TEACHING TASK-BASED TEACHING: APPROPRIATION THROUGH IMITATION

1. TEACHING TASK-BASED TEACHING: APPROPRIATION THROUGH IMITATION Anne Feryok University of Otago anne.feryok@otago.ac.nz TBLT Conference Hawaii 2007

2. Sociocultural theory and second language teacher development • ‘The sociocultural turn’ (Johnson 2006) • Participatory appropriation (Singh & Richards 2006) • How does this occur? • Means of mediation are appropriated (object/other/self regulation of the means) • Imitation is a key means of appropriation (Vygotsky, 1986; Tomasello, 1999; Lantolf and Thorne, 2006) • Distinct from mimicry and emulation • Imitation involves recognizing not only the goal of an activity but also understanding the means employed to achieve that goal

3. Context and Programme • Context of the study • Malaysia adopts English medium for math and science instruction • Recognizes content teachers may lack language skills • Sends master teachers for programme • Design of the programme • 10 weeks in New Zealand: teaching content through English • 10 weeks in Malaysia: designing a teacher development workshop • Opportunities for participatory appropriation • 25% lectures, 75% experiential activities

4. Research Questions • Did the teachers learn to use language teaching practices, particularly tasks? • If so, did they learn to use them through imitation? • Did their tasks resemble task exemplars? • If so, how?

5. Research Design • 4 teachers, 4 curriculum areas • Notes, peer microteaching videotapes & lesson plans • Compared early and late microteaching of tasks • Part 1: language teaching practices (tasks & criteria) • Focus on meaning • Gap • Choice of language resources • Clearly defined outcome • Part 2: imitation (design features of task exemplars) • Input: medium of information presented to students (eg text cloze) • Operations: what students do with the information(eg, complete) • Conditions: how information is presented and used (eg, shared, two-way) • Participation structures: how students (& teacher) are organized (eg, pairs)

6. Reliability • Task? Inter-rater reliability • Tape 1: 100% Tape 2: 95% • Task criteria? Inter-rater reliability • Tape 1: 81% Tape 2: 80% • Imitation of design features? Intra-rater reliability • Tape 1: 100% Tape 2: 84%

7. Findings: Trying Tasks • Peer microteaching 1: 3/4 try tasks • Peer microteaching 2: 4/4 try tasks • Key belief: value of experiential ‘learning by doing’ • Teachers believed tasks were useful for learner language • ‘While doing activities the learners have to communicate using language, the more they communicate the more they improve their language’ (Biology) • ‘The students will indirectly learn language while they are doing tasks’ (Physics) • Teachers believed tasks were useful for teacher development • ‘For the teacher training module, I will have to include workshop sessions so as to give time and practice to design task-based activities.’ (Physics) • ‘Gather everything that we have learn here and put as a model for our training programme’ (Maths) • Teachers believed one of their own ‘tasks’ was to consider their context • ‘Modification can be made to suit with Malaysian curriculum’ (Chemistry)

8. One Task Exemplar • Original: Modify an individual exercise on biological classes • Input: Graphic organizer • Operations: Assemble parts into whole • Option 1 • Conditions: split information, two-way interaction • Participation: social • Option 2: • Conditions: split information, one-way interaction • Participation: social

9. Biology Teacher • Peer microteaching 1: used input type, did not use same operations, did not address conditions, participation • Peer microteaching 2: used input type, operations, conditions, participation • Chart: split information, one way interaction • Graphic organizer: split information, two way interaction

10. BIOLOGY: achieving success

11. CHEMISTRY: struggling with success

13. Discussion: Making progress • Early • accepted goal of promoting language use: try tasks • had difficulty with means of promoting language use: how tasks stimulate language use • Late • became better at means of promoting language use

14. Possible explanations • Tasks design features of inputs and some operations were familiar from content teaching • Easy to recognize, easy to emulate • Task features of conditions and participation structures were less familiar • Not so easy to recognize, not so easy to imitate • Require understanding of how design features work to stimulate interaction

15. Progress through SCT imitation? • Object regulation: emulating goals • Focus on input and operations: materials for task • Other regulation: recognizing means for interactions • Focus on conditions and participation: interactions for task • Self regulation: imitating means for achieving goals • Establishing the connection between materials + interactions • Data shows discontinuous nature of learning • Gaining, losing, regaining control over object/other/self regulation • Evidence of teachers learning within their ZPD

16. Implications: Opportunities • Opportunities for imitation (materials design, being ‘students’, microteaching) acknowledged need to develop skills, get feedback, revise • Cyclical approach with lots of support effective for developing confidence to face major change to entrenched practices • SCT imitation broadens understanding of teacher development processes

17. LIST OF (CITED) REFERENCES • Johnson, K, E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 40, 235-257. • Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: OUP. • Singh, G. and Richards, J. C. (2006.) Teaching and learning in the language teacher education course room: A critical sociocultural perspective. RELC 37/2, 149-175. • Tomasello, M (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.