowing greater opportunities for reflection and revision; and b) allow the course professor the opportunity to flag potential problems, and guide ( scaffold) the student-teachers from where they stand to where they need to go. By atta ching an interim evaluative component to the project, the professor can, not on ly act in the role of the “moreknowledgeable other,” but influence whether or not the student-teachers take heed of the guidance being offered. There is also the possibil ity that, once the student-teachers realize that there is valuable information to be le arned, new kinds of motivation might emerge to propel them along. Formative assessment also returns to and reinforces the importance of the notion of process versus product. Additional benefits mig ht be derived from the opportunity to revise and re-submit the segments after obtaining c orrective feedback. In Vanessa and Paula’s case, had the professor or t he researcher been able to help them perceive the gaps in their knowledge at the ou tset of the project, they might have been more inclined to at least do the research nece ssary to consolidate a basic technical

PAGE 267

256 rationality on the topics. Further assessment coul d have helped them to perceive the disparity between what was being asked of them in t he instructions and what they actually made clear in the video. Modeling, co-constructing, and scaffolding Several improvements might be made to the outcomes of the video project by modify ing both the process and the object according to socio-cultural/constructivist theories of learning. It is important to synchronize the student-teachers’ learning environm ent with the process in which they are to engage, as well as with the product they are to produce. In this manner, the teacher educator may model, involve, and mentor the student -teachers in the pedagogical approaches envisioned for their prospective classro oms. It is the opinion of this researcher that one cri tical modification would be to find ways to involve the student-teachers in co-construc ting elements of the activity, helping them to better assimilate its pieces and parts by g iving them ownership of the project’s intent. Another would be to insist on their engagi ng on a deeper level with the artifacts at their disposal, particularly their circle of collab oration. Both of these modifications must, however, take place within preconceived and monitor ed structures. Again, the notion of expert guidance is critical to the process, since [p]ure discovery—even when it involves lots of hand s-on activity and large amounts of group discussion—may fail to promote [an important] cognitive process, namely, selecting relevant incoming inform ation. In short, when students have too much freedom, they may fail to come into c ontact with the to-be-learned material. There is nothing magical to insure that s imply working on a problem or simply discussing a problem will lead to discoverin g its solution. If the learner

PAGE 268

257 fails to come into contact with the to-be-learned m aterial, no amount of activity or discussion will be able to help the learner make se nse of it (Mayer, 2004 p.17). Structured co-construction of project requirements. One recommendation in this vein would be to require the student-teachers to be more participatory in the activity organization. By offering them some degree of cont rol, within a structured environment, they might increase their sense of ownership, and i mprove their assimilation of the activity purpose. Stipek states: Students are intrinsically motivated to work when t he threat of negative external evaluation is not salient and when their attention is not focused on extrinsic reasons for completing tasks. They will also feel m ore competent and proud, and thus more intrinsically interested in tasks, when t hey can take responsibility for their success (1988, p.73) To this end, the researcher, having previously taug ht the course in question, had some degree of success in previous semesters with i nvolving the student-teachers in a rubric-creation activity before beginning the proje ct. The procedure was to: Distribute the video project instructions, and expl ain and exemplify the purpose and directions. Distribute a grading rubric for the video project t hat had been created in a previous semester by former student-teachers in the course. Have the current student-teachers work in small gro ups to review the activity purpose and instructions, and then collaboratively, as a class, discuss how and why they would improve the old rubric.

PAGE 269

258Use the revised rubric ideas, and have the studentteachers create the grading rubric that would be used to evaluate them in the c urrent semester. This procedure was meant to accomplish several inst ructional goals, the most important of which was to require the student-teachers to eng age with the project purpose and instructions in a way that took the content thereof beyond the realm of received knowledge. By evaluating a rubric created by other student-teachers, rather than one created by the course professor, they appeared to g ain a sense of freedom to deconstruct and critique it with confidence in their own skills as evaluators. Perhaps this was due to a sense of safety in critiquing a product made by an anonymous group of student-teachers, or they may have felt that a product created by nov ices would be inherently flawed. Whatever the reason, they would inevitably closely scrutinize and critique a variety of aspects of the rubric, from its point distribution system to its quantity and clarity of verbiage. In so doing, they appeared to better ass imilate the purpose and instructions of the project, which may have led to better outcomes when they engaged in the actual activity process. This fits with Mayer’s (2004, p .15) notion that it is it is important for learners to engage in “(a) activating or constructi ng appropriate knowledge to be used for making sense of new incoming information and (b) in tegrating new incoming information with an appropriate knowledge base.” B y constructing the rubric with which they would be graded, they better assimilated the p roject purpose and instructions, which helped them to know what to look for and how to bet ter integrate it with what they already knew. From a teacher development perspecti ve, it also gave the student-teachers practice with evaluating and constructing appropria te assessment instruments, an important skill in their overall professional devel opment.

PAGE 270

259 Structured use of the collaborative circle. The value of feedback in studentteacher development is well-documented in the liter ature (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1980), and is therefore an essential compo nent to be incorporated into learning activities. Feedback may come from all members of a student-teacher’s learning community, including peers. The conceptual rationale for […] peer feedback is t hat it enables students to take an active role in the management of their own learn ing. It is an element of selfregulated learning (Butler & Winne, 1995) by which students monitor their work using internal and external feedback as catalysts. ‘Self-regulated learners seek feedback from external sources such as peers’ contr ibutions in collaborative groups’ (Butler & Winne, 1995, p.246). In their mod el of formative assessment and self-regulated learning, Nicol and MacFarlane-D ick (2006) also contend that by commenting on the work of peers, students develo p objectivity in relation to standards which can then be transferred to their ow n work (as cited in Liu & Carless, 2006). An important consideration in the use of feedback i s to create a structure in which it can occur. First, the structure can function to keep e veryone focused, and second, it can help to create an environment in which feedback is both honest and constructive. There were moments during the activity at which Van essa and Paula did reach the precipice of their ZPDs. For example, when Vanessa realized the need “to put in [the project] somewhere…[…] how do you teach them to lis ten, to be better listeners?”, she was poised to move in the right direction. Instead of helping one another to move forward, however, their lack of expertise actually caused them to reverse direction and

PAGE 271

260 revert to a less regulated understanding. This is where intervention by a moreknowledgeable other could have made a significant i mpact on their learning. Opportunities to be scaffolded by more-skilled and symmetrically-skilled others were available in the present project, but went unused, perhaps because of the student-teachers’ perceptions that they did not require any help. Working with the course professor. Requiring, as mentioned above, some kind of formative assessment procedure would help the pr ofessor to recognize individual difficulties and gaps in understanding, and then to scaffold the student-teachers at that level so they might be able to perceive their probl ems and deficits, and seek to remedy them before continuing on. Another, less formal, approach might be the use of questioning techniques on the part of the professor in order to engage the studen t-teachers in guided dialogical reflection throughout the activity process. The in tent would be to ask the studentteachers complex, thought-provoking, contextually-r ich questions in order to pique their curiosity and motivation, and/or encourage them to seek more information as they perceive gaps in their knowledge and understanding (see Beatty, Leonard, Gerace, & Dufresne, 2006). If the learners are unable to res pond accurately or completely, then the professor might even guide them to specific resourc es, and schedule a follow-up opportunity to discuss the answers. For example, t he professor might meet with an individual group and ask them to explain what they understand about their topics. In Vanessa and Paula’s situation, a pointed question a bout theory and application, such as “Explain what you understand about how to teach top -down versus bottom-up processing skills for listening to your future foreign languag e students” might have revealed to the

PAGE 272

261 professor and the student-teachers alike that they would need to look further into the topic of listening skills. A more formal, and less hands-on, means of employin g questions to stimulate greater reflection and to help keep the student-tea chers on track might be to delay working on and distributing the rubric until later in the semester, and instead to offer a set of guiding questions to which the student-teachers might refer as they construct their project. Examples of such questions might be, “Doe s your video clearly define the theories that undergird your topic? Have you expla ined these theories? Have you explained how these theories came to be viewed as a ccepted practice in second language instruction? Have you presented opposing viewpoint s to these theories?” and the like. Working with classroom peers. There may also be valuable opportunities for the student-teachers to benefit from peer-to-peer inter action and collaboration. Again, however, the design of such activities must be very carefully considered, both in terms of affect and cognitive processing, since the ultimate goal, as Mayer states, “is to discover instructional methods that promote appropriate proc essing in learners rather than methods that promote hands-on activity or group discussion as ends in themselves” (2004, p.15). As stated in Chapter Two, peer-to-peer collaboratio n can be effective in the ZPD when there is motivation to actively construct solutions to problems (Slavin, 1987; Tudge, 1990). In Vanessa and Paula’s situation, they coop erated to accomplish the task, but they did not collaborate to problem-solve because they w ere not motivated to construct any solutions. They constructed a product, but it was not, in their eyes, a problem to solve, it was a hurdle to jump en route to a credential.

PAGE 273

262 It is the opinion of the researcher that simple dis cussion groups in which the student-teachers might share problems and seek feed back would be far less effective than structured sessions. Vanessa and Paula, for exampl e, were unable to challenge one another, and though they had access to outside help and support, they did not make use of it. Guidance and structure would allow the course professor to provide an environment in which feedback could be sought without fear of nega tive repercussions, and which would facilitate the types of interaction and questioning that may lead learners to become aware of “the to-be-learned material”. In the present study, the student-teachers were unw illing or unable to point out serious problems in the work of their peers. One p ossible means of improving peer feedback might be to make the completed videos avai lable online for the student-teachers to watch as often as need be, then ask the groups t o evaluate one another carefully. Working in groups to evaluate other groups, and pro viding written, versus oral, feedback, would help to lower the affect and provide space fo r genuine critique, and mitigating fears of criticism and retaliation. What’s more, the opportunity for multiple viewings of the video might elicit more thorough and thoughtful feedback. Allowing time for the participants to make revisions based on the feedbac k would likely also be helpful and lead to improved outcomes, since suggestions could be attended to before a final evaluation. This process might be further improved by the profe ssor providing the studentteachers with a list of guiding questions to go thr ough as they watch their peers’ explanations and examples. The questions might be general in nature, such as, “Did the authors of the video offer alternative viewpoints o n the topic in question?”, or quite

PAGE 274

263 specific, such as “What are the arguments against the validity of Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis?” The added advantage to guided q uestions would be that, in seeking the answers, the peer reviewers may assimilate more of the topic presented. Learning to teach by teaching to learn As stated above, the project goal of making an instructional video in order to provide m ore comprehensive information on the topics for their undergraduate peers in the course was not accepted by the participants as a valid need. This appeared to be, at least partia lly, due to their perception that there was no information that might be conveyed with which th eir peers were not already familiar. Requiring the graduate students to teach, however, may still be a valid approach to enhancing their learning, as teaching can lead to c learer and deeper understandings of a topic as one strives to consolidate, supplement, an d complete one’s own knowledge in order to be able make the information comprehensibl e to someone else. “The education literature, as well as conventional wisdom dating b ack at least to the time of Seneca in the first century A.D., recognizes teaching to be a pow erful learning modality” (Caprio & Borgesen, 2003). This is in addition to the fact t hat they are training to be teachers, and such a project also provides them with experience i n selecting and preparing information to be learned. In addition to providing structure and guidance to the student-teachers in order to help them to perceive, locate, and assimilate “to-b e-learned” material, the professor must help them to connect their roles as learners to tho se as teachers. After all, if the approach of the teacher educator compliments the structure o f the activity in attempting to promote in the student-teachers increasingly complex forms of reflection and self-regulative movement, then shouldn’t the product of the activit y also align with this philosophy? In

PAGE 275

264 this vein, the professor may wish to incorporate an added element to the requirements of the project in that the student-teachers might be e ncouraged to seek ways to effectively incorporate social-constructivist-based practices i nto the video. In this manner, the moreknowledgeable graduate students might then scaffold the learning of the undergraduates. By raising the student-teachers’ awareness of the m ultiple dimensions and complexities in their topics that merit consideration and perspe ctival adjustment according to contextual factors, as well as that of their role a s educators of more-novice educators, purpose-driven motivational factors may be affected in a positive manner. After all, Paula did say in her post-interview that “I think, you know, just cause of the fact of what we had to be able to achieve, this wasn’t fun, I me an, better if it could be about a lesson, that’s always so fun, you know, I mean that’s alway s so interesting.” Perhaps if she had understood that this project actually was about a lesson, she might have been more motivated. Meta-cognitive awareness. A final recommendation would to be to debrief wit h the student-teachers the elements of the activity a s structurally beneficial to the learning process. Also helpful would be to collectively bra instorm ways to incorporate similar elements into their own second language teaching pr actice. This may be particularly true in light of Vanessa’s post-interview comments that “I think that sort of technology you’re not really gonna use in your classroom as far as, I mean unless you do have your kids do a video project but mostly you’re not really gonna tape yourself teaching something, and then have to edit it and use it,” and Paula’s comme nts that this was not “the kind of project where we could learn anything from each oth er, really.”

PAGE 276

265 Implications for Program Design Programmatic evaluation and change As previously stated, teacher preparation programs are challenged to help studentteachers cultivate their knowledge from comprehensi on of concept into concept application, and eventually to creative, original, and masterful levels of expanded concept development and use. Just as this study attempted to examine the process engaged in by student-teachers in a single activity, teacher educ ation programs would do well to scrutinize their processes for developing teachers. To do this, programs must view the student-teacher as a whole person engaging in a for mative journey of education, training, and development, progressively moving from objectand other-regulation to selfregulation. It is critical that we consider this in dividualized process of growth from novice to professional as taking place within the l arger process of a teacher preparation program. As exemplified by the results of this stu dy, student-teachers may not be learning what we think we have taught. The implica tions are serious and the stakes are high in light of the impact on their knowledge and professional growth from the start of their teacher preparation programs on into a lifeti me of practice, including the consequences for their future students. We must, th en, examine ways in which to better adjust our curricula and our instruction in order t o better foster their cognitive and professional growth. Design for development The core-task in this study was created to promote cognitive and professional development, but it may also be valuable to conside r how a program functions to develop student-teachers. In this project, the student-tea chers had been exposed to the material in

PAGE 277

266 three to five previous courses, yet they could not provide basic definitions of their topics, let alone engage in critical reflection about the s ubject matter. It was assumed by the designers of the core-task that the student-teacher s would be embarking on the project with a certain amount of basic information on which to base additional concepts. (Clearly, the participants assumed this to be true as well). Many questions arise as to how and why the student-teachers were unable to ext ract and/or retain at least fundamental concepts after multiple exposures to th e content. One possibility is to explore aspects of what we know about learning in t erms of how much and what kind of exposure leads to regulative movement at a given le vel of processing. Perhaps three to five courses is just not enough, or was there somet hing fundamentally important in the way they had been previously exposed to the materia l? Had their previous coursework been organized according to the principles of “effe ctive” reflection as described in Chapter 2 and on the idea of “appropriate processin g”(Mayer, 2003) through scaffolded social interaction? Had consideration been given t o the notion of development over time by setting developmentally-oriented goals for the s tudent-teachers to attain as they moved through the program? Programmatic-level interim assessments Assessment of student-teacher knowledge is certainl y built into each individual course of a program. One consideration, however, i s whether these assessments are of a formative or summative nature. From yet a wider pe rspective, attention might be given to how well these assessments articulate together i n the larger program design to reflect individual student-teacher development over time.

PAGE 278

267 Programmatic-level articulation As with assessment, articulation of content between courses has the potential to be far more effective at enhancing programmatic flu idity than changes to a single task within a single course. By reducing the fragmentati on of concepts taught and assignments required, development in the learners may be improv ed. By designing activities that can grow and change with the student-teachers as they p rogress through their program of study, teacher educators would better accommodate e lements of learning theory (that one must learn something over and over before really as similating it), plus better assess individual student progress from objectto otherto self-regulation. Every iteration could provide new opportunities to consider the sam e material in new lights. This might also help mitigate another problem with overall cur ricula, in that teacher educators can often see things that need to be added to the curri culum, but it is more difficult to see ways to simplify and streamline. The result is cou rses that contain massive amounts of information and multiple assignments, which can ove rwhelm students into focusing more on getting through it all, than on learning. As bo th Vanessa and Paula stated on several occasions, time was an issue, and completion of the project became a primary goal. As Paula said, “I think for both of us we wanted to ge t [the project] done ahead of time you know, we wanted to get it done and do the best we c an, so I think that you know we were both interested on doing the best we can on that, a nd yeah, definitely you know we were both trying to …you know, go by the guidelines of t he rubric and you know do it done in a time manner because we were both also have other classes and other deadlines.”

PAGE 279

268 Co-construction and collaboration among faculty As indicated above for the individual core-task, pr ogrammatic improvements may also be made by encouraging the co-construction of the curricula by faculty members, and by encouraging faculty collaboration at a varie ty of levels. In terms of research, it may be very valuable to examine the progress of mul tiple student-teachers as they move through the program as a means to identify points o f conflict, contradiction, and tension, and then look for solutions within the overall prog ram design and curricula. Accountability – The Meaning of Standards An important question emerging from this study rela tes to program and individual accountability. If the intent and the reality of c urricular design and implementation do not match, then what is the meaning of standards fo r teacher preparation programs and the individuals who successfully graduate from them ? In Vanessa and Paula’s case, the process in which they engaged clearly revealed the depth and breadth of the gaps in even their basic understandings of their selected topics The product, however, was far less revelatory in this regard. While it was clear, acc ording to the grading rubric, that they had either skimmed over or omitted significant elem ents of the requirements, the degree to which they really lacked understanding was less clear. In the end, the lowest possible passing grade for the assignment would still have m erited them full credit for meeting all of the preservice teacher standards associated with that core task. The process, however, revealed that they had little understanding relatin g to core standards. For example, they appeared to engage in little to no critical thinkin g as they pursued their task, let alone to consider engaging their own students in critical th ought in their teaching examples. Every explanation and example was from a teacher-ce ntered perspective, with little

PAGE 280

269 regard for active involvement of the students in th e learning process or of their diverse needs and abilities with regard to the course conte nt. While it was certainly the intent of the designers of the curriculum and core task that the student-teachers indeed meet the standards at a minimum level of intent, this was cl early not what occurred. Research into the process was able to reveal more about what was really going on than the product, which speaks to a need for more research of this na ture. By discovering more about process, we can better align intentions with outcom es and give the assignation of standards meaning. On a related note, standards for preservice teacher s do not reflect development over time. They are more in the form of summaries of what student-teachers should achieve by the end of their education programs. In spite of this, curriculum designers weave these standards into the core tasks located t hroughout the program as a means of satisfying program accountability. The very nature of the standards, as they are written and incorporated into tasks, may contribute to a la ck of attention to the need for development of understandings and skills over time. Directions for Future Research More studies of process are critical because produc ts do not reveal the microgenetic changes, nor the contradictions, confl icts, and tensions that can lead students to the precipice of the ZPDs, and the idea l moments for intervention by a moreknowledgeable other. The designers of the curricul um and core task in this study attempted to meet a set of learning goals by design ing a task that they believed would oblige the student-teachers to engage in complex, h igher-order cognitive functions. From a cognitive-Constructivist perspective, the st udent-teachers were supposed to hold

PAGE 281

270 prior knowledge of the topics, which they would bui ld upon through iterative exposure to and reflection on the explanations and examples the y created for the video. From a socio-Constructivist point of view, the student-tea chers were expected to work collaboratively to produce the final product, thus creating space for discussion, conflict, contradiction, and ultimately resolution. It was h oped that the co-created external knowledge could be gradually assimilated and intern alized resulting in greater selfregulation. The disparity between these intentions and the actu al outcomes raises many questions about the processes of student-teacher de velopment, and which elements detract from or contribute to their successful lear ning and professionalization. One of the primary outcomes of this study is that a microgenet ic case study of learner processes can reveal important data about some of the many factor s that contribute to or limit studentteacher success during their preparation. By exami ning teacher development as it occurs (or fails to occur) in individual tasks and courses as well as throughout a comprehensive teacher preparation program, teacher educators gain critical insight in how to design tasks that promote the quantity and type of learning they were intended to do. Lee Shulman reports on and calls for additional similar researc h in his (2002) article Truth and consequences? “Our current conclusion is that the field is in se rious need of low-stakes, high-yield instrumentation to monitor the vital sig ns of teacher development in ways that can guide teacher educators, professional developer s, and ultimately teachers themselves” (p. 252). The video project was designed to encourage student -teachers, in an innovative way, to employ reflective and collaborative learnin g approaches, as well as engage with

PAGE 282

271 mediational items with the potential to promote cri tical thought, such as digital video editing software, which would allow them to iterati vely review their content and their examples, offering multiple opportunities to notice conflicts and make revisions. In the present study, the student-teachers made little to no use of these mediating artifacts in the manner intended, however, and were not particularly successful in their endeavor. Additional research is needed to explore ways in wh ich to encourage engagement with surrounding artifacts, and then again to explore th e outcomes of an activity to see if this has any effect. In this vein, there is a need to examine ways to pr ovide enough structure, or scaffolding, to keep the participants on track with out limiting their regulative development. It also remains to be seen whether th is is truer among novices than among more developed participants. A related idea is the notion of collaborative work, and the factors that contribute or detract from its success. In the present case, Vanessa and Paula brought with them to the project a mismatched level of rapport and confi dence in one anotherÂ’s abilities. They also, however, brought to the activity the percepti on that they understood their topics quite thoroughly, but what they did not know was ho w incorrect they were in this regard. As a result, while they were able to engage in dial ogue that was productive in form, it was not so in substance. Learning more about how to help learners work more collaboratively, and trust in the value of critique without criticism, would be an important line of research. Also, examining ways to raise le arner awareness of where they are in a larger developmental process may help them to see t hat there is more to be learned, as well as perhaps motivate them to learn more complet ely.

PAGE 283

272 In sum, it is intriguing to explore, within the dom ain of the pedagogy of education, the developmental processes engaged in b y student-teachers throughout the implementation of specific instructional approaches By doing so, we can understand more about how these approaches function to impact student-teachersÂ’ understandings during the learning process, and adjust our instruc tion and curricula to better meet their needs.

PAGE 284

273 References Acheson, K. (1964). The effects of feedback from television recordings and three types of supervisory treatment on selected teacher behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University), Palo Alto, CA. ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation o f Foreign Language Teachers Retrieved September 17, 2006, from 4 Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). The significance of task design in mathematics educ ation: Examples from proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Melbourne, Australia. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedb ack as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 465-483. Allwright, D. (2003a). A brief guide to exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7 (2), 109-110. Allwright, D. (2003b). Exploratory practice: Rethin king practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7 (2), 113-141. Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for pra ctitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal, 89 (3), 353-366. Allwright, D., & Lenzuen, R. (1997). Exploratory pr actice: Work at the Cultura Inglesa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Language Teaching Research, 1 (1), 73-79. Alrichter, H., & Posch, P. (1989). Does the "ground ed theory" approach offer a guiding paradigm for teacher research? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19 (1), 21-31. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (2009). Amobi, F. A. (2006). Beyond the call: Preserving re flection in the preparation of "highly qualified" teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33 (2), 23-35. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. References

PAGE 285

274 Bailey, K. (1992). The processes of innovation in l anguage teacher development: What, why, and how teachers change. In J. Flowerdew, M. B rock & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 253-282). Hong Kong, CN: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakh tin M. Holquist, Ed., (C. Emerson and M. Holquist trans.), Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, trans.), Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bannon, L., & Bdker, S. (1991). Beyond the interfa ce: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-comp uter interface (pp. 227-253). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through re flective teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202-214). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Baxter_Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Duf resne, R. J. (2006). Question-driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audien ce response system. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Appl ications and cases. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Becker, B., Dawson, P., Devine, K., Hannum, C., Hil l, S., Leydens, J., et al. (2005, 2006). Case studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State Universit y Department of English Retrieved November 3, 2006, from udy/ Bedny, G. Z., & Karwowski, W. (2004). Activity theo ry as a basis for the study of work. Ergonomics, 47 (2), 134-153. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 (5), 483-497. Berk, L. E. (1992). Children's private speech: An o verview of theory and the status of research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private Speech: From social interaction to self-regulation Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 286

275 Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man and his cause. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applicat ions of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 31-58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Pr ess. Blunden, A. (2001, February 23/24). The Vygotsky school: Spirit, money, and modernity. Paper presented at the Spirit, Money, and Modernity Seminar, University of Melbourne, Australia. Bdker, S. (1991). Through the interface A human activity approach t o user interface design Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bdker, S. (1996). Applying activity theory to vide o analysis: How to make sense of video data in HCI. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18-40). London: Kogan Page. Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1993). Barriers to reflecti on on experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 73-86). Bristol, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (20 00). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, J. D. (2005). Characteristics of sound quali tative research. Shiken: JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 9 (2), 31-33. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press. Bruner, J. (1971). The relevance of education New York, NY: Norton. Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conc eptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian p erspectives (pp. 2134). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bushnell, M., & Henry, S. E. (2003). The role of re flection in epistemological change: Autobiography in teacher education. Educational Studies, 34 (1), 38-61. Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-r egulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245-281.

PAGE 287

276 Caprio, M., & Borgesen, D. (2003). Why should teach ers have all the fun? In T. Cooney (Ed.), Teaching science in the two-year college: A NSTA Pr ess journals collection. (pp. 47-52): National Science Teachers Association Clark, D. (1999, January 22, 2000). Constructivism Retrieved October 12, 2006, from tivism.html Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on metho ds courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher ed ucation Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., & McIntyre, J (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Gro up & the Association of Teacher Education. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 146161). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal s chooling: The evidence from crosscultural research. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical ps ychology (pp. 89-110). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cook, L. S., Smagorinsky, P., Fry, P. G., Konopak, B., & Moore, C. (2002). Problems in developing a constructivist approach to teaching: O ne teacher's transition from teacher preparation to teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (5), 389-426. Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video case s and the development of meaning making in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (5), 467-481. Crandall, J. (1994). Strategic integration: Prepari ng language and content teachers for linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. I n J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, pract ice, and research (pp. 255274). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Crandall, J. (1998). A delicate balance: Theory and practice in teacher education. TESOL Teacher Education Interest Section Newsletter, 13 3-4.

PAGE 288

277 Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20 34-55. Dana, N. F., & Silva, D. Y. (2003). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn t hrough practitioner inquiry Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Daniels, H. (2004). Activity theory, discourse and Bernstein. Educational Review, 56 (2), 121-132. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005a ). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be a ble to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005b ). Studying teacher education: The report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy of Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, A. R. (1970). The effectiveness of microteac hing and videotapes in training prospective elementary teachers in specific technic al skills of teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 30 (10-A). Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive refl ection among preservice elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (3), 281-301. Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to me rge prospective teachers' experience and reflection during curriculum-based, technologyenhanced field experiences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3), 265-292. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of refl ective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Daz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (1992). Preface. In R. M Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Daz, R. M., Neal, C. J., & Amaya-Williams, M. (199 0). The social origins of selfregulation. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical ps ychology (pp. 127-154). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Directorate for Education and Human Resources: Divi sion of Research Evaluation and Communication, N. S. F. ( 1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations Retrieved November 9, 2006, from .HTM#TOC

PAGE 289

278 Dong, A. (2004-2006). The language of design: Theory and computation Retrieved November 3, 2006, from ok/ Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & S cott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 5-12. Duhaney, D. C. (2000). Technology and the education al process: Transforming classroom activities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27 (1), 67-72. Edge, J., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers develop teachers research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development Oxford, England: Heinemann. Engestrm, Y. (August 8, 2005). Cultural-historical activity theory Retrieved September 5, 2005, from University of Helsinki, Faculty of Be havioural Sciences, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research web site: r/chat/ Engestrm, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical appr oach to developmental research Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-konsultit. Engestrm, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In J. La ve & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity an d context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engestrm, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individua l and social transformation. In Y. Engestrm, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engestrm, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framewor k for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43 (7), 960-1001. Erben, A. K. H. (2001). Student teachers' use of microteaching activity to construct sociolinguistic knowledge within a Japanese immersi on initial teacher education programme in Australia. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Lancaster, UK. Exploratory practice (2006). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from ratory/index.php Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32 (3), 16-25. Ferguson, C. (1971). Absence of copula and the noti on of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In D Hymes (Ed.), Pidginizations

PAGE 290

279 and creolization of languages (pp. 141-150). New York: Cambridge University Press. Flavell, R. A. (2001). Developing activity theory for the learning of inte rnational students in Australia Retrieved May 10, 2006, from Florio-Ruane, S. (2002). More light: An argument fo r complexity in studies of teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (3), 205-215. Flowerdew, J., Brock, M., & Hsia, S. (Eds.). (1992) Perspectives on second language teacher education Hong Kong, CN: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the un ification of the social and computational mind Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understandi ng Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Freeman, D., & Johnson, D. (1998). Reconceptualizin g the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32 397-418. Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers,. TESOL Quarterly, 27 193-216. Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence s New York: Basic Books. Gilson, J. (1989). Reconstructive reflective teachi ng: A review of the literature., ED 327 481. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. : Anchor Books. Goldman, B. A. (1969). Effect of classroom experien ce and video tape self-evaluation upon undergraduate attitudes toward self and toward teaching. American Psychological Association ERIC ED 038 359. Gore, J., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective practice in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7 (2), 119-136. Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical app roaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Review of research in teacher education Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research A ssociation.

PAGE 291

280 Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1 999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for resea rch on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108 (1), 1-29. Guthrie, K. L. (2009). Situated technology as stude nt tool for leadership instruction. Journal of Leadership Education, 8 (1), 130-136. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teach er education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 33-49. Haynes, J. Cognitive development of college students Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8 (4), 401-422. Hjrland, B., & Nicolaisen, J. (2005, August 8, 200 5). The epistemological lifeboat: Epistemology and philosophy for information scienti sts Retrieved November 2, 2006, from s.htm Hoffman-Kipp, P. (2003). Model activity systems: Di alogic teacher learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30 (2), 27-39. Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Learning to teach through collaborative conversation: A feminist approach. American Educational Research Journal, 29 373-404. Holzman, L. H. (1996). Pragmatism and dialectical m aterialism in language development. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An Introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 75-98). New York, NY: Routledge. Hyrup, S. (2004). Reflection as a core process in organisational learning. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 16 (8), 442-454. Hung, D., Tan, S.-C., & Koh, T.-S. (2006). From tra ditional to constructivist epistemologies: A proposed theoretical framework ba sed on activity theory for learning communities. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17 (1), 37-55. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on info rmation systems development in Scandinavia: Unity in plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10 135-185. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Fac tors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers' know ledge, practice, student outcomes, and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (10).

PAGE 292

281 Johnson, K. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective New York, NY: Routledge. John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adult s. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-reg ulation Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Johnston, S. (1994). Conversations with student tea chers: Enhancing the dialogue of learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10 71-82. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservic e training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37 (5), 379-385. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications : Longman. Kuuti, K. (1991). The concept of activity as a basi c unit for CSCW research. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Computer-Supportive Cooperative Work (ECSCW) (pp. 249-264). Amsterdam: Kluwer. Kuuti, K. (1992). Identifying CSCW applications by means of activity theory concepts: A case example. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), Sharing perspectives: Proceedings of the ACM 1992 Conference on computer-supported co operative work (CSCW'92) (pp. 233-240). New York, NY: ACM Press. Kuuti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential fr amework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second lang uage development Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P. F., Hsu, H.-C., Messing er, D., & Fogel, A. (2005). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 40-65). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Lektorsky, V. (Ed.). (1990). Activity: Theories, methodology, and problems (Engestrm, Y., Secondary Ed.; A. Mikheyev, S. Mikheyev, & Y. F illipov, trans.), Orlando, FL: Paul M. Deutsch Press, Inc. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: Th e learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 279-290.

PAGE 293

282 Lompscher, J. (2006). The cultural-historical activ ity theory. In P. H. Sawchuk, N. Duarte & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity: Explorations acr oss education, work, and everyday life (pp. 35-51). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teac hing and learning through modeling Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (1), 33-43. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Underst anding and learning about teaching New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Luria, A. R. (1976, Proofed and corrected by A. Blu nden, 2003). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from m.htm Luria, A. R. (1979, Proofed and corrected by A. Blu nden, 2003). The making of mind: A personal account of soviet psychology Retrieved October 23, 2006, from 9/mind/index.htm Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agree ment. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3 (1), 25-45. Mayer, R. (2003). Learning and instruction Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes r ule against pure discovery learning?: The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59 (1), 14-19. Merriam-Webster Online (2006). Retrieved October 22, 2006, from Merseth, K. K., & Lacey, C. A. (1993). Weaving stro nger fabric: The pedagogical promise of hypermedia and case methods in teacher e ducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 283-299. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 294

283 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, I nc. Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed .), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of soci ohistorical psychology (pp. 127). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Moro, Y. (1999). The expanded dialogic sphere: Writ ing activity and authoring of self in Japanese classrooms. In Y. Engestrm, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 165-182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mwanza, D., & Engestrm, Y. (2005). Managing conten t in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3), 53-63. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human-comp uter interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and huma n-computer interaction Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technol ogy. (NCEE)., National Commission on Excellence in Educa tion (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feed back practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199-218. Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6 (1), 35-41. Nunan, D. (1997). Standards for teacher research: D eveloping standards for teacherresearch in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 365-367. Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: What remains 'untold'. Educational Research, 47 (1), 25-44. P. Grossman, P. L., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 184-205. Pape, S. L., & McIntyre, D. J. (1993). Student reactions to using video cases for evaluation of early field experiences. Paper presented at the ATE Summer Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA.

PAGE 295

284 Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and cre dibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34 (5/2), 1189-1208. Pearson, M. (2005). Splitting clips and telling tal es: Students' interactions with digital video. Education and Information Technologies, 10 (3), 189-205. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child New York, NY: Basic Books. Professional standards for the accreditation of sch ools, colleges, and departments of education (2006). Washington, DC: National Council for Accr editation of Teacher Education. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views o f knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4-15. Raelin, J. A. (2002). "I don't have time to think!" versus the art of reflective practice. Reflections, 4 (1), 66-79. Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richert, A. E. (1990). Teaching teachers to reflect : A consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (6), 509-527. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another lo ok at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104 (4), 842-866. Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher educatio n: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 26 (1), 37-57. Roth, W. R., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). "Vygotsky's negle cted legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77 186-232. Rowe, S. M., & Wertsch, J. (2004). Vygotsky's model of cognitive development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Developme nt Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Under standing innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology and Society, 8 (1), 38-53. Russell, T., & Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships, and practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Russell, T. L. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I tea ch IS the message. In J. J. Loughran & T. L. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedag ogy in teacher education London: Falmer.

PAGE 296

285 Sachs, G. T., Brock, M., & Lo, R. (Eds.). (1996). Directions in second language teacher education Hong Kong, CN: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Schecter, S., & Ramirez, R. (1992). A teacher-resea rch group in action. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, C., & Ammon, P. (1992). A microgenetic analysis of restructuring in a teacher's understandings about learning and teachin g. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), S an Francisco, CA. Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals thin k in action New York, NY: Basic Books. Schn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schn, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new sch olarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27 27-34. Seibert, K. W., & Daudelin, M. W. (1999). The role of reflection in managerial learning: Theory, research, and practice Westport, CT: Quorum. Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspective on the role o f video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1-27). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. (2004). Teacher learning i n the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 163-183. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowle dge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foun dations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22. Shulman, L. S. (2002). Truth and consequences? Inqu iry and policy in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (3), 248-253. Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learnin g, and learning to teach San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Siekmann, S. (2004). Mediational tool use and strategic behaviors during collaborative online reading: A microgenetic case study of begin ning students of German. Unpublished Dissertation, University of South Flori da, Tampa.

PAGE 297

286 Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivationa l perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58 (5), 1161-1167. Smagorinsky, P. (1995). The social construction of data: Methodological problems of investigating learning in the zone of proximal deve lopment. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 191-212. Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (2000). Ideo cultural diversity in small groups: The role of the relational framework in collaborati ve learning. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Smolka, A. L. B., de_Goes, M. C. R., & Pino, A. (19 95). The constitution of the subject: A persistent question. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 165184). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1992). In the eye of the beho lder: Cognitive, critical, and narrative approaches to teacher reflection. In L. Valli (Ed.) Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques (pp. 147-160). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. h igher education Retrieved October 8, 2010, 2010, from ports/final-report.pdf Star, S. L. (1996). Working together: Symbolic inte ractionism, activity theory, and distributed artificial intelligence. In Y. Engestr m & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 35-60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stevens, J. (2011). Storyboarding Retrieved originally November 1, 2006, from /starttofinish/storyboarding/ Stipek, D. J. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tally, B. (2007). Digital technology and the end of social studies education. Theory and research in social education, 35 (2), 305-321. Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks relationships. New York: Ballentine Books. Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Second language teacher learning and student second language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspecti ves Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 298

287 Teacher preparation programs in the United States (2006). Retrieved September 3, 2006, from px?key=183 Tomlinson, P. (1999a). Conscious reflection and imp licit learning in teacher preparation. Part II: Implications for a balanced approach. Oxford Review of Education, 25 (4), 533-544. Tomlinson, P. (1999b). Conscious reflection and imp licit learning in teacher preparation. Part I: Recent light on an old issue. Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), 405-424. Tremmel, R. (1999). Zen and the art of reflective p ractice in teacher education. In E. Mintz & J. T. Yun (Eds.), The complex world of teaching: Perspectives from theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative Validity Retrieved November 10, 2006, from Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal de velopment, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of soci ohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Utley, B. L. (2006). Effects of situated learning o n knowledge gain of instructional strategies by students in a graduate level course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29 (1), 69-82. Valli, L. (1993). Reflective teacher education prog rams: An analysis of case studies. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualising reflection in teacher development London: Falmer. van_Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6 (3), 205-228. von_Glaserfeld, E. (1987). Constructivism. In T. Hu sen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 1, pp. 162-163). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1925, Pub. 1999 as Undiscovered Vy gotsky: Etudes on the pre-history of cultural-historical psychology (Veresov, N., tra ns.) in European Studies in the History of Science and Ideas, Vol. 8, pp. 251-281, Peter Lang Publishing; Posted on 2000). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of beh avior Retrieved October 23, 2006, from sciousness.htm

PAGE 299

288 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychol ogical processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Soube rman Eds.) Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press (Original w ork published in 1930, 1933, 1935). Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.) Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press (Origin al work published in 1934). Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective ap proach Cambridge, MA`: Cambridge University Press. Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support tool for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 105-138. Wertsch, J. (1979). From social interaction to high er psychological process: A clarification and application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, 22 (1), 122. Wertsch, J. (1980). Semiotic mechanisms in joining cognitive activity. Paper presented at the US-USSR Conference on the Theory of Activity, I nstitute of Psychology, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Wertsch, J. (1985). Adult-child interaction as a so urce of self-regulation in children. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp. 69-97). Madison, WI: Academic Press. Wertsch, J. (1990). The voice of rationality in a s ociocultural approach to mind. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 111-126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wertsch, J., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky's account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. We rtsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectiv es (pp. 162-179). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1997). Approaches to second langu age teacher education. In G. R. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 4. Second language education. (pp. 121-129). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A c ritical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecologica l perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 130-178.

PAGE 300

289 Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analys is, and interpretation Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Woodward, T. (1991). Models and metaphors in language teacher training: Loop input and other strategies Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of te acher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (3), 3-9. Zeichner, K. M. (1996). Teachers as reflective prac titioners and the democratization of school reform. In K. M. Zeichner, S. Melnick & M. L Gomez (Eds.), Current reforms in preservice teacher education (pp. 199-214). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching stud ent teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 23-48.

PAGE 301

290 Appendices

PAGE 302

291 Appendix A VIDEO PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS Purpose: This project serves a dual purpose: A) To create, d emonstrate, document & present focused samples of appropriate second/foreign language teac hing practices, the process & product of which will exemplify your understanding of how to move from th eory to practice in the classroom; B) To enhance your technology skills in the hopes of building you r technological knowledge & confidence, & to encourage you to look for & implement creative tech nology use in your own classrooms. Procedure: First, you will work together in small groups to c ompile a two-part video piece using digital video cameras & editing equipment. As a group you w ill decide on the contents & script of the video. E ach time, a different person will serve in the teaching role, allowing each person to be on camera at leas t once. Part One of your groupÂ’s video will explain and demonstrate a very specific strategy of foreign language instruction. Your group will be responsible for one of the following: Activating Schema Scaffolding Employing Comprehensible Input Modeling Procedures for Students Using Authentic Materials Scaffolding Students for Higher Order Thinking Alternative Assessment in Practice For the language instruction strategy assigned to y our group: A. Introduce & present the concept by providing b ackground information & explanations (Theoretical Background: what is the p remise, what do theoreticians say for and against the practice, why is it considered "good practice", when can it best be used in the classroo m, etc.). B. Include one or more very short video segments demonstrating this concept as it would appear in actual practice in front of student s. (Practical Application: demonstration of the concept in actual practice l esson segment delivered through the specific pedagogical approach). Part Two of your groupÂ’s video will explain and demonstrate the instruction and practice of a given second language skill. Your group will be responsible for one of the following: Instructing students in and practicing Listening Sk ills Instructing students in and practicing Speaking Ski lls Instructing students in and practicing Reading Skil ls Instructing students in and practicing Writing Skil ls Instructing students in and practicing Cultural Kno wledge/Pragmatic Skills For each of the above skill-based concept assigned to your group: A. Introduce & present the skill by providing backg round information & explanations (Theoretical Background: why is this an important s kill set for language learners, what do theoreticians say about learning this skill set, wh en during the process of language acquisition can this skill set be developed, what a re the most effective ways to teach/learn this skill set, etc.). B. Include one or more very short video segments of this concept as it would appear in actual practice in front of students. (Practical Ap plication: demonstration of the concept in actual practice skill-oriented lesson segment) Next, you will join with the other groups to create a single, full-length video by compiling what each group has done. All students are responsible for creation of activi ties & lessons, for recording & editing the video f ootage & for creating a final CD-ROM/DVD/medium for accessin g the video clips.

PAGE 303

292Presentation: The final video will be recorded on CD-ROM/DVD/othe r medium. On the last night of class, the graduate students w ill present their video segments to the rest of the class with explanations of both the process & the c ontent of the individual video clips. Materials Needed: Digital Video Camcorder Digital Video Tapes Fire wire iMovie or other software for editing digital video Quicktime or other software for storing digital vid eo Computer Memory Recordable CD/DVD/other recordable medium Suggested Semester Sequence: Meet with your group & create a storyboard of your full video (create the blueprint). Compose scripts for introductions, & decide on appropriate content for teaching sequences. Decide who will be responsible for what parts of the video. With your group, set a date to record your digital video. With your group, set dates and times to meet to edi t your digital video. Set meeting dates with all groups involved to compi le & complete the final video & save it to CD/DVD/other medium. Help and Support on the Video Project In Spring 2007, in addition to support from the cou rse professor, you will have unique access to personal, hands-on assistance with the video project, including access to and help using the equipment and software, from a r esearcher fully familiar with the requirements of this course. The researcher will b e conducting a simple study, in which you are asked, but not required, to participate. T he researcher is happy to provide you help and support whether or not you choose to parti cipate in the study. If you should choose to be part of the study, all that is require d of you is that you agree to be videotaped as you edit your video clips (the entire editing process should be recorded), and that you agree to be interviewed by the researc her at the beginning and at the end of the video project work. The researcher will be hap py to meet with you and your group at any time during the semester at your convenience.

PAGE 304

293 Appendix B Video Project Grading Rubric CRITERIA Excellent/ Superior Good/ Adequate Minimal Inadequate/ Missing TOTAL POINTS Video Introduction Introduces video, clarifying its content & sequence of presentation. 4 3-4 2-3 0-2 Method Topic 1 Provides an introducti on & overview of the topic. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Explains theoretical constructs behind the practice 8 7-8 6-7 0-6 Provides explanations of when, why, & with whom thi s practice is best used in the classroom. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Provides explanations of when, why, & with whom pra ctice is inappropriate/less appropriate, or in what form/level it may be problematic. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Demonstrates the practice in actual practice – less on segment delivered through the specific approach. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Skill Topic 2 Provides an introduction & overview of the language skill. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Explains theoretical constructs behind teaching the skill. 8 7-8 6-7 0-6 Provides explanations of when, why, & with whom thi s skill is best taught/learned in the classroom. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Provides explanations of when, why, & with whom ski ll is inappropriate/less appropriate, or in what fo rm/level it may be problematic. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Demonstrates the skill in actual practice – lesson segment delivered through the specific approach. 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Presents information in a logical, interesting sequ ence. 4 3-4 2-3 0-2 Organization Presentation of material is well-organized. 4 3-4 2-3 0-2 Subject Knowledge Demonstrates thorough content knowledge through inf ormation presentation & examples. 12-14 13-14 12-13 0-12 Graphics, realia, visuals explain & reinforce prese ntation (not just a “talking head”). 6 5-6 4-5 0-4 Strategies Uses video enhancement features to reinforce presen tation (uses video to potential). 4 3-4 2-3 0-2 Comments: Students’ Names: __________________________________________________ _____ Group Topics: __________________________________________________ ________ Excellent/Superior: (100%) parameters for assignment descript & rubric met at/above level described. Good/Adequate: (84-100%) parameters for assignment descript & rub ric met at/just below level described. Minimal: (68% +) parameters for assignment descript & rubri c met below level described. Inadequate = (68% -) parameters for assignment descript & rub ric inadequately met at level described or missing. Project Total:

PAGE 305

294 Appendix C Recommended Completion Schedule – Video Project Sun Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WEEK 1 8 First Day of Class 9 10 11 12 13 14 WEEK 2 15 No Class – MLK Day 16 17 18 19 20 21 WEEK 3 22 First meeting – planning phase. Explanation, technology introduction, beginning storyboarding. Planning/storyboarding help and technology tutorials available – schedule with researcher over next four weeks. 23 24 25 26 27 January 2007 28 WEEK 4 Planning/storyboarding help and technology tutorials available – schedule with researcher. 29 30 31 Sun Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 WEEK 5 Planning/storyboarding help and technology tutorials available – schedule with researcher. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 WEEK 6 Planning/storyboarding help and technology tutorials available – schedule with researcher. Pre-interviews. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 WEEK 7 Pre-interviews. 19 20 21 22 23 24 February 2007 25 WEEK 8 Pre-interviews. 26 Video editing should begin 27 28

PAGE 306

295 Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 WEEK 9 5 Video editing continued 6 7 8 9 10 11 WEEK 10 12 Video editing continued 13 14 15 16 17 18 WEEK 11 19 Video editing continued 20 21 22 23 24 March 2007 25 WEEK 12 26 Video editing continued 27 28 29 30 31 Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat 1 WEEK 13 2 Video editing continued 3 4 5 6 7 8 WEEK 14 9 Video editing continued 10 11 12 13 14 15 WEEK 15 16 Compilation of final video 17 18 19 20 21 22 WEEK 16 23 Last Day of Class Video Presentation 24 25 26 27 28 April 2007 29 WEEK 17 30 Post-activity Interviews

PAGE 307

296 Appendix C (Continued) Equipment Digital Video Camera (DVC) At least two DVC Tapes Firewire for DVC Computer with video editing software

PAGE 308

297 Appendix C (Continued) iMovie Basics IMPORT movie to computer Connect camera to computer Capture Clips from DV camera (importing clips) Preview clips Rename clips EDIT movie Drag clips to timeline (also known as clip viewer) Arrange clips on timeline Discard (“trash”) unwanted clips Rearrange clips in timeline Play movie to see results EFFECTS Add transitions (Effects Palette) Preview movie Adjust speed of transitions Add Title (Effects Palette) Customize Title effects Preview Title clip Add additional sounds to iMovie Preview VIEW movie Full screen mode on iMac DV Save iMovie as a Quicktime movie, back to DV camcor der cassette and/or copy to DVD

PAGE 309

298 IMPORT 1. Connect your DV camera to your iMac computer. 2. Your iMac comes with a fire-wire cable that you need. 3. Plug one end into the digital camcorder's Fire-w ire output. 4. Plug the other end into your iMac’s Fire-wire in put. 5. Turn on digital camcorder in VCR mode. 6. Start iMovie program. 7. Click the camera button. 8. It immediately detects your camera and displays message Camera Connected. 9. If you receive a message that there is no camera connected, unplug the cable and try again. It doesn't matter if computer is on or o ff when you connect the camera. Make sure tape is in camera. 10. Capture Clips from DV camera (importing clips). 11. Run camera until place where desired footage st arts. 12. Click Import. 13. Clips move to shelf automatically. 14. At end of clip iMovie moves to next vacant spac e on the shelf. 15. iMovie automatically imports next clip. 16. When shelf is full, iMovie stops importing. 17. Begin editing to clear space on shelf and impor t more clips. 18. Preview clips. 19. Click on clip. 20. Click play button. 21. Rename clips. 22. Click on the default name of clip. 23. Type in meaningful name. EDIT 1. Drag clips to timeline (also known as clip viewe r). 2. Arrange clips on timeline. 3. Crop and split clips as desired. 4. Discard (“trash”) unwanted clips. (To free up hard drive space, click and drag unwanted thumbnails into the trash can, then empty trash from edit menu. 5. Play movie to see results. 6. Click on clip. 7. Click play button. 8. Rearrange clips again, if necessary. EFFECTS Transitions Transitions are the effects that happen between cli ps. 1. Choose transitions (Effects Palette). Click transitions button. Choices appear in window. Click on a transition. Its simulation appears in preview screen.

PAGE 310

299 2. Render Transition. Click and drag choice to timeline and place between two video clips. Progress bar appears as transition is rendering. Icon will appear between the clips. Note: transition times cut into video clips on both ends – don’t clip too precisely before transitions. 3. Preview movie in monitor screen. Click Preview button. 4. Adjust speed of transitions. Never make a transition longer than the clip. Titles Titles refers to all text that is added to an iMovi e, including credits. 1. Select Title (Effects Palette). Click Titles button. Click desired Title from window in palette. A simulation will appear in the preview screen. 2. Preview Title in monitor window. Click Preview button. 3. Customize Title effects. Type words. Change font. Change color. Animation. Title over black box. 4. Render Title clip. Every title has to be rendered. Click and drag title from preview screen to the tim eline and place it in the desired location. Progress bar appears. EXPORT Save back to Digital Video camcorder cassette. Save iMovie as a QuickTime movie to view on compute r. Copy to DVD.

PAGE 311

300 Appendix C (Continued) Storyboarding By Jane Stevens Why Do a Storyboard? A storyboard is a sketch of how to organize a story and a list of its contents. A storyboard helps you: Define the parameters of a story within available resources and time Organize and focus a story Figure out what medium to use for each part of the story How to Do a Rough Storyboard A multimedia story is some combination of video, te xt, still photos, audio, graphics and interactivity presented in a nonlinear format i n which the information in each medium is complementary, not redundant. So your sto ryboard should be put together with all those elements in mind. The first thing to tackle is the part about the sto ry being nonlinear. 1. Divide the story into its logical, nonlinear parts such as: a lead, essentially addressing why this story is im portant profiles of the main topic in the story the event or situation any process or how something works pros and cons the history of the event or situation other related issues raised by the story Next, divide the contents of the story among the me dia -video, still photos, audio, graphics and text. 2. Decide what pieces of the story work best in video. Video is the best medium to depict action, to take a reader to a place central to the story, or to hear and see a person central to the story. 3. Decide what pieces of the story work best in still photos. Still photos are the best medium for emphasizing a strong emotion, for stayin g with an important point in a story, or to create a particular mood. They're ofte n more dramatic and don't go by as quickly as video. Still photos used in combination with audio also highlight emotions.

PAGE 312

301 Panorama or 360-degree photos, especially combined with audio, also immerse a reader in the location of the story. 4. Does the audio work best with video, or will it be combined with still photos ? Good audio with video is critical. Bad audio makes video seem worse than it is and detracts from the drama of still photos. Good audio makes st ill photos and video seem more intense and real. Avoid using audio alone. 5. What part of the story works best in graphics? Animated graphics show how things work. Graphics go where cameras can't go, into huma n cells or millions of miles into space. Sometimes graphics can be a story's primary medium, with print, still photos and video in supporting roles. 6. Does the story need a map? Is the map a location map, or layered with other information? GIS (geographic information systems) a nd satellite imaging are important tools for reporters. Interactive GIS can personalize a story in a way impossible with text by letting readers pinpoint th ings in their own cities or neighborhoods such as crime or meth labs or liquo r stores or licensed gun dealers. 7. What part of the story belongs in text? Text can be used to describe the history of a story (sometimes in combination with photos); to de scribe a process (sometimes in combination with graphics), or to provide first-per son accounts of an event. Often, text is what's left over when you can't convey the information with photos, video, audio or graphics. 8. Make sure the information in each medium is complem entary, not redundant. A little overlap among the different media is okay. B ut try to match up each element of a story with the medium that best conveys it. When you're done breaking a story down into its ele ments both in terms of its content and the different media you could use you need to reassemble all that into a rough storyboard. On a sheet of paper, sketch out what the main story page will look like and the elements it will include. A rough storyboard doesn't have to be high art it 's just a sketch. And it isn't written in stone it's just a guide. What storyboarding does is help point out the holes in your story. It helps you identify the resources (time, equipment, assistance ) you'll need to complete the story, or how you have to modify the story to adjust to yo ur resources. From: (Stevens, 2011) /starttofinish/storyboarding

PAGE 313

302 Appendix C (Continued) Blank Storyboards Screen No. ____ Sounds: Content: Actions: Screen No. ____ Sounds: Content: Actions: Screen No. ____ Sounds: Content: Actions: Screen No. ____ Sounds: Content: Actions:

PAGE 314

303 Appendix D Foreign Language Practicum Student Information 1 LAST NAME FIRST NAME STUDENT U-NUMBER MONTH / DAY / YEAR DATE OF BIRTH HOME ADDRESS CAMPUS ADDDRESS TELEPHONE (OFFICE) (HOME) (CELL) EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) Language Information 1. What is your first language? Rate your skills in this language from low to high: Listening Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Speaking Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Reading Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Writing Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like 2. What is your second language? Rate your skills in this language from low to high: Listening Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Speaking Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Reading Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Writing Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like 3. What additional languages do you know? Rate your skills in these languages from low to hig h (please indicate which is which): Listening Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Speaking Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Reading Comprehension: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like Writing Skills: Very Low Some Comprehension Intermediate Emerging Advanced Native/Native-like 4. What language(s) do you plan to teach?

PAGE 315

304Teaching Information 5. What is your prior teaching experience? Choose from the selections below – check all that apply (You may add explanation or additional information in the space provided: a. I have never taught before. b. Tutoring I have tutored students or done priva te instruction outside a regular classroom. For how long? ___________________________ _____________ I What topic(s)? __________________________ ______________ Additional explanation or information on tutoring/private instructional experience: I _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c. Classroom I have previously taught in a regula r classroom setting. In the role of : Main instructor Co-instructor Assistant instructor Intern/Student Learner Teacher’s Aide For how long? ___________________________ _____________ I What topic(s)? __________________________ ______________ I In what setting(s) (e.g. public or private el ementary, middle or high school; university, etc.)? _____________________________________ Additional explanation or information on classroom instructional experience: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _____________ I _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 316

305Education Information 6. What is your prior teacher education experience ? Choose from the selections below – check all that apply (you may add explanation or additional information in the space provided): a. I have previously attended 1-2 brief non-degree seeking teacher education courses and/or workshops. How many? _______________________________ _______ I How long did they last? _________________ ____________________ What topic(s) were covered?________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________ I Additional explanation or information on training e xperience:_________________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ________________ I ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ________________ I b. I have previously attended some/several non-degr ee seeking teacher education courses and/or worksho ps. How many? ________________________________ ______ I How long did they last? _________________ _____________________ What topic(s) were covered?________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________ Additional explanation or information on training e xperience: ________________________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________ I c. I am currently enrolled in a teacher education p rogram (seeking a degree in education from the Coll ege of Education). What is your specialization? _____________ ________________ I How long have you been enrolled in this program ? _______________ What level of degree are you seeking? ____ __________________________________________________ I What pedagogical topic(s) have you covered so far? ___________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________ I Additional explanation or information on training experience:_______________________________________ ____________________________ I ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________ I d. I already hold a university degree & am a gradua te student in a teacher education program (seeking a degree in education from the College of Education). In what area is/are your already-obtained degree(s)? ________________________________________ _I What level of degree(s) did you obtain? ________ ________________________________________________ I What pedagogical topic(s) do you recall having cove red ? _____________________________________________ __________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ________________ I Additional explanation or information on training e xperience:_________________________________________ ____________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ________________ I 7. What are your expectations for this course?

PAGE 317

306 Appendix E Technology Information a. Digital video camera recording/playback i. My skill level with digital video recording: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using a digita l video camera: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using a digi tal video camera: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never b. Digital video editing i. My skill level at editing video on the computer: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about editing video on the computer: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about editing video on the computer: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never c. Digital camera photography i. My skill level with digital photography: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using a digital camera: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using a digit al camera: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college c lasses: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fut ure students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never d. Digital picture editing i. My skill level ay editing photos on the computer : Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about editing photos on the computer: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about editing phot os on the computer: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never e. VHS video camera recording/playback i. My skill level with VHS video recording: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using a VHS vi deo camera: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using a VHS video camera: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never f. VHS video editing i. My skill level at editing VHS tapes: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about editing VHS ta pes: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about editing VHS tapes: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never g. DVD player i. My skill level at playing DVDs: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about playing DVDs: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about playing DVDs : Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never h. DVD recorder/writer i. My skill level at making my own DVDs: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about burning DVDs: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about burning DVDs : Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never i. CD Player i. My skill level at playing CDs: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about playing CDs: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about playing CDs: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never

PAGE 318

307 j. CD recorder/writer i. My skill level at making my own CDs: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about burning CDs: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about burning CDs: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never k. VCR i. My skill level at using a VCR: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using a VCR: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using a VCR: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never l. Presentation software i. My skill level at making computer presentations: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about making a compu ter presentation: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about making a com puter presentation: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never m. Overhead transparencies i. My skill level at making overhead transparencies for overhead projectors: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using OHPs: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using OHPs: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never n. Webpage design/editing i. My skill level at building webpages: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about building webpa ges: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about building web pages: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never o. Internet i. My skill level at surfing the net: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using the inte rnet: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using the in ternet: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never p. Courseware (e.g. Blackboard, WebCT) i. My skill level using courseware: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using coursewa re: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using course ware: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never q. Online chat i. My skill level at chatting online: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using online c hat: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using online chat: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never r. Online discussion boards i. My skill level at joining online discussions: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using discussi on boards: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using discus sion boards: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never

PAGE 319

308 s. Email i. My skill level at sending and receiving email: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using email: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using email: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never t. Word processing i. My skill level at writing a word document: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using a word p rocessor: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using a word processor: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never u. Spreadsheets i. My skill level at making a spreadsheet: Few or no skills Basic skills Intermediate skills Advanced skills ii. My current anxiety level about using spreadsh eets: Anxious/nervous Somewhat comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable DonÂ’t know yet iii. I would like to learn more about using spread sheets: Very much Sure Somewhat No iv. I have used this technology as a student: Often Sometimes Rarely Never v. I have used this technology outside my college classes: Often Sometimes Rarely Never vi. I would like to use this technology with my fu ture students: Often Sometimes Rarely Never

PAGE 320

309 Appendix F Questionnaire Data Summary Form “Vanessa” Female 26 years old Degree Completed: B.A. Spanish language Degree Program: M.A. Foreign Language Education – S panish One workshop on teaching foreign language with tech nology completed at a state foreign language teacher’s conference No public school teaching experience Tutor (1.5 years) at Junior college level. Library /learning lab tutor in Spanish, English, Math. Teacher (2 years) at private elementary school. K8 Spanish language courses. University-level teaching assistant (1.5 years). W orld Language Education Department teaching levels 1 & 2 undergraduate Spanish language courses Self-described L1 English – Native proficiency in all skills L2 Spanish – Native proficiency in all skills Self-described Overall technology skill: Higher than average; Median: intermediate Lower than partner Overall anxiety about technology use: Very low; Median: Very comfortable Less anxious than partner Overall curiosity on learning more about technology : Extremely low; Median: Not curious Less curious than partner Overall use of technology as a student: Sometime s; Median: Sometimes Less often than partner Overall use of technology for personal use: Somet imes; Median: Sometimes Less often than partner Overall plans to use technology in teaching career: Sometimes; Median: Sometimes for newer technologies (no plans to use older technologies) Specific: Digital video camera recording & playback : Highly skilled – Advanced Low anxiety – Very comfortable Low curiosity – Not curious Fairly high use as a student – Often Moderate personal use – Sometimes Moderate plans to use – Sometimes Specific: Digital video editing: Highly skilled – Advanced Low anxiety – Very comfortable Low curiosity – Not curious Moderate use as a student – Sometimes Moderate personal use – Sometimes Moderate plans to use – Sometimes Self-described expectations of the Foreign Language Practicum course: Experiential knowledge of internship. “To prepare me better for the upcoming internship.” “To have a better understanding what is expected o f us as teachers.”

PAGE 321

310 Appendix F (Continued) Questionnaire Data Summary Form “Paula” Female 25 years old Degree Completed: B.A. (No response as to major) Degree Program: M.A. Foreign Language Education – S panish No public or private school teaching experience University-level teaching assistant (1 semester). World Language Education Department teaching levels 1 & 2 undergraduate Spanish language courses Self-described L1 English – Native proficiency in all skills L2 Spanish – Advanced proficiency in all skills L3 French – Low proficiency in all skills Self-described Overall technology skill: High; Median: interm ediate Higher than partner Overall anxiety about technology use: Very low; Median: Very comfortable More anxious than partner Overall curiosity on learning more about technology : Very low; Median: Not curious More curious than partner Overall use of technology as a student: Often; M edian: Often More often than partner Overall use of technology for personal use: Somet imes; Median: Often More often than partner Overall plans to use technology in teaching career: Rarely; Median: Sometimes for newer technologies (plans to use older technologies) Specific: Digital video camera recording & playback : Highly skilled – Advanced Low anxiety – Very comfortable Mild curiosity – Somewhat curious Fairly high use as a student – Often Fairly high personal use – Often Fairly high plans to use – Often Specific: Digital video editing: Skille d – Intermediate Mild anxiety – Comfortable Curious – Curious Moderate use as a student – Sometimes Low personal use – Rarely Few plans to use – Rarely Self-described expectations of the Foreign Language Practicum course: Observation “To receive more observation experience for my targ et language”.

PAGE 322

311 Appendix G Thematic Coding Schema ROOT THEME THEME SUB-THEME THEME CODE DEFINITION OF THEME CODE Assigned Topics Dialogue in which the participants discuss their assigned topics. Comprehensible Input One of the topics is CI CI Dialogue in which the pa rticipants confirm that one of their topics is CI. The meaning of CI. (Determination of definition of CI) CI-Def CI-Def-Det Dialogue in which the participants work to define a nd express the meaning of CI. Research and theory (foundations) behind CI as a teaching strategy CI-Base Dialogue in which the participants discuss the pedagogical bases behind the use of CI. CI as a teaching strategy CI-Strat CI-Strat-When CI-Strat-Why CI-Strat-With Dialogue in which the participants discuss when, wh y, and with whom CI as a teaching strategy is/is not appropriate in the classroom. CI exemplified. (Identification of examples of CI; general and in teaching context) CI-ID CI-ID-Gen CI-ID-Contxt Dialogue in which the participants offer up and que stion their own suggestions, their previously recorded teaching videos, and reference materials as to whether or not they contain examples of CI. Listening Skills One of the topics is LS LS Dialogue in which the pa rticipants confirm that one of their topics is LS. The meaning of LS. (Determination of definition of LS) LS-Def LS-Def-Det Dialogue in which the participants work to define a nd express the meaning of LS. Research and theories (foundations) of explicit instruction of LS to students. LS-Base Dialogue in which the participants discuss the peda gogical bases behind teaching L2 learners LS in the TL. Listening as a skill to be acquired and practiced by L2 learners. LS-Skill LS-Skill-When LS-Skill-Why LS-Skill-With Dialogue in which the participants discuss when, wh y, and with whom L2 LS can be taught and practiced (or not) in the classroom. LS instruction and practice exemplified. (Identification of examples of L2 LS instruction and practice; general and in teaching context) LS-ID-Instr LS-ID-Instr-Gen LS-ID-Instr-Contxt LS-ID-Prac LS-ID-Prac-Gen LS-ID-Prac-Contxt Dialogue in which the participants offer up and que stion their own suggestions, their previously recorded teaching videos, and reference materials as to whether or not they contain examples of teaching and having students pr actice L2 LS.

PAGE 323

312Division of Labor Dialogue in which the participants discuss or take actions that determine who will be responsible for which aspects of the video project. Power/Leadership Seizure of, assignment of, or mutual agreement on who is in charge of the video project at a given time. CTRL CTRL-DIR-P/V CTRL-DIR-SPK-SZ CTRL-DIR-SPK-AS CTRL-DIR-SPK-OK CTRL-DIR-ACT-SZ CTRL-DIR-ACT-AS CTRL-DIR-ACT-OK CTRL-INDIR-P/V CTRL-INDIR-SPK-SZ CTRL-INDIR-SPK-AS CTRL-INDIR-SPK-OK CTRL-INDIR-ACT-SZ CTRL-INDIR-ACT-AS CTRL-INDIR-ACT-OK Dialogue in which the participants discuss or take actions that openly or subversively claim, assign, or designate power or control over a portion of the project. Responsibilities Seizure of, assignment of, or mutual agreement on which project responsibilities belong to whom. RESP RESP-DIR RESP-DIR-SPK-SZ-? RESP-DIR-SPK-AS-? RESP-DIR-SPK-OK-? RESP-DIR-ACT-SZ-? RESP-DIR-ACT-AS--? RESP-DIR-ACT-OK-? RESP-INDIR RESP-INDIR-SPK-SZ-? RESP-INDIR-SPK-AS-? RESP-INDIR-SPK-OK-? RESP-INDIR-ACT-SZ-? RESP-INDIR-ACT-AS-? RESP-INDIR-ACT-OK-? Dialogue in which the participants discuss or take actions that openly or subversively claim, assign, or designate given responsibilities within the project. Project Design and Construction Dialogue in which the participant s discuss the actions and operations they must do i n order to complete the video project. Project Direction PD Dialogue in which the participants discuss what needs to be done to complete the project.

PAGE 324

313 Actions/Operations Actions necessary to complete the project PD-ACT PD-ACT-INST-ORIGIN PD-ACT-RUBR-ORIGIN PD-ACT-SELF-ORIGIN Dialogue in which the participants discuss what act ions are needed to complete the project. The designated actions may be determined by the pro ject instructions, the project rubric, or by the participants. Operations necessary to complete the designated actions. PD-OPR PD-OPR-INST-ORIGIN PD-OPR-RUBR-ORIGIN PD-OPR-SELF-ORIGIN Dialogue in which the participants discuss what ope rations are needed to complete the actions they w ish to carry out. The designated operations may be determined by the project instructions, the project rubric, or by the partici pants. Periodic assessment of task completion. PD-TASK-ASSESS Dialogue in which the participants discuss what the y’ve complet ed and what they still need to finish. Time Time to completion. PD TIME PD TIME-PROJ PD TIME-ACT PD TIME-OPR Dialogue in which the participants discuss how long the project, or any of its segments, will take to complete. Presentation Sequence SEQU Dialogue in which the participants discuss the orde r in which to present concepts and examples in video. Topic Sequence SEQU-TOP Dialogue in which the participants discuss the orde r in which to present the assigned topics. Explanation Sequence SEQU-EXPLAN Dialogue in which the participants discuss the orde r in which to present explanations of the assigned topics. Example Sequence SEQU-EXMPL SEQU-EXMPL-VID SEQU-EXMPL-OTHER Dialogue in which the participants discuss the orde r in which to present examples (videoand other-based) of the assigned topics. Presentation Format Format of presentation delivery – video, audio, textual, or static image. DELIV-FORMT DELIV-FORMT-VIDEO DELIV-FORMT-AUDIO DELIV-FORMT-TEXT DELIV-FORMT-STAT-IMG Dialogue in which the participants discuss how concepts and examples shou ld be delivered (presented/illustrated/clarified) within the overar ching video format. Presentation Pull Getting and holding the attention of the intended audience. PULL Dialogue in which the participants discuss how to p ique and maintain the interest of their target audience through the presentation design. Presentation Creativity Use of creative/aesthetically pleasing design choices in the presentation delivery. PD CREATV Dialogue in which the participants discuss creative and aesthetic choices in their presentation design. Presentation Length LENGTH LENGTH-SEG LENGTH-TOT Dialogue in which the participants discuss how long the segments/overall video should be. Scheduling Setting work times and locations SCHED SCHED-TM SCHED-LOC Dialogue in which the participants discuss when, wh ere, and at what time they should meet to complete the project. Technology TECH Dialogue in which the participants discuss aspects of the technology they are using to complete the project. Hardware TECH-HW Dialogue in which the participants discuss the hard ware they are using to complete the project.

PAGE 325

314 Use of the hardware required to complete the project. TECH-HW-COMPTR TECH-HW-CAM TECH-HW-PERI Dialogue in which the participants discuss the use of the computer, video camera, and additional peripherals during completion of the pro ject. Software TECH-SW Dialogue in which the participants discuss the soft ware they are using to complete the project. Use of the software required to complete the project. TECH-SW-VIDED TECH-SW-OTHER Dialogue in which the participants discuss the use of the video-editing and other software for the purpose of completing the project. User data USER-ORIGIN Dialogue in which the participants dis cuss data they have generated. Use of participant-generated data. USER-ORIGIN-VID USER-ORIGIN-VID-MAKE USER-ORIGIN-VID-USE USER-ORIGIN-AUD USER-ORIGIN-AUD-MAKE USER-ORIGIN-AUD-USE USER-ORIGIN-IMG USER-ORIGIN-IMG-MAKE USER-ORIGIN-IMG-USE USER-ORIGIN-TXT USER-ORIGIN-TXT-MAKE USER-ORIGIN-TXT-USE Dialogue in which the participants discuss the crea tion and use of video, audio, image, and textual data in the project. Researcher intervention/ participation Solicited intervention Request by participants for researcher input. RES-SOL RES-SOL-HW RES-SOL-SW RES-SOL-CONT RES-SOL-PRES RES-SOL-OTHER Dialogue in which the participants solicit input fr om the researcher on hardware, software, content, presentation, or other issues. Unsolicited intervention Researcher-initiated input. RES-UNSOL RES-UNSOL-HW RES-UNSOL-SW RES-UNSOL-CONT RES-UNSOL-PRES RES-UNSOL-OTHER Dialogue in which the researcher initiates input on hardware, software, content, presentation, or other issues. Motivation Motivations within the project work. MOT MOT-GRADE MOT-TIME MOT-LEARN MOT-CREATV MOT-TECH MOT-OTHER Dialogue in which the participants reveal their mot ivations for working and/or completing the project. Distraction Physical distraction Sources of physical distraction. DISTRACT-PHYS Dialogue in which the participants appear distracte d by a source of physical (dis)comfort,

PAGE 326

315 DISTRACT-PHYS-HUNGR DISTRACT-PHYS-FOOD DISTRACT-PHYS-TIRED DISTRACT-PHYS-SLEEP DISTRACT-PHYS-PAIN DISTRACT-PHYS-PAINRLF including hunger, food, tiredness, sleep, physical aches and pains, medicines, etc. Mental distraction Sources of mental distraction. DISTRACT-MENT DISTRACT-MENT-FATG DISTRACT-MENT-AVOID DISTRACT-MENT-ENGAG DISTRACT-MENT-CONVERS DISTRACT-MENT-BID-OUT DISTRACT-MENT-BID-SELF Dialogue in which the participants appear distracte d by a source of mental (dis)comfort, including fatigue, avoidance/ (dis)engagement, offtopic conversation, attention bids from outsiders, attention bids made to outsiders, etc. Relationship REL REL-LANG REL-PARALANG REL-NVC Dialogue or behaviors in which the participants rev eal the nature of their relationship, such as their levels of trust, amicability, jealousy, et c.

PAGE 327

316 Appendix H Sample of Dialogic Episode Coding Dialogic Episode 61: Topic : Vanessa works on project at the computer. Paula distracts while cursorily scanning textbook. They are working on different things. Essence : Paula repeats request for text. Vanessa jumps up, runs out & back w/ the book. Paula scans the index looking for Krashen & CI. Throughout this DE, Vanessa continues to try and stay focused and work on the computer. Distractions by Paula suddenly suggests Vanessa do a sultry voiceover – unspecific side topic about a student of hers with a nice voice comments on baby’s sounds commenting on Vanessa’s mother’s accent discusses accent of family in NJ and how it rubs off on her when she visits says she doesn’t want to go home today suggests that Vanessa’ baby may be trouble when he’s older Paula occasionally glances at book, finds 2 separate quotes, but cannot extract from them accurate meaning Themes : Ref Distract-Phys-Tired Distract-phys-food Ref Deliv-format-audio Distract-food Creatv-humor Rel-para Resp-Act-As Ref Distract –mental-convers Ref Mot-low Distract-mental-bid-out Distract-ment-convers Rel-lang Rel-NVC Distract-ment-convers Ref CI-Base Dist-mental-avoid Distract-ment-bid-out Res Rel-partial listening Distr-ment-convers Distract-bid-out Dist-ment-convers Conflicts : Paula goes to the index in the book to look for Krashen/CI, but can’t seem to extract valuable information from the text Paula is making suggestions for creative humor Paula: (Looks off, around room, then back at screen). Vanessa : Okay Paula: Where’s the book? (looks around room). Vanessa : Oh, sorry (stands). I’ll go get it (leaves room). Paula: Aughk! (Looks at screen) All right. So how are we gonna transit (looks up at the ceiling, then back at screen)… that’d be cool (Glances from storyboard to screen, then sees chips and reaches for them). Ohhh, dear, I’m sleepy. (Returns with books). (Looks at Vanessa). Vanessa : This one unintelligible this…I think Paula : (Looks at books Vanessa is presenting) I have that one. Vanessa : Okay. Paula : That’s [the book for another professor’s class]. Vanessa : This one? Oh, that’s [the other professor’s] class. Paula : Mm, this is the one I need. Vanessa : Mhmm. Okay. Paula : That one doesn’t say anything about comprehensible input, or even Krashen’s theory in the index, unintelligible Vanessa : Okay. Paula : Unintelligible Krashen, fourteen through sixteen. Vanessa : (Places her book on counter, and sits back facing computer). Paula: All right, ummm, (points to screen with end of pen) I just had an idea. Vanessa : What? Paula : If you still (points to Vanessa with pen) wanna retape yourself like that, or just do your voice (glances over briefly at Paula) (points back at screen) you know how the screen goes up (points up) after the, umm, (looks at bite of food Vanessa is preparing to eat) credits are done? Vanessa : Right (Eats, looking at screen). Paula : Now, umm, you know what would be really, like, cool, like, maybe, like, unintelligible like (looks at partner, eyebrows raised, head cocked to the side, soft smile), (exceedingly soft, pleasant) ‘Hello. (Chortles) This is Vanessa REGULATION Linguistic: Destructive : Interruption, assigning/ ordering, topic detour Linguistic: Destructive : Topic shift, in-cohesive. Linguistic: Destructive : Topic shift. Linguistic: Productive: Managing operations. Linguistic: Productive : Refocusing Linguistic: Destructive : interruption and topic shift

PAGE 328

317 Paula apologizes to Vanessa in piece, Vanessa snaps back a bit with a comment that indirectly expresses irritation Paula starts to find a reference in the book, but Vanessa interrupts referring back to the audio suggestion, which sends Paula off-topic Paula’s quote she finds seems to be chosen based on the way it sounds, rather than for its meaning or accuracy Paula again expresses her low motivation at scholarship when she comments that the professor is not likely to note the plagiarized passage from the text Paula comments on Vanessa’s mother’s accent to her English, and Vanessa retorts that her mother has been in the US and was thoroughly schooled here since pre-adolescence Paula returns to research, and writes very little before being distracted again Paula gets back to research, reads a passage on why CI is useful to the L2 learner as they can use it to produce L2 output, and misinterprets this as “the pleasant) ‘Hello. (Chortles) This is Vanessa Carrera’ (said with precious hand and head gestures) (Looks back at book). Vanessa : (Still chewing, looks at screen, then smiles slightly and glances briefly over at Paula). Paula: (Returns glance). Yeah, it’s just an idea I had. Vanessa : You can be our, you can be our sound person. Paula : Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah I’m sorry, sorry. (Sill looking at book) Ooo! Nice! (Looks back at partner). (Reads from text) ‘In the processing unintelligible …’ Vanessa : (Interrupting, turns back to computer screen) I don’t have the video voice. Paula : (Looks up at partner) Ohh my God, you should come to my second class there’s, like this one student, he did a presentation, no joke, like, he’s got, like, this deep voice all right, but it g ets, like, deeper when he talks (chortles), (begins to smile as she tells the story) but it’s like he had some past position where, like, you know, like, it’s some kind of job where he has to do that kinda stuff, so everyone says he sounds like the guy that, like, tells you to put on your seatbelt on [an amusement park] ride, so he’d be, like, “ unintelligible …yo unintelligible mucho dinero”, and it’s like this really deep voice, it’s like he would be an excellent, like, movie man or something (looks down again to book) (chuckles with mouth full). Vanessa : James Earl Jones. Paula: Exactly, for real. Oh!! (Startles slightly) I like that! (Alternately glances over at Paula and back to screen). The theory behind this, which comes from Krashen, is umm, it really would focus on how learners actually process input into quote unquote ‘connect grammatical form (looks up at Vanessa) (takes a drink, and is focused on screen) with their meanings’ …that’s a good quote right there. Vanessa : Mark it Do you have a pen? Paula : Yeah, right here (turns and hands her a pen). She doesn’t read the whole book, she doesn’t know the whole thing, (slight laugh, and turns Linguistic: Constructive : Apology/Repair Linguistic: Destructive : interruption, topic shift Behavioral: Paula finds passage in book, but just a quote. Interrupted before she can attach meaning to it. Linguistic: Destructive : interruption, topic shift Linguistic: Constructive : Small talk Linguistic: Destructive : Interruption and topic shift Behavioral: Again, referring to text, but cannot extract correct inference. Linguistic: Destructive : Inattention to content.

PAGE 329

318purpose of CI is to output knowledge” Vanessa isn’t really listening, so she agrees Vanessa is trying to focus on the editing, and Paula’s chatter is distracting Once again, Paula makes off-color remark about baby Resolutions: Paula apologizes to Vanessa for the suggestion Paula manages to get back to the reference, and extracts a small out-of-context quote Vanessa employs audible self-talk to help her stay focused in the face of Paula’s chatter See DE 62 as Vanessa takes control and refocuses them on LS know the whole thing, (slight laugh, and turns back to screen) she doesn’t know where I got it Paula : Ummm (Baby fussing over monitor). Paula : Poor thing Is that your mom? Vanessa : Yeah. Paula : Unintelligible (chortles) I just unintelligible (glances up at partner) short, little Cuban woman, I was, like, “hellooo (spoken with non-native accent)” (Looks down at book). Vanessa : (Wrinkled brow, slightly annoyed look) Oh, she’s been here (eating). Paula : Unintelligible Vanessa : She’s been here since she was twelve. Paula : Unintelligible Vanessa : She She went through high school …college Paula : Unintelligible accent. Vanessa : Here so Paula : My mom has like, no New York accent, (looks up at Vanessa) my family (looks back at Paula) a New York accent, that’s still in New York, has a thick accent (chortles, turns back to screen) and (looks down at book) when I go to Jersey next month (looks back at Paula) I will come back talking like “oh my God, for real, like, yeah, okay” Mm (smiles) (chuckles, looks back at screen). (Writing) Theory behind… Vanessa : (Begins typing). Paula : Krashen’s, oh the reasoning behind Krashen’s theory (Shakes head) I don’t feel like going home today, I really don’t (Continues writing) Vanessa : (Continues typing). Okay. (Sighs) mmmh Paula : (Reading) Oh, this is also unintelligible (Baby coos) Linguistic: Destructive ; Topic shift Linguistic: Intended as Constructive : humor, but actually Destructive : perceived as discourteous Linguistic: Constructive : Repair Linguistic: Destructive Interruption, topic shift Linguistic : Destructive Topic shift Linguistic : Destructive : Inattention Linguistic: Destructive Interruption, topic shift Linguistic : Destructive : Inattention

PAGE 330

319 Vanessa : (Laughs, smiles, continues typing) Paula : (looks up at partner laughing) Listen to what unintelligible (Reading) (looks back at Paula) ‘Intake is language that comprehended and used by learners to develop a linguistic system that they can use to produce output (looks up at partner) in the language’…Ahhhhh (smiles, satisfied) Vanessa : (Turns back to typing, smiles) Ahhhhh. Paula : Nice (Looks down) So the purpose of comprehensible input (looks at partner) is to output knowledge Vanessa : (Distractedly) There you go. Paula : (Looks down) Unintelligible So Vanessa : (Inaudible self-talk while typing – seems to have a focusing effect over Paula’s interruptions). Paula : So it is believed (stops typing and cocks head toward Paula) I’m going to say ‘it is believed…’ Vanessa : (Trying to return focus to writing, inaudible self-talk, re-reading what she has written). (Baby coos) Vanessa : (Laughs). Paula : (Laughs). It’s just a bath, it’s okay, no. Vanessa : No, she’s, uh, (looks at Vanessa) I bathed him this morning, she’d better not be bathing him (chuckles). Though I guess she could if she wanted to. Paula : Somehow I was just thinking she was giving him a bath, maybe I just misheard is all. Vanessa : You’d hear him, you’d hear him scream a lot more (chuckles). Paula : Oh really? Vanessa : Lately. He hasn’t liked taking one. (Glances back over at Paula, takes a bite). Too bad. He gets one every day. Paula : Oh so, he might be that little kid that just doesn’t want to take a bath, you’re gonna have a lot of trouble with him let’s see when he gets olde r (looks back down). (Chortles). Linguistic: Destructive Interruption, topic shift Linguistic : Destructive : Inattention Linguistic : Private : Inaudible self talk – possibly a focusing function over Paula’s interruptions, rather than self-regulation. Linguistic: Constructive : Small talk Linguistic: Intended as Constructive : humor, but actually Destructive : perceived as discourteous

PAGE 331

320 Appendix I SYLLABUS Practicum in Foreign Language/ESOL Teaching The College of Education is dedicated to the ideas of Collaboration, Academic Excellence, and Ethics/Diversity. These are key tenets in the Conc eptual Framework of the College of Education. Competence in these ideals will provide candidates in educator programs with skills, knowledge, and dispositions to be successful in the schools of today and tomorrow. Course Description : This course is intended to prepare students for the ir internship by providing a structured preinternship experience while meeting regularly in a university class. Participation in a school envir onment is one of the richest experiences prospective teach ers can have in a methods course. Seniors will hav e the opportunity to see students and teachers in action and will be able to apply what they have learned in their foreign language/ESOL methods courses during this p re-internship experience. Course Goals and Objectives : 1. To provide structured observations of actual classr oom teaching (Foreign Language and ESOL). 2. To help students understand the implications of their actions and decisions in the foreign language and ESOL classrooms. 3. To provide additional experience in planning an d developing course work (lessons, units) for teaching foreign languages and ESOL. 4. To enable students to apply their knowledge of foreign language and ESOL teaching methodology in tutorial instruction. 5. To enable students to apply their knowledge of foreign language and ESOL teaching methodology in small group instruction. 6. To enable students to apply their knowledge of foreign language and ESOL teaching methodology in total class instruction. 7. To enable students to perform a case study on t wo individual students (one Foreign Language, and one ELL). 8. To explore current problems and issues affectin g teachers of foreign languages and ESOL. 9. To become proficient in the utilization of prof essional literature in Foreign Language and ESOL education in their teaching. 10. To discuss and develop their own unique style o f teaching. 11. To prepare the student for internship. 12. To examine and develop effective procedures for record-keeping and improving classroom management.

PAGE 332

321 Content Outline : a. The learner, the teacher, structure of the language lesson b. Observation techniques c. Reflective teaching d. Metacognition e. Exploring teachersÂ’ beliefs f. Classroom management g. Characteristics of effective foreign language and ESOL teachers h. Language Learning Strategies i. Group workcooperative learning j. Multilevel classes k. Learning stations l. Record keeping m. Grading n. Alternative assessment o. Multicultural classrooms and cross-cultural understanding p. Standards in Foreign Language Education q. ESOL Performance Standards r. Continuous Progress s. Listening training t. Learning beliefs Evaluation of Student Outcomes : 1. Class Participation All students will be expected to have read the re quired readings and to participate in class discussions. 2. School Participation Portfolio 36 hours (to include ESOL, regular education, spe cial ed., and FLES. Schools identified with help of instruct or) CORE TASK Observation Tutorial Small Group Instruction Total Group Instruction Case Study of Two Individuals Presentation and Professionalism 3. Group presentations on reflective teaching issues. Project will inclu de research, oral report and a typed report to be turned in. CORE TASK 4. Individual Presentation of a mini-lesson. CORE TASK 5. Video Project filming, editing and presenting to undergraduate p eers CORE TASK Grading Criteria : 1. Class Participation : 10 points 2. School Participation Portfolio : 40 points 3. Pair/small group presentations on assigned topic covered in class: 10 points 4. Individual Presentation of a mini-lesson: 10 points 5. Video Project filming, editing and presentation to undergraduate peers: 30 points Textbook(s) and Readings : i. Richards, J. and Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ii. Sprick, R. (1985). Discipline in the Secondary Classroom West Nyack, NY: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. iii. Reading packet.


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.