Citation
Instructional coaching for joint productive activity

Material Information

Title:
Instructional coaching for joint productive activity working with world language teachers
Creator:
Hueston, Colin Edward ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (295 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Teachers -- Training of ( lcsh )
Language, Universal ( lcsh )
Language, Universal ( fast )
Teachers -- Training of ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This mixed methods multiple case study examined the ability of world language teachers to implement sociocultural teaching principles in their classrooms by employing the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity. The researcher used instructional coaching as a means for training the teachers in the application of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Using structural and descriptive coding, the analyzed data revealed that all participating world language teachers implemented varying aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard effectively. In addition, the data revealed the positive attitudes the teachers possessed regarding the standard and their clear intention to continue using and spreading the Joint Productive Activity standard in the department. The implications of this study extend to two broad areas: (a) future research on the Standards for Effective Pedagogy and (b) professional development of world language teachers. With regard to the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, the results of this study suggest that world language teachers benefit from using the Standards, and more studies should be conducted in world language contexts. Additionally, this study suggests that rather than using shorter forms of professional development that may last only one or two days, professional development that provides longer and consistent interaction with the trainer or coach, such as instructional coaching, is more beneficial for world language teachers.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Colin Edward Hueston.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10022 ( NOTIS )
1002218524 ( OCLC )
on1002218524
Classification:
LD1193.E3 2017d H94 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING FOR JOINT PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY: WORKING
WITH WORLD LANGUAGE TEACHERS by
Colin Edward Hueston
B.S., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 1999 Ed.M., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 2003
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Education mid Human Development Program
2017


2017
COLIN EDWARD HUESTON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Colin Edward Hueston has been approved for the Education mid Human Development Program by
Nancy L. Commins, Chair Luis E. Poza Alan Davis
Elizabeth Mahon


IV
Hueston, Colin Edward (Ph.D., Education and Human Development)
Instructional Coaching for Joint Productive Activity: Working with World Language Teachers
Thesis directed by Clinical Professor Nancy L. Commins
ABSTRACT
This mixed methods multiple case study examined the ability of world language teachers to implement sociocultural teaching principles in their classrooms by employing the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity. The researcher used instructional coaching as a means for training the teachers in the application of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Using structural and descriptive coding, the analyzed data revealed that all participating world language teachers implemented varying aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard effectively. In addition, the data revealed the positive attitudes the teachers possessed regarding the standard mid their clear intention to continue using and spreading the Joint Productive Activity standard in the department. The implications of this study extend to two broad areas: (a) future research on the Standards for Effective Pedagogy and (b) professional development of world language teachers. With regard to the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, the results of this study suggest that world language teachers benefit from using the Standards, and more studies should be conducted in world language contexts. Additionally, this study suggests that rather than using shorter forms of professional development that may last only one or two days, professional development that provides longer and consistent interaction with the trainer or coach, such as instructional coaching, is more beneficial for world language teachers.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.


Approved: Nancy L. Commins


VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
First of all, thank you Jesus for getting me through this and connecting me with people who supported me mid guided me through the entire process. Much love to my wife, who took care of our household and family while I pushed through to finish school. Without your support, I could not have gone to do doctoral studies, let alone completed this dissertation. My committee was truly awesome. Thank you for your advice mid guidance. Thank you for constantly adjusting to my time schedule. In particular, a big shout-out to the worlds best dissertation chair, Nancy. I truly learned what mi advisor and dissertation chair are supposed to be like. This experience with you has inspired me to want to provide the same level of attentiveness mid guidance for doctoral students I may work with in the future. Special thanks goes to Professor Zion for advising me towards the PhD program, without which, I would have missed my professional calling. I also must recognize Kara for introducing me to The Standards for Effective Pedagogy. You provided me with a research topic that will guide my future endeavors. Additionally, you connected me directly to Professor Teemant, who deepened my understanding of these standards. I am also thankful for Boni, who always took time to check on and encourage me. Without her help and guidance, I would not have finished the methodology section, and that is not mi exaggeration. Naturally, I must express my gratitude to the teachers I worked with. They gave freely of there time and were full participants with me during this undertaking. Finally, thank you to the staff at AWMI who allowed me to alter my work schedule in any form necessary so I could take classes and do research over these past years.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................1
Personal History..............................................................1
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy..........................................3
Statement of Problem..........................................................9
Purpose of the Study..........................................................9
Research Questions...........................................................11
Researcher Role..............................................................11
Theoretical Framework........................................................12
Introduction to the Sociocultural Position..............................14
Concepts of Assistance..................................................16
Imitation mid Collaboration.............................................19
Mediation mid Tools.....................................................20
The Role of Concepts....................................................22
The Foundational Strength of the Standards..............................24
Precedence and Format for a SCT Approach to Teaching....................28
Teaching and ZPD........................................................29
II. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................35
Introduction.................................................................35
Defining Dialogue............................................................36
Current Dialogic Teaching...............................................36
Collaboration in Dialogic Teaching
37


viii
Approaches to Dialogue.......................................................39
Dialogic Classrooms Models...................................................42
Dialogically organized instruction.....................................42
Exploratory talk.......................................................44
Accountable talk.......................................................45
Dialogic teaching......................................................46
Dialogue in Group or Whole-class Instruction.................................46
Distinct Benefits of Dialogic Teaching.......................................49
Caution with Dialogic Teaching...............................................51
Professional Development and Coaching.............................................52
Coaching.....................................................................55
Peer coaching..........................................................55
Cognitive coaching.....................................................55
Literacy coaching......................................................56
Instructional coaching.................................................57
Teaching Approaches and Theories for Language Instruction.........................62
Behaviorism............................................................65
Grammar-translation method.............................................65
Audio-lingual method...................................................66
Direct method..........................................................67
Nativist approach mid universal grammar................................68
The natural approach...................................................69
Total physical response................................................70


IX
Communicative approach...............................................71
Communicative, content-based, mid tasked-based.......................71
Form-focused instruction.............................................75
Noticing hypothesis..................................................76
Comprehensible output hypothesis.....................................77
Social approaches in second language acquisition.....................78
Complexity theory....................................................79
Language socialization...............................................80
Sociocognitive approach..............................................81
Sociocultural theory second language.................................82
Using Groups in World Language Instruction................................88
III. STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY AND THE SPC..................................96
What is Pedagogy...............................................................96
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy: Application.........................97
Joint productive activity............................................99
Language and literacy development....................................99
Contextualization....................................................99
Challenging activities..............................................100
Instructional conversation..........................................100
Results from Studies Regarding the Implementing of the Standards............. 109
Measuring Joint Productive Activity.......................................... 112
Standards Performance Continuum......................................... 112
Additional Measures..................................................... 115


X
Additional Examples of JPA and Measurements in Classrooms............... 118
IV. METHODOLOGY................................................................. 122
Introduction................................................................ 122
Goal of the Study....................................................... 123
Research Objectives..................................................... 124
Research/Mixing Rationale and Purpose................................... 124
Mixed Methods Sampling.................................................. 125
Site selection mid participants....................................127
Mixed Methods Research Design........................................... 129
Mixed methods design...............................................129
Case study design..................................................130
Additional design features.........................................132
Five Standards Instructional Model.................................135
Mixed Methods Data Collection........................................... 137
Data sources.......................................................138
Coaching cycles....................................................141
Semi-structured interview and member check.........................142
Reliability, Validity, and Strengths of the SPC......................... 143
Mixed Methods Data Analysis............................................. 145
Triangulation......................................................146
Mixed Methods Data Legitimation......................................... 148
V. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS.................................................... 151
Introduction
151


XI
Sophia....................................................................... 156
Notable findings........................................................166
Isabel....................................................................... 169
Notable findings........................................................179
Frida........................................................................ 184
Notable findings........................................................198
Samantha......................................................................201
Notable findings........................................................218
Summary of Case Study Findings................................................221
Findings for five standards instructional model.........................236
VI. INTERPRETATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS....................................238
Introduction.......................................................................238
Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Future Research..............239
These world language teachers were able to implement JPA...............239
World language teachers have only positive views of the JPA standard...241
Participants collaborating with each other is important.................242
Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA.....243
The root cause for teachers not implementing aspects of JPA.............244
Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Professional Development....249
These world language teachers possess positive views of the JPA standard. 249
Participants collaborating with each other is important.................250
Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA......250
Additional Interpretations and Implications...................................252


xii
SCT-Second Language...............................................252
World languages...................................................253
Mixed Methods Data Interpretation.........................................254
Limitations...............................................................255
Conclusions...............................................................256
REFERENCES......................................................................257
APPENDIX........................................................................271
A. Observation Sheet........................................................271
B. Semi-Structured Interview Protocol.......................................274
C. Consent Form.............................................................276
D. Rubric for Developing Inter-rater Reliability............................278


LIST OF TABLES
xiii
TABLE
1. Demographic Information of Participants........................................ 128
2. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Sophia based on the SPC rubric............ 156
3. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, mid Mode Information (Sophia).......... 157
4. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Isabel based on the SPC rubric............ 169
5. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, mid Mode Information (Isabel).......... 170
6. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Frida based on the SPC rubric............. 184
7. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, mid Mode Information (Frida)........... 185
8. Instances of Reflecting on How to Improve JPA for the Future...................200
9. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Samantha based on the SPC rubric..........201
10. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Samantha)........202
11. Summary of Ratings on SPC Rubric for All Cases.................................221
12. Summary of Briefing, Debriefing, mid Mode Information (All Cases)..............222
13. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Implemented (All Cases)............223
14. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Not Implemented (All Cases)........224
15. Positive and Important Views of JPA (All Cases)................................226
16. Teacher Views of JPA in Relation to World Languages............................228
17. Summary of Notable Findings....................................................229


XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework........................................14
2. Cycle of Social Sorting (Tharp, 2011, p. 12).....................................27
3. Parallel Progression of SCT Principles in the Framework..........................33
4. Four Requirements for Effective Collaboration (Wells, 1999)......................39
5. Approaches to Dialogue (Lefstein and Snell, 2014)................................40
6. Dialogic Classroom Models........................................................43
7. Problems mid Defining Characteristies of Professional Development (Guskey, 2000).54
8. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework with Instructional Coaching............60
9. Coaching Cycle...................................................................61
10. Various Approaches, Methods, and Theories for Language Teaching.................64
11. Purposes for Activities mid Roles of the Teacher in Communicative Language Teaching
(Littlewood, 1981)..............................................................74
12. Rules Governing Mediation mid Planes along which Effective Mediation Operate in
Dynamic Assessment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014)..................................85
13. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Teemant etal., 2011, p. 684)..............98
14. Traditional Instructional Frame................................................102
15. Monotasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes.103
16. Multitasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes.104
17. Overview of JPA Pedagogical Structures.........................................107
18. Standards Performance Continuum: A Classroom Observation Rubric (Teemant et al.,
2009, p. 686)..................................................................114


XV
19. Mixed Methods Sampling Model Providing a Typology of a Mixed Methods Sampling
Design. (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007, p. 294).................................125
20. A Typology of Mixed Research (Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2009, p. 5).130
21. Holistic Multiple-Case Case Study Design Reflecting Four Individual Teacher Cases
(adapted from Yin, 2009)......................................................132
22. Coaching Cycle for Current Study..............................................133
23. Summary of the Phases for the Five Standards Instructional Model..............136
24. Summary of Data Sources, Documenting Methods, mid Analytical Methods in order of
Occurrence...................................................................139
25. Data Triangulation...........................................................147
26. Various Pedagogical Practices Employed to Support JPA Implementation.........153
27. Student-Thought Meanings mid Purposes for Collaboration (First Draft)........159
28. Collaboratively Made Agreements for Group Work (First Draft).................160
29. Cycle 1 Observation Activity Defining Roles..................................161
30. JPA Aspects Sophia Viewed as Positive or Important...........................164
31. Notable Findings in the Case of Sophia.......................................167
32. Understanding Collaboration Slide............................................173
33. Rules and Agreements for Group Work, Isabels Class (First Draft)............174
34. Addition to Rules mid Agreements by Two Students.............................174
35. Cycle 4 Observation Updated Slide of Agreements..............................175
36. JPA Aspects Isabel Viewed as Positive or Important...........................178
37. Notable Findings in the Case of Isabel.......................................180
38. Rules and Agreements for Group Work, Fridas Class (First Draft).............188


XVI
39. Wall Poster of Agreements and Rules for Groups................................189
40. JPA Aspects Frida Viewed as Positive or Important.............................192
41. Handout Used for Cycle 2 Observation (Station Activities).....................195
42. Notable Findings in the Case of Frida.........................................199
43. Cycle 2 Observation Student Joint Product.....................................204
44. Pre-Cycle Student Joint Product...............................................205
45. Post-Cycle Assessment Including Agreements....................................207
46. JPA Aspects Samantha Viewed as Positive or Important..........................210
47. Notable Findings in the Case of Samantha......................................219


1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Personal History
In 1999, my first job after graduating from college with a double major in business and Japanese was that of an Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Japan. Most of us who participated in the program had no experience in teaching, but we were to serve as a cultural resource on issues relating to our country as well as be an exemplar of English pronunciation. I was placed at the second largest junior high school in Chiba prefecture, with approximately 1000 students. I served as the ALT for 18 English as a Foreign Language classes. Every class was teacher-fronted and had a large focus on grammar and normally used some form of group practice or activity. Apart from a few games (e.g., relay games between groups of students to practice vocabulary) or activities that resembled Total Physical Response (Asher, 2000), most oral practice did not require the students to work together in order to accomplish a task. The students did not often use the target language for unrehearsed discussion about a topic. When the target language was used outside of the aforementioned game situations, it was normally for the purposes of practicing a specific pattern. These patterns were frequently used in role play activities, but the students often dealt with topics geared towards what if scenarios, for example, how to interact with people in an airport or supermarket in an English-speaking country. Additionally, there was a substantial amount of recitation after the teacher, or myself. The students practiced writing based on grammatically oriented exercises from the textbook. These classes were very similar to the language classes I had taken in high school mid college in the United States. Thus, from my point of view, this manner of


2
language teaching was very familiar, mid I assumed it to be the normal way of language teaching.
I returned to the United States after a year and began graduate studies in a language education Masters program. During this time, I became aware of a different type of language education, different from what I had experienced in Japan and in my own schooling, and one that gave more attention to communication in language classes. I learned different theories of language teaching, but I cannot recall receiving any instruction about how to manage a class in such a way so as to maximize the potential learning for the students. For that matter, I do not recall any instruction that discussed the design of the classroom in any regard. In short, classroom pedagogy was not a topic covered during my Masters program. Three years later, I returned to Japan for the second time mid worked as the English Foreign Language teacher in the second largest elementary school in the same prefecture, located in the same city where I had served as mi ALT; in addition to that role, I also worked as an ALT at a junior high school once a week. There had been no apparent change during my three-year absence. The general consensus among non-Japanese English teachers was that there was not enough use of the target language in the classrooms; notwithstanding, the only solution they presented for this problem was that the Japanese teachers of English should speak more English and allow the students to do likewise. The Japanese teachers of English also tended to feel that the students would need more practice speaking in English if they were to be able to use the language practically. However, they did not know of nor have an effective way to implement higher levels of communication in the classroom and still meet mandated teaching requirements. Eight years later, as a doctoral student in the United States, I asked my own children about their language classes in high


3
school. Based upon their responses, the current high school world language classes seem to integrate more genuine artifacts, such as newspapers mid other objects around which discussion could be cultivated in the language of study. There seems to be more attention given to the arts that exist in countries where the target language is spoken (e.g., poetry, music, and locally made bowls or clothing). There also seems to be instances when the students discuss real events occurring in the environment around them, such as racism. Nevertheless, the classes still appear to be quite traditionally oriented in that they are mostly teacher-fronted mid the students separate into groups at various times to do activities. In brief conversation with the language teachers during parent-teacher conferences, they mentioned that they would like to do more communicative activities (activities that allowed the students to use the target language in more natural situations); however, they could not find the time to do so due to teaching requirements or logistics. These issues were similar to the ones that I had observed in Japan. These issues were similar to the ones that I had experienced when teaching in adult ESL classes in the United States. These experiences drove me towards a particular question, namely, what was the most effective way to create an environment in which students in a language classroom could not only increase their knowledge of the language content but also increase their time using the language of study and still allow for teachers to present required material. It was not until the 2013 fall term mid 2014 fall term of my doctoral studies that I discovered potential answers to this question.
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000), from herein also referred to as the Standards, are a set of five pedagogical standards that can be used to increase the effectiveness of teaching when implemented in a systematic way.


4
The Standards address teaching practices. That is, they reveal the contrast that exist between traditional methods of teaching, where the teacher essentially maintains all decision-making power for class activities, student participation structure, and topics that will be allowed for study or discussion, and a transformed method of teaching, where the teacher not only genuinely includes the ideas and views of the students but also engages in actual dialogue with the students as a means of instruction (Tharp et al., 2000). The benefits of having a genuine dialogic experience in the classroom are explained in more detail in Chapter II; nevertheless, there are two import ant benefits of having a classroom where students may engage in dialogue. The first benefit is that the teachers gain greater access to the everyday knowledge of the students which allows them to take measures to utilize that knowledge to ensure that students understand the lesson, particularly since what may be effective for one student may not be as effective for another (Boyd & Markarian, 2015). A second benefit is that allowing for a dialogic atmosphere in a classroom has been seen to promote the social and cognitive development of the students as well as their communicative competence (Lyle, 2008)
The Standards are grounded in sociocultural principles (Vygotsky, 1978), and the principles that undergird the Standards have been in use in school settings for over 40 years (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The research began with the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program in Hawaii in 1970 (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003). There has been extensive research on the Standards and the effect they have on teachers and students (for more on research studies involving the Standards see Chapter III and Chapter IV). A distinguishing characteristic of the Standards is that they may be used for any grade level, curriculum, or subject area (Teemant, 2014; Tharp et al., 2000). Consequently, research


5
implementing the Standards has been conducted in various settings, including a preschool (Yamauchi, Im, & Schonleber, 2012), a junior high school mathematics class (Hilberg,
Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000), an elementary school where the majority of students had limited English proficiency (Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, & Tharp, 2002), and a high school social studies class (Hilberg, Chang, & Epaloose, 2003). The literature on the Standards presents their use in research studies, elucidates how they are to be applied in the school environment, and establishes a firm theoretical grounding; there is a large amount of evidence in existence to substantiate their value mid contribution to educational contexts. The versatility of being applicable in various content areas is a strength of the Standards. Nevertheless, that versatility has not been fully exploited. In the area of world languages or foreign languages, there are virtually no studies or examples of their use. There are a number of studies in existence that have used the Standards with students who are learning English as another language, but the classes in those studies also included students whose first language was English. Additionally, other literature on the Standards that relate to language learning focuses on implementation practices as opposed to research studies. This literature primarily provides examples of how teachers used the Standards, or it discusses the principle aspects of the Standards. Nevertheless, this literature also only presents students who are learning English as another language in conjunction with students whose first language is English.
The only literature I was able to find that used some aspect of the Standards in a true foreign language class was in a study on the use of Dynamic Assessment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) and principles of Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard from the Standards for Effective Pedagogy) in a Spanish foreign language classroom (Davin, 2013).
Notwithstanding, the goal in this study was not to determine how the teacher could fully


6
enact the fifth standard, let alone the preceding four standards. Thus, when addressing the purported universal application of the Standards for all subjects with respect to world languages, the Standards have been understudied.
As already mentioned, the Standards for Effective Pedagogy are grounded in Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural principles. Pertinent to sociocultural theory is the role of language in social communication (Vygotsky, 1981) and the importance of collaboration between novice and expert (Vygotsky, 1978). Considering the emphasis on enabling world language students to genuinely communicate in the language of study (Canale & Swain,
1980; Hymes, 1972; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013), the natural importance of language in a world language class, mid the expert-novice relationship that exists in the classroom between the teacher mid students, the Standards are in a position to positively contribute to the field of world languages.
The key component to the Standards is the successful implementation of the first standard, Joint Productive Activity (JPA). The importance of the JPA standard derives from it serving as the foundation upon which the other standards may function effectively (Dalton, 2008). An important attribute of JPA is that there is consistent use of small groups in the classroom. Eventually, the small groups transition from working simultaneously on the same activities to working simultaneously on different activities. When JPA is functioning effectively in the classroom, all groups will be able to conduct their given activities in the absence of the teacher. The ability for students to work without the direct oversight of the teacher allows the teacher to consistently work with one group for a designated amount of time (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Since the teacher becomes an active member of the


7
group and not merely an overseer or helper, the benefits of the expert-novice relationship become readily accessible to the students.
Despite the creators expressing that the Standards can be used for any subject area, the documented success in various subject areas, and the seemingly natural relationship to world languages due to the importance of language in sociocultural principles, it is not exactly clear why there have been so few studies with world languages and the Standards. A possible explanation may be found in the Teemant (2014) study. While the teachers in this study ultimately did enact high levels of JPA and other standards, she explains that they felt the school district mandated pacing made it difficult to fully implement the Standards to the degree they intended. That is to say, the teachers felt pressure to ensure they kept pace with the mandates of the school district, and that affected how they implemented the Standards. While her study was not in a world language context, it is likely that world language teachers also have guidelines stipulating areas of the language that must be taught within a specific time frame. It is also reasonable that world language teachers might find it difficult to implement the Standards with students in a foreign language situation, where most contact with the target language only occurs in the classroom. This may present more problems with lower level world language students than with higher level students.
Additionally, the foreign language scenario is different from the studies on the Standards that involved students with limited English proficiency, particularly because those students lived in the USA and readily had access (or contact) with first language English speakers, literature in English, mid media that was in English. Another potential and likely explanation for why the Standards have not been used in world language classes stems from the original purpose for which they were created. The research that began with the


8
Kamehameha Elementary Education Program was focused on educationally at-risk ethnic-minority children (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 115). Since that time, the Standards have often been used to focus on similarly situated at-risk students (Hilberg et al., 2000; Wyatt, Yamauchi, & Chapman-De Sous a, 2012; Yamauchi et ah, 2012). The formulation of the concepts into standards was carried out by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE), and as the name implies, the focus on diversity often resulted in the aforementioned studies including at-risk or potentially at-risk students. It is feasible that in focusing on at-risk students, the traditional core-subjects (e.g., mathematics, language arts, and science) received priority over foreign language classes.


9
Statement of Problem
Considering the research already in existence that reveals the benefits that accompany implementation of the Standards and their naturally existing relationship to language, the Standards have the potential to positively affect world language teaching. Thus, the problem is despite the potential benefits of using the Standards in world language classrooms, they have not been implemented. A pertinent issue related to solving the problem is understanding how can world language teachers (a) learn about the Standards and (b) become able to apply the Standards in their classrooms. The Standards require a specific foundation in classroom organization before they can be applied correctly and completely.
Consequently, teachers wishing to apply the Standards in the classroom would require not only initial training in the Standards, but the teachers would also need someone to consistently observe their actions while providing guidance and feedback (Teemant, 2014; Teemant, Wink, & Tyra, 2011). This should be achieved in a manner that takes into account the pressure teachers may have to teach content which has been mandated by the school or district. The potential solution for how to introduce the Standards to teachers is to use instructional coaching as a means for teaching the Standards. Instructional coaching is a type of professional development that allows for consistent contact with the teacher over prolonged periods of time, and the content of the coaching lessons is developed mutually with the teachers (Cornett mid Knight, 2009; Knight, 2009a), thereby ensuring the incorporation of each teachers specific circumstances.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate to what degree secondary world language teachers were able to implement aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard


10
after receiving coaching on its principles mid implementation. Successful implementation of the JP A standard will potentially contribute to the knowledge base surrounding the use of the Standards for training purposes, as well as to Sociocultural Theory Second Language research (SCT- Second Language research). Additionally, successful implementation can potentially aid communicative practices conducted in the classroom between teacher mid students. The benefit of communicative practices is that when they occur consistently (in this study, through the attributes of JPA), teachers mid students find that a communicative approach has more positive elements than the traditional Grammar-Translation and Audiolingual methods that have often been used for language learning; for example, instructors find that teaching becomes more effective and students find the class to be more enjoyable (Overland, Fields, & Noonan, 2011).
Based on my experience, as well as literature on world language and non-world language classes, the assumption was that most world language classrooms employ whole-class, teacher-fronted activities (Dalton, 2008; Dalton & Tharp, 2002; Davin, 2013; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Furthermore, based upon the same assumptions and literature, the forming of groups is used for certain activities that take place during the class. This is in contrast to employing groups to serve as the normal day-to-day organization of the class. With regard to communicative practices, world language teachers have also expressed concern in being able to implement them efficiently during the class period (Ekembe, 2014). Finally, based on my professional experiences with world language teachers, it was my assumption that they would like to spend more individualized time with students but did not see a viable, time efficient way to do so. These assumptions guided the reasoning for why the framework used in this study was chosen.


11
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers were able to implement the Joint Productive Activity standard after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts mid implementation procedures. The context in which this phenomenon occurs is seen in the contrast of traditional teaching practices and transformative teaching practices. As an observer in the classroom, mid considering the aforementioned purpose, the following research questions guide the design of the study:
1. Before the instructional coaching with secondary world language teachers in Joint Productive Activity (JPA), using the Standards Performance Continuum Classroom Observation Rubric and other established measures for the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, what aspects of JPA already exist in the classroom environment?
2. After instructional coaching in JPA, what aspects of JPA do secondary world language teachers implement in their instruction: Why and to what degree do they do so?
3. How do study participants view JPA mid the coaching process, including its applicability to world language classes?
Researcher Role
It is important to recognize my role as a researcher who has been teaching English as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language for over 15 years. That experience adds positively to the knowledge gained during my doctoral program. However, as a researcher, I must acknowledge that my experiences from language teaching, inside and outside of the US, influence the manner in which I understand the teaching of language. Additionally, as I affiliate myself with the principles of sociocultural theory, that position


12
influences my approach not only to language education, but education as a whole. My experiences in schools, ranging from elementary to university level, have allowed me to witness firsthand that many subjects tend to be taught in a whole-class manner with occasional time taken for group activities. It is from that frame of reference that I approach this current study, and it is understood that this viewpoint could be a source of potential bias in judgment. Therefore, from the stmt, I have presented my theoretical orientation as well as assumptions. Nevertheless, the fact that I am a fluent user of another foreign language, have over 15 years of teaching experience, and have studied language education and sociocultural principles in depth also served as an asset in the assessment mid assisting of the teachers I worked with. It is those very experiences mid ways of thinking which have served as a catalyst to promote this research that can aid the classroom practice of language teachers.
Theoretical Framework
Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural theory (SCT) is the theoretical framework that guides this study. Mercer (2007) explains that a sociocultural perspective in education looks at educational success being explained more by the quality of dialogue occurring during interaction rather than a mere focus on the capabilities of individual students or teaching abilities of instructors. Additionally, Gauvain (2005) presents the main assumptions held when applying a sociocultural approach. The first assumption is that learning mid cognitive development depend substantially on the learners participation in activities. Further, the nature of these activities is influenced by the cultural environment. Finally, the more experienced members of this cultural environment have a critical role in determining when and how the learners participation in the previously mentioned activities will occur.
Another explanation of the SCT perspective is that learning happens most effectively in joint


13
activity, when there is an expert (or a more knowledgeable other) working together with a novice for a common goal and there are opportunities to converse while doing so (Tharp et ah, 2000). Due to the focus that SCT places on dialogue, participation, mid role of the more experienced other, it provides an effective approach to understanding mid influencing actions and activities that occur in the language classroom.
Nevertheless, with regard to second language (L2) learning, Lantolf mid Poehner (2014) note that SCT should not simply be a lens for looking at Second Language learning and teaching; instead, SCT-Second Language should look at how to put into practice concepts of the theory to promote L2 development through appropriately organized instructional practice (p. 7). Therefore, with organized instructional practice in mind, the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, which are grounded in SCT, served as the pedagogical approach for the implementation of SCT principles in this study. These standards are pedagogical standards for teachers, as opposed to standards detailing what students must attain, mid they can be used to increase the effectiveness of teaching when implemented in a systematic way (Dalton, 2008). They were developed by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) which was originally located at the University of California Berkeley but has since moved to the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The framework of this study may be viewed in two parts. The first part is the overarching framework of SCT, which guides the thinking and reasoning for actions and planning carried out in the study. The second part is the pedagogical framework of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, which presents the methods for implementing SCT principles in a
classroom.


14
Figure 1. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework
SCT perspectives provide guidance and reasoning for the current approach
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are the means for introducing SCT perspectives
Result: SCT perspectives occur in the classroom
The relationship between SCT and the Standards is explained through Delta Theory, and more directly, the Cycle of Social Sorting (Tharp, 2011), which allows for JPA to function in a classroom. This study is not directly focused on SCT itself, but rather, SCT provides an important basis for understanding the foundational concepts of the Standards. Therefore, this section is presented in the form of a descriptive review, as opposed to a synthesis of SCT studies.
Introduction to the Sociocultural Position
Learning has long been perceived as teachers teaching material and students memorizing the material. This results in students being viewed as containers needing to be filled with the information disseminated by the teacher (Kozulin, 2003; Wells, 1999). This exemplifies the traditional style of teaching, where the teacher teaches and the students receive information. Since information is deposited, assessment is usually conducted by verifying that students can reproduce the information they were given, essentially responding


15
to questions for which they already know the answers (Ellis, 2008; Lee, 2014). In the field of critical pedagogy, this view of students as merely containers for information is well documented, particularly when reviewing Paulo Freires banking model of education or Henry Girouxs explanation of schooling (Freire, 1993; Giroux, 2001). The SCT position moves the focus of learning from the individual to the social mid cultural environment in which the individual lives. This is because from the SCT perspective, the individual cannot be understood in isolation but only as a part of the historical context he/she lives in, which is created from the culture mid society (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978); in this regard, the SCT approach conflicts with the view that categorizes students as containers needing to be filled because such a view does not esteem the social context in which the students live, nor does it value the role students have in the learning process. In contrast, in the SCT approach, it is through the use of psychological tools/artifacts (e.g., signs and texts) that mediation occurs between the individual and the environment (Kozulin, 2003), thereby emphasizing the importance of the individuals interaction as opposed to the individuals passiveness. These psychological artifacts may go on to be internalized. That is, when an artifact takes on a psychological status in mi individuals mind, it has been internalized (Swain et ah, 2011).
An important aspect of internalization is that it is not the transfer of external activities to an internal preexisting area of the consciousness. Rather, internalization is formed and developed inside of the consciousness (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). When something has been internalized, the individual has conscious control (they can regulate the activity) over the activity in his/ her environment (Lantolf & Thome, 2006). This occurs as there is movement from the interpersonal/intermental to the intrap ersonal/intramental. The


16
interpersonal processes are social and the intrapersonal processes occur within the individual (Vygotsky, 1978). With regards to second language learning, a person learning the new language is normally regulated by the teacher or by books on the language (the social). However, when the student reaches a high or an extremely high level of fluency, rules mid functions of the language have been internalized, and the student can think about or voice concepts in the language at will because the rules for language production now occur or originate from within the student.
Concepts of Assistance
As previously mentioned, the direction for this study developed from sociocultural theory, which is attributed to the early twentieth century Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. SCT is not a social or sociolinguistic theory but is a theory that attempts to explain cognitive development in humans by looking at how the mind interacts with socially constructed artifacts and how mental functions are regulated (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman (2011) explain SCT as a theory of the mind mid the connections between internal and external processes. While there are several areas that Vygotsky explored, which are encapsulated in what is called SCT, the primary concept that relates to the current study revolves around his explanations of assistance.
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) was conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) as he investigated the relationship between learning and development. He noted three theoretical positions that attempted to explain this relationship. The first position was that learning was completely separate from the development of the child. Vygotsky (1978) placed Piagets theories of development being a precondition to learning into this first position. Regarding learning, Piaget and Inhelder (1969) proposed that learning occurs as a


17
direct result of a childs interaction with the environment, mid human mediators are not of primary importance. Vygotsky explains that the first position purports that development will always need to proceed learning; consequently, instruction cannot be successful until the learner has developed the proper mental abilities to handle the material to be taught. The second position is that learning is development. This position proposes that learning cannot be separated from the developmental processes. Therefore, learning and development are bound at all points, all the time. The third position, Vygotsky (1978) explains, was a tactic to explain the first two positions by combining them together into one. Nevertheless, Vygotsky rejected all three of these positions. He believed that learning needed to be related to the development of the child in some manner, but he rejected the generalized belief that a child had to first develop mentally before learning could occur. He proposed that there existed an actual developmental level, which was the level of mental functions that existed at the end of a developmental cycle (Vygotsky, 1978). The actual developmental level is what most testing accounts for, mid these tests assess from the perspective of what children can do on their own (Vygotsky, 1978). However, Vygotsky noticed that even though there were certain tasks that children were unable to do on their own, if they received a degree of assistance, the children could go on to complete the tasks. To explain this concept, I will mirror an example Vygotsky (1978) presented. To illustrate, assume there are two children that are the same age; for the purposes of this example, I will say the children are 12-years-old. However, standardized testing has revealed they both perform at the mental level of a 10-year-old child. Essentially, the results of the testing indicate that the two 12-year-old children can do tasks independently on a scale that has been standardized to show what a 10-year-old child should be able to achieve. However, Vygotsky adds to the scenario by questioning what would


18
happen if assistance were provided, and one child then performed tasks that standardization revealed were on a higher level (e.g., the level of a 13-year-old), and the other child also performed at a higher level (e.g., the level of an 11-year-old). In such a case, he questions the accuracy in saying that the two children were at the same developmental state, that of a 10-year-old, because their potential developmental level (Vygotsky, 1978) was apparently higher. The difference between that actual developmental level, where the children scored at the 10-year-old stage, and the potential developmental level revealed through assistance, the 13 mid 11-year-old stages, is called the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) explains ZPD as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving mid the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 1578). Vygotskys position towards learning mid development is that learning precedes development. As such, an important aspect of learning is that it is integral in forming the ZPD:
.. .learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalized, they become part of the childs independent developmental achievement. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 1653)
This quote provides explanation for why the current study seeks to provide space for increased student-student and teacher-student interaction in world language classes, as opposed to traditional methods of teaching. Vygotsky believed that instruction needed to be more closely related to potential development rather than to actual development;


19
notwithstanding, he also believed that potential development was just as important as actual development (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1998).
Imitation and Collaboration
Vygotsky asserted that in light of the implications related to potential development with regard to ZPD, it would be necessary to look more deeply at the role of imitation, particularly, since the accomplishments of children in independent activity was seen as a dominant marker of mental development and not childrens imitative activity. He pointed out that the reasoning for this reevaluation was that a child could not imitate something that was truly beyond his/ her developmental level. Therefore, if a child is asked to imitate something that far exceeds concepts they have constructed in their mind, it will not matter how many times they witness it done, they will not be able to imitate it. This perspective recognizes that activities and actions that can be imitated are capable of being learned and should be addressed, while most of the current assessment models measure independent functioning mid overlook the potential developmental capabilities of learners.
Moreover, imitation should not be viewed through a lens of behaviorism (discussed in Chapter II), as SCT imitation is not just the mere reproduction of something seen. Imitation occurs because there is an understanding at the structural level of the task or problem (Chaiklin, 2003). Imitation in the SCT sense is forward facing, not looking to identically recreate something that is already in existence. The SCT type of imitation is developmental because it creates new concepts and understandings out of something that was already in existence or by saying the same thing as someone else, albeit the nuance of meaning may have purposefully been changed by the speaker (Lantolf, 2003). In fact, a reason for the misunderstanding of imitation is due to people not recognizing that SCT imitation is


20
transformative mid applied intentionally with a goal in mind. SCT imitation includes reflection on the results of the imitation and consequently applies adjustments to future imitative endeavors (Swain et al. ,2011). Therefore, it is not merely mimicry, which may lack intentionality and just seeks to replicate. Lantolf (2003) presents two types of imitation discussed by James Mark Baldwin: imitative and persistent. In short, the imitative form seeks to move closer to the original model. It may result in replication of the particular model, but the person imitating will not move beyond the original nor is the goal to do so. In contrast, in persistent imitation, there is a reconstruction of the model. It anticipates the future mid allows the person to adapt material to use for future encounters of similar situations. The importance of imitation in the current study is that the teacher (the expert), through the consistent employment of groups, will be in a position to create opportunities for the students to learn through imitation.
Mediation and Tools
A fundamental aspect of SCT is understanding the distinction between direct and mediated learning. Direct learning occurs when the child (or learner, regardless of age) is in direct contact with the environment. Learning happens, for example, by direct observation or possibly by trial and error (Kozulin, 2001). Mediated learning (Kozulin, 2001) occurs when an adult, in the role of mi expert or more knowledgeable other, attempts to assist mid increase a childs performance (Kozulin, 2003). This human mediation between the child and the environment is reflective of Gauvains (2005) third assumption of a SCT approach, where the more knowledgeable other has a defining influence on the circumstances surrounding the interaction. Mediation may also occur through the use of tools. Thus, the teacher can employ a tool to aid in increasing the childs performance. These tools may be either


21
material or symbolic (Kozulin, 2003). Swain et al. (2011) present a useful example of a material tool in the context of an unmediated (what Kozulin refers to as direct) mid mediated action. They present the example of a bee landing on a persons arm and the person using her hand to swat it; such an action would be unmediated because the hand is potentially able to come into direct, unmediated contact with the bee. However, if she were to use a book to swat the bee, the material book then serves as a tool between the person and the environment. As a final scenario, if the bee draws near, mid she remembers reading a book about how bees are attracted to fruit and thus moves the fruit which was attracting the bee away from her, she has utilized the symbolic tool of language attained from the book. In SCT, language is the strongest mediating tool (Kozulin, 2001). Vygotsky (1978) differentiates between tools and signs by explaining that the tool is used to mediate actions that are externally oriented and the sign is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented (p. 1046). Swain et al. (2011) provide an explanation for these two positions as well. They present the situation of a grammar book being placed under the leg of a table to level it or stabilize it. This would be an example of the book as a tool; it is externally oriented. However, when mi individual studies the grammar book, the language in the book (e.g., grammar examples mid rules) serves as a sign. They continue by explaining that the extent to which the person studying the grammar book is able to internalize the content within it, the more regulation he or she will have over the language to which it relates; consequently, the language itself becomes available to be used in the environment for other types of mediation. Thus, in the same way that the book mediated the individuals interaction with the bee or table, language serves as the mediator between the individuals mental thoughts and the socially constructed environment. Language is important as a


22
mediating tool because it is the socially constructed tool by which other functions develop, and it is actually one of the mental functions that develop (Swain et al., 2011). These examples reveal the importance of language as a tool, and thereby provide support for the use of a SCT framework in a study involving world languages.
The Role of Concepts
The learning of content is associated with two types of processes, the formation of spontaneous concepts and the learning of scientific concepts (Kozulin, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky believed that before entering formal schooling, children had already developed understandings mid explanations for how things functioned in their environment, and these conceptualizations were called spontaneous (everyday) concepts (Swain et. al, 2011). These concepts, however, do not contribute much to the cognitive development of children because spontaneous concepts are grounded in mechanisms that already exist in the mind of the child; nevertheless, they do add to the continued empirical experiences of children (Kozulin, 2003). Spontaneous concepts develop from generalizations of childrens daily personal experience and take place separate from formal instruction; however, they are important in that they are the basis upon which scientific concepts may be formed (Karpov, 2003; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Scientific concepts must be taught through some systematic method, are learned consciously, and represent the general experiences of humans as situated in science (Karpov, 2003; Swain et. al, 2011). An important aspect of scientific concepts is that when they are formed, they mediate the thinking of learners and how they address problems they encounter. Consequently, this is why Vygotsky believed that scientific concepts were of such importance to the mental development of children (Karpov,


23
2003), because they would become the basis for guiding how children would interact with their environment moving forward in life.
SCT argues for an educational environment that increases the potential for learners to receive consistent systematic assistance from teachers as they learn scientific concepts (in the current study, a new language). Within such an environment, teachers are afforded more opportunities to perform more precise assessments and make more precise adjustments to the types of assistance they give learners. Based on the literature presented thus far, the position taken in this study is that this type of classroom environment will increase the potential for the learners to imitate, as explained from a Vy got ski an SCT approach, what they receive from more knowledgeable others, in most cases the teacher. Such imitation will serve as the basis upon which learners may then be able to have conscious, controlled use of the language in a variety of unrehearsed situations.
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy were created to be a means by which teachers could enact SCT principles in their classrooms. The Standards do not mandate what teachers must teach or what methodology necessarily has to be used. Instead, they provide parameters that ensure classroom interaction mid activities (e.g., peer-peer or peer-teacher) coincide with SCT principles. Therefore, if a teacher were inclined to using Task-based Language Teaching, it would be possible. If a teacher were avid about using a certain writing activity, the teacher would most likely be able to use it. What the Standards initially provide is a means of orienting the classroom mid delivering content in a manner that is most effective for learning. This following section explains the power behind the Standards as well as what they are.


24
The Foundational Strength of the Standards
The framework for the current study is based on the guiding principles of sociocultural theory mid the implementation that derives from the Standards. SCT places an important focus on the role of language in developing higher mental functions, and since the Standards are grounded in SCT principles, the same position towards the importance of language is true for the Standards. Furthermore, to explain why the Standards are more than simply good principles, Tharp (2011) introduced the Delta Theory, which focuses on how change comes about as a direct result of influence. In addition to addressing how change occurs, Delta Theory addresses change that occurs in all areas of human activity.
According to Tharp (2011), the foundational principal of Delta Theory is that influence and change operate primarily, indeed almost exclusively, within and through psychosocial systems that is, affiliated persons organized into systems that share values, purpose, and activity (p. 5); psychosocial systems are a way of combining psychological and social constructs. According to Delta Theory, influence occurs most often through utilizing the potential of an individuals social relationships which were already in preexistence or which are created by an agent (e.g., a teacher). Tharp emphasizes that the theory includes mid applies to all cultures mid historical periods. Moreover, he stresses that a theory that makes the claims expressed in Delta Theory must work in purposefully constructed arenas, such as formal institutions, mid in situations where people socialized and saw development outside of formally constructed contexts, such as might be seen in areas without running water or electricity. Finally, the theory must also account for the successful and unsuccessful occurrences of influence in all contexts (Tharp, 2011). The Standards for


25
Effective Pedagogy and the design of this current study are informed by the way that Delta Theory categorizes social relationships.
In short, the three principles governing social relationships posit that relationships are (a) restricted in that an individual does not have access to all people in the world but just to those in his/her environment; (b) relationships are not random but tend to be sorted by factors such as language, income, or race; and (c) relationships are stable because the psychosocial systems normally repeat themselves unless some external force attempts to stop them (Tharp, 2011). Integral to the notion that social relationships are restricted is the concept of propinquity, which refers to the physical proximity that exists between people (Tharp, 2011; Tharp et al., 2000). It is the first of four phases in the Cycle of Social Sorting (depicted in Figure 2 below), which enables JPA, and consequently all of the Standards, to function in a classroom. Propinquity allows for a variety of activities to take place between people. Additionally, it accounts for the initial formation of most relationships (Tharp et al., 2000); notwithstanding, propinquity does not guarantee that a relationship will be formed. Tharp (2011) presents an example of two people commuting to work on the same train every day. Even though they may be interested in each other for any variety of reasons, they will probably not form any type of friendship in the absence of shared activity (the second phase).
In the Cycle of Social Sorting, shared activity is known as Joint Activity, and it is the strongest proponent for building affinity between individuals (Tharp et al., 2000). An important reason noted for this is that when people work together, two special conditions form, the first of which being that common motives are created. This is because the members of the joint activity are working towards one shared goal. If the joint product or goal is not achieved, no one succeeds. Under such circumstances, the competitive nature that


26
exists during the individual actions of multiple people working towards the same goal tends to dissipate (Tharp et al., 2000). In addition to having common motives, subject-subject relations are cultivated as opposed to subject-object relationships. When there is recognition that people with whom one is working have the same goals and desires, it is possible to see them in a manner that allows for empathy. Subject-subject relationships allow for participants to share in the feeling of pleasure that comes with advancement or the feeling of disappointment when there is an obstruction to achieving the goal; in contrast, in a subject-object relationship, the other individuals are seen as objects, mid as a result, the aforementioned subject-subject feelings do not tend to exist (Tharp et al., 2000).
The joint activity sets the stage for the third phase, a situation called intersubjectivity, inter meaning between people mid subjective referring to how the world is experienced (Tharp, 2011). In brief, intersubjectivity is when people feel the same feelings for the same things (e.g., shared values dictating how one is to interact with ones elders), and thus, all participants are expecting for things to occur in the same manner. This shared way of valuing, thinking, and interpreting forms out of joint activity. According to Tharp et al. (2000):
When working together and talking about purposes mid meanings of the activity, strategizing mid problem solving together, these aspects of interaction influence each participant mid foster emotional and cognitive commonality.. .The process of socialization into school or into criminal gangs or a religious community (Rubin, 1991) or any other community consists of an increasing intersubjectivity mediated by the appropriation of the new code of language, sign and symbol, (p. 59)


27
Thus, Intersubjectivity consists of an emotional investment as well as a cognitive investment that maintains the rapport between individuals in the joint activity. In the framework used for the current study, dialogue occurring with activity serves as a mediator for intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity leads to the fourth phase in the Cycle of Social Sorting, affinity. In the Cycle, affinity refers to liking someone else and wanting to be liked by others, as well; it is the element that moves people toward relationship (Tharp, 2011). When affinity is present, people actively find ways of working together. Moreover, affinity propels the Cycle forward by leading to new or continued propinquity (Tharp et al., 2000). Tharp (2011) notes that affinity may be absent in some relationships (e.g., family or work), and in children and adolescence, affinity may be unstable; nevertheless, affinity has the potential to affect activities and attitudes.
Figure 2. Cycle of Social Sorting (Tharp, 2011, p. 12)
Intersubjectivity


28
The Cycle of Social Sorting will not occur or sustain itself automatically in a classroom; therefore, teachers play an important role in creating a situation for the Cycle to exist. Teachers clearly have a fundamental role in deciding the style of teaching that occurs in the classroom as well as the pedagogy used. The occurrence of the Cycle in the classroom is what the teachers utilize to create mid maintain an environment that builds propinquity so students can imitate the teacher or each other. In addition, the Cycle will provide the proximity, and consequently the opportunities, needed for the teacher to recognize the ZPD of the students.
Precedence and Format for a SCT Approach to Teaching
The phases of the Cycle ultimately create a foundation upon which more knowledgeable others mid learners can engage in dialogue for the purpose of learning. In a school environment, this foundation is created during the implementation of the JPA standard. The premise for teaching in a manner that focuses on discussion as a teaching principle has historic precedent. In an effort to provide support for the Standards, Tharp mid Gallimore (1988) present three types of teaching and the corresponding types of learning that result. First is didactic teaching, which explains learning as the memorizing of facts in the absence of understanding them in any particular context. This teaching-learning style usually accepts the recitation of material from the students as proof that learning has taken place, as evidenced by teachers asking questions to which students already know the answers (Ellis, 2008; Lee, 2014). The learning that results is that of acquisition of knowledge. Mercer and Littleton (2007) note an expected negative consequence of this type of learning is that the acquired knowledge may be forgotten as students move onto other lessons. The next type of teaching is that of coaching, and this method of teaching results in the formation of learning


29
intellectual skills. They note that these skills form in the way of routines. However, this form of coaching is different from the instructional coaching proposed in this current study. The third method of teaching is Socratic, which is intended to result in learning that is characterized by understanding, and it is cultivated through Socratic questioning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Lefstein and Snell (2014) explain that Socratic questioning seeks to understand and critique the ideas of the interlocutors; furthermore, this questioning is in the form of true conversation. Thus, while there may be situations in which either of the three forms of teaching may be ideal, within the framework of the Standards, the Socratic form allows for a situation to exist where the teacher may provide assistance to the students while dialoging about scientific knowledge. The goal of this approach is to develop the ability to question and examine critically the knowledge that people use (Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Teaching and ZPD
In the framework of the Standards, teaching is explained as assisting performance through the ZPD at points where it is required; therefore, when performance of a task has been successfully completed through the provision of assistance, teaching has occurred (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The existence of the Cycle of Social Sorting allows for assisted performance to occur. Therefore, in accordance with the concept of ZPD, what a student could not do otherwise by his or herself can be accomplished in the ZPD with assistance. What is meant by assisting performance through the ZPD is better understood when examining the four stages of ZPD itself.
There are three important aspects in Stage 1 regarding the relationship between the learner mid the more knowledgeable other: (a) performance is influenced by the more knowledgeable other, (b) performance is assisted by the more knowledgeable other, and (c)


30
performance is regulated by the more knowledgeable other (Tharp, 2011). In SCT, these external-force actions by the more knowledgeable other are known as other-regulation because the learner is often completely lead by someone else (Swain et al., 2011). It is during this stage that the learner is essentially dependent on the teacher, and mediation types may be limited until certain concepts become established, but it is also during this stage that the teachers responsibility in the above three aspects begins to decrease while the students responsibility increases. The developmental goal of Stage 1 is the shift from regulation by the more knowledgeable other to the student self-regulating (Tharp, 2011). Nevertheless, during this stage, learners may not have a clem' understanding of an ultimate goal in the same way that the teacher does; therefore, during this stage, the teacher must attempt to adjust assistance based upon his/her evaluation of how well the student appears to truly understand the task (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
In Stage 2, performance does not require the same type of external assistance from the more knowledgeable other as in Stage 1. Instead, assistance is now self-regulated; although, the activity is not necessarily automated or fully developed (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Thus, whereas it was necessary to receive assistance for how to do an action or receive assistance for remembering an activity, the learners own voice has now replaced that of the more knowledgeable other, and the learner can lead him/herself through the activity (Tharp, 2011). In self-regulation, the speech may or may not be actually voiced (Swain et al., 2011).
In Stage 3, the learners performance is automatic mid developed. The learner can accomplish the task smoothly, mid signs of self-regulation, such as the lemner talking aloud in an effort to think through the activity, have disappeared (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tharp,


31
2011). At this stage, performance is no longer developing, and that is the reason selfregulation or regulation from others is no longer needed. When a task has become automatized, it does not need to be regulated, and providing assistance at this stage would be more disruptive than helpful (Tharp, 2011). This stage reflects Vygotskys (1978) phenomenon of fossilization, which emphasizes the degree to which the internalized concepts resist change from outside forces (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
An individual has multiple ZPDs occurring for different things at the same time, mid invariably, for some reason, de-automatization will take place; due to the frequency at which this happens (for certain ZPDs), it is given its own stage, Stage 4 (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tharp, 2011). The breakdown of automatization may result from a variety of reasons, for example, an extensive passage of time in which the task was not done or the occurrence of some traumatic event. Nevertheless, when de-automatization occurs, in order to return to an automated state, the learner must go through recursion (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). That is, for some period of time, the learner will need to revert back to self-regulatory actions (Stage 2). In some cases, the learner may find that self-regulation is an insufficient measure for returning to automatization, mid in that case, the other-regulation of Stage 1 is needed, such as a teacher or different more knowledgeable other (e.g., a book).
These four stages of ZPD are important because they reveal the importance of the JPA standard. In Stage 1, when the student is dependent on the teacher, the fact that the teacher is present to make a joint product with the student is an indispensable element for the student. As JPA continues to occur, with the teacher as a participant in the group, the teacher is able to assess the students learning mid reduce the amount of mediation as the student grows in his/her ability to do tasks (Stage 2). In Stage 3, the student has gained control over


32
the tasks and can now do them without assistance from the teacher. Nevertheless, since the teacher is a part of the JPA and has been able to closely observe mid produce joint products with the student, the teacher is positioned to introduce new tasks, which would produce a new Stage 1 for the student. Finally, since the teacher is a consistent part of the JPA group, if the student (or students) should ever forget how to do a task correctly, the teacher is present to provide assistance as necessary (Stage 4). Delta Theory and the Stages of ZPD reveal the necessity and importance of proximity between the teacher and student if the ZPD is to be utilized effectively (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).
The manner in which the learner receives assistance in a classroom setting is explained by Dalton (2008) as being a three-step process. In the first step, the teacher must gain access to the learners ZPD by having the student engage in some form of joint activity, which activates the learning process. In the second step, the teacher assists the student in the activity. The teacher being an active assistant is able to assess what the student knows or does not know. From the assessment, the teacher seeks to find something that can be used to contextualize new information given to the student. In the last step, the teacher works with the student to increase the students understanding. While conversation is used at varying degrees in all three steps, it is during the third step that Socratic conversation is used as the primary teaching resource. Various aspects of all five of the Standards occur in these three steps. The JPA standard is not only important for enacting these three steps, but it also reflects the operationalizing of the Cycle of Social Sorting by first creating proximity.
Depicted in Figure 1, the framework for the current study relies on SCT perspectives and SCT pedagogy to guide world language teachers in the implementation of SCT principles. Explained in more detail in the Professional Development mid Coaching section


33
of Chapter II, the instructional coaching that was used to guide the teachers in the learning and application of SCT principles is itself using an approach based on the same SCT principles. The discussion that occurs between instructional coach (the researcher) and the teacher mirrored a type of instructional conversation (the fifth standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy). Thus, there existed a parallel process of (a) the coach and teacher working together (primarily dialogically) to actualize SCT principles in the classroom and (b) the teacher and the students working together to further the creation of joint activities and joint products (SCT principles). Figure 3 illustrates the actions in the parallel process. The parallelism existed because as the researcher and teacher were working together in the coaching process, the teacher was implementing the knowledge and skills that developed from the coaching in the classroom with the students.
Figure 3. Parallel Progression of SCT Principles in the Framework
[
Collaborating Party
Teacher and Researcher
Teacher and Students
7
Sociocultural Means of Introducing Sociocultural Perspectives
Instructional Conversation on JPA (working in the teacher's ZPD)
JPA lessons planned by the teacher (working in the students' ZPD)
7

j
Teacher applying SCT principles in the class (JPA)
Students use the tool of language to learn concepts and imitate


34
The next chapter provides a review of the literature that will frame this study in relation to dialogic teaching practices, an important occurrence between expert mid novice. The following chapter also provides information on instructional coaching, the means by which the JPA standard was taught to the teacher.


35
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree to which secondary world language teachers would be able to implement aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts mid implementation procedures. Since the Standards are grounded in sociocultural principles (Vygotsky, 1978), the theoretical framework in Chapter I provided literature describing specific aspects of sociocultural theory (SCT) mid the relationship to the Standards. Due to the important role of dialogue in SCT, and consequently the Standards, the first section of this chapter will present a review of literature on dialogic teaching. In this study, instructional coaching, one form of professional development, was utilized as the means by which the Joint Productive Activity standard was taught to the teachers. Therefore, the next section provides a short review on professional development with a focus on instructional coaching. While this is not a study on professional development, due to its function as a means of transmission, a description of several coaching methods is presented. The section on professional development concludes with information on and studies that used instructional coaching as a means for teaching the Standards. Finally, since the JPA standard essentially serves as a means for conducting world language instruction in this study, it would be remiss to not address some instructional approaches that already exist in the field of second language instruction and Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Therefore, the next section of the chapter is a descriptive review presenting various approaches mid theories to language instruction. This is


36
immediately followed by a short synthesis of literature on how groups are used in world language instruction.
Defining Dialogue
The JPA standard is an indispensable component of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. As explained through the Cycle of Social Sorting, it creates and maintains the environment for students to engage in discussion with more knowledgeable others. To some extent, dialogue is a feature in each standard. However, it is integral to the fifth standard, Instructional Conversation. When all the standards are in full implementation, Instructional Conversation with the teacher becomes the primary way through which teaching occurs in the classroom (Hilberg et al., 2003). Therefore, since the JPA standard provides the functional means by which all of the other standards may be sustained, with a goal of promoting dialogue between the novice (the student) mid the expert (the teacher), it is helpful to understand the characteristics mid importance of dialogue. This current section is designed to explain several types of dialogic approaches as well as reveal its importance to the educational setting.
Current Dialogic Teaching
The term Socratic teaching/questioning, which exemplifies the type of questions used in dialogic teaching, was introduced in the theoretical framework. While Socratic questioning has been utilized for a long period of time, current dialogic teaching is attributed to Robin Alexander (2006) and developed from the findings of observations performed of primary school classrooms in France, England, Russia, the USA, and India (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Dialogic teaching imposes a critique of teaching similar to the way Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) imposes a critique of communicative action


37
between students. Thus, the mere occurrence of students talking together does not necessarily equal communication (Eisenchlas 2010), and the occurrence of a teacher verbally interacting with students does not automatically qualify as dialogic teaching. From the research conducted in the five countries, Alexander observed that teachers spoke more than students, but between and within countries, there was substantial variation in the degree to which students contributed. For example, he saw that variation was not so much with regard to whether teachers were using questions, but there was a difference between the degree to which teachers elicited in-depth responses from students mid the quality of the questions asked. Therefore, in some classes, the questions from the teachers only required students to give brief responses, whereas in other classrooms, the questions teachers asked called for more extensive responses from the students, requiring them to reflect on answers or provide reasoning for their choices (Mercer & Fittleton, 2007). From these observations, he conceptualized dialogic teaching as that in which teachers and pupils make substantial and significant contributions and through which childrens thinking on a given idea or theme is helped to move forward (Mercer & Fittleton, 2007, p. 41). Reflective of SCT, a dialogic atmosphere provides a space where the students not only learn language and its functions, but they also use the language to learn (Mercer & Fittleton, 2007; Wells, 1999).
Collaboration in Dialogic Teaching
Wells (1999) explains four requirements for effective collaboration (Figure 4), for example, those settings which would allow teachers to most effectively pass on artifacts and skills determined in the ZPD. The first is that students need to be engaged in the activity and should be able to see the significance in the activity. This includes sharing responsibility with the students in deciding what specific topics will be studied and how. Doing so allows


38
for increased motivation because the students have a direct role in deciding what they will study, mid it also allows for students to be able to work independently from the teacher, since they understand what the goals of the activity are as well as how to meet them. The ability for students to work independently is essential to the second requirement: the teacher needs to be free to spend time with individuals or groups to provide assistance when needed. The third requirement for effective collaboration is that there must be a systematic movement towards the mastery of certain tools or aspects related to the discipline of study; this may come to fruition in the form of a final presentation in front of the class or a final project. The last requirement is that learning cannot proceed without providing opportunities for students to learn by reflecting on the lemming and activities they have done. These four requirements are all aspects included in the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, the first, second, and fourth occurring in JPA. To reiterate, this is the reasoning behind why JPA has been chosen as the focus for the present study. Lefstein and Snell (2014) also reference Alexander explaining that for effective dialogue to occur, teachers need to be willing to change the layout of the classroom to support various types of talk. This change is required because most classes are structured to support whole-class instruction where the teacher talks to the entire class as opposed to working with students in groups (Tharp et al., 2000), and whole-class instruction does not easily allow for the teacher to effectively work within the ZPD of all students.


39
Figure 4. Four Requirements for Effective Collaboration (Wells, 1999)
Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Students must be engaged in the activity
Teacher must be free to spend time with individuals and groups
There must be systematic movement towards the mastery of subject-related material
Learning must not proceed without opportunities for reflection
Approaches to Dialogue
Since what constitutes dialogue may be substantially different from one person to the next, it is important to recognize that depending on the approach a person takes, the perception and purposes of dialogue will vary. For over 10 years, Adam Lefstein and Julia Snell have conducted or participated in several studies with regard to dialogue in the classroom, researching and showing the value of dialogic teaching in a variety of areas, including the use of popular culture for dialogic activities (Lefstein & Snell, 2011), the use of dialogue as a method for preparing students for high-stake standardized testing (Segal, Snell, & Lefstein, 2016), studies for effectively measuring discourse moves (Lefstein, Snell, & Israeli, 2015), and the role of power in the classroom as it relates to marginalized students attempting to participate in dialogue (Segal, Poliak, & Lefstein, 2017). Additionally,
Lefstein & Snell (2014) present different types of dialogue that they classify into seven


40
approaches. Since Socratic dialogue has already been presented, I will not explain it in this section.
Figure 5. Approaches to Dialogue (Lefstein and Snell, 2014)
Approaches to Dialogue
Socratic dialogue
Dialogue for interaction
Dialogue as an interplay of voices
Dialogue for thinking together
Dialogue as relation
Dialogue for empowerment
Dialogue for interaction places value on reciprocity and fair participation. This type of dialogue consists of two or more individuals freely talking to and listening to each other; individuals have equal opportunity to participate through talk. They note that some benefits of this approach are that it is relatively easy to measure, and the norms and rules of this type of dialogue are easily perceived. For instance, one could count how many times student #2 spoke and measure for how long. One could easily observe to whom student #3 spoke and the number of turns taken by all member during the conversation; this could be used to measure the equity of the conversation (e.g., establishing whether someone dominated talk). While the generality of this approach, which focuses primarily on the dialogic structure, has a goal of ensuring that all participants have equal opportunity to speak, it also has the


41
disadvantage that it does not guarantee the quality of the content about which the individuals are talking (Lefstein and Snell, 2014). Additionally, they explain that making an equal distribution for time and opportunities to speak could overshadow the view of the person or people who hold the minority opinion. As a result, because of social pressures, participants may offer views that they believe other people want to hear, forgoing their own opinion for the popular view.
Dialogue may be viewed as an interplay of voices, and this is suggested by Mikhail Bakhtin (1988). This approach is concerned with the voice of the participant, voice being the influential force that is affecting what the speaker is saying. Returning to the examples in Chapter I, with students usually providing answers that the teachers want or expect to hear, such a situation would not necessarily reflect the students voice (because the student normally is not provided space to question the question or raise a separate but relevant issue altogether), but it reflects the voice of the teacher, the one with power. Thus, this type of approach is geared towards students recognizing and developing voice.
Dialogue for thinking together was suggested by Vygotsky (1978), mid it values the use of questioning as a way for reasoning. Lefstein mid Snell (2014) provide the example of James Wertschs (2008) puzzle task, where mothers guided their young children through the solving of a puzzle by asking questions to help them realize whether the piece of the puzzle they chose was correct or not. As the children did more puzzles, they would ask themselves the questions and no longer needed the assistance of the parent. Thus, this type of approach focuses on developing higher mental functions, as explained through internalization in SCT.
Martin Buber (1937) proposed dialogue as relation. The values of this form of dialogue are respect mid inclusion; the participants care about each other. Buber believed


42
that people had two general orientations towards others: that of instrumental and that of dialogic. The instrumental role allows for relationships on a partial basis because people relate in a manner so as to further their own interests (e.g., economic). The dialogic role recognizes that many people do not normally respond well to critical questions. In dialogue for relation, there is mutual concern over the issue; the goal is to foster inclusiveness mid community. Lefstein and Snell (2014) explain that this approach brings into question the type of relationship interlocutors have when they converse, noting that some participants may approach the dialogue from an instrumental perspective (seeking selfish advancement) or from a dialogic perspective (seeking mutual gain).
Finally, Paulo Freire (1993) drew attention to dialogue used for empowerment. The empowerment approach suggests that dialogue cannot be separated from the larger social mid institutional environment in which participants live. The values elevated in this approach are that of democracy mid equality, and this type of dialogue should promote the empowerment and emancipation of the student/participant. This approach looks at who actually wields the power to decide which people are able to participate in the conversation and who benefits from the interaction. It also notes the degree to which the participants are allowed to express their own opinions. This mid the other dialogic approaches have been used to design different models of classroom instruction, which are presented in the next section.
Dialogic Classrooms Models
Dialogically organized instruction. Lefstein and Snell (2014) provide four models of dialogue that can occur in classrooms.


43
Figure 6. Dialogic Classroom Models
r Dialogically Organized Instruction Exploratory Talk
rm Dial ogic
Accountable Ta L Classroor Si n Models 1 ialogic Teaching a
Ik D
The first model is a classroom where the teacher organizes instruction to be dialogic, or dialogically organized instruction. Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, and Prendergast (1997) observed dialogically organized instruction when investigating literature classes at over 100 secondary schools in the United States. Nystrand and his colleagues found that most of the instruction encapsulated the teacher transmitting information to the students, mostly in the form of Initiation-Response-Evaluate (IRE) styles of questioning. In this form, teachers ask a question, get a response, and evaluate the accuracy of the response. Lightbown and Spada (2013) also explain that the IRE style is frequently used in world language classrooms, and it limits the amount and style of discourse students can participate in. IRE is sometimes called, IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback), and while IRF may provide feedback, it does not vary much from the evaluative response of IRE, and therein also presents the same issues of limiting the range of language, especially since these styles are used the most in classrooms (Ellis, 2008, 1984; Mercer, 2007; and Wells, 1999). As a result of their findings, Nystrand et


44
al. (1997) proposed three key actions teachers could take to dialogically structure instruction: authentic questions, uptake, mid high-level feedback. Authentic questions are questions asked to students for which the teacher does not already have a preconceived answer. Uptake refers to the incorporating of students previous answers into the following questions. In order to provide a high level of evaluation (or feedback), the teacher must provide a response that clearly recognizes the students answer as well as elaborates on that answer. While these actions will help the teacher begin to organize the classroom toward dialogic instruction, Nystrand et al. (1997) point out that these teacher-sided actions are not the central pillar upon which dialogical instruction happens. Instead, they are practices that build a culture in the classroom that affects how students view participation and discussion (Lefstein & Snell, 2014).
Exploratory talk. Exploratory talk derives from a three-part typology depicting the way children talk in groups (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). This typology arose from an analysis of the Spoken Language and New Technology (SLANT) project done in the 1990s which recorded 50 hours of group classroom talk from children ages eight to eleven-years-old in England; most of the talk was not focused on a clear task, nor was it equitable (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). The types of talk that were recognized when analyzing the SLANT project included: disputational, cumulative, mid exploratory. Disputational talk is characterized by disagreements mid students making decisions without considering the thoughts of other students; additionally, there are few endeavors to work together, make suggestions, or give constructive feedback. Another characteristic is that the exchanges that take place are usually very short (e.g., Yes, No, or not that. ) (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).


45
Cumulative talk is when students build positively upon what other members of the group say. The students work together to build common knowledge by compiling information; this type of talk often involves students repeating information and elaborating upon ideas. Nevertheless, cumulative talk is void of any constructive criticism (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
When exploratory talk is occurring, the students work actively together while questioning the reasoning of other students utterances. Opinions are actively sought out from all members participating in the group. In contrast to disputational and cumulative talk, the whole group bears accountability for the knowledge that develops from exploratory talk. Moreover, the logic that supports that knowledge is more evident due to the open nature of the talk that has transpired (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
Accountable talk. In accountable talk, the word accountable refers to the rigor that should accompany academic talk. It is talk that makes the students and teacher accountable to the learning community, a specific set of standards for reasoning, and knowledge grounded in facts. The learning community engages in discussion that builds upon the concepts of others. Questioning looks to clarify or further extend a concept of discussion. Having a standard for the logic of a statement means that the participants must have a reason for the approval or resistance to a proposition. To disagree, one must provide some form of reasoning for disagreeing. Ultimately, grounding knowledge in facts means that a participant needs to gather supporting facts from actual written material or other outlets that could be readily verifiable. Finally, students attempt to ensure that certain facts are correct before using them, mid they can challenge the positions of other participants if there does not appear
to be a basis for the statement that has been made. In accountable talk, the teacher makes


46
these concepts clear to the students, and then the concepts are used to make an accountable academic environment.
Dialogic teaching. There are several characteristics of dialogic teaching', dialogic teaching is collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful (Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Collective means that the entire class, along with the teacher, considers what the learning goals will be and how they will be approached. Reciprocal means that teachers mid students genuinely listen to each other while also exchanging ideas and views. Supportive means that the students are able to present their ideas without fear that providing the incorrect answer will result in embarrassment or another negative result; on the contrary, students help each other to reach common understandings. Cumulative means that students and teacher build upon the ideas of others as well as their own ideas. This results in knowledge being created that has been amassed from the input of various participants.
Finally, purposeful me mis that talk in the classroom is not random or arbitrarily executed. Rather, the teacher plans and guides classroom talk with specific educational goals in mind. Dialogue in Group or Whole-class Instruction
There is considerable overlap between various approaches mid models in dialogical practices. Many aspects relate closely and/or are grounded in SCT principles. Aspects of exploratory, cumulative, accountable, mid dialogic talk are clearly expressed in the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. However, in the literature for dialogic teaching, there still exists a lack of clarity with respect to using groups consistently and having those groups incorporate the teacher as a full participant. For example, Lefstein and Snell (2014) noted that because of the larger class sizes in the studies they conducted, it was near impossible to have full participation among students (p. 22). In a reflection meeting with teachers discussing student


47
participation mid engagement in a 2007 fifth grade classroom where dialogic practices were employed, they explained that there were mixed reviews. One example given that led to mixed reviews was that in one particular class, while the whole class had been repositioned and arranged to be able to see each other (as opposed to the single file rows of most traditional classrooms), which allowed them to focus on the speakers, the interchange mostly took place between the teacher and two students. They noted two sides to this issue. First, if the teacher would have tried to involve all of the students in the class, the discussion would have become difficult to manage; this would have taken away from the true dialogic experience and would not have allowed for the exploratory mid dialogic types of talk. The second issue was recognition of the possibility that the students who were not involved could have potentially started to feel bored and disassociate themselves from the conversation altogether. Nevertheless, they emphasize that having genuine involvement and reflection from a few students is better than cursory or depthless discussion with the whole class. They continued by saying that the challenge was to find ways to make sure that all students received opportunities to participate, as opposed to the same few students always entering into the dialogic discussion with the teacher. An additional issue is that in whole-class discussion, when cognitively challenging questions are asked by the teacher, they tend to be directed towards students who are seen as being capable of answering them. Consequently, the less challenging questions are normally directed at students who are perceived as academically weaker (Lefstein & Snell, 2014).
Despite the challenges that arise with whole-class instruction, dialogic studies have more of a focus towards the use of dialogic practices, and as such, grouping that incorporates the teacher so as to create the propinquity discussed in Delta Theory is not a requirement.


48
Thus, for example, Mercer and Littletons (2007) research which included investigating second, fifth, and eighth grade students in the United Kingdom produced positive results from the use of dialogic practices, such as students discussing issues at greater depth and for longer periods of time. Overall, the research supports the use of dialogic practices, the authors noting that the results substantiate the SCT position of social interaction mid mental development. Additionally, the intervention is based on ground rules being clearly understood by the whole class (a JPA principle). However, the examples they provide are extracts from whole-class meetings where the teacher was leading, mid the small groups were composed of only the students. The implementation for dialogic methods, therefore, does not provide space for the expert-novice relationship to develop effectively.
Kearney (2015) attempted to investigate how two high school world language teachers who had been teaching for less than five years implemented high-leverage teaching practices (HLTP) in a Spanish and Latin class. According to Kearney (2015), high-leverage teaching practices are actions that result in higher learning gains as opposed to other practices. In HLTP, teaching is viewed as a complex mid dynamic social practice, largely mediated by the classroom discourse that a teacher mid students co-construct (p. 2). The analysis of whether the practices were HLTP or not was based on 19 HLTP core practices such as setting up and managing small groups, strategically making conversations with students that strengthen relationships, and the teacher being able to evoke logical explanation for why students answered a certain way. In both the Spanish and Latin classes, the teachers implemented various aspects of these core practices, but a review of the transcript mid video log reveals that teachers either floated from one student to the next or addressed the class as a whole. While these actions could satisfy a core practice that says the teacher is able to lead


49
whole-class discussions (Kearney, 2015), the perspective is contrary to the framework proposed in the current study due to the reasoning that conducting a whole-class discussion is not a core goal in the Standards.
Lee (2014) investigated inquiry-based second language teaching and explains that it is more than simply asking questions; it focuses on learning through discovery as well as developing the cognitive abilities of the learner. Lee (2014) talks about the dominance of display questions in classrooms, when teachers ask questions for which they are expecting a certain answer. In addition, there is explanation of the benefit of referential questions, those that require meaning to be negotiated and the answer may not be known by the teacher. The referential style of questioning is an aspect of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, but the noticeable difference between the Standards mid the examples that Lee (2014) presents is that the small groups are void of a teachers presence. The teacher models the type of questioning he/she expects the students to perform (another principle of the St andards ). However, the students conduct their practice in a whole-class setting or in groups, mid the teachers role is to serve as a catalyst for the activity as opposed to a full participant in a group (p. 6). Therefore, while literature on dialogic teaching practices reveals similar goals to the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, there is a lack of attention towards a key aspect of SCT principles, the function of the expert-novice relationship.
Distinct Benefits of Dialogic Teaching
In addition to producing better results on standardized tests, Lyle (2008) points out that dialogic teaching helps students become more connected to each other and society. Deakin et al. (2005) discovered in their review of citizenship education that not only dialogue, but the quality of it was essential to social education. They explain that it is


50
connected to how people learn about areas of life such as human rights and issues relating to justice.
Trickey mid Topping (2004) discuss results from the Philosophy for Children method. Lyle (2008) explains that this method employs the use of groups and whole class work as well as challenges the Piagetian position that children must first reach a certain developmental stage before they can function in abstract thought (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children explains the philosophy as self-conscious inquiry into difficult or debatable concepts (Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, 2016), and this inquiry requires dialogue (Lyle, 2008). Trickey and Topping (2004) found measurable positive differences with respect to reasoning mid cognitive ability in students who underwent the Philosophy for Children method. Additionally, Lyle (2008) notes a study by Topping in 2006 where students in their last year of primary school gained approximately six points on a measure for cognitive ability after six months of using this method and students still possessed this gain two years later, even though they had not been using the Philosophy for Children method in the secondary school.
Boyd and Markarian (2011) focus on the benefits afforded to teachers. Similar to what Littlewood (1981) proposed for the role of the teacher in Communicative Language Teaching, (discussed later in this chapter) they explain that the power of dialogic teaching is in its ability to allow the teacher to have a better awareness of the students everyday knowledge, which in turn can be used to guide individual students into new material (p.
521). Additionally, they present a picture of a teacher using a dialogic stance as one who does not assume that the students failure to understand is a reflection on that students inability to listen or focus well enough. On the contrary, in such a situation, the teacher


51
would recognize that there is probably a breakdown on the conceptual level with the student, and it becomes the teachers job to listen mid ask questions more carefully so they may use the information they gain form the dialogic activities to make more meaningful connections between the students knowledge and the class material.
Caution with Dialogic Teaching
Before introducing some results found in studies using the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, it is important to note that Lefstein and Snell (2014) recommend exercising caution when discussing, using, or evaluating dialogic practices.
One issue that arises is when dialogue is presented as mainly a way for developing the speaking mid listening skills of students in the absence of the broader picture. For example, using dialogue to build skills is not a problem, but this should occur in a discussion over content where students have something to say that relates to them and is engaging. In this way, there is a chance to affect the students on a cognitive level. If students are only talking mid responding, thinking that the goal is to listen and speak effectively, the practice will probably not provide for space where students can contribute ideas mid feelings they truly have.
Another issue results from dialogue being treated as solely an interactional form. As explained previously, this form looks mostly at surface level indicators, such as how long did students speak, was the time divided equally, or was the response from the student short or long. However, these issues are related to more in-depth issues that are normally not addressed, such as power relations and voice.
An additional reason for caution when using dialogic teaching results from the practice being labeled as dialogic or monologic. For instance, if a class is having a critical


52
discussion, but the students are more aggressive in manner and the teacher is the lone controller of the conversation, attempting to label this discussion as less dialogic or more dialogic misses the larger issue, that of understanding which type of dialogue is valued most in that setting (e.g., argumentative or relationship building). They explain that instead of declaring a discussion dialogic or not, a better action is to consider how teacher and students can work within a space where they manage the various types of dialogue that arise.
A final area of concern arises when dialogic teaching is viewed without consideration of the real school environment mid activities occurring in it. They note that several of the examples they gave came from schools that were in the midst of preparing for high-stakes exams. Thus, people evaluating dialogic practices must avoid passing judgment flippantly when there are other pressures influencing how mid what teachers must teach mid the manner in which they do it.
Professional Development and Coaching
Professional development is a phrase that elicits different meanings for different people. With respect to schools, some administrators view it as a special activity that may happen on specified days during the year while other people perceive it as graduate courses a person may take to get an advanced degree and/or higher salary (Guskey, 2000). However, professional development can also be viewed as learning that happens in a social context, mid it includes learning about not only oneself, subject content, the school or classroom setting, and students (Johnson, 2009), but it also is learning for the students, teachers, and other members of the school who work directly with the students (Zepeda, 2015). Guskey (2000) poses three significant problems that often occur with professional development (Figure 7). One common issue is that rather than producing an evaluation of the class or activities, the


53
end result tends to be a documentation of what has occurred. That is, the professional development may end with a list that shows a sum of how many times a certain activity or action was done, and this documentation may be accompanied with a small description. In this situation, essentially, the professional development was only checking to see if certain behaviors were displayed (Ellison & Hayes, 2009). Such documentation provides evidence of what was done, but this alone will not address areas that are in need of critique. Another issue is that evaluations often lack depth. Guskey (2000) notes that if teachers attend the professional development, work actively, and seem to enjoy the experience, that session is often seen as being successful. He explains that while sometimes, the evaluation may attempt to check the effect the professional development had on the participants ways of thinking, to a lesser extent are there evaluations conducted on the degree to which the teachers knowledge and practice have been affected. He asserts that for a professional development to be useful, the evaluations must proceed deeper than the immediate reactions of the participants that come at the end of a professional development session.
Finally, many professional development activities are too short in overall length. Teachers who attend the traditional workshop style sessions, which last for a day or two, may only be able to implement 10% of what they learn (Knight, 2009b). As one reason for the lack of time invested into professional development programs, Guskey (2000) offers the case of officials (e.g., state or district administrators) quickly wanting evidence that the professional developments are making a difference. As mentioned previously, many people do not have a perception of a professional development continuing for months or longer. He states that worthwhile changes in education require time for adaptation, adjustment, mid refinement (p. 9). In response, he presents three defining characteristics of a professional


54
development (Figure 7). First, it is an intentional process, which means there is a clear purpose and established goals. Second, it is an ongoing process. This means that professional development is an ongoing activity in the classroom and school, and there is a constant reflection on methods being used. Third, it is a systemic process, which means that the organization should provide continued support for the teachers; the professional development should not be seen as something only for the specific individuals, but it is an action taken that increases the ability of the school or district to solve other educational issues.
Figure 7. Problems and Defining Characteristics of Professional Development (Guskey,
2000)
Problems of Professional Development
Professional developments describe instead of evaluate
Evaluations lack depth
Professional developments are usually too short in length
Defining Characteristics of Professional Development
Professional developments are intentional and goal directed
Professional developments are an ongoing process
Professional developments are a systemic process
According to Zepeda (2015), job-embedded learning is how professional development should be conducted in most situations, and it means that the professional development occurs during the teachers normal school-day routine (p. 35). Zepeda explains that in job-embedded learning, there is collaboration, joint problem-posing, problemsolving, and a sincere desire to improve practice from the lessons learned on the job from


55
teaching and interacting with peers; additionally, time for reflection on actions taken must also be a part of this learning environment (p. 35). One way to engage with the participants in a job-embedded learning situation is through coaching.
Coaching
Zepeda (2015) and Cornett and Knight (2009) present several forms of coaching: peer coaching, cognitive coaching, literacy coaching, and instructional coaching. In their review of research, Cornett and Knight (2009) saw that coaching had several positive benefits, such as improving teachers attitudes and skill transfer (implementation of coached material) as well as improving student achievement.
Peer coaching. Peer coaching, as the name implies, presents opportunities for teachers to learn from each other while participating in discussions about teaching practices and other learning (Zepeda, 2015). Additionally, the value of peer coaching is not only in the social structure of the activities but in the process of the teachers working together to construct meaning during the discussion (Zepeda, 2015); peer coaching also may include book study, action research, or other collaborative actions to facilitate learning. Cornett mid Knight (2009) present multiple studies that reveal that peer coaching supports the transfer of knowledge to the teacher. One follow-up study showed that after six months passed without teachers receiving peer coaching, high rates of coached actions were still being implemented.
Cognitive coaching. The cognitive coaching approach (Costa & Gamston, 2002) developed from the concept that meta-cognition will arise when the individual is conscious of his/her own thinking process; this state of being conscious of ones own thinking is what results in learning (Zepeda, 2015). The aim of cognitive coaching is to separate it from the behaviorist practices that entail monitoring teachers with checklists (Ellison & Hayes, 2009).


56
The thought pattern of the cognitive coach is a distinguishing feature that sets this form of coaching apart from other forms. The cognitive coach is supposed to remain neutral and nonjudgmental about the topic of discussion (Ellison & Hayes, 2009, p. 87). The cognitive coaching style is cyclical, involving a pre-observation meeting, a classroom observation, and then a post-observation meeting. Two of the core precepts of cognitive coaching are that (a) all people are able to change mid (b) teachers are able to support each others cognitive growth with respect to actions and decisions related to teaching (Zepeda, 2015).
Nevertheless, while there seems to be evidence for positive outcomes when using cognitive coaching, much of the data relies on self-report mid other measures that lack rigorous investigation methods or have not been sufficiently validated (Cornett & Knight, 2009).
Literacy coaching. Literacy coaching has a focus on the relationship that derives from the coaching. It is to be based on respect and caring, mid it should result in the teacher self-reflecting about how to bring change to his/her instructional methods; consequently, this results in a deepening of the teachers understanding of how students learn (Zepeda, 2015). Literacy coaches are partners who work alongside a teacher as equals, learning together and preparing an action plan to be implemented together (Toll, 2009). Cornett mid Knight (2009) explain that in 2004, the International Reading Association accepted Janice Doles definition for a literacy coach as being any person who supports teachers in their daily activities and routines. This support may be modeling techniques, helping prepare for examinations, ordering materials, or a variety of other actions. Consequently, Cornett mid Knight (2009) emphasize that a major difference between literacy coaches and other coaches is that they are not defined by a set of particular core duties, a theory, or the manner in which coaches perform their jobs (p. 203). As a result, literacy coaches work with teachers in a variety of


57
academic areas, such as science or social studies (Toll, 2009). Due to this broad definition, literacy coaching may be employed very differently depending on the school or district. Related to this phenomenon of acting in multiple functions, Toll (2009) states that literacy coaching is not actually a coaching model, but rather, it is a category of instructional coaching, focused on literacy mid other areas that relate to teaching and learning. She continues by declaring that the multiple tasks that a literacy coach does are actually tasks that other people in the school were already doing previously (e.g., technicians or supervisors), and the mere transferring of the duties over to the literacy coach is not the most effective use of the coachs abilities.
Instructional coaching. An important trait of an instructional coach is that they have in depth understanding of instructional practices, and the coaching can focus on a variety of areas such as classroom management, the improving of academic content, instruction, and/or formative assessment; the desire is to improve classroom instruction (Knight, 2009a). Thus, while the instructional coach will attempt to bridge the understanding of the teacher and the content being coached, which is an objective of a cognitive coach, the instructional coachs value arises from the extensive knowledge of scientifically grounded teaching practices mid the ability to model those practices for the teacher (Knight, 2009a). Other characteristics of instructional coaching are that the coaching is approached as an equal partnership, there is reflection, there is corresponding action that happens based on the reflection, and there is reciprocity of learning between coach mid teacher. The coach meets with one teacher at a time to foster a relationship, and the coach will model actions in the actual classroom so as to provide a correct, concrete example that can be followed (Knight, 2009a). One area that Cornett and Knight (2009) note that is lacking is that of randomized experimental studies.


58
They also explain that the implementation study they reviewed used self-report, and therefore, there was no other independent data to verify what the teachers reported.
In this study, I employed instructional coaching as the means of teaching the JPA standard. I followed a model similar to that employed by Teemant (2014) and Teemant, Wink, and Tyra (2011), who used instructional coaching as their means of instructing the teachers in the use of the Standards. Singh and Richards (2009) explain that in most language teacher education programs, there is much discussion about the content of what to teach, but there is very little discussion on pedagogical practices. Similarly, Johnson (2009) adds that the second language teacher preparation programs are largely influenced by Second Language Acquisition mid other linguistic fields, but there is little that comes from the work of the second language teachers or the teaching they are doing in the classroom. Thus, the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy, in particular JPA, will assist in addressing the lack of focus on pedagogical practices in world languages. In addition, instructional coaching is a useful means for addressing how to teach the Standards. There are already multiple research studies that show that students of teachers who use the Standards have statistically measurable improvements, but there is a dearth of research about professional development and/or implementation measures that lead to teachers use of the Standards (Teemant et ah, 2011). Consequently, instructional coaching is a viable means for addressing this lack of research regarding implementation. Instructional coaching in this study is viewed through a SCT perspective and draws on the definition given by Teemant et al. (2011):
Instructional coaching, defined through a sociocultural lens, focuses more attention on working within a teachers zone of proximal development. With access to a more knowledgeable coach, teachers engage in cycles of reflection mid action-praxis


59
(Freire, 1994) -that assist and ideally quicken professional growth beyond what the teacher could accomplish alone. Instructional coaching supports the notion that the ZPD is not a place at all; it is an activity.. .expressed as revolutionary activity (Wink & Putney, 2002, p. 153). (p. 687)
The coaching relationship is directed towards moving the teacher into using the sociocultural practices of the Standards, but the speed and the manner in which this happens is greatly influenced by the teacher. The reason for this is that the transformation that takes place must be genuine and have true meaning for the teacher; it cannot be forced (Teemant et al., 2011). Hence, while the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC) shows the goals of instruction for JPA, it is the reflective conversations which happen during meetings before or after the classroom observations that allow the teacher to take time to deal with certain areas he/she would like support in, such as classroom management or analyzing student actions/work; notwithstanding, the discussion of these topics is guided by how they are reflected in the framework of the Standards (Teemant et ah, 2011). Adding instructional coaching as the means for teaching the Standards, it is possible to add a fourth layer to the framework diagram.


60
Figure 8. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework with Instructional Coaching
SCT perspectives provide guidance and reasoning for the current approach
The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are the means for introducing SCT perspectives
Instructional Coaching is used to teach the Standards
Result: SCT perspectives occur in the classroom
Teemant et al. (2011) conducted their study with 21 teachers in two elementary schools. Both schools had high populations of students from Latino households (70% and 84%). The source of data was the SPC. While all standards were taught during this study, the focus of the instructional coaching was to enable teachers to use multiple simultaneous activity settings (the location for where collaborative actions occur). They had two phases in their study. The first was a workshop established to acquaint the teachers with the Standards, activity settings, and the process overall; they also explained that an 8 to 12-week phase-in process would be needed for all five standards. The second phase was when the instructional coaching took place in the form of seven coaching cycles. The coaching cycles were ordered as opposed to being equally spaced. One coaching cycle (Figure 9) consisted of three parts, similar to the cyclical format presented in the cognitive coaching style. Each cycle consisted of (a) a 30-minute meeting to review strategy and plan the lesson; (b) an observation where the coach observed the lesson for at least 45-minutes and collected information for the


61
follow-up (debrief) meeting; and (c) a 30-minute debriefing meeting which examined differences and similarities between the planned and actual lesson as well as reflected on any strengths or weaknesses in need of improvement. Teemant (2014) stresses that during the meetings the instructional coaching cycles are conducted as an Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard), thereby modeling the style of conversation that will also be implemented in the classroom. When a debriefing meeting is complete, the next cycle begins with the 30-minute planning meeting.
Figure 9. Coaching Cycle
4 k
m leeting t Ian lesso m
w
4 k
m :lassroon bservatic m
f
In their study, by having the coaching go through cycles where the coach was present to talk, listen, and observe, the data was not dependent on self-report and provided more accountability, an issue that Teemant et al. (2011) also noted when referencing the review of research by Cornett and Knight (2009).
Before the coaching cycles began, the coach met with the teacher to establish the relationship and bond. This was immediately followed by an observation so as to establish


62
where the teacher was on the SPC. The teachers who initially rated lower on the SPC ultimately had difficulty employing the last three standards to a high level in small groups.
In the Teemant (2014) study, the participants were 36 elementary school teachers, teaching grades ranging from kindergarten to sixth grade. The largest population of students in the school was from Latino households (75%) and the second largest group was from African American households (16%). The source of data was the SPC, and she followed the same pattern as the Teemant et al. (2011) study, using the initial workshop to explain the Standards mid the 7 coaching cycles. Based on the ratings from the SPC, she found that the coached teachers had significant quantitative growth with regard to using the Five Standards. Furthermore, one year after the intervention, the coached teachers retained significant levels of pedagogical change in JPA, Language Literacy mid Development (the second standard), Challenging Activities (the fourth standard), mid Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard); notwithstanding that all teachers did decline a level, normally receding from the integrating to the enacting level on the SPC. The data revealed that Challenging Activities and Instructional Conversation were difficult to maintain at high levels without continued coaching. After a year, the control group teachers continued to teach in a whole-class manner.
Teaching Approaches and Theories for Language Instruction
The approaches and practices that have informed foreign language teaching have varied depending on dominant beliefs at the time. Currently, there is still debate between the relevance of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research as it relates to second language education (Spada, 2015), noting that research practices are sometimes misapplied to second language teaching situations. Related to this issue, Ellis (2010) discusses a gap that exists


63
between researchers and practitioners, and he attributes the gap to the fact that researchers and practicing teachers are in different roles with different objectives. Considering the statements by Spada (2015) mid Ellis (2010), this current study potentially provides a solution to the issues they note by using principles derived from a scientifically based theoretical framework (sociocultural theory), which will provide teachers in actual second language situations with a practical pedagogy that can be applied in classrooms (the Standards). Having presented the literature surrounding sociocultural theory, dialogic teaching, and the coaching division of professional development, it is important to review historical and current approaches, methods, mid theories of Second Language Acquisition and second language instruction to recognize how the Standards mid SCT fit into language teaching and why the framework used in this current research is different and valuable. Figure 10 provides an overview of these approaches, methods, and theories, and it is followed by a brief explanation of each. All of these approaches mid practices have influenced world language teaching in US schools. The focus on grammar, repetition, or communicative styles, which these approaches purported at various times, has guided world language teachers into the practices they use or shun. Several of them, such as Content-based Instruction mid Communicative Language Teaching, are based on SCT principles or utilize actions similar to those used in the Standards. Methods such as Form Focused Instruction could take place in a JPA. However, considering the JPA standard, which seeks to enable the teacher to consistently become a full pmf icipmit with a small group of students, the following review of approaches, methods, and theories reveals that a consistent teacher-small group composition is not a goal of their application, even for the social approaches employed for language teaching.


64
Figure 10. Various Approaches, Methods, and Theories for Language Teaching
Approaches
Behaviorism
Nativist, Naturalist, & Cognitive
Communicative
Social
Methods
Grammar-Translation Method
Audio-Lingual Method
Direct Method
Total Physical Response (TPR)
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Content-based Instruction (CBI)
Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Form-Focused Instruction & Focus-on-Form
Theories & Hypotheses
Universal Grammar (UG)
Krashen's Monitor Theory
Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis
Swain's Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
Complexity Theory
Language Socialization
Sociocognitive Approach
Sociocultural Theory Second Language (SCT-L2)
Figure 10 presents three areas, organized to present the literature which has and continues to influence world language teaching. The Approaches are global perspectives that influence the methods of teaching or the theories created. The Methods are specific ways for teaching. They dictate particular actions that the teachers should perform in the classroom during instruction. The Theories & Hypotheses group do not present a specific method for implementing instruction, but they attempt to provide reasoning for why certain actions should be taken. For example, Atkinson (201 la) explains the theory and implications concerning the use of a Sociocognitive Approach; consequently, it has been placed into the Theories & Hypotheses group. Moreover, since it is one of several social approaches, it has not been included in the Approaches group, even though Atkinson (2011a) uses the word approach when explaining it. In similar fashion, there are other items in the Methods and Theories & Hypotheses groups that developed from the approaches that influenced the


65
developers. The repetitive actions of the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual methods are characteristic a behavioristic approach. Krasheirs Monitor Theory and Total Physical Response develop from a natural approach. Complexity Theory, Language Socialization, and Sociocultural Theory Second Language (SCT-L2) are other social approaches. The items in Figure 10 are not exhaustive, and all of the items should not be viewed as having to fit exclusively into one approach. Rather, the intention is to help orient the reader to the literature that follows.
Behaviorism. DeKeyser (1998) explains that in second language learning, the word practice is normally viewed as engaging in some activity with the goal of becoming better at that activity. This perception of practice can be seen in the behaviorist approach of language teaching, which was popularized during the latter part of the 1950s. This approach places focus on building habits through the memorization of dialogue and the repeated practice of patterns (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Thus, second language learning based on behaviorism focuses on repetitive exercises.
Grammar-translation method. A method that reflects behavioristic practices is the Grammar-Translation Method. It focuses largely on the written form of the language; consequently, students learning under this method are expected to learn (memorize) grammar rules and vocabulary (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Teaching activities in the classroom often use translation of the target language into the first language (LI) of the students, which in most cases is normally the language used in other content classes, and translation from the first language to the target language. Moreover, with respect to roles and interaction in the classroom, the teacher maintains control and leadership of class activities; interaction is mostly in the form of the teacher speaking to the students, and there is little


66
student-to-student interaction (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Student progress is assessed by whether the students can memorize rules mid vocabulary and reproduce them.
At the same time, there is also a focus on continually checking and increasing the students understanding of grammar rules (DeKeyser, 1998). As evidenced by the classroom dynamic, there is not a focus on increasing fluency or spontaneity of language in the second language because production is not particularly the goal of instruction (DeKeyser, 1998).
Audio-lingual method. The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) is similar to the Grammar-Translation Method in that there is a focus on repetitive practice. Additionally, it is similar to the Direct Method in that there is a focus on oral production. This method has also been influenced by behaviorism in that it was believed that the way to learn the sentence structures of the second language was to train, using the language to build habits that would then be able to be used in language production (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). The Audio-Lingual Method does have the goal of enabling students to use the language for actual communication; however, because of the relationship to behaviorism, it is believed that the enabling to use language is accomplished by repeated practice of patterns and memorizing prescribed dialogues (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), the doing of which does not predispose the learners to deal with situations in which the language does not fit the practiced drill patterns. The drills are mechanical, mid the dialogues undergo substitutions and transformations of forms so as to replicate a certain situation (DeKeyser, 1998). The role of the teacher is that of a modeler, affording the students the opportunity to have an accurate model that may be imitated. Furthermore, in similarity to the Direct Method, vocabulary is learned through speaking and grammar meaning has to be derived by the students during the use of the language (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). With regard to interaction,


67
students interact with other students when they practice the dialogue drills, all of which is overseen by the teacher. Nevertheless, most interaction occurs between teacher mid student and is initiated by the teacher. Additionally, students directly imitate the teacher or the model voice provided by recordings (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013).
Direct method. In contrast to the behaviorist approaches, DeKeyser (1998) presents the Direct Method as using very contextualized teacher monologues and student practice which incorporates meaningful drills that require the student to process meaning as opposed to thoughtlessly translating material between languages as in the Grammar-Translation Method. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2013) provide a similar assessment of the Direct Method by explaining that a rule of this method is that there is no translation accepted in the classroom. As the name implies, they note that meaning must be directly transferred in the target language by demonstrating an activity or by using a visual illustration (e.g., using pictures or acting out the action). In this method, since the teacher must find a means to convey the meaning of new vocabulary and phrases, the teacher and students have more of an interactive role than seen in the Grammar-Translation Method. This allows for students to initiate interaction with the teacher mid engage other students in conversations. Another aspect of the Direct Method that contrasts with the Grammar- Translation Method is that students often use the target language for speaking during the class. With speaking and communicating as the focus, grammar is learned by inducing the meaning while using the forms in class. Another contrast is that the reading and writing exercises that students do is based on oral practice that has been done prior and not based on decontextualized grammar points. In addition, the students are not to use their first language in the class (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013).


68
Nativist approach and universal grammar. Another approach to the teaching mid learning of language develops from the Nativist position (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Ortega, 2009), also referred to as the Innatist position (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). This position, argued by Chomsky (1965) as he refuted the behaviorist position, says that there is a naturally occurring biological element, the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which allows children to acquire language from the environment during a particular period that begins from infancy mid lasts to around eleven years of age (Littlewood, 1984). As a naturally occurring biological element, it means that even before people have any experience with language, they possess the basic foundations of grammatical knowledge (Ortega, 2009). Chomsky (1965) explains this concept through Universal Grammar (UG), which attempts to account for the logical problem of language acquisition, also called the poverty of the stimulus (White, 2007); that is to say, it questions how do children become able to use language accurately when the input they receive is either lacking accuracy or insufficient in some manner. While the logical problem was raised with respect to first language acquisition, Ellis (2008) explains that the logical problem has also been presented as having application to Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Therefore, Universal Grammar-based SLA attempts to reveal what principles of this theory apply to second language learning (Ellis, 1997). These researchers tend to have a focus on the competence of second language speakers who are in more advanced stages of the language lemming process; by focusing on more advanced learners, they are able to observe similarities and differences between competency as it relates to the native speakers of the language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Thus, Universal Grammar-based SLA focuses more on linguistic grammatical knowledge and how it is manifest in learners as opposed to how it is used in real application; the focus is


69
not on user ability but more on the grammar concepts themselves (Ellis, 2008; Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
The natural approach. Krashens Natural Approach, which is expressed in his Monitor Theory (MT) (Krashen, 1985), is an example of a second language model influenced by Chomskys first language theory (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), and it still has a substantial influence on current SLA research (VanPatten &
Williams, 2007). The Natural Approach did away with all practice of grammar, as it was believed that practice of forms was not helpful but rather more comprehensible input was needed (DeKeyser, 1998). I will not discuss all five of the Monitor Theory hypotheses nor go into depth about them; however, the first hypothesis is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. It separates the manner by which a person becomes able to use a second language into two independent ways: acquisition or learning (Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1991). It says that acquisition is subconscious and basically the same as when a person is learning their first language; in contrast, learning is a conscious process that requires the student to actively learn aspects of the second language (Krashen, 1985). Another hypothesis of the Monitor Theory is the Input Hypothesis. It says that humans acquire language in only one way, by receiving comprehensible input. Therefore, by providing comprehensible input that is slightly above the current level of competence, illustrated by i + 1, the learner can progress in accordance with the Natural Order Hypothesis of the Monitor Theory, which says that the rules of language are acquired in apredictable order (Krashen, 1985). Directly related to the Input Hypothesis is the Affective Filter Hypothesis of Monitor Theory. It notes that while comprehensible input is needed for successful acquisition, it is not sufficient on its own. The filter refers to any mental obstacle that may be preventing the student from using


70
the input. Thus, if a learner is under some type of mental strain or simply lacks motivation, even if the student understands what he/she hears or reads, it may not reach the Language Acquisition Device (Krashen, 1985).
An important aspect of Chomsky mid Krashens theories is the view they take towards input mid output. In correspondence to the poverty of the stimulus position, Chomsky saw input as merely an activator of the Language Acquisition Device (Ellis, 1984). Krashen presents output as being only useful for generating new comprehensible input (Cummins & Swain, 1986). He viewed output as not being effective in second language acquisition because (a) there were not enough opportunities for students to speak mid (b) making students produce output would raise their affective filter (Ellis, 2008). However, from the perspective of the Standards and sociocultural theory, the lack of opportunity to speak is addressed by the organizational aspects of JPA, mid the issue with the affective filter is addressed by propinquity, intersubjectivity, and guided participation (discussed in Chapter III).
Total physical response. Total Physical Response (TPR) (Asher, 2000) is a teaching method that reflects the Natural Approach in that it falls under a system that attempts to apply the observations of how children naturally acquire their first language to a second language teaching method (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Total Physical Response was developed to lower the mental strain students may experience when attempting to communicate in another language, and this is the reasoning for basing the second language teaching on the way students acquire the first language; consequently, students of Total Physical Response will not produce the language initially, and they will directly imitate the actions the teacher shows them or the directives they are given, such as point to the door or


71
stand up (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). In this method, vocabulary and grammatical structures receive focus over other forms by the teacher using imperative statements and corresponding actions that students can imitate, which is viewed as being more representative to how children learn their first language; opportunities for students to speak and practice reading normally will not occur until somewhere after 10 hours of instruction (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013).
Communicative approach. Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (2013) note the change in theory during the early 1970s which began to question whether the methods aimed at enabling students to communicate in the second language were actually correct or not. An important proponent of this questioning was Dell Hymes (1972), who challenged Chomskys linguistic competence position, noting that Chomskys approach did not give attention to the social interactions in which communication takes place, and he proposed the concept of communicative competence (Savignon, 1997). Within the communicative competence model, Canale mid Swain (1980) proposed a framework consisting of four components: Grammatical Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competence, and Strategic Competence. Thus, second language teaching that attempts to pursue communicative competence should incorporate these four competences to equip the learner for actual communication in a social situation. The linguist Michael Halliday (1980) also rejected Chomskys approach, noting that without looking at language in the actual context of its use, it would not be possible to understand the actual purposes of grammatical structures (Savignon, 1997).
Communicative, content-based, and tasked-based. With the change from a focus on linguistic structure to a focus on a communicative approach, several methods for second


72
language teaching resulted, namely Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Content-based Instruction (CBI), and Tasked-based Language Teaching (TBLT). Communicative Language Teaching, is the weaker form of the Communicative Approach (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013).
While Communicative Language Teaching is intended to make communicative competence the objective of a language course, depending on the perception and application of the instructor, the resulting Communicative Language Teaching classes may vary significantly. Consequently, the understanding teachers have of how Communicative Language Teaching should be operationalized in a classroom is sometimes unclear, particularly when compared to some of the traditional forms previously mentioned, where classroom actions such as reading mid writing drills or prescribed oral drills are more easily discemable and more easily controlled by the teacher (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). An example of the lack of clarity derives from an important issue addressed in Communicative Language Teaching literature, that of the tendency to view Communicative Language Teaching only in terms of oral competency. With this concept being so prevalent, many teachers tend to focus on making pair or group work with the goal simply being to get students to interact in some fashion (Eisenchlas 2010). Additionally, Grenfell (2007) explains that in an attempt to have students communicate in Communicative Language Teaching, the result becomes essentially the same as the repetitive skill practice models based on behaviorism. Communicative Language Teaching requires more than mere interaction, the meaning of which is sometimes unclear itself. Littlewood (1981) addresses the purposes for communicative activities functioning in a Communicative Language Teaching classroom (Figure 11). The first, whole-task practice, is to make sure the activity


73
allows for the evaluation of a whole skill and not just part of a skill (e.g., can the student pose a question only, or can the student also respond). Another purpose for communicative activities is to increase motivation, and this is based on a premise that motivation is easier to maintain in activities that have a focus on communication. An additional purpose is to provide for natural learning. This relates to the focus on the social aspect of language and the view is that there are certain aspects of a language that do not become functional unless the student uses them in a communicative capacity. Finally, communicative activities have the purpose of creating an environment that supports learning. For example, Littlewood notes the positive personal relationships that develop among learners and teachers. He also introduces specific roles for the teacher in a Communicative Language Teaching classroom (Figure 11). The first is to provide assistance when students are not able to manage the tasks of an activity. Another action of the teacher is to monitor the students to ascertain their weaknesses mid strengths. This allows for the teacher to assess the needs of the students.
The third role of the teacher is to provide error correction in the event that the error is deemed too important to leave unaddressed.


74
Figure 11. Purposes for Activities and Roles of the Teacher in Communicative Language Teaching (Littlewood, 1981)
Purposes for
Communicative Activities
Provides Whole-Task Practice
Increases motivation
Provides for natural learning
Supports an environment conducive to learning
Roles for the Teacher in a Communicative Language Teaching Classroom
Teachers provide assistance when necessary
Teacher monitors students to better understand individual strengths and weaknesses
The teacher may provide immediate error correction
As noted above, Communicative Language Teaching is ascribed to the weaker version of the Communicative Approach because the focus is on providing the students with various opportunities to practice using the language for communicative purposes in the classroom. In contrast, instead of providing students with opportunities to learn the language through practicing it, the strong version of the Communicative Approach sees language as being learned in communication (Larsen-Freeman & .Anderson, 2013). The result is that the strong version uses the second language to learn about a certain topic. Examples of the strong version are Content-based Instruction and Tasked-based Language Teaching.
Larsen-Freeman and .Anderson (2013) explain that in Content-based Instruction, the purpose is for students to learn content and master the language of instruction. This is often done by focusing on content themes that are supported by the teacher using visuals, purposeful repeating, examples, and by building on the previous experiences of the students.


75
The activities used can address both language and content objectives. In Tasked-based Language Teaching, the focus is on using language to complete a meaningful task which has a clear outcome so that both the teacher mid the students are able to verify that effective communication has taken place; in contrast to tasks that occur in Communicative Language Teaching, where the focus is on practicing a language component such as questioning, in the Tasked-based Language Teaching activities, there is no special focus on a certain language function. In both Tasked-based Language Teaching and Content-based Instruction, the teacher is more of a supporter of student activities, and the students often work together in a communicative capacity (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013).
Form-focused instruction. Chomskys theories, and in particular, Krashens Natural Approach, have been used as support for why explicit grammar teaching should be removed from second language teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2015; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Razfar, Khisty, & Chyal, 2011; Spada, 2015; Williams, 2013). Nevertheless, in contrast to removing explicit grammar instruction all together, another method used in second language education is that of form-focused instruction (FFI), also known as focus-on-form (FonF), which has been shown to have positive results on second language learning (Afitska, 2015; Saito & Lyster, 2012; Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo, 2014). As the name implies, form-focused instruction seeks to draw attention (focus) to the grammatical forms during the language lesson. An important difference between grammar-translation methods mid form-focused instruction is that grammar-translation dominated classes have nearly exclusive focus on the forms; alternatively, and in line with the goals of the Communicative Approach, form-focused instruction draws attention to forms but the focus of the class is still situated in
meaning and communication (Afitska, 2015; Spada et al., 2014). Taking this into account,


76
the research in this area tends to look at what types of form-focused instruction are effective in second language learning.
One area of form-focused instruction examines the use of proactive (explicit) mid reactive (implicit) form-focused instruction. Proactive form-focused instruction essentially introduces grammatical structures before they arise as an issue, while the reactive form-focused instruction is a response to an interruption due to the lack of understanding surrounding grammatical forms that arise during the lesson (Afitska, 2015). Additionally, both forms can be initiated by the teacher or the students (Kamiya, 2012).
Another area of research in form-focused instruction deals with integrated form-focused instruction mid isolated form-focused instruction, where integrated focuses the learners attention to form during the communicative activities and isolated directs the learners attention to form separate from the communicative activities (Spada, 2011; Spada et al., 2014). In this respect, form-focused instruction has seen success when used in Content-based Instruction mid Tasked-based Language Teaching classrooms for bringing attention to grammatical aspects of the language (Spada et al., 2014).
Noticing hypothesis. The belief that it is necessary to first bring attention to certain aspects of a language in order acquire it is not only a form-focused instruction position, but it is reflected in Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis (1990). According to this position, just because a language feature (comprehensible input) is noticed does not guarantee that it will be acquired, but noticing is seen as a necessary point of inception (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Schmidts position says that the attention to language input needs to be a conscious process; this process is displayed in two forms which are deemed necessary occurrences for second language learning: Noticing, the recognition of linguistic features in the input, and


77
Noticing-the-Gap, when the learner recognizes the difference between the input they are receiving and the output they are able to produce (Ellis, 2008).
Comprehensible output hypothesis. Swains Comprehensible Output Hypothesis derived as she posed questions about Comprehensible Input in relation to students in an immersion class who were still making grammatical errors. Recognizing that input was not the issue, she believed that it was possibly related to the lack of opportunities to speak (Ellis, 2008). She supported the increased need for a focus on output, noting three benefits in particular (Swain, 1998). The first is related to Noticing-the-Gap. She explains that when students want to express a concept, feeling, or idea in the second language but realize their inability to do so, the inability draws attention to that specific aspect of the language mid allows the learners to notice where they have a problem. The second benefit of output is that it allows for hypothesis formulating mid testing. That is to say, when learners try out new forms, they will be able to see what works and what does not. She also notes that when immediate feedback is available, some learners will immediately make corresponding modifications to their speech. The third benefit of output is that it provides opportunity for metatalk, using language to talk about mid reflect on the use of language.
Of the approaches, methods, mid theories presented in this chapter so far, several possess traits that are common to the Standards. For example, some of the roles Littlewood (1981) presents for teachers in communicative activities, such as providing assistance and monitoring weaknesses and strengths are characteristic to what happens when teachers work in the students Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, the point that certain aspects of the language cannot become fully functional unless they occur during a


78
true social encounter (Littlewood, 1981) is a SCT principle. Following is a presentation of the social approaches to Second Language Acquisition.
Social approaches in second language acquisition. Of the aforementioned methods and theories, Content-based Instruction and Tasked-based Language Teaching display attributes that have more than a focus on just communication. Content-based Instruction is influenced by the teachings of Vygotsky, and as such, the teacher uses various methods to scaffold student learning, and students work collaboratively to understand content, not only to achieve a goal (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Moreover, Tasked-based Language Teaching shares characteristics with some of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, especially with respect to having clear goals for students that reveal if they have successfully fulfilled a task mid with regard to allowing students to work together to solve a problem or complete a task (Dalton, 1998). Nevertheless, current SLA methods tend to be more cognitive in approach as opposed to focusing on social aspects relating to second language teaching. Thus, SCT, being a social approach to language instruction, stands in sharp contrast to many other approaches.
Atkinson (2011b) explains the critical features of the current mainstream cognitive position. The first feature is the perspective which views the mind as essentially a computer, taking in information, processing the information, and then producing output, much as a computer would do. The second is representational ism, which means cognitive knowledge is stored as internal representations of the external (including socioculturally constructed) world... (p. 4). The third sees lemming as the acquisition of abstract knowledge. Atkinson (201 lb) says that from this perspective, learning is the acquisition of signals mid clues from a persons environment and the consequent processing that takes place, making them


79
representations. Additionally, this means that knowledge must be decontextualized because when it is internalized, it is no longer firmly connected to the environment from which it was taken. He presents Chomskys (1964) separation of competence and performance as an example of the abstract knowledge position, where performance in the world is a weak sign of a persons actual knowledge because such knowledge can truly only exist in an abstract state inside the mind. He also notes that while Krashen himself did not use the term cognitivist, and Krashens views are often criticized, for example with regard to the Monitor model not being empirically testable (Lightbown & Spada, 2013) or with respect to his position against conscious learning of forms in language (McMillan & Rivers, 2011), the work he did has influenced the agenda of current Second Language Acquisition research, namely with regard to input. For example, input must be comprehensible mid the affective filter needs to be low so there is no mental blockage or strain which may keep the input from reaching the Language Acquisition Device; if these conditions can be met, then the mind will process the information automatically (just as a computer would automatically run the program based on the input it receives) and acquisition will take place naturally (Atkinson, 2011b; Krashen, 1985)
Despite the influence of cognitivist approaches in SLA, there are several distinct social approaches in existence that are available for researching second language development. In this section, I will briefly introduce several of these approaches while also noting their differences; however, the focus will be on SCT-Second Language which is the framework this study falls under.
Complexity theory. Larsen-Freemans (2011) Complexity Theory is one social theory that is explained as being adaptive because it always changes depending on


80
circumstances; that is, it is dependent on the social composition of the environment in which the person lives or is in. This complexity, which develops from the bottom-up, by interaction with multiple people, is placed in contrast to the stagnant approach of a top-down system that develops along an established path of grammatical rules (p. 49). Instead of studying second language development in a decontextualized state, Larsen-Freeman presents Complexity Theory as a way of being able to view the progression of the second language along with the variability that is normally observed in real context, because language is adapted to fit the need of the context. Complexity Theory is similar to SCT in that it sees the higher mental functions as developing from interaction in the social environment; however, Complexity Theory is more concerned with how human minds influence the social environment they are in (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). She also suggests that this theory places the location of learning neither solely in the brain nor in social interaction, but rather it is somewhere between the two.
Language socialization. Language Socialization is another social approach based on the work of theorist such as Hymes (1972, 1974), Halliday (1980), mid Vygotsky (1978), and in contrast to cognitive approaches in SLA, Language Socialization focuses on the community and its practices as opposed to the individual (Duff & Talmy, 2011).
Additionally, whereas much of Second Language Acquisition looks at the development of linguistic features (e.g., phonology), Duff and Talmy (2011) explain that Language Socialization approaches include other forms of knowledge, for example, culture mid other governing rules that are included and expressed through the use of the language, such as rules for knowing what is deemed acceptable or not. They explain that another characteristic of Language Socialization is that it addresses the intricacy of the situation that arises when


81
learners of a second language, who already have well-developed linguistic mid cultural practices, are now in a situation in which they are learning new ones. From this perspective, they explain that the interaction between what the person has learned previously and what he/she is learning now is much more complex than what is encapsulated in the common Second Language Acquisition explanation of transfer from first language to second language. They also note that Language Socialization is similar to the other social approaches in that they all (a) place importance on cultural activities and the meanings that arise from such interactions as well as (b) recognize the important influence other people of a community have on the learning of an individual in the community. Nevertheless, they assert that where other social approaches tend to view language learning as the junction of social processes and mental processes, which then tends to emphasize the linguistic knowledge that develops at that time, Language Socialization takes a stronger anthropological approach and places more emphasis on the larger cultural experience, as would be seen through enculturation.
Sociocognitive approach. The next social model is the Sociocognitive approach, and the main position is that the mind, the body, and the environment are all functioning jointly in the acquisition of the second language (Atkinson, 201 la). Atkinson (201 la) explains two important implications of a sociocognitive approach. The first is in regard to learning; it is not merely an activity taking place in a specific location facilitated by a specific person for some educational purpose, but rather, learning is the default state of human affairs (p. 143). The second implication is that cognition is projected into the world by means of the tools created by people, such as computers and grammar exercises, and these tools support cognition because they allow for sociocognitive activities to take place that


82
would not readily be possible if the tools were not in existence. Thus, as opposed to cognition being thought or thinking that is abstract mid the mind working as a computer, cognition is viewed as something that allows humans to live effectively in their environment (e.g., a computer); it is a biological system that develops from the experiences people have in their environment. In line with this view of cognition, the Sociocognitive standpoint of language is that language is a tool for social interaction. Atkinson (201 la) suggests that recent sociocognitive research sees learning as not particularly what meaning people get from their environment but rather the increasing of meaningful participation in it. Finally, the relation to other social approaches is visible, but Atkinson (2011a) explains an important difference with respect to SCT. He notes how in SCT, things begin in the social and end with internalization in the mind of the learner. However, in the Sociocognitive approach, it would not be said that cognition results from the internalization of outside concepts.
Sociocultural theory second language. The final social approach, mid the one that relates closest to the framework of the current study is that of SCT-Second Language. From the start of SCT-Second Language research in the mid-1980s, the goal has been to understand how learners use the language of study to mediate their mental activity and communicative activity; consequently, mid in line with SCT principles, SCT-Second Language situates this mediation (self or other) as the central part of development (Lantolf, 2011). Lantolf (2011) addresses the use of language as it develops in children, elucidating the point that children learn language not for the point of learning language but for the purpose of carrying out activities necessary for their social context. This results in language being a symbolic tool used in social activities, but it is also through the doing of these activities that language itself is learned. Following the ZPD model of providing learners with


83
tasks that are slightly beyond their ability as well as something to act as mediation during the task, in regard to second language development, researchers attempt to see how second language learners use the language of study to control their actions when they are faced with communicatively and/or challenging tasks (Lantolf, 2011).
In the SCT-Second Language study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), they present several important findings that derived from their study of three ESL learners control of second language grammatical forms as they interacted and negotiated meaning with an ESL tutor. Lantolf (2011) summarized the findings as follows: (a) for the same grammatical feature, different learners may need different types of mediation; (b) an individual learner may need different types of mediation depending on his/her control over a grammatical feature; (c) sometimes mediation is kept back from the learner to ascertain to what degree the learner has control over a particular feature; and (d) development in the second language feature is not only understood by the performance of the learner, but it is also seen by the change of mediation as it moves from more explicit forms to more implicit forms.
The above findings contribute to the understanding of how mediation during dialogic interaction could be used to assess the ability of second language learners (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Those findings supported the development of research using dynamic assessment (DA) in the SCT-Second Language field (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). DA is explained as the systematic use of the ZPD to achieve the integration of instruction and assessment (Lantolf, 2011). The results from the 1994 study are explained in DA through a set of rules governing mediation along a set of three planes on which effective mediation operates within DA, depicted in Figure 10 (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). With regard to the rules, the first is that mediation must be graduated, in that it should only be as explicit as


84
necessary for the learner to give the needed response. Therefore, if one type of mediation is not effective, the form of mediation may become more explicit; nevertheless, in the beginning, implicit mediation should be used because a jump to explicit mediation which is too explicit may result in overshooting areas of the of the second language that are in the process of emerging and would have benefited from assistance.
The second rule is that mediation is negotiated because in order to determine the appropriate amount of mediation, one must constantly adapt mediation to the learner as needs become evident. The third rule is that mediation needs to be contingent. The difference between this mid the first rule is that as opposed to varying the implicitness or explicitness of the mediation, the mediation is kept back when the learner displays traces of being able to function without it (or them). Tharp and Gallimore (1988) explain the same SCT concept by the term of responsive assistance, albeit they were not looking at second language development. Nevertheless, they are in agreement with Lantolf and Poehner (2014), who emphasize the importance for the learner to develop the ability to self-regulate, mid note that if the mediation (or assistance) is provided when it is not needed, it can actually impede development, a point noted in Stage 3 of the ZPD.
With reference to the three planes, the individual plane reflects the difference in individuals dealing with the same linguistic second language feature but responding differently to the same mediation. In such cases, they require different forms of mediation to deal with the issue. The second plane refers to time, and it presents the aspect of one learner needing more explicit meditation at one time than may have been required at a different time. The third is in regard to the particular feature of the language, which recognizes that for some


Full Text

PAGE 1

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING FOR JOINT PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY: WORKING WITH WORLD LANGUAGE TEACHERS by Colin Edward Hueston B.S., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 1999 Ed.M., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 2003 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Education and Human Development Program 2017

PAGE 2

ii COLIN EDWARD HUESTON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Colin Edward Hueston has been approved for the Education and Human Development Program b y Nancy L. Commins Chair Luis E. Poza Alan Davis Elizabeth Mahon July 29, 2017

PAGE 4

iv Hueston, Colin Edward (Ph.D., Education and Human Development) Instructional Coaching for Joint Productive Activity: Working with World Language Teachers Thesis directed by Clinical Professor Nancy L. Commin s ABSTRACT This mixed methods multiple case study examined the ability of world language teachers to implement sociocultural teaching principles in their classrooms by employing the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity. T he researcher used instructional coaching as a means for training the teachers in the application of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Using structural and descriptive coding, the analyzed data revealed that all participating world language teachers i mplemented varying aspects of the Joint Productive Activity s tandard effectively. In addition, the data revealed the positive attitudes the teachers possessed regarding the standard and their clear intention to continue using and spreading the Joint Productive Activity s tandard in the department. The implications of this study extend to two broad areas: (a) future research on the Standards for Effective Pedagogy and (b) professional development of world language teachers. With regard to the Standards for Effective Pedagogy the results of this study suggest that world language teachers benefit from using the Standards, and more studies should be conducted in world language contexts. Additionally, this study suggests that rather than using shorter forms o f professional development that may last only one or two days, professional development that provides longer and consistent interaction with the trainer or coach, such as instructional coaching, is more beneficial for world language teachers. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.

PAGE 5

v Approved: Nancy L. Commins

PAGE 6

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, thank you Jesus for getting me through this and connecting me with people who supported me and guided me through t he entire process. Much love to my wife w ho took care of our househol d and family while I pushed through to finish school. Without your support, I could not have gone to do doctoral studies let alone completed this dissertation. My committee was truly awesome. Thank you for your advice and guidance. Thank you for constantly adjusting to my time schedule. In particular, a big shout out to the worlds best dissertation chair, Nancy. I truly learned what an advisor and dissertation chair are supposed to be like. This experience with you has inspired me to want to provide the same level of attentiveness and guidance for doctoral students I may work with in the future. Special thanks goes to Professor Zion f or advising me towards the PhD program, without which, I would have missed my professional calling. I also must recognize Kara for introducing me to The Standards for Effective Pedagogy. You provided me with a research topic that will guide my future end eavors Additionally, you connected me directly to Professor Teemant, who deepened my understanding of these standards. I am also thankful for Boni, who always took time to check on and encourage me. Without her help and guidance, I would not have finis hed the methodology section, and that is not an exaggeration. Naturally, I must express my gratitude to the teachers I worked with. They gave freely of there time and were full participants with me during this undertaking. Finally, thank you to the staf f at AWMI who allowed me to alter my work schedule in any form necessary so I could take classes and do research over these past years.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS C HAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 Personal History ................................................................................................................... 1 The Standards for Effective Pedagogy ................................................................................ 3 Statement of Problem ........................................................................................................... 9 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 9 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 11 Researcher Role ................................................................................................................. 11 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 12 Introduction to the Sociocultural Position ................................................................ 14 Concepts of Assistance ............................................................................................. 16 Imitation and Collaboration ..................................................................................... 19 Mediation and Tools ................................................................................................ 20 The Role of Concepts ............................................................................................... 22 The Foundational Strength of the Standards ............................................................ 24 Precedence and Format for a SCT Approach to Teaching ....................................... 28 Teaching and ZPD .................................................................................................... 29 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 35 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 35 Defining Dialogue ............................................................................................................. 36 Current Dialogic Teaching ....................................................................................... 36 Collaboration in Dialogic Teaching ......................................................................... 37

PAGE 8

viii Approaches to Dialogue ........................................................................................... 39 Dialogic Classrooms Models ................................................................................... 42 Dialogically organized instruction. ..................................................................42 Exploratory talk. ..............................................................................................44 Accountable talk. .............................................................................................45 Dialogic teaching. ............................................................................................46 Dialogue in Group or Whole class Instruction ........................................................ 46 Distinct Benefits of Dialogic Teaching .................................................................... 49 Caution with Dialogic Teaching .............................................................................. 51 Professional Development and Coaching ......................................................................... 52 Coaching................................................................................................................... 55 Peer coaching. ..................................................................................................55 Cognitive coaching. .........................................................................................55 Literacy coaching. ...........................................................................................56 Instructional coaching. .....................................................................................57 Teaching Approaches and Theories for Language Instruction ......................................... 62 Behaviorism. ....................................................................................................65 Grammar translation method. ..........................................................................65 Audiolingual method. .....................................................................................66 Direct method. .................................................................................................67 Nativist approach and universal grammar. ......................................................68 The natural approach. ......................................................................................69 Total physical response. ..................................................................................70

PAGE 9

ix Communicative approach. ...............................................................................71 Communicative, content based, and taskedbased. .........................................71 Form focused instruction. ................................................................................75 Noticing hypothesis. ........................................................................................76 Comprehensible output hypothesis. .................................................................77 Social approaches in second language acquisit ion. .........................................78 Complexity theory. ..........................................................................................79 Language socialization. ...................................................................................80 Sociocognitive approach. .................................................................................81 Sociocultural theory second language. ............................................................82 Using Groups in World Language Instruction ......................................................... 88 III. STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY AND THE SPC .................................. 96 What is Pedagogy ............................................................................................................. 96 The Standards for Effective Pedagogy: Application ................................................ 97 Joint productive activity. .................................................................................99 Language and literacy development. ...............................................................99 Contextualization. ............................................................................................99 Challenging activities. ...................................................................................100 Instructional conversation. .............................................................................100 Results from Studies Regarding the Implementing of the Standards ............................. 109 Measuring Joint Productive Activity .............................................................................. 112 Standards Performance Continuum ........................................................................ 112 Additional Measures .............................................................................................. 115

PAGE 10

x Additional Examples of JPA and Measurements in Classrooms ........................... 118 IV. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 122 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 122 Goal of the Study .................................................................................................... 123 Research Objectives ............................................................................................... 124 Research/Mixing Rationale and Purpose ............................................................... 124 Mixed Methods Sampling ...................................................................................... 125 Site selection and participants .......................................................................127 Mixed Methods Research Design .......................................................................... 129 Mixed methods design. ..................................................................................129 Case study design. .........................................................................................130 Additional design features. ............................................................................132 Five Standards Instructional Model. ..............................................................135 Mixed Methods Data Collection ............................................................................ 137 Data sources. ..................................................................................................138 Coaching cycles. ............................................................................................141 Semi structured interview and member check. .............................................142 Reliability, Validity, and Strengths of the SPC ...................................................... 143 Mixed Methods Data Analysis ............................................................................... 145 Triangulation. ................................................................................................146 Mixed Methods Data Legitimation ........................................................................ 148 V. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................. 151 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 151

PAGE 11

xi Sophia ..................................................................................................................... 156 Notable findings. ...........................................................................................166 Isabel ...................................................................................................................... 169 Notable findings. ...........................................................................................179 Frida ....................................................................................................................... 184 Notable findings. ...........................................................................................198 Samantha ................................................................................................................ 201 Notable findings. ...........................................................................................218 Summary of Case Study Findings .......................................................................... 221 Findings for f ive s tandards i nstructional m odel ...........................................236 VI. INTERPRETATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 238 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 238 Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Future Research ......................... 239 These world language teachers were able to implement JPA. ......................239 World language teachers have only positive views of the JPA standard. .....241 Participants collaborating with each other is important. ...............................242 Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA. ...............243 The root cause for teachers not implementing aspects of JPA. .....................244 Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Professional Development ......... 249 These world language teachers possess positive views of the JPA standard. 249 Participants collaboratin g with each other is important. ...............................250 Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA. ...............250 Additional Inte rpretations and Implications ........................................................... 252

PAGE 12

xii SCT Second Language. .................................................................................252 World languages. ...........................................................................................253 Mixed Methods Data Interpretation ............................................................................ 254 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 255 Conc lusions ................................................................................................................. 256 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 257 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 271 A. Observati on Sheet ...................................................................................................... 271 B. Semi Structured Interview Protocol ........................................................................... 274 C. Consent Form ............................................................................................................. 276 D. Rubric for Developing Inter rater Reliability ............................................................ 278

PAGE 13

xiii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Demographic Information of Participants ........................................................................ 128 2. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Sophia based on the SPC rubric ............................ 156 3. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Sophia) ......................... 157 4. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Isabel based on the SPC rubric ............................... 169 5. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Isabel) ........................... 170 6. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Frida based on the SPC rubric ................................ 184 7. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Frida) ............................ 185 8. Instances of Reflecting on How to Improve JPA for the Future ....................................... 200 9. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Samantha based on the SPC rubric ......................... 201 10. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Sama ntha) ................... 202 11. Summary of Ratings on SPC Rubric for All Cases ........................................................ 221 12. Summary of Briefing, Debriefing, and Mode Information (All Cases) .......................... 222 13. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Implemented (All Cases) ................ 223 14. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Not Implemented (All Cases) ......... 224 15. Positive and Important Views of JPA (All Cases) .......................................................... 226 16. Teacher Views of JPA in Relation to World Languages ................................................ 228 17. Summary of Notable Findings ........................................................................................ 229

PAGE 14

xiv LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Inverted P yramid of Theoretical Framework...14 2. Cycle of Soci al Sorting (Tharp, 2011, p. 12)...27 3. Parallel Progression of SCT Principles in the Framework..33 4. Four Requirements for Effect ive Collaboration (Wells, 1999)...39 5. Approaches to Dial ogue (Lefstein and Snell, 2014)40 6. Dialogic Classroom Models.43 7. Problems and Defining Characteristics of Professional Development (Guskey, 2000)..54 8. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framew ork with Instructional Coaching60 9. Coaching Cycle61 10. Various Approaches, Methods, and Theories for Language Teaching..64 11. Purposes for Activities and Roles of the Teacher in Communicative Language Teaching (Littlewood, 1981).74 12. Rules Governing Mediation and Planes along which Effective Mediation Operate in Dynamic Asses sment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014).85 13. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Te eman t et al., 2011, p. 684)..98 14. Traditional Instructional Frame...102 15. Monotasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes..103 16. Multitasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes...104 17. Overvie w of JPA Pedagogical Structures107 18. Standards Performance Continuum: A Classroom Obse rvation Rubric (Teemant et al., 2009, p. 686)114

PAGE 15

xv 19. Mixed Methods Sampling Model Providing a Typology of a Mixed Methods Sampling Design. (Onwue gbuzie & Collins, 2007, p. 294).125 20. A Typology of Mixed Research (Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2009, p. 5)...130 21. Holistic Multiple Case Case Study Design Reflectin g Four Individual Teacher Cases (adapted fr om Yin, 2009).132 22. Coaching Cycle for Current Study...133 23. Summary of the Phases for the Five Standards Instructional Model...136 24. Summary of Data Sources, Documenting Methods, and Analytical Methods in order of Occurrence...139 25. Data Triangulation...147 26. Various Pedagogical Practices Employed to Support JPA Implementation...153 27. Student Thought Meanings and Purposes for Collaboration (First Draft)..........159 28. Collaboratively Made Agreements for Group Work (First Draft)......160 29. Cycle 1 Obse rvation Activity Defining Roles.161 30. JPA Aspects Sophia Viewed as Positive or Important164 31. Notable Findings in the Case of Sophia..167 32. Understanding Collaboration Slide.173 33. Rules and Agreements for Group Wor k, Isabels Class ( First Draft).174 34. Addition to Rules and Agreements by Two Students.174 35. Cycle 4 Observat ion Updated Slide of Agreements175 36. JPA Aspects Isabel Viewed as Positive or Important..178 37. Notable Findings in the Case of Isabel180 38. Rules and Agreements for Group Work, Fridas Class (First Draft)...188

PAGE 16

xvi 39. Wall Poster of Agreements and Rules for Groups...189 40. JPA Aspects Frida Viewed as Pos itive or Important...192 41. Handout Used for Cycle 2 O bservation (Station Activities)...195 42. Notabl e Findings in the Case of Frida.199 43. Cycle 2 Observation Student Joint Product.204 44. Pre Cycle Student Joint Product..205 45. Post Cycle Assessment Including Agreements...207 46. JPA Aspects Samantha Viewed as Positive or Important 210 47. Notable F indings in the Case of Samantha..219

PAGE 17

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Personal History In 1999, my first job after graduating from college with a double major in business and Japanese was that of an Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Japan. Most of us who participated in the program had no experience in teaching but we were to serve as a cultural resource on issues relating to our country as well as be an exemplar of English pronunciation. I was placed at the second largest junior high school in Chiba prefecture, with approximately 1000 students. I served as the ALT for 18 English as a F oreign Language classes. Every class was teacher fronted and had a large focus on grammar and normally used some form of group practice or activity. Apart from a few games (e.g., relay games between groups of students to practice vocabulary) or activitie s that resemb led Total Physical Response (Asher, 2000), most oral practice did not require the students to work together in order to accomplish a task The students did not of ten use the target language for unrehearsed discussion about a topic. When the target language was used outside of the aforementioned game situations, it was normally for the purposes of practicing a specific pattern. These patterns were frequently used in role play activities, but the students often dealt with topics geared towards what if scenarios, for example, how to interact with people in an airport or supermarket in an English speaking country. Additionally, there was a substantial amount of recitation after the teacher, or myself. The students practiced writing based on gra mmatically oriented exercises from the textbook. These classes were very similar to the language classes I had taken in high school and college in the United States. Thus, from my point of view, this manner of

PAGE 18

2 language teaching was very familiar, and I assumed it to be the normal way of language teaching. I returned to the United States after a year and began graduate studies in a language education Masters program. During this time, I became aware of a different type of language education, different f rom what I had experienced in Japan and in my own schooling, and one that gave more attention to communication in language classes. I learned different theories of language teaching, but I cannot recall receiving any instruction about how to manage a clas s in such a way so as to maximize the potential learning for the students. For that matter, I do not recall any instruction that discussed the design of the classroom in any regard. In short, classroom pedagogy was not a topic covered during my Masters program. Three years later, I returned to Japan for the second time and worked as the English Foreign Language teacher in the second largest elementary school in the same prefecture, located in the same city where I had served as an ALT; in addition to that role, I also worked as an ALT at a junior high school once a week. There had been no apparent change d uring my three year absence The general consensus among nonJapanese English teachers was that there was not enough use of the target language in t he classrooms; notwithstanding, the only solution they presented for this problem was that the Japanese teachers of English should speak more English and allow the students to do likewise The Japanese teachers of English also tended to feel that the stud ents would need more practice speaking in English if they were to be able to use the language practically H owever, they did not know of nor have an effective way to implement higher levels of communication in the classroom and still meet mandated teachin g requirements. Eight years later, as a doctoral student in the United States, I asked my own children about their language classes in high

PAGE 19

3 school. Based upon their responses, the current high school world language classes seem to integrate more genuine artifacts such as newspapers and other objects around which discussion could be cultivated in the language of study. There seems to be more at tention given to the arts that exist in countrie s where the target language is spoken (e.g., poetry, music, and locally made bowls or clothing). There also seem s to be instances when the students discuss real events occurring in the environment around them such as racism. Nevertheless, the classes still appear to be quite traditionally oriented in that they are mostly teacher fronted and the students separate into groups at various times to do activities. In brief conversation with the language teachers during parent teacher conferences, they mentioned that they would like to do more communicative activities (activities that allowed the students to use the target language in more natural situations ); however, they could not find the time to do so due to teaching requirements or logistics. These issues were similar to the ones that I had observed in Japan. These issues were similar to the ones that I had experienced when teaching in adult ESL classes in the United States. These experiences drove me towards a particular question, namely what was the most effective way to create an environment in which students in a language classroom could not only increase their knowledge of the language content but also increase their time using the language of study and still allow for teachers to present required material. It was not until the 2013 fall term and 2014 fall term of my doctoral studies that I discovered potential answers to this question. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000) from herein also referred to as the Standards are a set of five pedagogical standards that can be used to increase the effectiveness of teaching when implemented in a systematic way

PAGE 20

4 The Standards address teaching practices That is, they reveal the contrast that exist between traditional methods of teaching, where the teacher essentially maintains all decision making power for class activities, student participation structure, and topics that will be allowed for study or discussion, and a transformed method of teaching, where the teacher not only genuinely includes the ideas and views of the students but also engages in actual dialogue with the students as a means of instruction (Tharp et al., 2000). The benefits of having a genuine dialogic experience in the classroom are explained in more detail in Chapter II ; nevertheless, there are two important benefits of having a classroom where students may engage in dialogue. The first benefit is that the teachers gain greater access to the everyday knowledge of the students which allows them to take meas ures to utilize that knowledge to ensure that students understand the lesson, particularly since what may be effective for one student may not be as effective for another (Boyd & Markarian, 2015). A second benefit is that allowing for a dialogic atmospher e in a classroom has been seen to promote the social and cognitive development of the students as well as their communicative competence (Lyle, 2008) The Standards are grounded in sociocultural principles (Vygotsky, 1978), and the principles that undergird the Standards have been in use in school settings for over 40 years (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) The research began with the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program in Hawaii in 1970 ( Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003). There has been extensive research on the Standards and the effect they have on teachers and students (for more on research studies invol ving the Standards see Chapter III and Chapter IV ). A distinguishing characteristic of the Standards is that they may be used for any grade level, cu rriculum, or subject area (Teemant, 2014; Tharp et al. 2000). Consequently, research

PAGE 21

5 implementing the Standards has been conducted in various settings, including a preschool (Yamauchi, Im, & Schonleber, 2012), a junior high school mathematics class (Hilberg, Tharp, & DeGeest, 2000), an elementary school where the majority of students had limited English proficiency (Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, & Tharp, 2002), a nd a high school social studies class ( Hilberg, Chang, & Epaloose, 2003) The literature o n the Standards presents their use in research studies, elucidates how they are to be applied in the school environment, and establishes a firm theoretical grounding; there is a large amount of evidence in existence to substantiate their value and contribution to educational contexts. The versatility of being applicable in various content areas is a strength of the Standards. Nevertheless, that versatility has not been fully exploited. In the area of world languages or foreign languages, there are virtually no studies or examples of their use. There are a number of studies in existence that have used the Standards with students who are learning English as another language, but the classes in those studies also included students whose first language was E nglish. Additionally, other literature on the Standards that relate to language learning focuses on implementation practices as opposed to research studies. This literature primarily provides examples of how teachers used the Standards, or it discusses t he principle aspects of the Standards. Nevertheless, this literature also only presents students who are learning English as another language in conjunction with students whose first language is English. The only literature I was able to find that used s ome aspect of the Standards in a true foreign language class was in a study on the use of Dynamic Assessment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) and principles of Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard from the Standards for Effective Pedagogy) in a Spanish foreign language classroom (Davin, 2013). Notwithstanding, the goal in this study was not to determine how the teacher could fully

PAGE 22

6 enact the fifth standard, let alone the preceding four standards. Thus, when addressing the purported universal application of the Standards for all subjects with respect to world languages, the Standards have been understudied. As already mentioned, the Standards for Effective Pedagogy are grounded in Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural principles. Pertinent to sociocultural theory is the role of language in social communication (Vygotsky, 1981) and the importance of collaboration between novice and expert (Vygotsky, 1978). Considering the emphasis on enabling world language students to genuinely communicate in the language of study (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972; LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013), the natural importance of language in a world language class, and the expert novice relationship that exists in the classroom between the teacher and students, the Standards are in a position to positively contribute to the field of world languages. The key component to the Standards is the successful implementation of the first standard, Joint Productive Activity (JPA). The importance of the JPA standard derives from it serving a s the foundation upon which the other standards may function effectively (Dalton, 2008). An important attribute of JPA is that there is consistent use of small groups in the classroom. Eventually, the small groups transition from working simultaneously on the same activities to working simultaneously on different activities. When JPA is functioning effectively in the classroom, all groups will be able to conduct their given activities in the absence of the teacher. The ability for students to work without the direct oversight of the teacher allows the teacher to consistently work with one group for a designated amount of time (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Since the teacher becomes an active member of the

PAGE 23

7 group and not merely an overseer or helper the benefits of the expert novice relationship become readily accessible to the students. Despite the creators expressing that the Standards can be used for any subject area, the documented success in various subject areas, and the seemingly natural rel ationship to world language s due to the importance of language in sociocultural principles it is not exactly clear why there have been so few studies with world languages and the Standards. A possible explanation may be found in the Teemant (2014) study. While the teachers in this study ultimately did enact high levels of JPA and other standards, she explains that they felt the school district mandated pacing made it difficult to fully implement the Standards to the degree they intended. That is to say, the teachers felt pressure to ensure they kept pace with the mandates of the school district, and that affected how they implemented the Standards. While her study was not in a world language context, it is likely that world language teachers also have g uidelines stipulating areas of the language that must be taught within a specific time frame. It is also reasonable that world language teachers might find it difficult to implement the Standards with students in a foreign language situation, where most c ontact with the target language only occurs in the classroom. This may present more problems with lower level world language students than with higher level students. Additionally, the foreign language scenario is different from the studies on the Stand ards that involved students with limited English proficiency, particularly because those students lived in the USA and readily had access (or contact) with first language English speakers, literature in English, and media that was in English. Another pote ntial and likely explanation for why the Standards have not been used in world language classes stems from the original purpose for which they were created. The research that began with the

PAGE 24

8 Kamehameha Elementary Education Program was focused on educationally at risk ethnic minority children (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 115). Since that time, the Standards have often been used to focus on similarly situated at risk students (Hilberg et al., 2000; Wyatt, Yamauchi, & Chapman DeSousa, 2012; Yamauchi et al., 2012). The formulation of the concepts into standards was carried out by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) and as the name implies, the focus on diversity often resulted in the aforementioned studies including at risk or potentially at risk students. It is feasible that in focusing on at risk students, the traditional core subjects (e.g., mathematics, language arts, and science) received priority over foreign language classes.

PAGE 25

9 Statement of Problem Considering the re search already in existence that reveals the benefits that accompany implementation of the Standards and their naturally existing relationship to language, the Standards have the potential to positively affect world language teaching. Thus, the problem is despite the potential benefits of using the Standards in world language classrooms, they have not been implemented. A pertinent issue related to solving the problem is understanding how can world language teachers (a) learn about the Standards and (b) be come able to apply the Standards in their classrooms. The Standards require a specific foundation in classroom organization before they can be applied correctly and completely. Consequently, teachers wishing to apply the Standards in the classroom would require not only initial training in the Standards, but the teachers would also need someone to consistently observe their actions while providing guidance and feedback (Teemant, 2014; Teemant, Wink, & Tyra, 2011) This should be achieved in a manner that takes into account the pressure teachers may have to teach content which has been mandated by the school or district. The potential solution for how to introduce the Standards to teachers is to use instructional coaching as a means for teaching the Standards. Instructional coaching is a type of professional development that allows for consistent contact with the teacher over prolonged periods of time, and the content of the coaching lessons is developed mutually with the teachers (Cornett and Knight, 2009; Knight, 2009a), thereby ensuring the incorporation of each teachers specific circumstances. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate to what degree seco ndary world language teachers were able to implement aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard

PAGE 26

10 after receiving coaching on its principles and implementation. Successful implementation of the JPA standard will potentially contribute to the knowledge base surrounding the use of the Standards for training purposes, as well as to Sociocultural Theory Second Language research (SCT Second Language research). Additionally, successful implementation can potentially aid communicative practices conducted in the classroom between teacher and students. The benefit of communicative practices is that when they occur consistently (in this study, through the attributes of JPA), teachers and students find that a communicative approach has more positive elements th an the traditional Grammar Translation and Audiolingual methods that have often been used for language learning ; for example, instructors find that teaching becomes more effective and students find the class to be more enjoyable (Overland, Fields, & Noonan, 2011). Based on my experience, as well as literature on world language and non world lan guage classes, the assumption was that most world language classrooms employ whole class, teacher fronted activities (Dalton, 2008; Dalton & Tharp, 2002; Davin, 2013; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Furthermore, based upon the same assumptions and literature, the forming of groups is used for certain activities that take place during the class This is in contrast to employing groups to serve as th e normal day to day organization of the class. With regard to communicative practices, world language teachers have also expressed concern in being able to implement them efficiently during the class period (Ekembe, 2014). Finally, based on my professional experiences with world language teachers, it was my assumption that they would like to spend more individualized time with students but did not see a viable, time efficient way to do so. These assumptions guided the reasoning for why the framework used in this study was chosen.

PAGE 27

11 Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers were able to implement the Joint Productive Activity standard after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts and i mplementation procedures The context in which this phenomenon occurs is seen in the contrast of traditional teaching practices and transformative teaching practices. As an observer in the classroom, and considering t he aforementioned purpose, t he follow ing research questions guide the design of the study : 1. Before the instructional coaching with secondary world language teachers in Joint Productive Activity (JPA), using the Standards Performance Continuum Classroom Observation Rubric and other established measures for the Standards for Effective Pedagogy what aspects of JPA already exist in the classroom environment? 2. After instructional coaching in JPA, what aspects of JPA do secondary world language teachers implement in their instruction: Why and to what degree do they do so ? 3. How do study participants view JPA and the coaching process, including its applicability to world language classes? Researcher Role It is important to recognize my role as a researcher who has been teaching English as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language for over 15 years. That experience adds positively to the knowledge gained during my doctoral program. However, as a researcher, I must acknowledge that my experiences from language teaching, inside and outside of the US, influence the manner in which I understand the teaching of language. Additionally, as I affiliate myself with the principles of sociocultural theory, that position

PAGE 28

12 influences my approach not only to language education, but education as a whole. My experiences in schools, ranging from elementary to university level, have allowed me to witness firsthand that many subjects tend to be taught in a whole cl ass manner with occasion al time taken for group activities It is from that frame of reference that I approach this current study, and it is understood that this viewpoint could be a source of potential bias in judgment. Therefore, from the start, I have presented my theoretical orientation as well as assumptions. Nevertheless, the fact that I am a fluent user of another foreign language, have over 15 years of teaching experience, and have studied language education and sociocultural principles in depth also served as an asset in the assessment and assisting of the teachers I worked with. It is those very experiences and ways of thinking which have served as a catalyst to promote this research that can aid the classroom practice of language teachers. The oretical Framework Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural theory (SCT) is the theoretical framework that guides this study. Mercer (2007) explains that a sociocultural perspective in education looks at educational success being explained more by the quality of dialogue occurring during interaction rather than a mere focus on the capabilities of individual students or teaching abilities of instructors. Additionall y, Gauvain (2005) presents the main assumptions held when applying a sociocultural approach. The fir st assumption is that learning and cognitive development depend substantially on the learners participation in activities. Further, the nature of these activities is influenced by the cultural environment. Finally, the more experienced members of this cultural environment have a critical role in determining when and how the learners participation in the previously mentioned activities will occur. Another explanation of the SCT perspective is that learning happens most effectively in joint

PAGE 29

13 activity, whe n there is an expert (or a more knowledgeable other) working together with a novice for a common goal and there are opportunities to converse while doi ng so (Tharp et al. 2000). Due to the focus that SCT places on dialogue, participation, and role of the mo re experienced other it provides an effective approach to understanding and influencing actions and activities that occur in the language classroom. Nevertheless, with regard to second language (L2) learning, Lantolf and Poehner (2014) note that SCT should not simply be a lens for looking at Second Language learning and teaching; instead, SCT Second Language should look at how to put into practice concepts of the theory to promote L2 development through appropriately organized instructional practice ( p. 7). Therefore, with organized instructional practice in mind, the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, which are grounded in SCT, served as the pedagogical approach for the implementation of SCT principles in this study T hese standards are pedagogical standards for teachers, as opposed to standards detailing what students must attain, and they can be used to increase the effectiveness of teaching when implemented in a systematic way (Dalton, 2008). They were developed by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) which was originally located at the University of California Berkeley but has since moved to the University of Hawaii at Manoa. T he framework of this study may be viewed in two parts. T he first part is the overarching framework of SCT, which guides the thinking and reasoning for actions and planning carried out in the study. The second part is the pedagogical framework of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, which presents the methods for implementing SCT principles in a classroom.

PAGE 30

14 Figure 1. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework The relationship between SCT and the Standards is explained through Delta Theory, and more directly, the Cycle of Social Sor ting (Tharp, 2011), which allows for JPA to function in a classroom. This study is not directly focused on SCT itself, but rather, SCT provides an important basis for understanding the foundational concepts of the Standards. Therefore, this section is pr esented in the form of a descriptive review as opposed to a synthesis of SCT studies. Introduction to the Sociocultural Position L earning has long been perceived as teachers teaching material and students memorizing the material. This results in students being viewed as containers needing to be filled with the information disseminated by the teacher (Kozulin, 2003; Wells, 1999). This exemplifies the traditional style of teaching, where the teacher teaches and the students receive information. Since information is deposited, assessment is usually conducted by verifying that students can reproduce the information they were given, essentially responding SCT perspectives provide guidance and reasoning for the current approach The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are the means for introducing SCT perspectives Result: SCT perspectives occur in the classroom

PAGE 31

15 to questions for which they already know the answers (Ellis, 2008; Lee, 2014). In the field of c ritical pedagogy, this view of students as merely containers for information is well documented, particularly when reviewing Paulo Freires banking model of education or Henry Girouxs explanation of schooling (Freire, 1993; Giroux, 2001). The SCT pos ition moves the focus of learning from the individual to the social and cultural environment in which the individual lives. This is because from the SCT perspective, the individual cannot be understood in isolation but only as a part of the historical context he/she lives in, which is created from the culture and society (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978); in this regard, the SCT approach conflicts with the view that categorizes students as containers needing to be filled because such a vie w does not esteem the social context in which the students live nor does it value the role students have in the learning process In contrast, in the SCT approach, it is through the use of psychological tools/artifacts (e.g., signs and texts) that mediation occurs between the individual and the environment (Kozulin, 2003), thereby emphasizing the importance of the individuals interaction as opposed to the individuals passiveness. These psychological artifacts may go on to be internalized. That is, whe n an artifact takes on a psychological status in an individuals mind, it has been internalized (Swain et al., 2011). An important aspect of internalization is that it is not the transfer of external activities to an internal preexisting area of the cons ciousness. Rather, internalization is formed and developed inside of the consciousness (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). When something has been internalized, the individual has conscious control (they can regulate the activity) over the activity in his/ her en vironment (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). This occurs as there is movement from the interpersonal/intermental to the intrapersonal/intramental. The

PAGE 32

16 interpersonal processes are social and the intrapersonal processes occur within the individual (Vygotsky, 1978). With regards to second language learning, a person learning the new language is normally regulated by the teacher or by books on the language (the social). However, when the student reaches a high or an extremely high level of fluency, rules and functions of the language have been internalized, and the student can think about or voice co ncepts in the language at will because the rules for language production now occur or originat e fro m within the student Concepts of Assistance As previously mentioned, the d irection for this study developed from sociocultural theory which is attributed to the early twentieth century Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. SCT is not a social or sociolinguistic theory but is a theory that attempts to explain cognitive develo pment in humans by looking at how the mind interacts with socially constructed artifacts and how mental functions are regulated (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman (2011) explain SCT as a theory of the mind and the connections between internal and external processes. While there are several areas that Vygotsky explored, which are encapsulated in what is called SCT, the primary concept that relates to the current study revolves around his explanations of assistance. The zone of proxima l development (ZPD) was conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) as he investigated the relationship between learning and development. He noted three theoretical positions that attempted to explain this relationship. The first position was that learning was com pletely separate from the development of the child. Vygotsky (1978) placed Piagets theories of development being a precondition to learning into this first position. Regarding learning, Piaget and Inhelder (1969) proposed that learning occurs as a

PAGE 33

17 direct result of a childs i nteraction with the environment, and human mediators are not of primary importance Vygotsky explains that the first position purports that development will always need to proceed learning; consequently, instruction cannot be succes sful until the learner has developed the proper mental abilities to handle the material to be taught. The second position is that learning is development. This position proposes that learning cannot be separated from the developmental processes. Therefore, learning and development are bound at all points, all the time. The third position, Vygotsky (1978) explains, was a tactic to explain the first two positions by combining them together into one. Nevertheless, Vygotsky rejected all three of these positions. He believed that learning needed to be related to the development of the child in some manner, but he rejected the generali zed belief that a child had to first develop mentally before learning could occur. He proposed that there existed an actual developmental level which was the level of mental functions that existed at the end of a developmental cycle (Vygotsky, 1978). Th e actual developmental level is what most testing accounts for, and these tests assess from the perspective of what children can do on their own (Vygotsky, 1978). However, Vygotsky noticed that even though there were certain tasks that children were unabl e to do on their own, if they received a degree of assistance, the children could go on to complete the tasks. To explain this concept, I will mirror an example Vygotsky (1978) presented. To illustrate, assume there are two children that are the same age; for the purposes of this example, I will say the chi ldren are 12years old. However, standardized testing has revealed they both perform at the mental level of a 10 year old child. Essentially, the results of the testing indicate that the two 12 year old children can do tasks independently on a scale that has been standardized to show what a 10year old child should be able to achieve. However, Vygotsky adds to the scenario by questioning what would

PAGE 34

18 happen if assistance were provided, and one child the n performed tasks that standardization r evealed were on a higher level (e.g., the level of a 13 year old) and the other child al so performed at a higher level (e.g., the level of an 11 year old) In such a case, he questions the accuracy in saying that t he two children were at the same developmental state, that of a 10year old, because their potential developmental level (Vygotsky, 1978) was apparently higher. The difference between that actual developmental level, where the children scored at the 10ye ar old stage, and the potential developmental level revealed through assistance, the 13 and 11year old stages, is called the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) explains ZPD as the distance between the actual developmental level as deter mined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 1578). Vygotskys position towards learning and development is that lea rning precedes development. As such, an important aspect of learning is that it is integral in forming the ZPD: learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalized, they become part of the childs independent developmental achievement. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 1653) This quote provides explanation for why the current study seeks to provide space for increased student student and teacher student interaction in world language classes, as opposed to traditional methods of teaching. Vygotsky believed that instruction needed to be more closely related to potential development rather than to actual development;

PAGE 35

19 notwithstanding, he also believed that potential development was just as important as actual development (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1998). Imitation and Collaboration Vygotsky asserted that in light of the implications related to potential development with regard to ZPD, it would be necessary to look more deeply at the role of imitation, particularly, since the accomplishments of children in independent activity was seen as a dominant marker of mental development and not childrens imitative activity. He pointed out that the reasoning for this reevaluation was that a child could not imitate something that was truly beyond his/ her developmental level Therefor e, if a child is asked to imitate something that far exceeds concepts they have co nstructed in their mind, it will not matter how many times they witness it done, they will not be able to imitate it. T his perspective recognizes that activities and actions that can be imitated are capable of being learned and should be addressed, while most of the current assessment models measure independent functioning and overlook the potential developmental capabilities of learners. Moreover, imitation should not be viewed through a lens of beh aviorism (discussed in Chapter II ), as SCT imitation is not just the mere reproduction of something seen. Imitation occurs because there is an understanding at the structural level of the task or problem (Chaiklin, 2003). Imitation in the SCT sense is forward facing, not looking to identically recreate somethi ng that is already in existence. T he SCT type of imitation is developmental because it creates new concepts and understandings out of something that was already in existence or by saying the same thing as someone else, albeit the n uance of meaning may have purposefully been changed by the speaker (Lantolf, 2003). In fact, a reason for the misunderstanding of imitation is due to people not recognizing that SCT imitation is

PAGE 36

20 transformative and applied intentionally with a goal in mind SCT imitation includes reflection on the results of the imitation and consequently applies adjustments to future imitative endeavors (Swain et al., 2011). Therefore, it is not merely mimicry, which may lack intentionality and just seeks to replicate. La ntolf (2003) presents two types of imitation discussed by James Mark Baldwin: imitative and persistent. In short, the imitative form seeks to move closer to the original model. It may result in replication of the particular model, but the person imitatin g will not move beyond the original nor is the goal to do so. In contrast, in persistent imitation, there is a reconstruction of the model. It anticipates the future and allows the person to adapt material to use for future encounters of similar situatio ns. The importance of imitation in the current study is that the teacher (the expert), through the consistent employment of groups, will be in a position to create opportunities for the students to learn through imitation. Mediation and Tools A fundamental aspect of SCT is understanding the distinction between direct and mediated learning. Direct learning occurs when the child (or learner, regardless of age) is in direct contact with the environment. Learning happens, for example, by direct observation or possibly by trial and error (Kozulin, 2001). M ediated learning (Kozulin, 2001) occurs when an adult, in the role of an expert or more knowledgeable other, attempts to assist and increase a childs performance (Kozulin, 2003). This human mediation bet ween the child and the environment is reflective of Gauvain s (2005) third assumption of a SCT approach, where the more knowledgeable other has a defining influence on the circumstances surrounding the interaction. M ediation may also occur through the use of tools. Thus, the teacher can employ a tool to aid in increasing the childs performance. These tools may be either

PAGE 37

21 material or symbolic (Kozulin, 2003). Swain et al. (2011) present a useful example of a material tool in the context of an unmediated ( what Kozulin refers to as direct ) and mediated action. They present the example of a bee landing on a persons arm and the person using her hand to swat it; such an action would be unmediated because the hand is potentially able to come into direct, unmediated contact with the bee. However, if she were to use a book to swat the bee, the material book then serves as a tool between the person and the environment. As a final scenario, if the bee draws near, and she remembers reading a book about how bees are attracted to fruit and thus moves the fruit which was attracting the bee away from her, she has utilized the symbolic tool of language attained from the book. In SCT, l anguage is the strongest mediating tool (Kozulin, 2001). Vygotsky (1978) differentiates between tools and signs by explaining that the tool is used to mediate actions that are externally oriented and the sign is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented (p. 1046). Swain et al. (2011) provide an explanation for these two positions as well. Th ey present the situation of a grammar book being placed under the leg of a table to level it or stabilize it. This would be an example of the book as a tool; it is externally oriented. However, when an individual studies the grammar book, the language in the book (e.g., grammar examples and rules) serves as a sign. They continue by explaining that the extent to which the person studying the grammar book is able to internalize the content within it, the more regulation he or she will have over the language to which it relates; consequently, the language itself becomes available to be used in the environment for other types of mediation. Thus, in the same way that the book mediated the individuals interaction with the bee or table, language serves as the medi ator between the individuals mental thoughts and the socially constructed environment. Language is important as a

PAGE 38

22 mediating tool because it is the socially constructed tool by which other functions develop, and it is actually one of the mental functio ns that develop (Swain et al., 2011). These examples reveal the importance of language as a tool, and thereby provide support for the use of a SCT framework in a study involving world languages. The Role of Concepts T he learning of content is associated with two types of processes, the formation of spontaneous concepts and the learning of scientific concepts (Kozulin, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky believed that before entering formal schooling, children had already developed understandings and explanat ions for how things functioned in their environment, and these conceptualizations were called spontaneous (everyday) concepts (Swain et. al, 2011). These concepts, however, do not contribute much to the cognitive development of children because spontaneou s concepts are grounded i n mechanisms that already exist in the mind of the child; nevertheless, they do add to the continued empirical experiences of children (Kozulin, 2003). Spontaneous concepts develop from generalizations of childrens daily personal experience and take place separate from formal instruction; however, they are important in that they are the basis upon which scientific concepts may be formed (Karpov, 2003; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Scientific concepts must be taught through some syste matic method, are learned consciously, and represent the general experiences of humans as situated in science (Karpov, 2003; Swain et. al, 2011). An important aspect of scientific concepts is that when they are formed, they mediate the thinking of learner s and how they address problems they encounter. Consequently, this is why Vygotsky believed that scientific concepts were of such importance to the mental development of children (Karpov,

PAGE 39

23 2003), because they would become the basis for guiding how children would interact with their environment moving forward in life. SCT argues for an educational environment that increases the potential for learners to receive consistent systematic assistance from teachers as they learn scientific concepts ( in the current study, a new language). Within such an environment teachers are afforded more opportunities to perform more precise assessment s and make more precise adjustments to the types of assistance they give learners. Based on the literature presented thus far, the position taken in this study is that this type of classroom environment will increase the potential for the learners to imitate, as explained from a Vygotskian SCT approach, what they receive from more knowledgeable others, in most cases the teacher. S uch imitation will serve as the basis upon which learners may then be able to have conscious, controlled use of the language in a variety of unrehearsed situations. T he Standards for Effective Pedagogy were created to be a means by which teachers could e nact SCT principles in their classrooms The Standards do not mandate what teachers must teach or what methodology necessarily has to be used. Instead, they provide parameters that ensure classroom interaction and activities (e.g., peer peer or peer teacher) coincide with SCT principles. Therefore, if a teacher were inclined to using Task based Language Teaching it would be possible If a teacher were avid about using a certain writing activity, the teacher would most likely be able to use it. What the Standards initially provide is a means of ori enting the classroom and delivering content in a manner that is most effective for learning. This following section explains the power behind the Standards as well as what they are.

PAGE 40

24 The Foundational Strength of the Standards The framework for the current study is based on the guiding principles of sociocultural theory and the implementation that der ives from the Standards. SCT places an important focus on the role of language in developing higher mental functions, and since the Standards are grounded in SCT principles, the same position towards the importance of language is true for the Standards. Furthermore, t o explain why the Standards are more than simply good principles, Tharp (2011) introduced the Delta Theory, which focuses on how change comes about as a direct result of influence. In addition to addressing how change occurs, Delta Theory ad dresses change that occurs in all areas of human activity According to Tharp (2011), t he foundational principal of Delta Theory is that influence and change operate primarily, indeed almost exclusively, within and through psychosocial systems that is, affiliated persons organized into systems that share values, purpose, and activity ( p. 5); psychosocial systems are a way of combining psychological and social constructs. According to Delta Theory, influence occurs most often through utilizing the pote ntial of an individuals social relationships which were already in preexistence or which are created by an agent ( e.g., a teacher). Tharp emphasizes that the theory includes and applies to all cultures and historical periods. Moreover, he stresses that a theory that makes the claims expressed in Delta Theory must work in purposefully constructed arenas, such as formal institutions, and in situations wher e people socialized and saw development outside of formally constructed contexts, such as might be seen in areas without running water or electricity. Finally, the theory must also account for the successful and unsuccessful occurrences of influence in all contexts (Tharp, 2011). The Standards for

PAGE 41

25 Effective Pedagogy and the design of this current stud y are informed by the way that Delta Theory categorizes social relationships. In short, the three principles governing social relationships posit that relationships are (a) restricted in that an individual does not have access to all people in the world but just to those in his/her environment; (b) relationshi ps are not random but tend to be sorted by factors such as language, income, or race; and (c) relationships are stable because the psychosocial systems normally repeat themselves unless some external force attempts to stop them (Tharp, 2011). Integral to the notion that social relationships are restricted is the concept of propinquity which refers to the physical proximity that exists between people (Tharp, 2011; Th arp et al. 2000). It is the first of four phases in the Cycle of Soci al Sorting (depicted in Figure 2 below) which enables JPA, and consequently all of the Standards, to function in a classroom Propinquity allows for a variety of activities to take place between people. Additionally, it accounts for the initial formation of most relationships (Tharp et al., 2000); notwithstanding, propinquity does not guarantee that a relationship will be formed. Tharp (2011) presents an example of two people commuting to work on the same train every day. Even though they may be interested in each other for any variety of reasons, they will probably not form any type of friendship in the absence of shared activity (the second phase). In the Cycle of Social Sorting, shared activity is known as Joint Activity and it is the strongest proponent for building affinity between individuals (Tharp et al., 2000). An important reason noted for this is that when people work together, two special conditions form, the first of which being that common motives are created. This is because the members of the joint activity are working towards one shared goal. If the joint product or goal is not achieved, no one succeeds. Under such circumstances, the competitive nature that

PAGE 42

26 exist s during the individual actions of multiple people working towards the same goal tends to dissipate (Tharp et al., 2000). In addition to having common motives, subject subject relations are cultivated as opposed to subject object relationships. When there is recognition that people with w hom one is working have the same goals and desires, it is possible to see them in a manner that allows for empathy. Subject subject relationships allow for participants to share in the feeling of pleasure that comes with advancement or the feeling of dis appointment when there is an obstruction to achieving the goal; in contrast in a subject object relationship, the other individuals are seen as objects, and as a result, the aforementioned subject subject feelings do not tend to exist (Tharp et al., 2000) The joint activity sets the stage for the third phase, a situation called intersubjectivity, inter meaning between people and subjective referring to how the world is experienced (Tharp, 2011). In brief, intersubjectivity is when people feel the same feelings for the same things (e.g., shared values dictating how one is to interact with ones elders), and thus, all participants are expecting for things to occur in the same manner. This shared way of valuing, thinking, and interpreting forms out of joi nt activity. According to Tharp et al. (2000): When working together and talking about purposes and meanings of the activity, strategizing and problem solving together, these aspects of interaction influence each participant and foster emotional and cogni tive commonalityThe process of socialization into school or into criminal gangs or a religious community (Rubin, 1991) or any other community consists of an increasing intersubjectivity mediated by the appropriation of the new code of language, sign and s ymbol. (p. 59)

PAGE 43

27 Thus, I ntersubjectivity consists of an emotional investment as well as a cognitive investment that maintains the rapport between individuals in the joint activity In the framework used for the current study, dialogue occurring with activit y serve s as a mediator for intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity leads to the fourth phase in the Cycle of Social Sorting, affinity. In the Cycle, affinity refers to liking someone else and wanting to be liked by others, as well; it is the element that mo ves people toward relationship (Tharp, 2011). When affinity is present, people actively find ways of working together. M oreover, affinity propels the Cycle forward by leading to new or continued propinquity (Tharp et al., 2000). Tharp (2011) notes that a ffinity may be absent in some relationships (e.g., family or work), and in children and adolescence, affinity may be unstable; nevertheless, affinity has the potential to affect activities and attitudes. Figure 2. Cycle of Social Sorting (Tharp, 2011, p. 12) Propinquity Activity Intersubjectivity Affinity

PAGE 44

28 The Cycle of Social Sorting will not occur or sustain itself automatically in a classroom; therefore, teacher s play an important role in creating a situation for the Cycle to exist. T eacher s clearly have a fundamental role i n deciding the style of teaching that occurs in the classroom as well as the pedagogy used. The occurrence of the Cycle in the classroom is what the teacher s utilize to create and maintain an environment that builds propinquity so students can imitate the teacher or each other. In addition, the Cycle will provide the proximity, and consequently the opportunities, needed for the teacher to recognize the ZPD of the students. Precedence and Format for a SCT Approach to Teaching The phases of the Cycle ultimately create a foundation upon which more knowledgeable others and learners can engage in dialo gue for the purpose of learning. I n a school environment this foundation is created during the implementation of the JPA standard. The premise for teaching in a manner that focuses on discussion as a teaching principle has historic precedent. In an effort to provide support for the Standards, Tharp and Gallimore (1988) present three types of teaching and the corresponding types of learning that result. First is didactic teaching, which explains learning as the memorizing of facts in the absence of understanding them in any particular context. This teaching learning style usually accepts the recitation of material from the students as proof that learning has taken place, as evidenced by teachers asking questions to which students already know the answers (Ellis, 2008; Lee, 2014). The learning that results is that of acquisition of knowledge. Mercer and Littleton (2007) note an expe cted negative consequence of this type of learning is that the a cquired knowledge may be forgotten as students move onto other lessons The next type of teaching is that of coaching, and this method of teaching results in the formation of learning

PAGE 45

29 intelle ctual skills T hey note that these skil ls form in the way of routines. However, this form of coaching is different from the instructional coaching proposed in this current stu dy The third method of teaching is Socratic which is intended to result in l earning that is characterized by understanding, and it is cultivated through Socratic questioning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Lefstein and Snell (2014) explain that Socratic questioning seeks to understand and critique the ideas of the interlocutors; furthermore, this questioning is in the form of true conversation. Thus, while there may be situations in which either of the three forms of teaching may be ideal, within the framework of the Standards, the Socratic form allows for a situation to exist where the teacher may provide assistance to the students while dialoging about scientific knowledge. The goal of this approach is to develop the ability to question and examine critically the knowledge that people use (Lefstein & Snell, 2014) Teaching and ZPD I n the framework of the Standards, teaching is explained as assisting performance through the ZPD at points where it is required; therefore when performance of a task has been successfully completed through the provision of assistance, teaching has occurre d (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The existence of the Cycle of Social Sorting allows for assisted performance to occur. Therefore, in accordance with the concept of ZPD, what a student could not do otherwise by his or herself can be accomplished in the ZPD w ith assistance. What is meant by assisting performance through the ZPD is better understood when examining the four stages of ZPD itself. There are three important aspects in Stage 1 regarding the relationship between the learner and the more knowledgea ble other : (a) performance is influenced by the more knowledgeable other (b) performance is assisted by the more knowledgeable other and (c)

PAGE 46

30 performance is regulated by the more knowledgeable other (Tharp, 2011). In SCT, these external force actions by the more knowledgeable other are known as other regulation because the learner is often completely lead by someone else (Swain et al., 2011). It is during this stage that the learner is essentially dependent on the teacher, and mediation types may be limited until certain concepts become established, but it is also during this stage that the teachers responsibility in the above three aspects begins to decrease while the students responsibility increa ses. T he developmental goal of Stage 1 is the shift fro m regulation by the more knowledgeable other to the student self regulating (Tharp, 2011). Nevertheless, during this stage, learners may not have a clear understanding of an ultimate goal in the same way that the teacher does; therefore, during this stage the teacher must attempt to adjust assistance based upon his/her evaluation of how well the student appears to truly understand the task (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In Stage 2, performance does not require the same type of external assistance from the mor e knowledgeable other as in Stage 1. Instead, assistance is now self regulated; although, the activity is not necessarily automated or fully developed (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Thus, whereas it was necessary to receive assistance for how to do an action or receive assistance for remembering an activity, the learners own voice has now replaced that of the more knowledgeable other and the learner can lead him/herself through the activity (Tharp, 2011). In self regulation, the speech may or may not be actually voiced (Swain et al., 2011). In Stage 3, the learners performance is automatic and developed. The learner can accomplish the task smoothly, and signs of self regulation, such as the learner talking aloud in an effort to think through the activit y, have disappeared (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tharp,

PAGE 47

31 2011). At this stage, performance is no longer developing, and that is the reason self regulation or regulation from others is no longer needed. When a task has become automatized, it does not need to be regulated, and providing assistance at this stage would be more disruptive than helpful (Tharp, 2011). This stage reflects Vygotskys (1978) phenomenon of fossilization, which emphasizes the degree to which the internalized concepts resist change from outside forces (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). An individual has multiple ZPDs occurring for different things at the same time, and invari ably, for some reason, de automatization will take place; due to the frequency at which this happens (for certain ZPDs), it is given its own stage, Stage 4 (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Tharp, 2011). The breakdown of automatization may result from a variety of reasons, for example, an extensive passage of time in which the task was not done or the occurrence of some traumatic e vent. Nevertheless, when de automatization occurs, in order to return to an automated state, the learner must go through recursion (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). That is, for some period of time, the learner will need to revert back to self regulatory action s (Stage 2). In some cases, the learner may find that self regulation is an insufficient measure for returning to automatization, and in that case, the other regulation of Stage 1 is needed, such as a teacher or different more knowledgeable other (e.g., a book). These four stages of ZPD are important because they reveal the importance of the JPA standard. In Stage 1, when the student is dependent on the teacher, the fact that the teacher is present to make a joint product with the student is an indispensa ble element for the student. As JPA continues to occur, with the teacher as a participant in the group, the teacher is able to assess the students learning and reduce the amount of mediation as the student grows in his/her ability to do tasks (Stage 2). In Stage 3, the student has gained control over

PAGE 48

32 the tasks and can now do them without assistance from the teacher. Nevertheless, since the teacher is a part of the JPA and has been able to closely observe and produce joint products with the student, the teacher is positioned to introduce new tasks, which would produce a new Stage 1 for the student. Finally, since the teacher is a consistent part of the JPA group, if the student (or students) should ever forget how to do a task correctly, the teacher is present to provide assistance as necessary (Stage 4). Delta Theory and the Stages of ZPD reveal the necessity and importance of proximity between the teacher and student if the ZPD is to be utilized effectively (Tharp & Gallimore, 199 8 ). The manner in whic h the learner receives assistance in a classroom setting is explained by Dalton (2008) as being a three step process. In the first step, the teacher must gain access to the learners ZPD by having the student engage in some form of joint activity, which a ctivates the learning process. In the second step, the teacher assists the student in the activity. The teacher being an active assistant is able to assess what the student knows or does not know. From the assessment, the teacher seeks to find something that can be used to contextualize new information given to the student. In the last step, the teacher works with the student to increase the students understanding. While conversation is used at varying degrees in all three steps, it is during the thir d step that Socratic conversation is used as the primary teaching resource. Various aspects of all five of the Standards occur in these three steps. The JPA standard is not only important for enacting these three steps, but it also reflects the operationalizing of the Cycle of Social Sorting by first creating proximity. Depicted in Figure 1, the framework for the current study relies on SCT perspectives and SCT pedagogy to guide world language teachers in the implementation of SCT principles. Explained in more detail in the Professional Development and Coaching section

PAGE 49

33 of Chapter II the instructional coaching that was used to guide the teachers in the learning and application of SCT principles is itself using an approach based on the same SCT principles The discussion that occurs between instructional coach (the researcher) and the teacher mirrored a type of instructional conversation (the fifth standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy). Thus, there existed a parallel process of (a) the coach and teacher working together (primarily dialogically) to actualize SCT principles in the classroom and (b) the teacher and the students working together to further the creation of joint activities and joint products (SCT principles). Figure 3 illustrates the actions in the parallel process. The parallelism existed because as the researcher and teacher were working together in the coaching process, the teacher was implementing the knowledge and skills that developed from the coaching in the classroom with the students. Figure 3. Parallel Progression of SCT Principles in the Framework Results Teacher applying SCT principles in the class (JPA) Students use the tool of language to learn concepts and imitate Sociocultural Means of Introducing Sociocultural Perspectives Instructional Conversation on JPA (working in the teacher's ZPD) JPA lessons planned by the teacher (working in the students' ZPD) Collaborating Party Teacher and Researcher Teacher and Students

PAGE 50

34 The next chapter provides a review of the literature that will frame this study in relation to dialogic teaching practices, an important occurrence between expert and novice. The following chapter also provides information on instructional coaching, the means by which the JPA standard was taught to the teacher.

PAGE 51

35 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree to which secondary world language teachers would be able to implement aspects of the Joint Productive Activity standard after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts a nd implementation procedures Since the Standards are grounded in sociocultural principles (Vygotsky, 1978), the th eoretical framework in Chapter I provided literature describing specific aspects of sociocultural theory (SCT) and the relationship to the Standards. Due to the important role of dialogue in SCT, and consequently the Standards, the first section of this chapter will present a review of literature on dialogic teaching. In this study, instructional coaching, one form of professional development, was utilized as the means by which the Joint Productive Activity standard was taught to the teachers. Therefore, the next section provides a sho rt review on professional development with a focus on instructional coaching. While this is not a study on professional development, due to its function as a means of transmission, a description of several coaching methods is presented. The section on pr ofessional development concludes with information on and studies that used instructional coaching as a means for teaching the Standards Finally, since the JPA standard essentially serves as a means for conducting world language instruction in this study, it would be remiss to not address some instructional approaches that already exist in the field of second language instruction and Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Therefore, the next section of the chapter is a descriptive review presenting various ap proaches and theories to language instruction. This is

PAGE 52

36 immediately followed by a short synthesis of literature on how groups are used in world language instruction. Defining Dialogue The JPA standard is an indispensable component of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. As explained through the Cycle of Social Sorting, it creates and maintains the environment for students to engage in discussion with more knowledgeable others. To some extent, dialogue is a feature in each standard. However, it is in tegral to the fifth standard, Instructional Conversation. When all the standards are in full implementation, Instructional Conversation with the teacher becomes the primary way through which teaching occurs in the classroom ( Hilberg et al. 2003). Theref ore, since the JPA standard provides the functional means by which all of the other standards may be sustained, with a goal of promoting dialogue between the novice (the student) and the expert (the teacher), it is helpful to understand the characteristics and importance of dialogue. This current section is designed to explain several types of dialogic approaches as well as reveal its importance to the educational setting. Current Dialogic Teaching The term Socratic teaching/questioning, which exemplifies the type of questions used in dialogic teaching was introduced in the theoretical framework. While Socratic questioning has been utilized for a long period of time, current dialogic teaching i s attributed to Robin Alexander (2006) and developed from the findings of observations performed of primary school classrooms in France, England, Russia, the USA, and India (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Dialogic teaching imposes a critique of teaching similar to the way Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) imposes a critique of communicative action

PAGE 53

37 between students. Thus, the mere occurrence of students talk ing together does not necessarily equal communication ( Eisenchlas 2010) and the occurrence of a t eacher verbally interact ing with students does not automatically qualify as dialogic teaching. From the research conducted in the five countries, Alexander observed that teachers spoke more than students, but between and within countries, there was substantial variation in the degree to which students contributed. For example, he saw that variation was not so much with regard to whether teachers were using questions, but there was a difference between the degree to which teachers elicited in depth responses from students and the quality of the questions asked. T heref ore in some classes, the questions from the teachers only required students to give brief responses, whereas in other classrooms, the questions teachers asked called for more extensive responses from the students, requiring them to reflect on answers or provide reasoning for their choices (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). From these observations, he conceptualized dialogic teaching as that in which teachers and pupils make su bstantial and significant contributions and through which childrens thinking on a given idea or theme is helped to move forward (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, p. 41). Reflective of SCT, a dialogic atmosphere provides a space where the student s not only lear n language and its functions, but they also use the language to learn (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wells, 1999). Collaboration in Dialogic Teaching Wells (1999) explains four requirements for effective collaboration (Figure 4) for example, those settings which would allow teachers to most effectively pass on artifacts and skills determined in the ZPD. The first is that students need to be engaged in the activity and should be able to see the significance in the activity. This includes sharing responsibil ity with the students in deciding what specific topics will be studied and how. Doing so allows

PAGE 54

38 for increased motivation because the students have a direct role in deciding what they will study, and it also allows for students to be able to work independe ntly from the teacher, since they understand what the goals of the activity are as well as how to meet them. The ability for students to work independently is essential to the second requirement: the teacher needs to be free to spend time with individual s or groups to provide assistance when needed. The third requirement for effective collaboration is that there must be a systematic movement towards the mastery of certain tools or aspects related to the discipline of study; this may come to fruition in t he form of a final presentation in front of the class or a final project. The last requirement is that learning cannot proceed without providing opportunities for students to learn by reflecting on the learning and activities they have done. These four r equirements are all aspects included in the Standards fo r Effective Pedagogy, the first, second, and fourth occurring in JPA. To reiterate, this is the reasoning behind why JPA has been chosen as the focus for the present study. Lefstein and Snell (2014) also reference Alexander explaining that for effective dialogue to occur, teachers need to be willing to change the layout of the classroom to support various types of talk. This change is required because most classes are structured to support whole class instruction where the teacher talks to the entire class as opposed to working with students in groups (Tharp et al., 2000), and whole class instruction does not easily allow for the teacher to effectively work within the ZPD of all students.

PAGE 55

39 Figure 4. Four Requirements for Effective Collaboration (Wells, 1999) Approaches to Dialogue Since what constitutes dialogue may be substantially different from one person to the next, it is important to recognize that depending on the approach a person takes, the perception and purposes of dialogue will vary. For over 10 years, Adam Lefstein and Julia Snell have conducted or participated in several studie s with regard to dialogue in the classroom, researching and showing the value of dialogic teaching in a variety of areas, including the use of popular culture for dialogic activities (Lefstein & Snell, 2011), the use of dialogue as a method for preparing students for highstake st andardized testing (Segal, Snell, & Lefstein, 2016), studies for effectively measuring discourse moves (Lefstein, Snell, & Israeli, 2015), and the role of power in the classroom as it relates to marginalized students attempting to participate in dialogue ( Segal, Pollak, & Lefstein, 2017). Additionally, Lefstein & Snell (2014) present different types of dialogue that they classify into seven Requirements for Effective Collaboration Students must be engaged in the activity Teacher must be free to spend time with individuals and groups There must be systematic movement towards the mastery of subject related material Learning must not proceed without opportunities for reflection

PAGE 56

40 approaches. Since Socratic dialogue has already been presented, I will not explain it in this section. Figure 5. Approaches to Dialogue (Lefstein and Snell, 2014) Dialogue for interaction places value on reciprocity and fair participation. This type of dialogue consists of two or more individuals freely talking to and listening to each other; individuals have equal opportunity to participate through talk. They note that some benefits of this approach are that it is relatively easy to measure, and the norms and rules of this type of dialogue are easily perceived. For instance, one could count how many times student #2 spoke and measure for how long. One could easily observe to whom student #3 spoke and the number of turns taken by all member during the conversation; this could be used to measure the equity of the conversation (e.g., establish ing whether someone dominated talk). While the generality of this approach, which focuses primarily on the dialogic structure, has a goal of ensuring that all participants have equal opportunity to speak, it also has the Approaches to Dialogue Socratic dialogue Dialogue for interaction Dialogue as an interplay of voices Dialogue for thinking together Dialogue as relation Dialogue for empowerment

PAGE 57

41 disadvantage that it does not guar antee the quality of the content about which the individuals are talking (Lefstein and Snell, 2014). Additionally, they explain that making an equal distribution for time and opportunities to speak could overshadow the view of the person or people who hol d the minority opinion. As a result, because of social pressures, participants may offer views that they believe other people want to hear, forgoing their own opinion for the popular view. D ialogue may be viewed as an interplay of voices, and this is su ggested by Mikhail Bakhtin (1988). This approach is concerned with the voice of the participant, voice being the influential force that is affecting what the speaker is saying. Returning to the examples in C hapter I with students usually providing answers that the teachers want or expect to hear, such a situation would not necessarily reflect the students voice (because the student normally is not provided space to question the question or raise a separate but relevant issue altogether), but it ref lects the voice of the teacher, the one with power. Thus, this type of approach is geared towards students recognizing and developing voice. Dialogue for thinking together was suggested by Vygotsky (1978), and it values the use of questioning as a way for reasoning. Lefstein and Snell (2014) provide the example of James Wertschs (2008) puzzle task, where mothers guided their young children through the solving of a puzzle by asking questions to help them realize whether the piece of the puzzle they chose was correct or not. As the children did more puzzles, they would ask themselves the questions and no longer needed the assistance of the parent. Thus, this type of approach focuses on developing higher mental functions, as explained through internalizati on in SCT. Martin Buber (1937) proposed dialogue as relation. The values of this form of dialogue are respect and inclusion; the participants care about each other Buber believed

PAGE 58

42 that people had two general orientations towards others: that of instrumental and that of dialogic. The instrumental role allows for relationships on a partial basis because people relate in a manner so as to further their own interests (e.g., economic). The dialogic role recognizes that many people do not normally respond wel l to critical questions. In dialogue for relation, there is mutual concern over the issue; the goal is to foster inclusiveness and community. Lefstein and Snell (2014) explain that this approach brings into question the type of relationship interlocutors have when they converse noting that some participants may approach the dialogue from an instrumental perspective (seeking selfish advancement) or from a dialogic perspective (seeking mutual gain). F inal ly, Paulo Freire (1993) drew attention to dialogue used for empowerment. The empowerment approach suggests that dialogue cannot be separated from the larger social and institutional environment in which participants live. The values elevated in this approach are that of democracy and equality, and this ty pe of dialogue should promote the empowerment and emancipation of the student/participant. This approach looks at who actually wields the power to decide which people are able to participate in the conversation and who benefits from the interaction. It also notes the degree to which the participants are allowed to express their own opinions. This and the other dialogic approaches have been used to design different models of classroom instruction, which are presented in the next section. Dialogic Classrooms Models Dialogically organized instruction. Lefstein and Snell (2014) provide four models of dialogue that can occur in classrooms.

PAGE 59

43 Figure 6. Dialogic Classroom Models The first model is a classroom where the teacher organizes instruction to be dialogic, or dialogically organized instruction. Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, and Prendergast (1997) observed dialogically organized instruction when investigating literature class es at over 100 secondary schools in the United States. Nystrand and his colleagues found that most of the instruction encapsulated the teacher transmitting information to the students, mostly in the form of Initiation Response Evaluate (IRE) styles of que stioning. In this form, teachers ask a question, get a response, and evaluate the accuracy of the response. Lightbown and Spada (2013) also explain that the IRE style is frequently used in world language classrooms, and it limits the amount and style of discourse students can participate in. IRE is sometimes called, IRF (Initiation Response Feedback), and while IRF may provide feedback, it does not vary much from the evaluative response of IRE, and therein also presents the same issues of limiting the r ange of language, especially since thes e styles are used the most in c lassrooms (Ellis, 2008, 1984; Mercer, 2007; and Wells, 1999). As a result of their findings Nystrand et Dialogically Organized Instruction Exploratory Talk Accountable Talk Dialogic Teaching Dialogic Classroom Models

PAGE 60

44 al. (1997) proposed three key actions teachers could take to dialogically struct ure instruction: authentic questions, uptake, and high level feedback Authentic questions are questions asked to students for which the teacher does not already have a preconceived answer. Uptake refers to the incorporating of students previous answers into the following questions. In order to provide a high level of evaluation (or feedback), the teacher must provide a response that clearly recognizes the students answer as well as elaborates on that answer. While these actions will help the teacher begin to organize the classroom toward dialogic instruction, Nystrand et al. (1997) point out that these teacher sided actions are not the central pillar upon which dialogical instruction happens. Instead, they are practices that build a culture in the classroom that affects how students view participation and discussion (Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Exploratory talk. E xploratory talk derives from a three part typology depicting the way children talk i n groups (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). This typology arose from an analysis of the Spoken Language and New Technology (SLANT) project done in the 1990s which recorded 50 hours of group classroom talk from children ages eight to elevenyears old in England; most of the talk was not focused on a clear task, nor was it equitable (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). The types of talk that were recognized when analyzing the SLANT project included: disputational, cumulative, and exploratory. Disputational talk is charact erized by d isagre ements and students making decisions without considering the thoughts of other students ; additionally, there are few endeavors to work together, make suggestions, or give constructive feedback. Another characteristic is that the exchanges that take place are usually very short (e.g., Yes No, or not that .) (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).

PAGE 61

45 C umulative talk is when students build positively upon what other members of the group say. The students work together to build common knowledge by compiling information; this type of talk often involves students repeating information and elaborating upon ideas. Nevertheless, cumulative talk is void of any constructive criticism (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). When exploratory talk is occurring, the students wor k actively together while questioning the reasoning of other students utterances. Opinions are actively sought out from all members participating in the group. In contrast to disputational and cumulative talk, the whole group bears accountability for th e knowledge that develops from exploratory talk. Moreover, the logic that supports that knowledge is more evident due to the open nature of the talk that has transpired (Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Accountable talk. In accountable talk the word accountable refers to the rigor that should accompany academic talk. It is talk that makes the students and teacher accountable to the learning community, a specific set of standards for reasoning, and knowledge grounded in facts. The learning community engages in discussion that builds upon the concepts of others. Questioning looks to clarify or further extend a concept of discussion. Having a standard for the logic of a statement means that the participants must have a reason for the approva l or resistance to a proposition. To disagree, one must provide some form of reasoning for disagreeing. Ultimately grounding knowledge in facts means that a participant needs to gather supporting facts from actual written material or other outlets that could be readily verifiable. Finally students attempt to ensure that certain facts are correct before using them, and they can cha llenge the positions of other participants if there does not appear to be a basis for the statement that has been made. In accountable talk, the teacher makes

PAGE 62

46 these concepts clear to the students, and then the concepts are used to make an accountable academic envi ronment Dialogic teaching. There are several char acteristics of di alogic teaching; dialogic teaching is collectiv e, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful (Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Collective means that the entire class, along with the teacher, considers what the learning goals will be and how they will be approached. Reciprocal means that teachers and students genuinely listen to each other while also exchanging ideas and views. Supportive means that the students are able to present their ideas without fear that providing the incorrect answer will result in embarrassment or another negative result; on the contrary, students help each other to reach common understandings. Cumulative means that students and teacher build upon the ideas of others as well as their own ideas. This results in knowledge being created that has been amassed from the input of various participants. Finally, purposeful means that talk in the classroom is not random or arbitrarily executed. Rather, the teacher plans and guides classroom talk with specific educational goals in mind Dialogue in Group or Whole class Instruction T here is considerable overlap between various approaches and models in dialogical practices. Many aspects relate closely and/or are grounded in SCT principles. Aspects of exploratory, cumulative, accountable, and dialogic talk are clearly expressed in the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. However, in the literature for dialogic teaching, there still exists a lack of clarity with respect to using groups consistently and having those groups incorporate the teacher as a full participant. For example, Lefstein and Snell (2014) note d that because of the larger class sizes in the studies they conducted, it was near impossible to have full participation among students (p. 22). In a reflection meeting with teachers discussing student

PAGE 63

47 participation and engageme nt in a 2007 fifth grade classroom where dialogic practices were employed, they explained that there were mixed reviews. One example given that led to mixed reviews was that in one particular class, while the whole class had been repositioned and arranged to be able to see each other (as opposed to the single file rows of most traditional classrooms), which allowed them to focus on the speakers, the interchange mostly took place between the teacher and two students. They note d two sides to this issue. Fi rst, if the teacher would have tried to involve all of the students in the class, the discussion would have become difficult to manage; this would have taken away from the true dialogic experience and would not have allow ed for the exploratory and dialogic types of talk. The second issue was recognition of the possibility that the students who were not involved could have potentially start ed to feel bored and disassociate themselves from the conversation altogether. Nevertheless, they emphasize that having genuine involvement and reflection from a few students is better than cursory or depthless discussion with the whole class. They continue d by saying that the challenge was to find ways to make sure that all students received opportunities to participate, as opposed to the same few students always entering into the dialogic discussion with the teacher. An additional issue is that in whole class discussion, when cognitively challenging questions are asked by the teacher, they tend to be directed towards students who are seen as being capable of answering them. Consequently, the less challenging questions are normally directed at students wh o are perceived as academically weaker (Lefstein & Snell, 2014). Despite the challenges that arise with whole class instruction, dialogic studies have more of a focus towards the use of dialogic practices, and as such, grouping that incorporates the teacher so as to create the propinquity discussed in Delta Theory is not a requirement.

PAGE 64

48 Thus, for example, Mercer and Littletons (2007) research which included investigating second, fifth, and eighth grade students in the United Kingdom produced positive resul ts from the use of dialogic practices, such as students discussing issues at greater depth and for longer periods of time. Overall, the research supports the use of dialogic practices, the authors noting that the results substantiate the SCT position of s ocial interaction and mental development. Additionally, the intervention is based on ground rules being clearly understood by the whole class (a JPA principle). However, the examples they provide are extracts from whole class meetings where the teacher w as leading, and the small groups were composed of only the students. The implementation for dialogic methods, therefore, does not provide space for the expert novice relationship to develop effectively. Kearney (2015) attempted to investigate how two hig h school world language teachers who had been teaching for less than five years implemented highleverage teaching practices (HLTP) in a Spanish and Latin class. According to Kearney (2015), highleverage teaching practices are actions that result in high er learning gains as opposed to other practices. I n HLTP, teaching is viewed as a complex and dynamic social practice, largely mediated by the classroom discourse that a teacher and students co construct (p. 2). The analysis of whether the practices were HLTP or not was based on 19 HLTP core practices such as setting up and managing small groups, strategically making conversations with students that strengthen relationships, and the teacher being able to evoke logical explanation for why students answer ed a certain way. In both the Spanish and Latin classes, the teachers implemented various aspects of these core practices, but a review of the transcript and video log reveals that teachers either floated from one student to the next or addressed the clas s as a whole. While these actions could satisfy a core practice that says the teacher is able to lead

PAGE 65

49 whole class discussions (Kearney, 2015), the perspective is contrary to the framework proposed in the current study due to the reasoning that conducting a whole class discussion is not a core goal in the Standards. Lee (2014) investigated inquiry based second language teaching and explains that it is mor e than simply asking questions; it focuses on learning through discovery as well as developing the cogni tive abilities of the learner. Lee (2014) talks about the dominance of display questions in classrooms, when teachers ask questions for which they are expecting a certain answer. In addition, there is explanation of the benefit of referential questions, those that require meaning to be negotiated and the answer may not be known by the teacher. The referential style of questioning is an aspect of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, but the noticeable difference between the Standards and the examples that Lee (2014) presents is that the small groups are void of a teachers presence. The teacher models the type of questioning he/she expects the students to perform (another principle of the Standards) H owever, the students conduct their practice in a who le class setting or in groups, and the teachers role is to serve as a catalyst for the activity as opposed to a full participant in a group (p. 6). Therefore, while literature on dialogic teaching practices reveals similar goals to the Standards for Ef fective Pedagogy, there is a lack of attention towards a key aspect of SCT principles, the function of the expert novice relationship. Distinct Benefits of Dialogic Teaching In addition to producing better results on standardized tests, Lyle (2008) points out that dialogic teaching helps students become more connected to each other and society. Deakin et al. (2005) discovered in their review of citizenship education that not only dialogue, but the quality of it was essential to social education. They explain that it is

PAGE 66

50 connected to how people learn about areas of life such as human rights and issues relating to justice. Trickey and Topping (2004) discuss results from the Philosophy for Children method. Lyle (2008) explains that this method employs the use of groups and whole class work as well as challenges the Piagetian position that children must first reach a certain developmental stage before they can function in abstract thought ( Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children explains the philosophy as self conscious inquiry into difficult or debatable concepts (Institute for the Advanceme nt of Philosophy for Children, 2016), and this inquiry requires dialogue (Lyle, 2008). Trickey and Topping (2004) found measurable positive differences with respect to reasoning and cognitive ability in students who underwent the Philosophy for Children method. Additionally, Lyle (2008) notes a study by Topping in 2006 where students in their last year of primary sch ool gained approximately six points on a measure for cognitive ability after six months of using this method and students still possessed this gain two years later, even though they had not been using the Philosophy for Children method in the secondary school. Boyd and Markarian (2011) focus on the benefits afforded to teachers. Similar to what Littlewood (1981) proposed for the role of the teacher in Communicative Language Teaching (discussed later in this chapter) they explain that the power of dialogi c teaching is in its ability to allow the teacher to have a better awareness of the students everyday knowledge, which in turn can be used to guide individual students into new material (p. 521). Additionally, they present a picture of a teacher using a dialogic stance as one who does not assume that the students failure to understand is a reflection on that students inability to listen or focus well enough. On the contrary, in such a situation, the teacher

PAGE 67

51 would recognize that there is probably a br eakdown on the conceptual level with the student, and it becomes the teachers job to listen and ask questions more carefully so they may use the information they gain form the dialogic activities to make more meaningful connections between the students knowledge and the class material. Caution with Dialogic Teaching Before introducing some results found in studies using the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, it is important to note that Lefstein and Snell (2014) recommend exercising caution when discussing using, or evaluating dialogic practices. One issue that arises is when dialogue is presented as mainly a way for developing the speaking and listening skills of students in the absence of the broader picture. For example, using dialogue to build skill s is not a problem, but this should occur in a discussion over content where students have something to say that relates to them and is engaging. In this way, there is a chance to affect the students on a cognitive level. If students are only talking and responding, thinking that the goal is to listen and speak effectively, the practice will probably not provide for space where students can contribute ideas and feelings they truly have. Another issue results from dialogue being treated as solely an inter actional form. As explained previously, this form looks mostly at surface level indicators, such as how long did students speak, was the time divided equally, or was the response from the student short or long. However, these issues are related to more i n depth issues that are normally not addressed, such as power relations and voice. An additional reason for caution when using dialogic teaching results from the practice being labeled as dialogic or monologic. For instance, if a class is having a critical

PAGE 68

52 discussion, but the students are more aggressive in manner and the teacher is the lone controller of the conversation, attempting to label this discussion as less dialogic or more dialogic misses the larger issue, that of understanding which type of dial ogue is valued most in that setting (e.g., argumentative or relationship building). They explain that instead of declaring a discussion dialogic or not, a better action is to consider how teacher and students can work within a space where they manage the various types of dialogue that arise. A final area of concern arises when dialogic teaching is viewed without consideration of the real school environment and activities occurring in it. They note that several of the examples they gave came from schools that were in the midst of preparing for high stakes exams. Th us, people evaluating dialogic practices must avoid passing judgment flippantly when there are other pressures influencing how and what teachers must teach and the manner in which they do it. Professional Development and Coaching Professional development is a phrase that elicits different meanings for different people. With respect to schools, some administrators view it as a special activity that may happen on specified days during the year while other people perceive it as graduate courses a person may take to get an advanced degree and/or higher salary (Guskey, 2000). However, professional development can also be viewed as learning that happens in a social context, and it includes learning about not only oneself, subject content, the school or classroom setting, and students (Johnson, 2009), but it also is learning for the students, teachers, and other members of the school who work directly with the students (Zepeda, 2015). Guskey (2000) poses three significant problems that often occur with professional development (Figure 7). One common issue is that rather than producing an evaluation of the class or activities, the

PAGE 69

53 end result tends to be a documentation of what has occurred. That is, the professional development may end with a list that shows a s um of how many times a certain activity or action was done, and this documentation may be accompanied with a small description. In this situation, essentially, the professional development was only checking to see if certain behaviors were displayed (Elli son & Hayes, 2009). Such documentation provides evidence of what was done, but this alone will not address areas that are in need of critique. Another issue is that evaluations often lack depth. Guskey (2000) notes that if teachers attend the professional development, work actively, and seem to enjoy the experience, that session is often seen as being successful. He explains that while sometimes, the evaluation may attempt to check the effect the professional development had on the participant s way s of thinking, to a lesser extent are there evaluations conducted on the degree to which the teachers knowledge and practice have been affected. He asserts that for a professional development to be useful, the evaluations must proceed deeper than t he immediate reactions of the participants that come at the end of a professional development session. Finally, many profes sional development activities are too short in overall length. Teachers who attend the traditional workshop style sessions, which last for a day or two, may only be able to implement 10% of what they learn (Knight, 2009b). As one reason for the lack of time invested into professional development programs, Guskey (2000) offers the case of officials (e.g., state or district administra tors) quickly wanting evidence that the professional developments are making a difference. As mentioned previously, many people do not have a perception of a professional development continuing for months or longer. He states that worthwhile changes in education require time for adaptation, adjustment, and refinement (p. 9). In response he presents three defining characteristics of a professional

PAGE 70

54 development (Figure 7). First, it is an intentional process, which means there is a clear purpose and est ablished goals. Second, it is an ongoing process. This means that professional development is an ongoing activity in the classroom and school, and there is a constant reflection on methods being used. Third, it is a systemic process, which means that th e organization should provide continued support for the teachers; the professional development should not be seen as something only for the specific individuals, but it is an action taken that increases the ability of the school or district to solve other educational issues. Figure 7. Problems and Defining Characteristics of Professional Development (Guskey, 2000) According to Zepeda (2015), job embedded learning is how professional development should be conducted in most situat ions, and it means that the professional development occurs during the teache rs normal school day routine ( p. 35). Zepeda explains that in job embedded learning, there is collaboration, joint problem posing, problem solving, and a sincere desire to improve practice from the lessons learned on the job from Problems of Professional Development Professional developments describe instead of evaluate Evaluations lack depth Professional developments are usually too short in length Defining Characteristics of Professional Development Professional developments are intentional and goal directed Professional developments are an ongoing process Professional developments are a systemic process

PAGE 71

55 teaching and interacting with peers; additionally, time for reflection on acti ons taken must also be a part of this learning environment (p. 35). One way to engage with the participants in a jobembedded learning situation is through coaching. Coaching Zepeda (2015) and Cornett and Knight (2009) present several forms of coaching: peer coaching, cognitive coaching, literacy coaching, and instructional coaching. In their review of research, Cornett and Knight (2009) saw that coaching had several positive benefits, such as improving teachers attitudes and skill transfer (implementation of coached material) as well as improving student achievement. Peer coaching. Peer coaching, as the name implies, presents opportunities for teachers to learn from each other while participating in discussions about teaching practices and other learning (Zepeda, 2015). Additionally, the value of peer coaching is not only in the social structure of the activities but in the process of the teachers working together to construct meaning during the discussion (Zepeda, 2015); peer coaching also may includ e book study, action research, or other collaborative actions to facilitate learning. Cornett and Knight (2009) present multiple studies that reveal that peer coaching supports the transfer of knowledge to the teacher. One follow up study showed that afte r six months passed without teachers receiving peer coaching, high rates of coached actions were still being implemented. Cognitive coaching. The cognitive coaching approach (Costa & Gamston, 2002) developed from the concept that meta cognition will arise when the individual is conscious of his/her own thinking process; this state of being conscious of ones own thinking is what results in learning (Zepeda, 2015). The aim of cognitive coaching is to separate it from the beh aviorist practices that entail mo nitoring teachers with checklists (Ellison & Hayes, 2009).

PAGE 72

56 The thought pattern of the cognitive coach is a distinguishing feature that sets this form of coaching apart from other forms. The cognitive coach is supposed to remain neutral and nonjudgmental about the topic of discussion (Ellison & Hayes, 2009, p. 87). The cognitive coaching style is cyclical, involving a pre observation meeting, a classroom observation, and then a post observation meeting. Two of the core precepts of cognitive coaching ar e that (a) all people are able to change and (b) teachers are able to support each others cognitive growth with respect to actions and decisions related to teaching (Zepeda, 2015). Nevertheless, while there seems to be evidence for positive outcomes when using cognitive coaching, much of the data relies on self report and other measures that lack rigorous investigation methods or have not been sufficiently validated (Cornett & Knight, 2009). Literacy coaching. Literacy coaching has a focus on the relat ionship that derives from the coaching. It is to be based on respect and caring, and it should result in the teacher self reflecting about how to bring change to his/her instructional methods; consequently, this results in a deepening of the teachers understanding of how students learn (Zepeda, 2015). Literacy coaches are partners who work alongside a teacher as equals, learning together and preparing an action plan to be implemented together (Toll, 2009). Cornett and Knight (2009) explain that in 2004, the International Reading Association accepted Janice Doles definition for a literacy coach as being any person who supports teachers in their daily activities and routines. This support may be modeling techniques, helping prepare for examinations, order ing materials, or a variety of other actions. Consequently, Cornett and Knight (2009) emphasize that a major difference between literacy coaches and other coaches is that they are not defined by a set of particular core duties, a theory, or the manner in which coaches perform their jobs (p. 203). As a result, literacy coaches work with teachers in a variety of

PAGE 73

57 academic areas, such as science or social studies (Toll, 2009). D ue to this broad definition, literacy coaching may be employed very different ly depending on the school or district. Related to this phenomenon of acting in multiple functions, Toll (2009) states that literacy coaching is not actually a coaching model, but rather, it is a category of instructional coaching, focused on literacy and other areas that relate to teaching and learning. She continues by declaring that the multiple tasks that a literacy coach does are actually tasks that other people in the school were already doing previously (e.g., technicians or supervisors), and the mer e transferring of the duties over to the literacy coach is not the most effective use of the coachs abilities. Instructional coaching. An important trait of an instructional coach is that they have in depth underst anding of instructional practices, an d the coaching can focus on a variety of areas such as classroom management, the improving of academic content, instruction, and/or formative assessment; the desire is to improve classroom instruction (Knight, 2009a ). Thus, while the instructional coach w ill attempt to bridge the understanding of the teacher and the content being coached, which is an objective of a cognitive coach, the instructional coachs value arises from the extensive knowledge of scientifically grounded teaching practices and the abil ity to model those practices for the teacher (Knight, 2009a). Other characteristics of instructional coaching are that the coaching is approached as an equal partnership, there is reflection, there is corresponding action that happens based on the reflect ion, and there is reciprocity of learning between coach and teacher. The coach meets with one teacher at a time to foster a relationship, and the coach will model actions in the actual classroom so as to provide a correct, concrete example that can be fol lowed (Knight, 2009a ). One area that Cornett and Knight (2009) note that is lacking is that of randomized experimental studies.

PAGE 74

58 They also explain that the implementation study they reviewed used self report, and therefore, there was no other independent data to verify what the teachers reported. In th is study, I employ ed instructional coaching as the means of teaching the JPA standard. I follow ed a model similar to that employed by Teemant (2014) and Teemant, Wink, and Tyra (2011), who used instructiona l coaching as their means of instructing the teachers in the use of the Standards. Singh and Richards (2009) explain that in most language teacher education programs, there is much discussion about the content of what to teach, but there is very little discussion on pedagogical practices. Similarly, Johnson (2009) adds that the second language teacher preparation programs are largely influenced by Second Language Acquisition and other linguistic fields, but there is little that comes from the work of the second language teachers or the teaching they are doing in the classroom. Thus, the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy in particular JPA, will assist in addressing the lack of focus on pedagogical practices in world languages. In addition, instructional coaching is a useful means for addressing how to teach the Standards. There are already multiple research studies that show that students of teachers who use the Standards have statistically measurable improvements, but there is a dearth of research about professional development and/or implementation measures that lead to teachers use of the Standards (Teemant et al., 2011). Consequently, instructional coaching is a viable means for addressing this lack of research re garding implementation. I nstructional coa ching in this study is viewed through a SCT perspective and draws on the definition given by Teemant et al. (2011): Instructional coaching, defined through a sociocultural lens, focuses more attention on working within a teachers zone of proximal development. With access to a more knowledgeable coach, teachers engage in cycles of reflection and action praxis

PAGE 75

59 (Freire 1994) that assist and ideally quicken professional growth beyond what the teacher could accomplish alone. Instructional coaching supports the notion that the ZPD is not a place at all; it is an activityexpressed as revolutionary activity (Wink & Putney, 2002, p. 153). (p. 687) The coaching relationship is directed towards moving the teacher into using the sociocultural practices of the Standards, but the speed and the manner in which this happens is greatly influenced by the teacher. The reason for t his is that the transformation that takes place must be genuine and have true meaning for the teacher; it cannot be forced (Teemant et al., 2011). Hence, while the Standards Performance Continuum ( SPC ) show s the goals of instruction for JPA, it is the ref lective conversations which happen during meetings before or a fter the classroom observations that allow the teacher to take time to deal with certain areas he/ s he would like support in, such as classroom management or analyzing student actions/work; notwi thstanding, the discussion of these topics is guided by how they are reflect ed in the framework of the Standards (Teemant et al., 2011). Adding instructional coaching as the means for teaching the Standards, it is possible to add a fourth layer to the fra mework diagram.

PAGE 76

60 Figure 8. Inverted Pyramid of Theoretical Framework with Instructional Coaching Teemant et al. (2011) conducted their study with 21 teachers in two elementary schools. Both schools had high populations of students from Latino households (70% and 84%). The source of data was the SPC. While all standards were taught during this study, the focus of the instructional coaching was to enable teachers to use multiple simultaneous activity settings ( the location for where collaborative actions occur ). They had two phases in their study. The first was a workshop established to acquaint the teachers with the Standards, activity settings, and the process overall ; they also explained that an 8 to 12week phasein process would be needed for all five standards. The second phase was when the instructional coaching took place in the form of seven coaching cycles. The coaching cycles were ordered as opposed to being equally spaced. One coaching cycle (Figure 9 ) cons isted of three parts, similar to the cyclical format presented in the cognitive coaching style. Each cycle consisted of (a) a 30 minute meeting to review strategy and plan the lesson; (b) an obse rvation where the coach observed the lesson for at least 45 minutes and collected information for the SCT perspectives provide guidance and reasoning for the current approach The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are the means for introducing SCT perspectives Instructional Coaching is used to teach the Standards Result: SCT perspectives occur in the classroom

PAGE 77

61 follow up (debrief) meeting; and (c) a 30minute d ebriefing meeting which examined differences and similarities between the planned and actual lesson as well as reflected on any strengths or weakness es in need of i mprovement. Teemant (2014) stresses that during the meetings the instructional coaching cycles are conducted as an Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard), thereby modeling the style of conversation that will also be implemented in the classroom. When a debriefing meeting is complete, the next cycle begins with the 30 minute planning meeting. Figure 9. Coaching Cycle In their study, b y having the coaching go through cycles where the coach was present to talk, listen, and observe, the data was not dependent on self report and provided more accountability, an issue that Teemant et al. (2011) also noted when referencing the review of research by Cornett and Knight (2009). Before the coaching cycles began, the coach met with the teacher to establish the relationship and bond. This was immediately followed by an observation so as to establish 30-min meeting to plan lesson 45-min classroom observation 30-min debriefing and reflecting upon actions

PAGE 78

62 where the teacher was on the SPC. The teacher s who initially rated lower on the SPC ultimately had difficulty employing the last three standards to a high level in small groups. In the Teemant (2014) study, the participants were 36 elementary school teachers, teaching grades ranging from kindergarten to sixth grade. The largest population of students in the school was from Latino households (75%) and the second largest group was from African American households (16%). The source of data was the SPC, and she followed the same pattern as the Teemant et al. (2011) study, using the initial workshop to explain the Standards and the 7 coaching cycles. Based on the ratings from the SPC, s he found that the coached teachers had significant quantitative g rowth with regard to using the Five S tandards Further more, one year after the intervention, the coached teachers retained significant levels of pedagogical change in JPA, Language Literacy and Development (the second standard) Challenging Activities (the fourth standard) and Instructional Conversation (the fifth standard) ; notwithstanding that all teachers did decline a level, normally receding from the integrating to the enacting level on the SPC. The data revealed that Challenging Activities and Instructional Conversation were difficult to maintain at high levels without continued coaching. After a year, the control group teachers continued to teach in a whole class manner. Teaching Approaches and Theories for Language Instruction The approaches and practices that have informed foreign language teachin g have varied depending on dominant beliefs at the time. Currently, there is still debate between the relevance of S econd L anguage Acquisition (SLA) research as it relates to second language education (Spada, 2015), noting that research practices are sometimes misapplied to second language teaching situations. Related to this issue, Ellis (2010) discusses a gap that exist s

PAGE 79

63 between researchers and practitioners, and he attributes the gap to t he fact that researchers and practicing teachers are in different roles with different objectives. Considering the statements by Spada (2015) and Ellis (2010) this current study potentially provides a solution to the issues they note by using principles derived from a scientifically based th eoretical framework (sociocultural theory), which will provide teachers in actual second language situations with a practical pedagogy that can be applied in classrooms (the Standards) Having presented the literature surrounding sociocultural theory, dialogic teaching, and the coaching division of professional development it is important to review historical and current approaches, methods and theories of Second Language Acquisition and second language instruction t o recognize how the Standards and SCT fit into language teaching and why the framework used in this current research is different and valuable. Figure 10 provides an overview of these approaches, methods, and theories, and it is followed by a brief explana tion of each. All of these approaches and practices have influenced world language teaching in US schools. The focus on grammar, repetition, or communicative styles, which these approaches purported at various times, has guided world language teachers in to the practices they use or shun. Several of them, such as Content based Instruction and Communicative Language Teaching, are based on SCT principles or utilize actions similar to those used in the Standards. Methods such as Form Focused Instruction coul d take place in a JPA. However, considering the JPA standard, which seeks to enable the teacher to consistently become a full participant with a small group of students, the following review of approaches, methods, and theories reveals that a consistent t eacher small group composition is not a goal of their application, even for the social approaches employed for language teaching.

PAGE 80

64 Figure 10. Various Approaches, Methods, and Theories for Language Teaching Figure 10 presents three areas, organized to present the literature which has and continues to influence world language teaching. The Approaches are global perspectives that influence the methods of teaching or the theories created. The Methods are speci fic ways for teaching. They dictate particular actions that the teachers should perform in the classroom during instruction. The Theories & Hypotheses group do not present a specific method for implementing instruction, but they attempt to provide reason ing for why certain actions should be taken. For example, Atkinson (2011a) explains the theory and implications concerning the use of a Sociocognitive Approach; consequently, it has been placed into the Theories & Hypotheses group. Moreover, since it is one of several social approaches, it has not been included in the Approaches group, even though Atkinson (2011a) uses the word approach when explaining it. In similar fashion, there are other items in the Methods and Theories & Hypotheses groups that de veloped from the approaches that influenced the Approaches Behaviorism Nativist, Naturalist, & Cognitive Communicative Social Methods GrammarTranslation Method Audio Lingual Method Direct Method Total Physical Response (TPR) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Content based Instruction (CBI) Task based Language Teaching (TBLT) Form Focused Instruction & Focus on Form Theories & Hypotheses Universal Grammar (UG) Krashen's Monitor Theory Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis Swains Comprehensible Output Hypothesis Complexity Theory Language Socialization Sociocognitive Approach Sociocultural Theory Second Language (SCT L2)

PAGE 81

65 developers. The repetitive actions of the Grammar Translation and AudioLingual methods are characteristic a behavioristic approach. Krashens Monitor Theory and Total Physical Response develop from a natur al approach. Complexity Theory Language Socialization and Sociocultural Theory Second Language (SCT L2) are other social approaches. The items in Figure 10 are not exhaustive, and all of the items should not be viewed as having to fit exclusively into one approach. Rather, the intention is to help orient the reader to the literature that follows. Behaviorism. DeKeyser (1998) explains that in second language learning, the word practice is normally viewed as engaging in some activity with the goal of becoming better at that activity. This perception of practice can be seen in the behaviorist approach of language teaching, which was popularized during the latter part of the 1950s. This approach places focus on building habits through the memorization of dialogue and the repeated practice of patterns (Larsen Freeman & Long, 1991). Thus, second language learning based on behaviorism focuses on repetitive exercises. Grammar translation m ethod. A method that reflects behavioristic practices is the Grammar Translation Method. It focuses largely on the written form of the language; consequently, students learning under this method are expected to learn (memorize) grammar rules and vocabulary (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013). Teaching activities in the classroom often use translation of the target language into the first language (L1) of the students, which in most cases is normally the language used in other content classes, and translation from the first language to the target language Moreover, with respect to roles and interaction in the classroom, the teacher maintains control and leadership of class activities; interaction is mostly in the form of the teacher speaking to the students, and there is little

PAGE 82

66 student to student interaction (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013). Student progress is assessed by whether the students can memorize rules and vocabulary and reproduce them. At the same time, there is also a focus on continually checking and increasing the students understanding of grammar rules (DeKeyser, 1998). As evidenced by the classroom dynamic, there is not a focus on increasing fluency or spontaneity of language in the second language because production is not particularly the goal of instruction (DeKeyser, 1998). Audio lingual m ethod The AudioLingual Method (ALM) is similar to the Grammar Translation Method in that there is a focus on repetitive practice. Additionally, it is similar to the Direct Method in that there is a focus on oral production. This method has al so been influe nced by behavior ism in that it was believed that the way to learn the sentence structures of the second language was to train, using the language to build habits that would then be able to be used in language production (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013). The AudioLingual Method does have the goal of enabling students to use the language for actual communication; however, because of the relationship to behaviorism, it is believed that the enabling to use language is accomplished by repeated practice of pat terns and memorizing prescribed dialogues (Larsen Freeman & Long, 1991), the doing of which does not predispose the learners to deal with situations in which the language does not fit the practiced drill patterns. The drills are mechanical, and the dialog ues undergo substitutions and transformations of forms so as to replicate a certain situation (DeKeyser, 1998). The role of the teacher is that of a modeler, affording the students the opportunity to have an accurate model that may be imitated. F urthermo re, in similarity to the Direct Method, vocabulary is learned through speaking and grammar meaning has to be derived by the students during the use of the language (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). With regard to interaction,

PAGE 83

67 students interact with other students when they practice the dialogue drills, all of which is overseen by the teacher. Nevertheless, most interaction occurs between teacher and student and is initiated by the teacher Additionally, students directly imitate the teacher or the mode l voice provided by recordings (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Direct m ethod. In contrast to the behaviorist approaches DeKeyser (1998) presents the Direct Method as using very contextualized teacher monologues and student practice which incor porates m eaningful drills that require the student to process meaning as opposed to thoughtlessly translating material between languages as in the Grammar Translation Method. Larsen Freeman and Anderson (2013) provide a similar assessment of the Direct Method by e xplaining that a rule of this method is that there is no translation accepted in the classroom. As the name implies, they note that meaning must be directly transferred in the target language by demonstrating an activity or by using a visual illustration (e.g., using pictures or acting out the action). In this method, since the teacher must find a means to convey the meaning of new vocabulary and phrases, the teacher and students have more of an interactive role than seen in the Grammar Translation Method. This allows for students to initiate interaction with the teacher and engage other students in conversations. Another aspect of the Direct Method that contrasts with the Grammar Translation Method is that students often use the target language for spea king during the class. With speaking and communicating as the focus, grammar is learned by inducing the meaning while using the forms in class. Another contrast is that the reading and writing exercises that students do is based on oral practice that has been done prior and not based on decontextualized grammar points In addition, the students are not to use their first language in the class (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013).

PAGE 84

68 Nativist approach and universal grammar Another approach to the teaching and learning of language develops from the Nativist position (Larsen Freeman & Long, 1991; Ortega, 2009), also referred to as the Innatist position (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). This position, argued by Chomsky (1965) as he refuted the behaviorist position, say s that there is a naturally occurring biological element, the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which allows children to acquire language from the environment during a particular period that begins from infancy and lasts to around eleven years of age (Littlewood, 1984). As a naturally occurring biological element, it means that even before people have any experience with language, they possess the basic foundations of grammatical knowledge ( Ortega, 2009). Chomsky (1965) explains this concept through Universal Grammar (UG), which attempts to account for the logical problem of language acquisition, also called the poverty of the stimulus (White, 2007); that is to say it questions how do children become able to use language accurately when the input they receive is either lacking accuracy or insufficient in some manner. While the logical problem was raised with respect to first language acquisition, Ellis (2008) explains that the logical probl em has also been presented as having application to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Therefore, Universal Grammar based SLA attempts to reveal what principles of this theory apply to second language learning (Ellis, 1997). These researchers tend to have a focus on the competence of second language speakers who are in more advanced stages of the language learning process; by focusing on more advanced learners they are able to observe similarities and differences between competency as it relates to the native speakers of the language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Thus, Universal Grammar based SLA focuses more on linguistic grammatical knowledge and how it is manifest in learners as opposed to how it is used in real application; the focus is

PAGE 85

69 not on user a bility but more on the grammar concepts themselves (Ellis, 20 08; Lightbown & Spada, 2013). The natural approach. Krashens Natural Approach, which is expressed in his Monitor Theory (MT) (Krashen, 1985) is an example of a second language model influenced by Chomskys first language theory (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Larsen Freeman & Long, 1991), and it still has a substantial influence on current SLA research (VanPatten & Williams, 2007). The Natural Approach did away with all practice of grammar, as it was believed that practice of forms was not helpful but rather more comprehensible input was needed (DeKeyser, 1998). I will not discuss all five of the Monitor Theory hypotheses nor go into depth about them ; however the first hypothesis is the Acquisit ionLearning Hypothesis. It separates the manner by which a person becomes able to use a second language into two independent ways: acquisition or learning (Larsen Freeman & Long, 1991). It says that acquisition is subconscious and basically the same as when a person is learning their first language ; in contrast, learning is a conscious process that requires the student to actively learn aspects of th e second language (Krashen, 1985 ). Another hypothesis of the Monitor Theory is the Input Hypothesis. It says that humans acquire language in only one way, by receiving comprehensible input. Therefore, by providing comprehensible input that is slightly above the current level of competence, illustrated by i + 1, the learner can progress in accordance with the Natural Order Hypothesis of the Monitor Theory, which says that the rules of language are acquired in a predictable order (Krashen, 1985). Directly related to the Input Hypothesis is the Affective Filter Hypothesis of Monitor Theory. It notes that while comprehensible input is needed for successful acquisition, it is not sufficient on its own. The filter refers to any mental obstacle that may be preventing the student from using

PAGE 86

70 the input. Thus, if a learner is under some type of mental strain or simply lacks motivation, even if the student understands what he/she hears or reads, it may not reach the Language Acquisition Device (Krashen, 1985). An important aspect of Chomsky and Krashens theories is the view they take towards input and output. In c orrespondence to the poverty of the stimulus position, Chomsky saw input as merely an activator of the Language Acquisition Device (Ellis, 1984). Krashen presents output as being only useful for generating new comprehensible input (Cummins & Swain, 1986). H e viewed output as not being effective in second language acquisition because (a) there were not enough opportunities for students to speak and (b) making students produce output would raise their affective filter (Ellis, 2008). However, from the perspective of the Standards and sociocultural theory, the lack of opportunity to speak is addressed by the organizational aspects of JPA, and the issue with the affective filter is addressed by propinquity, intersubjectivity, and guided participation (discussed in Chapter III ). Total physical response. Total Physical Response (TPR) (Asher, 2000) is a teaching method that reflects the Natural Approach in that it fall s under a system that attempts to apply the observations of how children naturally acquire their first language to a second language teaching method (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Total Physical Response was developed to lower the mental strain student s may experience when attempting to communicate in another language, and this is the reasoning for basing the second language teaching on the way students acquire the first language ; consequently, students of Total Physical Response will not produce the la nguage initially, and they will directly imitate the actions the teacher shows them or the directives they are given, such as point to the door or

PAGE 87

71 stand up (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013). In this method, vocabulary and grammatical structures receiv e focus over other forms by the teacher using imperative statements and corresponding actions that students can imitate, which is viewed as being more representative to how children learn their first language ; opportunities for students to speak and practi ce reading normally will not occur until somewhere after 10 hours of instruction (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013). Communicative approach. Larsen Freeman & Anderson (2013) note the change in theory during the early 1970s which began to question whether the methods aimed at enabling students to communicate in the second language were actually correct or not. An important proponent of this questioning was Dell Hymes (1972) who challenged Chomskys linguistic competence position, noting that Chomskys approach did not give attention to the social interactions in which communication takes place, and he proposed the concept of communicative competence (Savignon, 1997). Within the communicative competence model, Canale and Swain (1980) proposed a framework c onsisting of four components: Grammatical Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competence, and Strategic Competence. Thus, second language teaching that attempts to pursue communicative competence should incorporate these four competences to equip the learner for actual communication in a social situation. The linguist Michael Halliday (1980) also rejected Chomskys approach, noting that without looking at language in the actual context of its use, it would not be possible to understand the a ctual purposes of grammatical structures (Savignon, 1997). Communicative content based and tasked based With the change from a focus on lingui stic structure to a focus on a communicative a pproach, several methods for second

PAGE 88

72 language teaching resulted, namely Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Content based Instruction (CBI), and Taskedbased Language Teaching (TBLT). Communicative Language Teaching is the weaker form of the Communicative Approach (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). While Communicative Language Teaching is intended to make communicative competence the objective of a language course, depending on the perception and application of the instructor, the resulting Communicative Language Teaching classes may vary significantly. Consequentl y, the understanding teachers have of how Communicative Language Teaching should be operationalized in a classroom is sometimes unclear, particularly when compared to some of the traditional forms previously mentioned, where classroom actions such as reading and writing drills or prescribed oral drills are more easily discernable and more easily controlled by the teacher (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). An example of the lack of clarity derives from an important issue addressed in Communicative Lang uage Teaching literature, that of the tendency to view Communicative Language Teaching only in terms of oral competency W ith this concept being so prevalent, many teachers tend to focus on making pair or group work with the goal simply being to get stude nts to interact in some fashion (Eisenchlas 2010). Additionally, Grenfell (2007) explains that in an attempt to have students communicate in Communicative Language Teaching, the result becomes essentially the same as the repetitive skill practice models based on behaviorism. Communicative Language Teaching requires more than mere interaction, the meaning of which is sometimes unclear itself. Littlewood (1981) addresses the purposes for communicative activities functioning in a Communicative Language Teaching classroom (Figure 11). The first, whole task practice, is to make sure the activity

PAGE 89

73 allows for the evaluation of a whole skill and not just part of a skill (e.g., can the student pose a question only, or can the student also respond). Another purpose for communicative activities is to increase motivation, and this is based on a premise that motivation is easier to maintain in activities that have a focus on communication. An additional purpose is to provide for natural learning. This relates to the focus on the social aspect of language and the view is that there are certain aspects of a language that do not become functional unless the student uses them in a communicative capacity. Finally, communic ative activities have the purpose of creating an environment that supports learning. For example, Littlewood notes the positive personal relationships that develop among learners and teachers. He a lso introduces specific roles for the teacher in a Communicative Language Teaching classroom (Figure 11). The first is to provide assistance when students are not able to manage the tasks of an activity. Another action of the teacher is to monitor the students to ascertain their weaknesses and strengths. This allows for the teacher to assess the needs of t he students. The third r ole of the teacher is to provide error correction in the event that the error is deemed too important to leave unaddressed.

PAGE 90

74 Figure 11. Purposes for Activities and Roles of the Teacher in Communicative Language Teaching (Littlewood, 1981) As noted above, Communicative Language Teaching is ascribed to the weaker version of the Communicative Approach because the focus is on providing the students with various opportunities to practice using the language for communic ative purposes in the classroom. I n contrast, instead of providing students with opportunities to learn the language through practicing it, the strong version of the Communicative Approach sees language as being learned in communication (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). The result is that the strong version uses the second language to learn about a certain topic. Examples of the strong version are Content based Instruction and Tasked based Language Teaching. Larsen Freeman and Anderson (2013) explain that in Content based Instruction, the purpose is for students to learn content and master the langu age of instruction. T his is often done by focusing on content themes that are supported by the teacher using visuals, purposeful re peating, examples, and by building on the previous experiences of the students. Purposes for Communicative Activities Provides Whole Task Practice Increases motivation Provides for natural learning Supports an environment conducive to learning Roles for the Teacher in a Communicative Language Teaching Classroom Teachers provide assistance when necessary Teacher monitors students to better understand individual strengths and weaknesses The teacher may provide immediate error correction

PAGE 91

75 The activities used can address both language and content objectives. In Tasked based Language Teaching the focus is on using language to complete a meaningful task which ha s a clear outcome so that both the teacher and the students are able to verify that effective communication has taken place; in contrast to tasks that occur in Communicative Language Teaching where the focus is on practicing a language component such as q uestioning, in the Tasked based Language Teaching activities, there is no special focus on a certain language function. In both Tasked based Language Teaching and Content based Instruction, the teacher is more of a supporter of student activities, and the students often work together in a communicative capacity (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Form focused instruction. Chomskys theories, and in particular, Krashens Natural Approach, have been used as support for why explicit grammar teaching should be removed from second language teaching ( Larsen Freeman, 2015; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Razfar, Khisty, & Chyal, 2011; Spada, 2015; Williams, 2013 ). Nevertheless, in contrast to removing explicit grammar instruction all together, another method used in second language education is that of form focused instruction (FFI), also known as focus on form (FonF), which has been shown to have positive results on second language learning (Afitska, 2015; Saito & Lyster, 2012; Spada, Jessop, Tomita, Suzuki, & Valeo, 2014). As the name implies, form focused instruction seeks to draw attention (focus) to the grammatical forms during the language lesson. An important difference between grammar translation methods and form focused instruction is that grammar translatio n dominated classes have nearly excl usive focus on the forms ; alternatively, and in line with the goals of the Communicative Approach, form focused instruction draws attention to forms but the focus of the class is still situated in meaning and communicati on (Afitska, 2015; Spada et al., 2014). Taking this into account,

PAGE 92

76 the research in this area tends to look at what types of form focused instruction are effective in second language learning. One area of form focused instruction examines the use of proactive (expli cit) and reactive (implicit) formfocused instruction. Proactive form focused instruction essentially introduces grammatical structures before they arise as an issue, while the reactive form focused instruction is a response to an interruption due to the lack of understanding surrounding grammatical forms that arise during the lesson (Afitska, 2015). Additionally, both forms can be initiated by the teacher or the students (Kamiya, 2012). Another area of research in form focused instruct ion deals with integrated form focused instruction and isolated form focused instruction, where integrated focuses the learners attention to form during the communicative activities and isolated directs the learners attention to form separate from the co mmunicative activities (Spada, 2011; Spada et al., 2014). In this respect, form focused instruction has seen success when used in Content based Instruction and Tasked based Language Teaching classrooms fo r bringing attention to grammatical aspects of the language (Spada et al., 2014). Noticing hypothesis. The belief that it is necessary to first bring attention to certain aspects of a language in order acquire it is not only a form focused instruction position, but it is reflected in Schmidts Noticing H ypothesis (1990) According to this position, just because a language feature (comprehensible input) is noticed does not guarantee that it will be acquired, but noticing is seen as a necessary point of inception (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Schmidts posit ion says that the attention to language input needs to be a conscious process; this process is displayed in two forms which are deemed necessary occurrences for second language learning: Noticing the recognition of linguistic features in the input, and

PAGE 93

77 No ticing the Gap when the learner recognizes the difference between the input they are receiving and the output they are able to produce (Ellis, 2008). Comprehensible output hypothesis. Swains Comprehensible Output Hypothesis derived as she posed questi ons about Comprehensible Input in relation to students in an immersion class who were still making grammatical errors Recognizing that input was not the issue, she believed that it was possibly related to the lack of opportunities to speak (Ellis, 2008). She supported the increased need for a focus on output, noting three benefits in particular (Swain, 1998). The first is related to Noticing the Gap. She explains that when students want to express a concept, feeling, or idea in the second language but realize their inability to do so, the inability draws attention to that specific aspect of the language and allows the learners to notice where they have a problem. The second benefit of output is that it allows for hypothesis formulating and testing. T hat is to say, when learners try out new forms, they will be able to see what works and what does not. She also notes that when immediate feedback is available, some learners will immediately make corresponding modifications to their speech. The third be nefit of output is that it provides opportunity for metatalk, using language to talk about and reflect on the use of language. Of the approaches, methods and theories presented in this chapter so far, several possess traits that are common to the Standar ds. For example, some of the roles Littlewood (1981) presents for teachers in communicative activities, such as providing assistance and monitoring weaknesses and strengths are characteristic to what happens when teachers work in the students Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) Additionally, the point that certain aspects of the language cannot become fully functional unless they occur during a

PAGE 94

78 true social encounter (Littlewood, 1981) is a SCT principle Following is a presentation of the soc ial approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Social approaches in second language acquisition O f the aforementioned methods and theories, Content based Instruction and Tasked based Language Teaching display attributes that have more than a focus on just communication. Content based Instruction is influenced by the teachings of Vygotsky, and as such, the teacher uses various methods to scaffold student learning, and students work collaboratively to understand content, not only to achieve a goal (Larsen Freeman & Anderson, 2013). Moreover, Tasked based Language Teaching shares characteristics with some of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy especially with respect to having clear goals for students that reveal if they have successfully fulfilled a task and with regard to allowing students to work together to solve a problem or complete a task (Dalton, 1998). Nevertheless, current SLA methods tend to be more cognitive in approach as opposed to focusing on social aspects rela ting to second language teaching Thus, SCT, being a social approach to language instruction, stands in sharp contrast to many other approaches. Atkinson ( 2011b) explains the critical features of the current mainstream cognitive position. The first feature is the perspective which views the mind as essentially a computer, taking in information, processing the information, and then producing output, much as a computer would do. The second is representationalism, which means cognitive knowledge is store d as internal representations of the external (including socioculturally constructed) world (p. 4). The third sees learning as the acquisition of abstract knowledge. Atkinson ( 2011b) says that from this perspective, learning is the acquisition of signa ls and clues from a persons environment and the consequent processing that takes place, making them

PAGE 95

79 representations. Additionally, this means that knowledge must be decontextualized because when it is internalized, it is no longer firmly connected to the environment from which it was taken. He presents Chomskys (1964) separation of competence and performance as an example of the abstract knowledge position, where performance in the world is a weak sign of a persons actual knowledge because such knowledge can truly only exist in an abstract state inside the mind. He also notes that while Krashen himself did not use the term cognitivist, and Krashens views are often criticized, for example with regard to the Monitor model not being empirically testable (Lightbown & Spada, 2013) or with respect to his position against conscious learning of forms in language (McMillan & Rivers, 2011), the work he did has influenced the agenda of current Second Language Acquisition research, namely with regard to input. For example, input must be comprehensible and the affective filter needs to be low so there is no mental blockage or strain which may keep the input from reaching the Language Acquisition Device ; if these conditions can be met, then the mind will process the information automatically (just as a computer would automatically run the program based on the input it receives) and acquisition will take place naturally (Atkinson, 2011b; Krashen, 1985) Despite the influence of cognitivist approaches in SLA, there are several distinct social approaches in existence that are available for researching second language development. In this section, I will briefly introduce several of these approaches while also noting their differences; however, the focus will be on SCT S econd Language which is the framework this study falls under Complexity theory. Larsen Freemans (2011) Complexity T heory is one social theory that is explained as being adaptive because it always changes depending on

PAGE 96

80 circumstances; that is, it is dependent on the social composition of the environment in which the person lives or is in. This complexity, which develops from the bottom up by interaction with multiple people, is placed in contrast to the stagnant approach of a top down system that develops along an established path of grammatical rules (p. 49). Instead of studying second language development in a decontextualized state, Larsen Freeman presents Complexity Theory as a way of being able to view the progression of the second language along with the variability that is normally observed in real context, because language is adapted to fit the need of the context. Complexity Theory is similar to SCT in that it sees the higher mental functions as developing from interaction in the social environment; however, Complexity Theory is more concerned with how human minds influence the social environment they are in (Larsen Freeman, 2011). She also suggests that this theory places the location of learning neither solely in the brain nor in soci al interaction, but rather it is somewhere between the two. Language s ocialization. Language Socialization is another social approach based on the work of theorist such as Hymes (1972, 1974), Halliday (1980), and Vygotsky (1978), and in contrast to cogni tive approaches in SLA, Language Socialization focuses on the community and its practices as opposed to the individual (Duff & Talmy, 2011). Additionally, whereas much of Second Language Acquisition looks at the development of linguistic features (e.g., p honology), Duff and Talmy (2011) explain that Language Socialization approaches include other forms of knowledge, for example, culture and other governing rules that are included and expressed through the use of the language, such as rules for knowing what is deemed acceptable or not. They explain that another characteristic of Language Socialization is that it addresses the intricacy of the situation that arise s when

PAGE 97

81 learners of a second language who already have well developed linguistic and cultural pr actices, are now in a situation in which they are learning new ones. From this perspective, they explain that the interaction between what the person has learned previously and what he/she is learning now is much more complex than what is encapsulated in the common S econd L anguage A cquisition explanation of transfer from first language to second language They also note that Language Socialization is similar to the other social approaches in that they all ( a ) place importance on cultural activities and th e meanings that arise from such int eractions as well as (b ) recognize the important influence other people of a community have on the learning of an individual in the community. Nevertheless, they assert that where other social approaches tend to view language learning as the junction of social processes and mental processes, which then tends to emphasize the linguistic knowledge that develops at that time, Language Socialization takes a stronger anthropological approach and places more emphasis on the lar ger cultural experience, as would be seen through enculturation. Sociocognitive approach. The next social model is the Sociocognitive approach, and the main position is that the mind, the body, and the environment are all functioning jointly in the acquisition of the second language (Atkinson, 2011a ). Atkinson ( 2011a ) explains two important implications of a sociocognitive approach. The first is in regard to learning; it is not merely an activity taking place in a specific location facilitated by a spe cific person for some educational purpose, but rather, learning is the default state of human affairs (p. 143). The second implication is that cognition is projected into the world by means of the tools created by people, such as computers and grammar e xercises, and these tools support cognition because they allow for sociocognitive activities to take place that

PAGE 98

82 would not readily be possible if the tools were not in existence. Thus, as opposed to cognition being thought or thinking that is abstract and the mind working as a computer, cognition is viewed as something that allows humans to live effectively in their environment (e.g., a computer); it is a biological system that develops from the experiences people have in their environment. In line with th is view of cognition, the Sociocognitive standpoint of language is that language is a tool for social interaction. Atkinson ( 2011a ) s uggests that recent sociocognitive research sees learning as not particularly what meaning people get from their environment but rather the increasing of meaningful participation in it. Finally, the relation to other social approaches is visible, but Atkinson ( 2011a ) explain s an important difference with respect to SCT. He notes how in SCT, things begin in the social and end with internalization in the mind of the learner. However, in the Sociocognitive approach, it would not be said that cognition results from the internalization of outside concepts. Sociocultural theory second language. The final social approach, and the one that relates closest to the framework of the current study is that of SCT Second Language. From the start of SCT Second Language research in the mid 1980s, the goal has been to understand how learners use the language of study to mediate their mental activity and communicative activity; consequently, and in line with SCT principles, SCT Second Language situates this mediation (self or other) as the central part of development (L antolf, 2011). Lantolf (2011) addresses the use of language as it develops in children, elucidating the point that children learn language not for the point of learning language but for the purpose of carrying out activities necessary for their social context. This results in language being a symbolic tool used in social activities, but it is also through the doing of these activities that language itself is learned. Following the ZPD model of providing learners with

PAGE 99

83 tasks that are slightly beyond their ability as well as something to act as mediation during the task, in regard to second language development, researchers attempt to see how second language learners use the language of study to control their actions when they are faced with communicatively and/or challenging tasks (Lantolf, 2011). In the SCT Second Language study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), they present several important findings that derived from their study of three ESL learners control of second language grammatical forms as they interacted and negotiated meaning with an ESL tutor. Lantolf (2011) summarized the findings as follows: (a) for the same grammatical feature, different learners may need different types of mediation ; ( b) an individual learner may need different types of mediation depending on his/her control over a grammatical feature; ( c ) sometimes mediation is kept back from the learner to ascertain to what degree the learner has control over a particular feature; and ( d ) developm ent in the second language feature is not only understood by the performance of the learner, but it is also seen by the change of mediation as it moves from more explicit forms to more implicit forms. The above findings contribute to the understanding of how mediation during dialogic interaction could be used to assess the ability of second language learners (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Those findings supported the development of research using dynamic assessment (DA) in the SCT Second Language field (Poe hner & Lantolf, 2005). DA is explained as the systematic use of the ZPD to achieve the integration of instruction and assessment (Lantolf, 2011). The results from the 1994 study are explained in DA through a set of rules governing mediation along a set o f three planes on which effective mediation operates within DA, depicted in Figure 10 (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). With regard to the rules, the first is that mediation must be graduated, in that it should only be as explicit as

PAGE 100

84 necessary for the learner to give the needed response. Therefore, if one type of mediation is not effective, the form of mediation may become more explicit; nevertheless, in the beginning, implicit mediation should be used because a jump to explicit mediation which is too explicit m ay result in overshooting areas of the of the second language that are in the process of emerging and would have benefited from assistance. The second rule is that mediation is negotiated because in order to determine the appropriate amount of mediation, one must constantly adapt mediation to the learner as needs become evident. The third rule is that mediation needs to be contingent The difference between this and the first rule is that as opposed to varying the implicitness or explicitness of the med iation, the mediation is kept back when the learner displays traces of being able to function without it (or them). Tharp and Gallimore (1988) explain the same SCT concept by the term of responsive assistance albeit they were not looking at second language development. Nevertheless, they are in agreement with Lantolf and Poehner (2014), who emphasize the importance for the learner to develop the ability to self regulate, and note that if the mediation (or assistance) is provided when it is not nee ded, it can actually impede development, a point noted in Stage 3 of the ZPD. With reference to the three planes, the individual plane reflects the difference in individuals dealing with the same linguistic second language feature but responding differen tly to the same mediation. In such cases, they require different forms of mediation to deal wi th the issue. The second plane refers to time, and it presents the aspect of one learner needing more explicit meditation at one time than may have been require d at a different time. The third is in regard to the particular feature of the language, which recognizes that for some

PAGE 101

85 second language features, one simple type of mediation may be all that is needed; however, for other features, a completely different and more involved mediation may be required. Figure 12. Rules Governing Mediation and Planes along which Effective Mediation Operate in Dynamic Assessment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) Due to the relative newness of SCT Second Language research, the studies available for review are limited. Ellis (2012) addresses and Lantolf and Poehner (2014) acknowledge the lack of SCT second language research that takes place in intact classrooms. In an effort to contribute to the research, Lantolf and Poehner (2014) review two studies that take place in intact classrooms, one using the aforementioned DA, and the other using Schema of a Complete Orienting Basis of an Action (SCOBA). SCOBAs derived from Galperins (1970) theory of developm ental education, which aligns with Vygotskys nonacceptance of the position that believes instruction needs to wait until learners are developmentally ready to be taught material (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). The SCOBA is the first of three phases in Rules for Mediation Mediation must be Graduated Mediation must be Negotiated Mediation must be Contingent Planes for Effective Mediation The Individual Plane: Individuals may respond differently to same L2 feature The Time Plane: Degree of mediation may vary at different times The L2 Feature Plane: Depending on the feature, type and length of mediation may vary

PAGE 102

86 Galperin s theory. The purpose is to allow learners to have a cognitive map which positions them to be able to actively participate in activities related to the concept(s) being taught (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014, p. 64). They explain that the SCOBA is usually presented in the form of a diagram, picture, or some other type of nonlinguistic feature, which is not made with the intention of being merely remembered but is supposed to serve as a physical reminder (one that can be looked upon or touched) of what knowledge is needed to accomplish the tasks. Galperin believed that most students have a tendency to take information they receive and commit it to memory in the form of a rule as opposed to trying to understand the concept so that it could later be used to guide them through an activity, that is to use it for practical, real life application (Lantolf, 2011). The next phase is verbal action. Lantolf and Poehner (2014) explain that its purpose is to support the removal of the reliance on the SCOBA. Thus, w hereas the SCOBA provided support for understanding the concept, external speech now provides support for understanding the concept. The third phase is explained as the transfer to inner speech, and this happens as the learner achieves a level of mastery over the concept by using dialogic speech in the second phase. Inner speech is referring to when the concept has been completely internalized and dialogic speech is no longer a requirement for the learner to process the concept; rather the concept has now become a part of the learner (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014); this relates to Stage 3 of ZPD. The example they review of a SCOBA is from the Yez Prieto (2008) study that took place in a thirdyear university Spanish language classroom. The course was focused on contrasting literary language with everyday language. It began with using SCOBAs to represent verbal aspects of the language to the learners, and the SCOBAs were used to help

PAGE 103

87 move the students understanding of certain forms that were based on rules of thumb to concepts that could be applied in different situations (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014, p. 129). The results were that more than half of the 13 students changed their understanding of the concepts or acknowledged that the rule based approach they w ere using needed to be reexamined. Another example of SCT Second Language research in an intact classroom is from a study where DA was used in a second language elementary Spanish classroom (Lantolf & Poehner, 2011). They note that the teacher did not f ollow a specific protocol for implementation of DA but worked with the researchers to develop a set of procedures for implementation. The teacher was the only Spanish teacher in the school, teaching classes of around 20 students for 15 minutes each day wi th students ranging in age from eight to eleven. The classes were thematically driven and often used games as activities in the class. The teacher produced a continuum based on the Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) study that moved from implicit to explicit e xplanation given during an activity. Before the class, she decided on the mediation she would use because she believed it would serve as a control that would prevent her from providing the answers to students when it was not necessary. A principle exampl e given is of one student who did not seem to readily understand a certain language form and required a large amount of mediation compared to other students before he was able to get the answer. They explain that it was not completely clear as to whether he finally understood the concept or whether he guessed correctly. However, in line with SCT principles, the point was not that he ultimately provided the correct answer, but the focus was on the quality of the collaboration that took place between the te acher and the student and the effect that collaboration had on his understanding. The researchers acknowledge that they

PAGE 104

88 cannot make the claim that this specific exchange with the teacher actually enabled the student to start to gain control over the language form; however, they observed a notable change in his abilities a week later, when he was able to use the same form correctly without assistance in a different activity. Using Groups in World Language Instruction A thorough search of the literature whic h included searches on Google Scholar, the TESOL.org website, and databases such as Ebsco and ProQuest did not produce results for studies that looked specifically at the implementation of groups into a world language class. There are, however, various books and articles that provide guidance for how to use pair and grouping strategies in world language classrooms This literature focuses mainly on a specific activity that takes place in pairs and groups (Borzova, 2014; Johnson, 2011), or the use of groups (Herrell & Jordan, 2015; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2010). The content of this literature reflects a how to approach, servings as a guide or manual for practitioners. Additionally, there exist studies which show how groups are use d with stu dents who have limited English proficiency in English Second Language situations (Kamps et al., 2007) or with students learning their first language in their home country (Begeny, Yeager, & Martnez, 2012). There also exist various studies seeking to unde rstand the perceptions world language teachers have regarding communicative language teaching, which includes the use of groups (Farooq, 2015; Hawkey, 2006; Nishino, 2012; Wong, 2012; Woods & Cakir, 2011). Two contrasting results from this literature were that (a) teacher beliefs about Communicative Language Teaching minimally influence what they do in the classroom (Nishino, 2012), and (b) despite certain obstacles, a considerable number of teachers are aware of and implementing Communicative Language Tea ching methods in their classrooms

PAGE 105

89 (Farooq, 2015). With respect to using groups, m ost world language studies that draw attention to the use of groups during classroom activities investigate them as they relate to a particular methodology. Thus, there is a distinct difference between these world language studies and the studies conducted involving the Standards. In the S tandard s the Five Standards Instructional Model is used to guide implementation of JPA and the other standards. Adherence to the Instru ctional Model leads to the desired group functionality needed for the pedagogy to function in the manner it was intended ( Hilberg et al., 2003). As a result, in studies on the Standards, teachers are instructed in making groups and the n are rated on the f unctionality of one or all groups (Teemant, 2014; Teemant et al., 2011). However, in the world language studies presented below groups receive attention to the degree that they are needed to employ a strategy or method but not with respect to the format ion or nature of groups themselves All of the studies that compared students in groups with those that were not in groups revealed that students in groups performed better than those who were not in groups. Nevertheless, the re is an absence of any check ing by researchers of the effectiveness of the group based against a particular standard A defining difference with respect to groups as they appear in world language studies and in studies for the Standards is that for the former, they are actions used to promote a method or put a theory into practice. For the latter, in addition to groups facilitating the classroom activities or testing of a theory, they are viewed as a permanent and fully involved pedagogy for teaching; they are not a separate action that takes place during a class to achieve an objective (Doherty and Hilberg, 2007) There is a dearth of studies that actually give attention to how groups are used in a world language classroom As illustrated above, there is more written about methods that use

PAGE 106

90 groups for world language instruction than studies that show how groups are used in a live classroom. Moreover, in the few studies below that do provide insight into how groups are used in world language classes, since the groups themselves are not being studied, but rather the method or theory, the group component sometimes holds a cursory position in comparison to other information presented in the studies. Consequently, these world langu age studies are separated i nto three categories: (a) th ose that mention groups but do not have them as a focus in the study; (b) those that focus on a methodology that fundamentally uses groups, and (c) those that focus on investigating a question or occurrence and groups or group based methodologies play a f undamental role in addressing the question. In th e first category of studies are those that mention the existence of groups, but the ir relevance in the study is clearly peripheral. Mentioned previously in Chapter I Davin (2013) is the only world language study that could be found that references some aspect of the Standards (Instructional Conversation) based on the understanding from the developers. However, this study was not focused on how to use groups but soug ht to investigate how Dynamic Assessment could be used with Instructional Conversation. Instructional Conversation had a subordinate role in the study, and Davin followed a pattern from a previous Dynamic Assessment study. The main goal of the Instructional Conversation seemed to be the applying of the questioning style that accompanies its use. In this study, groups were used to provide a space for the students to brainstorm ideas, and the Instructional Conversations took place in a whole class setting, which does not correspond to how Instructional Conversation would be used in the St andards for Effective Pedagogy. This may have occurred because Davin referenced early literature from the creators that focused

PAGE 107

91 specifically on Instructional Conversation in social activity, and it did not discuss the principles of the Standards in depth (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). In a university level French foreign language class, Philp, Walter, and Basturkmen, (2010) wanted to investigate the occurrence of language rel ated episodes (Swain & Lapkin, 1995), where students reflect on the language they use in discourse situations. Groups of three were formed to allow the needed discourse to take place. While it is clear that this study is not focused on the function of gr oups in the classroom, the indirect use of groups in this study is consistent with teacher use of groups in world language classrooms. In Katos (2016) small scale study of Japanese junior high school and high school teachers of English, he sought to unde rstand why language teachers used small groups, and he identified two main themes as reaso ns for teachers choices, classroom management and the promotion of academic achievement. C lassroom management is the reason groups were used in the Philp et al., (2 010) study. That is, in order to execute the desired activities for the production of Language Related Episodes, groups were a functional necessity. The other reason teachers in the Kato study used groups was to increase academic achievement by promoting collaboration. This second reason reflects the second category of studies, where studies are conducted to learn more about methodologies that use groups and the positive benefit they have on student achievement Cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) is an approach where learning occurs through students collaborating with each other to learn material. Bolukbas, Keskin, and Polat (2011) and Gomleksiz (2007) conducted studies where they sought to investigate the impact of cooperative learning style s on students in world language classes These studies are different from the Philp et al. (2010) study in that they are not using pairs or

PAGE 108

92 groups to investigate the specific occurrence of an event (e.g., language related episodes ) In the studies on cooperative/collaborative learning in world language classrooms the investigation was of a method and not groups, specifically. Studies in this category usually attempt to understand how students learning under the experimental method perform compared to st udents learning by traditional teacher fronted styles. Bolukbas et al., (2011) implemented a collaborative learning style they called Ask Together Learn Together. The study sought to investigate whether the experimental group using the collaborative styl e produced better results than the control group, which was taught using a traditional whole class teaching style. While it did not present a full pedagogy, the Bolukbas et al. study was the only world language study that provided a variety of details for how to compose groups (e.g., heterogeneously by skill level, gender, socio economic status). A pre test and post test were used to gather data. In the Gomleksiz (2007) study a collaborative learning style called JIGSAW II was used with students learni ng English in a university in Turkey. In this method, groups first act as learni ng centers where students study, discuss and learn a specific section of a reading. Following this, the members of the learning center return to their original groups and bec ome teachers of the content they have just studied, teaching it to members who have studied a different section of the text in different learning center groups In this form of collaborative learning, groups are used as learning centers and teaching centers, with the students taking the lead role in activities and holding a degree of accountability to ensure they understand and can transfer information to other students. The third category of studies is similar to the first in that these studies in worl d language classrooms seek to investigate a relationship, a specific f eature, or effect of an

PAGE 109

93 action. However, the studies in this category have a distinct focus on the function of groups. Lange, Costly, and Han (2016) were investigating the relationship between participation and scaffolding in English foreign language classes in a Korean university. They used two collaborative learning techniques, Numbere d Heads Together (Kagan, 1989) and ThinkPair Share (Lyman, 1981), as a means to carry out the study. While the focus was not directly on groups, the study provides insight into how groups are used in world language classes. For example, the N umbered H eads Together method is used to build accountability and promote reliance on the members in ones group, and ThinkPair Share uses groups to increase student involvement in the lesson (Lange, Costly, & Han, 2016). Shen (2013) sought to investigate the effectiveness of discussionbased approaches compared to the traditional teacher centered approach. In an English foreign language class in a Taiwan university, Shen (2013) compared the traditional teaching approach with three discussionbased approaches: Book Club, Literature Circles, and Instructional Conversations. In Book Club, students lead discussion about a text and control turntaking in the group. The teacher floats to each group, providing assistance as necessary. In Literature Circles, students ar e expected to support each other. After a short lesson by the teacher, students read the designated material in their groups; this is followed by peer led discussion. In this study, the teacher did not interact with the groups. In the Instructional Conve rsations, the teacher lead s the group discussions by asking mostly openended, pot entially controversial questions. However there were not sufficient details provided about Instructional Coaching in the context of this study to understand whether it has a basis in Instruction al Conversation as it is understood from the Standards for Effective Pedagogy.

PAGE 110

94 Based particularly on the literature from the last two categories, the studies reveal that world language teachers use groups based upon a belief that dur ing instruction, groups promote learning more so than the traditional teaching methods of whole class instruction. In these categories, groups are used with the expectation that students will engage in dialogue together at some point. Lange et al. (2016) directly refer to Vygotsky and the importance of participation with others This potentially supports Katos (2016) second them e that teachers believe collaboration in groups promotes academic achievement The studies reviewed for the three categories d id not provide information on how long groups are used during a lesson, nor did they provide information on the frequency of their use from class to class. With the exception of the Shen (2013) study, which used Instructional Conversation as one of the ex perimental groups, teachers in all of the studies had limited roles with respect to how the y interact ed with students in groups; most groups tended to only include the students as full participants. As previously noted, the use of groups where the teacher is not a consistent participant inhibits the benefits of an expert novice relationship from forming. While it is possible for this relationship to occur between students, the teacher would normally be the foremost expert in the classroom. This chapter reviewed a wide range of literature addressing multiple approaches and theories used in language education classrooms. The essential point of this chapter was to reveal that despite the multitude of approaches, there is a lack of attention towards teacher small group compositions and expert novice relationships in world language classrooms, the need for which was discussed in the theoretical framework. The literature related to dialogic teaching, communicative approaches, and the social approaches did not place emphasis on the participative role of the teacher nor did it focus on joint products. While the use of

PAGE 111

95 groups in these studies was for the purpose of increasing learning, groups were a means for doing a task. The critique of these studies is not t o draw attention to a lack of effectiveness. Rather, the purpose is to note that the Standards provide an important contribution to research, which was not addressed in any of the literature. As an extensive pedagogy, the Standards address the use of groups and the creation of joint products. They also provide the reasoning and guidance for the implementation of groups. Therefore, the next chapter provides more detailed information on the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Each of the five standards is introduced, but the JPA standard receives the primary focus. The chapter explains what a class that is implementing the Standards would look like, and it presents studies that have used the Standards and the measures utilized to gauge the implementation of the Standards.

PAGE 112

96 CHAPTER III STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY AND THE SPC What is Pedagogy This study is concerned with the degree to which secondary world language teachers may or may not be able to implement the Joint Productive Activity standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy in their classrooms. In order to better understand the fr amework of the present study, it is important to understand pedagogy from the perspective of the Standards. Explained in Chapter I the Standards developed from research done in 1970 in Hawaii with the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program The resear ch conducted during this program focused on students who were considered educationally at risk ethnic minority children (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 115). Other standards have been added since the creation of the original five, most notably the Critical Stance standard ( Teemant, Leland, & Berghoff, 2013) However, in this study, mention of the Standards or the Standards for Effective Pedagogy will refer to the original five. According to Dalton (2008), pedagogy is not another name for teaching; notwit hstanding, pedagogy and teaching are often used as synonyms, alluding to all the operations happing in schools and classrooms. Rather, pedagogy is the system of principles and methods that supports and facilitates effective teaching (p. 4). P edagogy is not simply what one teaches, but it is the concepts that influence teaching and the materials used. Dalton further suggests that pedagogy supports teaching by shaping the physical layout of a classroom; having a cognizance of classroom time for activitie s; defining relationships, expectations, and values; and having a design for participation. In this study, these aspects of

PAGE 113

97 pedagogy will be referred to as additional pedagogical practices or other pedagogical practices. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy: Application The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (see Figure 13) are a set of pedagogical standards that can be used to increase the effectiveness of teaching when implemented in a systematic way, and each standard builds upon the next (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Despite the ordinal framing of the standards it is not necessary to have every standard occurring at the same time (Dalton, 2008). An additional important characteristic of the Standards is that they can be used with any grade level, curriculum, or subject area (Teemant, 2014; Tharp et al., 2000). The pedagogical aspect of the Standards is that they provide the framework for how to teach in a manner that accounts for human social activity (as noted from the concepts presented in Delta Theory). Dalton (2008) explains that with the JPA standard, the grouping element and other necessary pedagogical (organizational) aspects are to be implemented in conjunction with the shared activity; therefore, from here on, Joint Productive Activity should be understood to include the additional pedagogical practices of the classroom as well as the joint activities. Following is a brief explanation of the five standards. S ince the current study focuses on the implementation of the first standard, Joint Productive Activity attention will primarily be given to the aspects and principles relating to it.

PAGE 114

98 Figure 13. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Teemant et al., 2011, p. 684)

PAGE 115

99 Joint productive activity. The first standard, Joint Productive Activity (JPA), i s grounded in the concept of Joint Activity presented in Delta Theory. I n JPA, teachers adjust the seating design of the classroom to group students in ways that best mirror learning styles or need s. Additionally, there is collaboration amongst students and teacher to produce a joint activity (project). Collaboration occurs in groups ranging from 3 7 students and the teacher purposefully includes students in conversations about activities before they happen, discussing the planning, execution, and completion of activities as well as expectations for the class (Dalton, 1998, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Language and l ite racy d evelopment. In Language and Literacy Development (LLD), the teacher provides structured opportunities for the students to develop academic language (Teemant, 2012). T hese opportunities are created by the teacher to connect language and literacy with content knowledge. Teachers use speaking, reading, writing, and listening to for m these connections to the content knowledge (Dalton, 2008) During Language and Literacy Development, teachers not only collaborate with students in ways that reflect the preferred styles of speaking for t he students such as forgoing the use of direct e ye contact or using longer than usual wait times for a response, but the teacher will also encourage the use of first or second languages as necessary (Dalton, 2008) Contextualization. The purpose of the third standard, Contextualization (CTX), is to con nect the teaching and curriculum to the personal experiences of the students (Dalton, 2008). Also emphasized is the importance of teachers assessing students knowledge or experiences to ascertain what they know and do not know, and using a contextualized curriculum facilitates this goal. Consequently, as Dalton (1998) suggests, the teacher should begin task s by utilizing what students already know from home or from school. After

PAGE 116

100 establishing this foundation, contextualization of academic content occurs with the teacher conducting activities that ensure the inclusion of all students (Dalton, 2008). Contextualization also means that the teacher will be an active learner of the topics and issues that relate to the students, their families, and communities (Dalton, 1998). Challenging activities. The fourth standard, Challenging Activities (CA), endeavors to get students to think at incre asingly complex levels This standard not only calls for teaching challenging content, but it also requires that the students be aware of performance standards (Dalton, 1998, 2008). According to Teemant (2012), in Challenging Activities students must respond to tasks by producing information that r eveals they questioned the why of the particular task or concept, as opposed to answering a weak surface level question that simply requires yes/no answers. Finally, an integral part of Challenging Activities is the use of clear fe edback which directly reveals to the student how their performance aligns with the challenging standards (Dalton, 1998). Instructional c onversation. The purpose of the fifth standard, Instructional Co nversation (IC), is to actively engage students in foc used, goal oriented dialogue with the teacher. Instructional Conversation takes place in an environment in which the student can have sustained dialogue with the teacher (the more knowledgeable other), and this should happen on a regular basis (Dalton, 2008). In Instructional Conversation, the teacher conducts conversation in ways that include the views and judgments of the students and relates them to the academic content. Additionally, the students must produce something that proves the goal of the Ins tructional Conversation was attained. Another characteristic of Instructional Conversation is that the talk of the students must occur at higher rates than the talk of the

PAGE 117

101 teacher (Dalton 1998). It is in this standard that Socratic questioning through dia logue prevails. The S tandards take place within two organizational structures: instructional frames and activity settings (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). The instructional frame has three integral parts: briefing; teaching and follow up; and debriefin g (Dalton, 2008). The activity settings are the spaces where activity takes place during the instructional frame; they may sometimes take place outside of the classroom. The instructional frame is separated into sessions (Dalton, 2008) or rounds (Tharp e t al., 2000). These sessions represent the movement of the instructional frame. However, the activity settings of many classrooms (Figure 14 ) are not usually timed and the length of activity varies depending on teacher preferences, other school activiti es, or curricular influences (Dalton, 2008); in these situations, students have little control over the timing of the instructional frame and they are unable to predict how, when, or what types of activities will occur. As noted previously, in the studie s of world language classes, there was no indication about the duration or frequency of groups. Those studies also did not specifically address how the classes began or ended. Since they were not studies on pedagogy, the absence of these particulars may not be unusual. Nevertheless t he organizational piece of the S tandards requires students to understand the progression of the class. That knowledge is what aids the students in being able to function without the constant, direct supervision of the teacher.

PAGE 118

102 Figure 14. Traditional Instructional Frame Figure 14. In traditional teaching practices, there may not be a requirement for students to display the extent to which they have understood a lesson. Additionally, the degree to which the follow up activity will actually draw on the understanding of the student is not usually defined. Therefore, the middle activity setting is not separated into Lesson and Follow up becau se it is often not consistent. What exactly takes place during the middle activity setting and for how long will be based on various factors. This instructional frame has three sessions and three corresponding activity settings. ( Adapted from Dalton, 2008) The instructional frame of a class using the Standards will be timed (Figure 15 ). This allows for all members of the class to have a consistent activity setting in which they may start to understand and formulate how best to achieve tasks and estimate the time needed to do them Additionally, the instructional frames will consistently begin with a briefing and conclude with a debriefing. The briefing is not mer ely a time for giving instructions. The briefing introduces tasks that will occur and materials that will be needed for the day. It involves the whole class, and the teacher reviews the expectations for participation that have been co constructed with the students. Nevertheless, when a teacher first implements this style, the class will most likely be whole class oriented, and this is normal (Dalton, 2008). Briefing: Teacher explains what will happen. Lesson: Teacher teaches and students may be required to display understanding of topic. Debriefing: Teacher may or may not assign extended activities.

PAGE 119

103 Moreover, during initial implantation, t he briefing time will primarily be used to establish and focus on classroom management guidelines The debriefing is a time of reflection, noting any problems to implementation as well as successes. There is reflection and a checking against a standard to ensure the goals of the activities were met. At this s tage of growth in the JPA standard, the teachers general role is to assess and assist (Tharp et al., 2000). Figure 15. Monotasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes Figure 15. In this timed instructional frame, the briefing is allotted 10 minutes, the lesson is allotted 20 minutes, the follow up is allotted 20 minutes, and the debriefing is allotted 10 minutes. Establishing time allotments helps control the pace of the activity. This provides not only a time that teachers can use to consistently plan with, but the consistency also enables students to anticipate what they need to do to complete the requirements within the given time. This instructional frame reflects four ses sions and the four corresponding activity settings. ( Adapted from Dalton, 2008) I t is possible for instructional frames to last over several class periods, or it may be completed in one class period (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Nevertheless, as depicted Briefing: Teacher builds community, introduces the activity, clearly presents expectations, and distributes material. Lesson: The teacher teaches a prepared lesson to the whole class. Follow up: Students actively apply the concepts from the lesson while assisting each other. Focus is on completing the activity within the allotted time. Debriefing: Class discusses the activity, noting the successes and/or difficulties. Class reflects on skills developed and each other's actions.

PAGE 120

104 in Figure 15, in the beginning of the school year, the activity settings in the instructional frame are usually a whole class activity where all students are doing the same thing, known as monotasking. Gradually, they move to multitasking (Figure 16), where there are simultaneous, independent activity settings occurring in the instructional frame (Dalton, 2008; Tharp et al., 2000). Multitasking is an organizational goal that should be achieved to allow for effective use of the Standards. Figure 16. Multitasking Timed Instructional Frame Reflecting the Standards: Sixty Minutes Figure 16. In this multitasking timed instructional frame, the briefing is allotted 10 minutes, the lessons are allotted 20 minutes, the activity and follow up activity are allotted 20 minutes, and the debriefing is allotted 10 minutes. The briefing and debriefing have the same goals as in Figure 15. The noticeable difference is that during the second and third session, there are two simultaneously occurring activity settings. Half of the class is with the teacher, and the other half of the class may be working on a preparatory activity or follow up activity; these students may be organized into a variety of groupings depending on where one is in the process of implementing the Standards Ultimately, the goal is to organize activity settings so that the teacher is able to work with small groups of students. This instructional frame has four sessions and six activity settings. ( Adapted from Tharp et al., 2000) Briefing Lesson: Teacher teaches half of the class. Follow up Activity: Independent of teacher Debriefing Activity: Independent of teacher Lesson: Teacher teaches half of the class.

PAGE 121

105 Recognizing the need for propinquity and joint activity, which lead into the other parts of the Cycle of Social Sorting the importance of JPA as the foundation upon which the other standards can be enacted becomes clear. The foundational at tributes of JPA are the reason it was chosen as the focus for the current study. Additionally, since the teacher ha s consistent designated time with a small group of students, the JPA also provides an answer to the problems noted earlier of students not being provided enough time to speak in class or have enough time to formulate responses. Ultimately, i f the teachers are able to enact characteristics of JPA in their classroom, opportunities for research on using the other standards in world language classes becomes more of a viable possibility. JPA in the context of the Standards does not only refer to students working together. It s aim i s for a consistent and gradual implementation of activities and other practices that will allow for the class to function in an ordered fashion. In the JPA model, the importance of orderly action and movement between activities is due to the fact that the teacher is a sustained member of a particular group within the classroom; therefore, practices must be in place to ensure students in other groups are able to perform tasks and handle minor problems on their own while not causing disruption to others. Tharp et al. (2000) and Dalton (2008) present integral pedagogical structures that the JPA standard endeavors to implement in a classroom A summary of these structures is presented in Figure 17. 1. Routines: Routines are implemented to create predictable sequences for activities, allowing students to perform the activities independently or with the teacher even when there is new content. 2. Grouping: Groups set the stage for assistance to come from more capable peers or the teacher, either of which can serve as a more knowledgeable other

PAGE 122

106 3. Activities: In addition to what was explained about JA in Delta Theory, the purpose of activities in JPA is to ingrain skill development in activities that are also conceptually challenging. 4. Joint Product s: Joint products help to develop common and shared understandings, which also relates to the joint activity of Delta Theory. 5. Work Products: These products verify that the students have knowledge that they are able to apply. 6. Multitasking: This is the means by which multiple activities are able to occur at once, with or without the direct guidance of the teacher. 7. Classroom Organization and Management: Organization refers to the schedule that the class follows as well as the arrangement of students and teachers in the classroom (or outside of it). Management sets up rules and creates a common understanding for how to do tasks or activities in the class (e.g., what to do if a student needs to go to the bathroom or finishes an activity early). It also explains how to deal with disruptive behavior.

PAGE 123

107 Figure 17. Overview of JPA Pedagogical Structures Reviewing the framework proposed for the current study, the essential aspects taken from SCT relate to how individuals learn from social acti vity, primarily using dialogue, and by interacting with more knowledgeable others. The ZPD is the area where the level of potential learning can be assessed and learning functions can be nurtured. This is based on Vygotskys belief that teaching needed to awaken functions that were at the maturing stage (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), as opposed to those that had already developed. These concepts (e.g., identifying the ZPD of a student and creating propinquity) are the underpinnings of JPA, and ult imately all the Standards, and they represent why the Standards are potentially such a powerful pedagogy. In the school classroom, the Cycle of Social Sorting presents what is necessary for creating the environment in which students can come together and work together, thereby providing opportunity for using speech and maintaining the functionality of the group. The JPA aspect of the Standards introduces the teacher as a more knowledgeable other who can consistently remain a part of a group for an extended period of time. Creates predictable classroom sequences for students to follow independently Routines A space for students to receive assistance from more knowledgeable others Grouping Ingrains skill development Activities Helps build shared understanding between participants Joint Products Proves that students have applicable knowledge Work Products Allows for multiple activities to occur at once Multitasking Creates a schedule and rules for students to follow Classroom Organization & Management

PAGE 124

108 Moreover, the JPA standard provides a pedagogy that maintain s the functions of the group in a classroom in a manner that allows for all students to have sustained access to the teacher at varying times during the class period; additionally, the JPA standard provides opportunities for students to learn from peers. Rogoff (1990) uses the term guided participation to refer to assistance that occurs in the expert novice relationship. She explains this relationship as a means of the expert apprenticing the novice through thinking. In order for this to happen, guided participation must genuinely include guidance from the more knowledgeable other and genuine participation from the novice. This derives f rom the understanding that in an apprenticeship model, the novice must move from peripheral participation towards full participation; peripheral meaning that the learner is engaging in the actual activity that is being led by the expert, but the degree to which participation occurs is limited (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As the learning continues, there is a graduated removal of mediation, and the teacher would transfer more responsibility to the student, in the form of an allowance or a requirement (Rogoff, 1990). Stage 1 and 2 of ZPD reflect these concepts. In a school environment full participation relates to Stage 3 of ZPD when the student no longer needs assistance from the more knowledgeable other to perform a task or activity in the target language T he following explanation of guided participation from Rogoff (1990) expresses what JPA and ultimately the other Standards attempt to produce in a school setting: [Guided participation] is intended to stress shared activity with communication that includes words as well as actions, and to encompass the routine, tacit activities and arrangements of children and their companions[it] involves adults or children challenging, constraining, and supporting children in the process of posing and

PAGE 125

109 solving problems thr ough material arrangements of childrens activities and responsibilities as well as through interpersonal communication, with children observing and participating at a comfortable but slightly challenging level. (p. 17, 18) Guided participation encapsulate s the joint activity in a group setting, the interaction between the learner and more knowledgeable other the understanding tha t other children may serve as a more knowledgeable other in certain activities, the establishment of routines and other organiza tional factors seen in JPA, as well as the adherence to challenging activities. There is a strong theoretical basis for the SCT and JPA approach taken in the current study. Results from Studies Regarding the Implementing of the Standards A thorough sear ch of the literature which included searches on Google Scholar, the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence website at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and databases such as Ebsco and ProQuest found virtually no studies that have attempt ed to use the Standards in the teaching of a world language class. All of the studies that follow, with the exception of the Davin (2013) study, focus primarily on the effectiveness of the Standards and their application in classes that would normally be considered core subjects, such as mathematics or language arts. Thus, there is a dearth of studies addressing the application of the Standards in the area of world languages. The one study that did utilize an aspect of the Standards was conducted in a combined fourth and fifth grade Spanish foreign language classroom (Davin, 2013). This study drew on Dynamic Assessment, discussed previously in Chapter II and Instructional Conversation, discussed earlier in this chapter. However, this study did not seek to apply the Instructional Conversation as part of the larger pedagogy, nor did it seek to apply all the facets of Instructional Conversation as explained by the creators of the Standards. Instead, the

PAGE 126

110 Instructional Conversation was used in whole class i nstruction as a way to address student errors and questions. Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003) employed the Standards in two studies that used the same participants, 15 teachers and 266 students, ranging from third to fifth grade. Of the 266, m ost were Latino stu dents with limited English proficiency The first study investigated the gains students had on endof the year standardized achievement tests (the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition) when t eachers used the Standards in language arts classes. The second study investigated the relationship between the application of the pedagogy (e.g., Challenging Activities and Instruction al Conversation) and changes to classroom organization (the positioning of students and their movement during the class as explained through the first standard, JPA). The first study revealed significant positive relationship between the teachers use of the Standards and the students results on the standardized tests. Of the five subsets tested (comprehension, reading, spelling, vocabulary, and language), language was the only subset that did not reveal any effect. Additionally, the effect for the vocabulary subset was only marginally significant. In the second study, they measured classroom organization and pedagogy by the following four level taxonomy: 1) Untransformed organization and untransformed pedagogy (UO/UP), 2) Untransformed organization and transformed pedagogy (UO/TP), 3) Transformed organization and untransformed pedagogy (TO/UP), 4) Transformed o rganization and transformed pedagogy (TO/TP). Their results showed that students of teachers who changed their organization and pedagogy (TO/TP) had significant gains in achievement for the areas of comprehension, reading,

PAGE 127

111 spelling, and vocabulary, when compared to the students of teachers who did not make similar changes. However, they did not find significant differences in achievement between the other three areas (UO/UP, UO/TP, or TO/UP). From these results, they note d that changing the classroom organization produces an essential basis in which the benefits of the other standards may be dispersed to all students in the classroom. Therefore, rather than maintaining an exact distinction between the organizational piece and the Standards themselves, the need for the organizational piece to be implemented from the beginning is a probable reason for why Dalton (2008) describes (additional) pedagogical practices as occurring during JPA. Doherty and Hilberg (2007) conducted another study with 23 teachers and 394 students, ranging from third to fifth grade and covering three consecutive school years. As in the studies above, the majority were Latino students with limited English proficienc y The goals of the stud y were to increase the student s abilities to talk and think about their worlds in more complex ways (p. 26) through actualizing the second standard, Language and Literacy Development and the fourth standard, Challenging Activities. The other three standards were the means by which they were to achieve the goals. Referencing the Doherty et al. (2003) study, they explained that the whole pedagogical model requires JPA and Instructional Conversation to function, and neither of the two can be fully implemented in a whole class setting. This study, too, used the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition to assess student achievement gains, but as a pretest and posttest. The main result of this study also revealed that during language arts instruction, the achievement levels were the highest and the gains were largest when the teachers used the pedagogy of the Standards and the

PAGE 128

112 organizational methods They also note that English first language speakers also benefited from the transform ations that took place in the classes. Since none of the literature discussed in Chapter II directly excluded the use of a teacher in the role of full participant, and several approaches have clear resemblance to SCT approaches or are SCT approaches, it mi ght be presumed that the absence of the teacher being introduced as a full participant is potentially due to a lack of understanding (pedagogy) on how to implement such an action. Nevertheless, since an expert novice relationship requires the teacher to be a present and consistent member, the issue of how to have the teacher become a consistent, full participant in a group needs to be addressed. A foundational principle of the JPA standard is the established presence of the teacher, serving as the more knowledgeable other In the role of a more knowledgeable other the teacher is able to regulate the difficulty of the a ctivities while still providing joint participation. Ultimately, as previously noted, as students become more competent at certain tasks, the mediation is removed, and the teacher becomes free to introduce new concepts. Measuring Joint Productive Activit y Standards Performance Continuum Regardless of the subject to be taught in a classroom (e.g., language arts history, or mathematics), the most common tool of measuring the degree to which JPA has been utilized is the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC) (Doh erty et al. 2002). The SPC is also the tool used to measure the implementation of the other standards. The SPC is a 5level rubric measuring implementation of the standards and is supposed to serve as a guide and assessment tool for professional de velopment (Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, 2004; Teemant, 2014). As a professional development aid, the SPC can

PAGE 129

113 provide researchers or teachers with data that can be used to advance the effectiveness of current teaching practices or activities (CREDE, 2004). This particular use of the SPC for professional development is consistent with the goal of the SPC, which CREDE (2004) explains as providing something that would present quantitative data on the quality of teachers implement ation of the Five Standards (p. 1). Accordingly, the 5level rubric (Figure 18) quantitatively measures the implementation of the standards on a scale of 0 to 4. Doherty et al. (2002) explain that a 0 is not observed (p. 81) and means that no part of the standard is present in the activity. A rating of 1 represents emerging (p. 81) and means that at least one of the elements from the standard is in use. A rating of 2 represents developing (p. 81) and means that the teacher has designed an activi ty that demonstrates partial use of the standard. A rating of 3 represents enacting (p. 81) and means that the teacher has designed an activity in which the standard is fully enacted. A rating of 4 represents integrating (p. 81) and means that at least 3 of the standards are occurring at the enacting level during the same observational period. Teemant (2014) explains that a not observed rating means that the class is most likely following behaviorist practices. That is, the teacher uses whole class instruction and controls all aspects of instruction; furthermore, material is decontextualized and most concepts are learned by pure memorization. She explains that a rating of enacting, on the other hand, is characterized by social interaction in groups where varying forms of feedback and assistance occur. Additionally, these activities take place while co constructing knowledge and using material that is cognitively challenging and contextualized.

PAGE 130

114 Figure 18. Standards Performance Continuum: A Classroom Observation Rubric (Teemant et al., 2009, p. 686) As was the case with the Standards (Dalton, 2008), the development of the SPC was grounded in sociocultural perspectives (Doherty et al., 2002) developed from Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural theory. Doherty et al. (2002) note that an essential aspect of the theory is that learning and the corresponding activities are social, and meaning does not develop independent of the social context in which it is learned. Therefore the teacher is to perform actions in a socially relevant manner that will assist the students to move to greater performance levels in their ZPD hence a need for the SPC (Doherty et al., 2002; Vygotsky, 1978).

PAGE 131

115 Additional Measures Doherty and Hilberg (2007) assert that due to the need to have the teacher present, and due to the very features of JPA itself, it is not possible to fully implement JPA in a classroom that is functioning in the traditional whole class design, where students sit in rows and the teacher stands in front directing the class. They continue by pointing out that classroom organization paired with the pedagogical standards represent an ideal environment in which successful learning can occur. Consequently, in their studies, they used the four level taxonomy explained previously (UO/UP, UO/UP, UO/TP, or TO/UP). While the results of the Doherty et al. ( 2003) and Doherty and Hilberg ( 2007) studies were discussed previously, and they used the SPC, I will explain another method by whic h they measured implementation o f the Standards, namely, SPC MAP SPC MAP is a modified form of the SPC, and it is intended to gauge (a) t he teachers direct use of the S tandard(s) at the teacher center (the activity setting where the teacher is seated) as well as determine (b) to what degree the S tandards are in application at other activity settings, which is considered the teachers indirect us e of the S tandards (Dohert y et al., 2003). A person observing an instance of JPA might simply use the SPC as a measure. In contrast, if there are multiple activity settings, a SPC MAP can be used. In this case, the observer must quickly determine which activity settings promote the highest conceptual processing (p. 12), a feature of the fourth standard, and then rank the activity settings from highest to lowest (Doherty et al., 2003). The scoring begins at the teacher center and continues in decreasing rank order; this ranking is produced following the same criteria detailed in the SPC Classroom Observation Rubric After all activity settings are rated, the

PAGE 132

116 remaining time is used to observe the activity settings and adjust scores as necessary (Doherty et al., 2003). An important component of effective JPA is that of multitasking. Dalton (2008) points out that all teachers will start the school year by essentially doing whole group activities which she calls monotasking. When monotasking is occurring, there is a possibilit y that there may be multiple groups of students, but the whole class starts the same activity, finishes the same activity, and moves to a new activity together. In short, all students do the same thing. The time frame during which an activity is taking p lace is called a session (Dalton, 2008). The purpose of the JPA model, however, is to gradually move the class from monotasking to multitasking. Dalton (2008) describes a multitasking class as having multiple smaller groups doing varying activities simu ltaneously during the same session. For multitasking, the instructional time is broken into a predetermined number of sessions, and when a new session starts, the students also begin in a different activity setting. Additionally, with the start of each n ew session, a different group of students moves to the teacher center. In Doherty and Hilberg (2008), the term Mode is given to the measure used to assess the occurrence of multitasking in a classroom; it specifically looks at the organizational piece of the S tandard s When using the Mode measure, one is looking to see if there is one activity moving sequentially though multiple sessions (monotasking) or if there are multiple activity settings occurring simultaneously in each session (multitasking). Dohe rty and Hilberg (2008) provide a simple scoring scheme of 0 for sequential (monotasking) and 1 for simultaneous (multitasking). The scores from each session are taken, and then they are averaged out across the whole observation. This produces a value bet ween 0 (never) and 1

PAGE 133

117 (always), which is a percentage showing the degree to which the sessions were monotasked or multitasked (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007). The studies conducted by Doherty and Hilberg (2007) and Doherty and Hilberg (2008) used SPC, SPC Map, and Mode as measures. Doherty and Hilberg (2008) conducted three studies; the first was of 13 elementary school teachers and 165 students (mostly from low income Latino families) in grades three and four at a school on the California coast. 100 students were classified as having limited English proficiency ; 37 were classified as being fully English proficient, and 28 were first language English speakers. The second study was conducted at the same location as the first, but there were 18 teachers and 322 students, ranging from first grade to third grade; 229 students we re classified as having limited English proficiency; 40 were classified as being fully English proficient, and 53 were L1 English speakers. The third study involved nine teachers and 165 st udents, ranging from third to fifth grade. The school was located in an urban setting near Chicago, served mostly low income Latino families, and 86 students were classified as having limited English proficiency. In the first study, teachers implementing the Standards had higher SPC totals than the control group that did not implement the Standards but the scores for Mode, while higher than the control group, were not significant. The second study produced similar results, with teachers who used the Stan dards having higher SPC totals than the control group but displaying Mode scores that were higher but not significant. The third study was the only one that revealed the teachers using the Standards as having higher SPC scores and having Mode scores that were significantly higher than the control group. For each study, there were three rounds of observations from which data was collected.

PAGE 134

118 Additional Examples of JPA and Measurements in Classrooms In making a case for the effectiveness of the Five Standar ds, Doherty et al. (2004) reference a study that looked at the effect of JPA on a language arts class which was composed of mostly Latino students with limited English proficiency This study, as in others, used the SPC to measure the extent to which the JPA Standard was implemented; however, there was an additional measure presented, that of self report. The researchers discovered a significant positive association between the teachers use of JPA and the self reported data gathered from the students. T he data showed that the more JPA was implemented the more students self reported that they possessed and used better reading strategies. McIntyre, Kyle, Chen, Kraemer, and Parr (2009) report on a teachers use of JPA in a middle school ESL class. They chronicle d the actions of the teacher, poi nting out the way she implemented JPA with the students. The example they provide is of the teacher having the students work in pairs as they worked through answers of a test they had taken. Each student read aloud a question he/she answered incorrectly, and then the students discussed the meaning of the question, investigating what it was trying to ask while also considering why he/she had chose n that answer. The teacher constructed the student groupings carefully and explained that they needed to explore the logic behind how and why they answered the way they did. Additionally, the teacher explained the importance of metacognitive thinking. However, in terms of assessing JPA, McIntyre et al. (2009) did not prese nt an assessment they made of the teacher. They only provided the questions that teachers would ask themselves to verify the effectiveness of their JPA The questions are derived from the SPC,

PAGE 135

119 but assessment is not performed in the way of an observation by an outsider; rather, it is a self assessment performed by the teacher. As previously mentioned, w hen observations of any of the S tandards take place, the SPC is the main means used for evaluating th e degree of implementation. Doherty et al. (2003) used two observers to conduct the observations from which the data was analyzed. One observer used the SPC to ass ess implementation of the S tandards according to the procedure outlined in the study while the other observer used the SPC MAP. In Doherty and Hilberg (2007), only one observer gather ed both SPC and SPC MAP data. Hilberg, Tharp, and DeGeest (2000), in their study on the effect of the Five Standards on American Indian mathematics classes, diverged from the live observational methods and assessed the implementation of all the S tandards using the SPC while looking at a videotaped lesson taken from the last day of the study. Yamauchi, Im, and Schonleber (2012) also used video in their study of the Standards and their application in an early childhood setting, a childrens center serving 2 to 5 year olds. The study was conducted over the course of three years, and the participants included 13 preschool teachers, 2 administrators, and about 100 children each year. Video of each teacher was taken si x times a year. Two raters were used to code the videotaped classes. While Yamauchi et al (2012) used the SPC to assess the recorded classes, their study had some significant differences compared to other studies that used and assessed the implementatio n of the Five Standards. The purpose of their study was to explore how they could use the standards in a preschool setting because research they ha d for the effectiveness of the S tandards had only been conducted in K 12 environments (Yamauchi et al., 2012). T herefore, in order to make the S tandards more practical to a preschool setting, they

PAGE 136

120 developed a modified version of the SPC called the CREDE ECE 7. The ECE stands for early childhood education, and the 7 refers to an additional two standards that we re originally developed for indigenous students (Yamauchi et al., 2012). The researchers note d that the y rated the video two times. The first rating used the first version of their CREDE ECE7 rubric, which went from 03. The second rating used the fina l version of their CREDE ECE7 rubric, which went from 04. Nevertheless, the point to notice is that they chose to add an additional level for the evaluation because the levels as they were at that time did not seem to encompass all of the variation th at existed in an early childhood setting (Yamauchi et al., 2012). It is important to note that the research team and the teachers worked together to decide on the adjustments that would be made to the SPC. For example, with regard to JPA, they all agreed that the original criteria of the rubric were applicable for the preschool lesson with the exception of one area. JPA expects that students will be able to collaborate with the teacher and each other to such a degree to where the activity could be scored at the enacting level. However, one teacher noted that while collaboration between preschoolers and the teacher could be expected, collaboration between preschoolers could not necessarily be assumed. As a result, they altered the criteria for the enacti ng level of JPA. At the enacting level, the SPC reads the teacher and a small group of students collaborate on a joint product (Doherty et al., 2002, p. 82). To this, they added another statement for the CREDE ECE7 that read Collaboration may mainly be between teacher and children rather than among child peers (Yamauchi et al., 2012, p. 64). Similar act ions were taken with the other standards as well. This chapter provided an overview of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. It presents the majo rity of study articles that the researcher found on the Standards, with the

PAGE 137

121 exception of the Teemant and colleague studies that were presented in Chapter II The literature in this chapter reveals that the Standards have been successfully implemented in a variety of school situations and subjects. The research also speaks to the effectiveness of the Standards to bring about positive results in student achievement. Methods for assessing the Standards were also presented. Through its absence, this chapter reveals the shortage of research on the Standards in world language classroom. Consequently, that is a reason for the importance of the current study. The next chapter presents the methodology used for this study. It also speaks to the reliability and validity of the Standards Performance Continuum as a trusted measure.

PAGE 138

122 CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers were able to implement the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity, after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts and implementation procedures The following research questions guide the design of the study : 1. Before the instructional coaching with secondary world language teachers in Joint Productive Activity (JPA), using the Standards Performance Continuum Classroom Observation Rubric and other established measures for the Standards for Effective Pedagogy what aspects of JPA already exist in the classroom enviro nment? 2. After instructional coaching in JPA, what aspects of JPA do secondary world language teachers implement in their instruction: Why and to what degree do they do so ? 3. How do study participants view JPA and the coaching process, including its applicabil ity to world language classes? Teemant et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between the number of coaching cycles (the independent variable) and the implementation of the S tandards, the total SPC score, the number of activity settings, the classroom organization process, and quality of Instructional Conversation. In the current study, the number of coaching cycles remains fixed, and the dependent variables are SPC scores, M ode scores, and classroom organization ( for example, is there a change in the number of small groups used?)

PAGE 139

123 This study is grounded in sociocultural learning theory and use d the Joint Productive Activity standard as the framework to expose teachers to soci ocultural principles and the ways they could be enacted in their classrooms. Instructional coaching was the means by which the JPA standard was taught to the secondary world language teachers. The coaching provided the researcher repeated and consis tent access to the teachers to allow for their progress, or lack thereof, to be documented. The goal was not to investigate how coaching impacts the teaching. Instead, the purpose of coaching in the current study was for it to serve as a means for teach ing th e aspects of the JPA standard and the desire was to (a) learn w hether the world language teachers could implement aspects of the standard in their class es, as well as (b) understand their perceptions of its usefulness. Nonetheless, as shown in Chapter I Figure 3, the progression of the teachers through the coaching cycles is reflective of sociocultural learning and does ultimately affect their teaching. Four teachers were selected to receive individual coaching cycles to learn about how to implement the S tandards in their classrooms. The four participants were high school world language teachers from the same school Goal of the Study Following the typology of Newman, Ridenour, Newman, and DeMarco (2003), the goal of this mixed methods case study was to investigate whether, after receiving coaching in the JPA standard, secondary world language teachers were able to implement any facets of the JPA standard into their world language classes. This study potentially contribute s to the knowledge base surr ounding the use of the Standards for training purposes, as well as to SCT Second Language research. By measuring the teachers implementation of JPA primarily with the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC), the degree to which secondary

PAGE 140

124 world language te achers were able to apply the pedagogy was better understood. The degree of implementation reflects the differences between the aforementioned traditional teaching practices and tr ansformative teaching practices. Research Objectives The objectives of this mixed methods case study were twofold: a) exploration, and b) description (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Specifically, this study explore d the degree to which secondary world language teachers could implement the characteristics of the JPA standard in t heir classroom, and in accordance with the SPC Classroom Observation R ubric, see Figure 18 (Teemant et al., 2011), this study describe s where the teachers rated in the application of the JPA standard. Research/Mixing Rationale and Purpose Using Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Suttons (2006) rationale and purpose model, the rationale for conducting this mixedmethods study was classified as treatment integrity; this rationale is used when the desire is assessing the fidelity of interventions, tr eatments, or programs (p. 80). They explain that if the intervention (the teaching of the Standards) is to have integrity, it has to be implemented in a correct manner. That is, implementation must be in line with how the creators of the Standards intended. Therefore, the actions that the teachers conduct in the class must be grounded in the theory that supports the Standards. Consequently, t his is a reason for why self report was not utilized as a measure. Ins tead the SPC rubric was used by the researcher, who was already familiar with and well versed in both the Standards and SPC rubric Moreover, in line with the second research ques tion, treatment integrity allowed for the researcher to investigate why implementation of the Standards may not have be en occurring. Thus, during the course of observing the teachers,

PAGE 141

125 this study note d barriers that might have been preventing the effective application of the JPA standard in the classroom. Discrepancies between planned classroom implementation strategies for the JPA s tandard which were discussed during Pre meetings, and actual actions observed in the class observation were noted and addressed during the subsequent phases of coaching cycles Mixed Methods Sampling Based on the research questions and goal of the study, a concurrent identical mix ed methods sampling design was used (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007) This was due to the fact that the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study occur red at virtually the same point in time (concurrent), a nd the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative phases was identical because the same participants were used in both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study. Figure 19. Mixed Methods Sampling Model Providing a Typology of a Mixed Methods Sampling Design. (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007, p. 294) Figure 19. QUAL stands for qualitative, quan stands for quantitative, + stands for concurrent, capital letters denote high priority or weight, and lower case letters denote lower priority or weight; Leech & Onwuegbuzie (2009) use the term dominate to show higher priority. Time Orientation CONCURRENT (QUAL + quan) Relationship of Samples IDENTICAL Sampling Scheme SELECT SAMPLES

PAGE 142

126 Since the goal was not to generalize the findings but to explore whether a sample of secondary world language teachers could implement the JPA standard in their c lassroom, the participants fit the criteria needed to answer the mixed methods research questions, and a criterion based purposive sampling scheme (Onwu egbuzie & Collins, 2007) was used. Additionally, since the study took place in a public school district and participation could only be voluntary, teachers who fit the criteria needed for the study and were available to meet for the predeter mined amount of sessions were chosen as potential candidates. The criteria for participation was that the teacher had to be actively teaching a world language to students in either a junior high school or a high school. Additionally, the world language class had to be conducted as a part of the students general curriculum that occu rred in a balanced manner with other academic subjects. Therefore, barring any special assemblies or events (e.g., state testing) the world language class needed to occur at least two times a week. The two class minimum weekly meeting time was important because routines need to be established for the JPA standard to function effectively. If the world language class had had fewer meeting times than all other classes or met for a substantially shorter duration than all other classes, this may have affect e d the ability for the teacher to create routines in the class during the allotted time for the study Finally, those teachers who were willing to participate and had schedules that coincided with the availability of the researcher were selected as partici pants. The need for meeting the availability of the researcher follow s a form of convenience sampling (Fink, 2013), which was acceptable since generalizing of the results to the population did not occur.

PAGE 143

127 Site s election and p articipants The teachers who serve d as participants for this study were high school world language teachers from the same school located in a suburban school district in the Rocky Mountain region of the US. Initially, the assistant superintendent of the school district was contacted. It is through the assistant superintendent that all initial correspondence about research in the district must occur. The assistant superintendent received all material regarding the study and worked with the district Internal Review Board in determ ining whether to accept the study proposal or not. After meeting the district Internal Review Board requirements, permission was granted to the researcher to contact schools in the district. For convenience, a high school and a junior high school that we re close to the location of the researcher were contacted. The principals of these two schools were provided information about the study via email. They were sent an outline of the study that noted the expected time demands for teachers as well as the go als, reasoning, and benefits of the study. The outline was succinct so that the information would be relayed easily to the World Language D epartment heads, through whom it was expected that solicitation for volunteers for the study would occur The depar tment head from the high school was the first to respond with interest about the study. The department head asked for the researcher to come to a World Language Department meeting to briefly describe the study to teachers in the department. Out of nine t eachers, five expressed desire to participate. After receiving the names of the teachers from the department head (who was one of the five), correspondence continue d via email until the first actual meeting date. This correspondence addressed the beginning steps of the process: (a) which of the class levels did each teacher want to focus on (e.g., his/her level II or level IV class), (b) when would the first meeting and observation take place, and (c) when would the information session take place

PAGE 144

128 In total, four participants went through the instructional coaching process. Although the current study focuses on four teachers, the fifth teacher at the high school was enlisted to protect against the possibility of a teacher withdrawing from the study before the completion of the coaching and semi structured interview. The information for this teacher is not shown in the table below, but this teacher was also a Spanish teacher. Correspondence was also conducted wit h a private school to enlist a sixth teacher should another replacement be needed. The limit on the number of teachers is also due to the fact that each teacher had individual coaching sessions, and it would not have been feasible for the researcher to ef fectively conduct coaching sessions for more than four individuals concurrently. Demographic information on the four teachers who participated in the study is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants P seudonym and Gender Fluent Languages Spoken Highest Level of Education Total Years Teaching World Languages Total Years Teaching Sophia, Female French and English B.A. in French and B.S. in Marketing 10 10 Isabel, Female Spanish and English M.Ed. in Education of the Diverse Learner 23 23 Frida, Female Spanish and English B.A. in Hispanic Studies 18 18 Samantha, Female Spanish and English B.A. in Psychology 8 10

PAGE 145

129 The private school mentioned above has an elementary school, junior high school, and high school on its campus. Correspondence with the private school began with an email to the superintendent of the school. The superintendent arranged for a meeting betw een the researcher, the executive director of academic services, and the director of curriculum. During the meeting, both members of the school expressed their support for the study and explained that they would correspond with their world language teache rs about the study. However, since the original four teachers enlisted completed all parts of the coaching and final interview, it was not necessary to pursue the coaching at the private school. The current study did not seek to determine whether the JP A standard worked better with novice teachers or with teachers who have taught for numerous years. Rather, the desire was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers could implement aspects of the JPA standard and learn how these world langua ge teachers viewed the coaching experience and the applicability of JPA in their classrooms. Mixed Methods Research Design This current mixed method research study utilize d a fully mixed concurrent dominant design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009) as well as a case study design; first I discuss the mixed method design of the study and follow with the case study design. The latter part of this section explains additional details about the study itself Prior to discussing the design details it is important to note that the use of a case study with mixed methods is a documented method of inquiry (Yin, 2009). Mixed methods design. The research design was fully mixed and concurrent because the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study occur red at the same time while addressing the objectives of the study. The exploration of the degree to which the teachers

PAGE 146

130 were able to implement the JPA standard in the classroom and the description of that standard use d a numerical quantitative scoring system and a qualitative descriptive system to rate the teachers implementation ; this is based on the SPC Classroom Observation Rubric (Figure 18). In identifying the descriptive features, there are corresponding numerical rankings; therefore, with respect to t he objectives, the qualitative phase cannot be performed separately from the quantitative phase. While both qualitative and quantitative phases occur red simultaneously, the qualitative descriptions were more heavily (dominantly) valued than the quantitat ive numerical scale (Figure 20) because subsequent coaching cycles address ed descriptive aspects that were expected to be observable in the classroom The quantitative numerical scoring from the rubric mainly served to inform others of where a teacher rat ed on the Standards Performance Continuum (Teemant et al., 2011). Figure 20. A Typology of Mixed Research (Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2009, p. 5) Case study design. Yin (2009) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that (a) investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its reallife context, especially when (b) the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (p. 18). Addi tionally, Hancock and Algozzine (2011) add that three particular characteristics of a case study are that (a) it normally is focused on an individual, organization, or phenomenon; (b) the object of the study is bounded in its natural context, specified by a specific space and Mixing Dimension Fully Mixed Methods Time Dimension Concurrent Emphasis Dimension Dominant Status Research Design Fully Mixed Concurrent Dominant Status Design

PAGE 147

131 time; and (c) the case study is very descriptive due to a variety of sources which provide information. This mixed methods research case study is an explanatory holistic multiple case study (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2009). Explanatory designs attempt to understand causeand effect relationships. I n the current study this equated to whether teaching the secondary world language teachers ab out the Joint Productive Activity standard (the cause) resulted in the teachers applying aspects of it in their classrooms (the effect). This current study investigate d the application of the Joint Productive Activity standard It did not look at the outcome of student grades or employ participation from other people aside from the teachers involved. Therefore, a holist ic multiple case study design was adopted for the current study (Yin, 2009), and each teachers case will follow the same pattern and contain the same steps, shown in Figure 24.

PAGE 148

132 Figure 21. Holistic Multiple Case Case Study Design Reflecting Four Individual Teacher Cases (adapted from Yin, 2009) Additional design features. This current study utilized instructional coaching as the means for teaching the Standards for Effective Pedagogy (specifically the JPA standard) to world language teachers. Following the design of Teemant et al. (2011) and Teemant ( 2014), instructional coaching occurred in cycles composed of a 30minute pre meeting, a classroom observation, and a 30 minute debriefing meeting.

PAGE 149

133 Figure 22. Coaching Cycle for Current Study. Excluding the meeting that took place with the entire world language department to briefly explain the study, direct faceto face interaction with the teachers began with an initial introductory meeting and concluded with a meeting to share the results, an action known as member checking (Stake, 1995). Four coaching cycles were used to guide the teachers into the implementation of the JPA standard. Teemant et. al (2011) and Teemant (2014) both used seven coaching cycles to teach all five standards to the teachers. After direct correspondence with Tee mant, it was decided that four coaching cycles would be sufficient to teach the JPA standard, as well as note aspects of the other standards (e.g., Language and Literacy Development), which often occurs in JPA (A. Teemant, personal communication, December 19, 2016). The researcher underwent training with Teemant in how to use the SPC for observations. The training was conducted via video conferences in the latter part of 2014 and 30-min meeting to plan lesson Classroom observation lasting one entire class 30-min debriefing and reflecting upon actions

PAGE 150

134 beginning of 2015. Teemant was trained by the developers of the Standards and is a nationally recognized expert in their use for training and evaluation. D ue to the nature of instructional coaching, d etermining what was observed was dependent on the actions of the teacher. Thus, for example, i f the teacher conducted the lesson in a whole class manner, the whole class activities were observed If the teacher created groups, the teachers interactions with the groups were observed. If the teacher had attempted to create various activity settings where each group of students was allotted time to be with the teacher at the teacher center, the teacher center would have been observed for a full rotation. Afterwards, a different activity setting without the teacher would have been observed for the next rotation. The length of activi ties was determined together with each teacher. Since there were pre me etings to discuss plans for the class observation, the researcher usually had prior knowledge of whether the teacher intended to create groups or multitask in the classroom. Thus depending on the lesson plan of the teachers, the manner in which the observations occur red varied The length of the observations was the same for all teachers and lasted the entire class (90 minutes). What was discussed during the 30 minute meetings of the coaching cycles varied depending on the needs and goals of each teacher, but the first pre meeting address ed two topics. The first topic was how could groups be made to become a consistent part of the class routine. This entaile d discussing how the teacher would begin to formulate routine grouping and how this information would be relayed to the students (e.g., would the teacher pass out a printout regarding the class structure, or would the teacher talk about class structure in the briefing time that precede d the main lesson). The second topic discuss ed was a joint product that each group would be working towards in the upcoming observational

PAGE 151

135 lesson. As discussed previously, the coachi ng cycles used the SPC to reflect on the classroo m activities Although the specifics of what was discussed varied with each teacher, all teachers work ed towards making groups a consistent feature of the classroom, and they work ed toward s structuring the class to where groups could function independent of the teacher. During the 30minute meetings, in addition to the video/audio recordings, the researcher also maintained a notepad for each teacher, which the researcher used for recording notes during the meetings. During the 30 minute meetings, the researcher used a laptop, handouts, or drew on paper or a classroom blackboard as a means of providing information or explanation. The data from the observational phases of the coaching cycles were recorded usi ng the O bservation Sheet (Appendix A ) adapted from the Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Observation sheet. The Observation Sheet was used to record information relating to the SPC, Mode and classroom organization. Additionally, any othe r information that was pertinent to the observation (e.g., number of students, shape of the classroom, topic being discussed) was recorded on the Observation Sheet. In the current study, t he observation segment of the coaching cycle last ed the entire clas s period. This allowed for the opening and closing procedures of the lesson to be evaluated. Five Standards Instructional Model. The teachers moved through the coaching cycle using The Five Standards Instructional Model (Hilberg et al., 2003; Hilberg, Doherty, & Reveles, 2004). It served as a pace setter, detailing the goals that needed to be achieved to see the organizational aspects of JPA functioning on a high level. As each teacher and the researcher moved through the steps of the Instructional Model, they worked cooperatively to

PAGE 152

136 develop joint products that could be used in the observational lessons. The Five Standards Instructional Model is designed to be implemented over a five phase timeline. Figure 23. Summary of the Phases for the Five Standards Instructional Model The Instructional Model is intended help move teachers into the full actualization of all of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. Thus, Phase 4 and Phase 5 place a large emphasis on the fifth standard, Instructional Conversation. While it was likely that the teachers would be using aspects of Instructional Conversation and aspects of the other standards, there was not specific training in those areas because the desire was to establish a specific type o f classroom organization during the JPA standard, which in turn would support all of the standards. Similarly, Teemant et al. (2011) explain that the desire of the instructional coaching in their study was to help teachers become able to effectively organ ize the classroom and maintain multiple activity settings. During the information session that preceded the coaching, teachers were given several pages from the Hilberg, Chang, and Implement routine Briefing and Debriefing Lesson conducted in whole class form Establish classroom management Phase 1 (2 10 days) Teacher works with one section of class while other section works independently Rotate intact groups of students to different activities Phase 2 (2 10 days) Teacher still works with one section of the class while other section works independently Various groups formed based on different factors Phase 3 (2 10 days) Activity Settings are created as permanent features Students have task cards to guide their activities Teacher moves to various Activity Settings Phase 4 (2 10 days) Teacher center becomes primary area for teaching Special Activity Settings exist which precede and/or follow lessons at teacher center. Phase 5

PAGE 153

137 Epaloose (2003) article on designing effective activity settings, which pr ovided information on the first and second phases of the five phase timeline. After the coaching cycles were complete d, correspondence was done to set up a time for a semi structured interview (Appendix B ) designed in part as a means to answer the qualita tive portion of the second research question and the third research question. The interview was allotted a time frame of 45 minutes, but all end ed earlier. A time limit of one hour was in effect nevertheless After the completion of the coaching cycles and the semi structured interview, the researcher contact ed the teachers to set up a meeting time to conduct the member check. All four participants were present at the member check meeting. The researcher pres ented each participant with a table that chronicled their SPC ratings over the course of the cycles. The table also provided information on their implementation of briefings, debriefings, activity settings, and multitasking. Mixed Methods Data Collectio n This current research study utilize d within strategy mixed method data collection (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In order to evaluate the degree to which the JPA standard was implemented by a teacher, class observations were the primary means for data co lle ction The JPA standard can be quantitatively rated on a scale of 0 to 4. Doherty et al. (2002) and Teemant, Leland, and Berghoff (2013) explain that on the SPC, a quantitative rating of 0 represents not observed and means that no part of the standard has been observed. A quantitative rating of 1 represents emerging and means that at least one of the elements from the standard is in use. A quantitative rating of 2 represents developing and means that the teacher has designed an activity that demonstr ates partial use of the standard. A quantitative

PAGE 154

138 rating of 3 represents enacting and means that the teacher has effectively designed an activity that fully enacts the standard A quantitative rating of 4 represents integrating and means that at least 3 o f the standards are occurring at the enacting level. In the current study, since only the implementation of the JPA standard was being studied, a quantitative rating of 4 was not possible. To accurately assess where a teachers classroom actions exist ed on the aforementioned quantitative s cale, qualitative data had to be acquired during the observation. During the observation, depending on the qualitative data (e.g., the teacher and the students collaborate on a joint product in a whole class setting), one of the corresponding quantitative scaled numbers was chosen as a rating for the standard (e.g., t he number 2, which represents developing on the Classroom Observation Rubric, Figure 18). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) explain this type of data collection to be withinstrategy because the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the mixed methods data were collected from only the observation portion of the study. Data sources. The data was collected from an initial short meeting (mainly for introductory purposes), a class observation which preceded the information session and coaching cycles, one information (orientation) session, four coaching cycles, a semi structured interview that occurred after the coaching cycles, and a short meeting to share results with each teacher (member check). Figure 24 depicts these a ctions in the order they occurred.

PAGE 155

139 Figure 24. Summary of Data Sources, Documenting Methods, and Analytical Methods in order of Occurrence As previously noted, before the initial introductory meeting, correspondence was conducted via an email thread that included the five teachers and the researcher. As the participants decided upon which of the levels they would want to work with, the resea rcher updated a chart which showed the meeting time for each teachers choice. The chart was sent to all five participants when a choice was made. Additionally, the teachers were advised that choosing a class that met during the time that another teacher had chosen would possibly be an impediment to moving through the coaching smoothly; however, it was not prohibited Data Source Collection Initial Introductory Meeting Pre meeting Observation Information Session Pre meeting (Coaching Cycle) Class Observation (Coaching Cycle) Debriefing (Coaching Cycle) Semi structured Interview Member Check Data Documentation Method Written Notes in Notebook Observation Sheet Written Notes in Notebook Written Notes in Notebook and Video/Audio Recording Observation Sheet Written Notes in Notebook and Video/Audio Recording Interview Protocol sheet and Video/Audio Recording Written Notes in Notebook Means of Analysis Descriptive and Structural Coding SPC and Mode measure Descriptive and Structural Coding Descriptive and Structural Coding SPC and Mode measure Descriptive and Structural Coding Descriptive and Structural Coding Descriptive and Structural Coding

PAGE 156

140 by the researcher. Notwithstanding, all teachers chose to work with a class that did not meet during the same time as another teachers class. The first step in data collection was the short initial introductory meeting with the teacher s The purpose of this meeting was to begin the building of rapport between the researcher and the teacher s share expectations, ask some general questions about the students and class dynamic, and to review the consent form, Appendix C. During this meeting, the researcher asked if there was a general philosophy or method that guided each teachers approach to teaching world language. This meeting was also us ed to choose a time to conduct the information session. This initial introductory meeting lasted around 20 minutes The data reflecting the teachers initial rating on the SPC was collected during the Pre meeting Observation Since the time and date for the information session were set during the initial introductory meeting, the researcher ensured that the Pre meeting Observations were completed by that time. The information session was allotted a timeframe of two hours This timeframe was chosen bas ed on a determination of the researcher for time needed to present information about (a) sociocultural learning theory, (b) the Standards for Effective Pedagogy (particularly JPA and the phases of implementation) and (c) the coaching cycles. Since all th e t eachers were at the same school they all participated in the information session together. The teachers were also able to ask questions during the information session All five teachers participated in the initial introductory meeting, the Pre meeting Observation, and the information session. However, one teacher had to leave town unexpectedly during the week that these three actions took place. Therefore, she went thr ough these first three steps when she returned. Since the coaching cycles began the week

PAGE 157

141 that she returned, she ultimately was able to move through the cycles at the same pace of the other teachers. After the information session was complete d, a Google spreadsheet was used to allow teachers to fillin time slots for briefings, observations, and debriefings. However, it was usually the researcher that filled in the spreadsheet after a meeting or an observation Although t he coaching cycles for all four teachers occurred concurrently, each teacher had an independent briefing and debriefing with the researcher. The reasoning for having the coaching run relatively concurrently was because it allowed the researcher to view what was occurring with all teachers in real time. Furthermore, in accordance with the literature on professional development and instructional coaching noted previously the current study sought to observe the teachers in their genuine teaching environment as they attempted to implement th e JPA standard. Teachers were able to use resources that would normally be at their disposal, which included dialoging with other teachers participating in the study Therefore teachers were not dissuaded from communicating with each other about ideas f or use in the class, particularly since restricting teachers from sharing ideas or resources would be contrary to the benefits of dialogic principles and a transformative classroom Coaching c ycles. Following the design of Teemant et al. (2011), coachin g cycles were numbered as opposed to being equally spaced events, this allowed for flexibility in scheduling and better accommodated the pace of the teacher. T he teachers had the option to choose for the pre meeting or debriefing meeting of the coaching c ycle to occur on the same day as the class observation. Nevertheless, in order to keep all teachers moving forward, teachers were encouraged to complete each coaching cycle within a seven day period.

PAGE 158

142 During the pre meetings and debriefing meetings, the r esearcher used a specific notepad for each teacher to record notes. Additionally, t he pre meetings an d the debriefing meetings w e re video /audio recorded using a Nikon D3300 camera and tripod This video was stored on a 2terabyte external hard drive that was stored in a locked file cabinet. In past studies of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, some observations have been video recorded and some have not. Further discussion on videotaping i s provided in the section titled Reliability, Validity, and Strengths of the SPC. Nevertheless, for the current study, since there were only a total of five observations and there is precedent for not using video recording in studies on the Standards (Doherty & Hilberg, 2008; Doherty et al., 2002), the observational portions of this study were not videotaped. Additionally, the researcher served as the sole observer, for which there is also precedent (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007). Other issues that relate to having one observer are addressed in the section titled Reliability, Validity, and Strengths of the SPC and the Mixed Methods Data Analysis section. Semi structured interview and member check Hancock and Algozzine (2011) emphasize the positive aspects of semi structured interviews in case studies. They explain that while the researcher asks predetermined questions which potentially provide answers to the research questions, in semi structured interviews, the researcher can ask follow up questions which address issues or topics that appear to be of interest to the interviewee. By so doing, the interviewee may fr eely express their own position and not only that of the researcher. During the semistructured interview, the researcher utilized the Intervie w Protocol sheet for note taking as well as record the interview using the Nikon D3300 camera and tripod. Member check also took place after the coaching cycles. For the member check,

PAGE 159

143 the researcher contacted the department chair and proposed dates for m eeting. The department chair coordinated with the other three teachers to schedule the meeting. Reliability, Validity, and Strengths of the SPC Krathwohl (2009) discusses the issues that occur when measuring various events. He explains that there are relatively few problems that arise when measuring an event that is readily perceived by the physical senses, such as time or weight. However, when attempting to measure constructs that are not as easily perceivable, such as concepts, the difficulty for atta ining an accurate measure increases. The main method for measuring the implementation of the Standards is the SPC (Doherty et al., 2002). All of the aforementioned studies on the Standards used the SPC to gather data. However, when deciding between the use of live observations or viewing recorded sessions for gathering data, Krathwohl (2009) explains a benefit of live observations as being that categorizing and coding occur at the same time as the observation. Thus, the record is not as expansive as would be the case in a video recording, and the data are more or less instantly available for analysis and interpretation. In contrast, Krathwohl (2009) also presents the benefits of conducting observations through the use of video recording. He raises the point that with video, more detailed analysis may be conducted because one has the power to review areas of the observation that would otherwise have been lost if not noted during the live observations. Therefore, video presents itself as an extremely useful tool, especially when the observations extend over long periods of time, such as in the study by Yamauchi et al. (2012), which lasted for three years. Whether recording or not, it is important to address the SPC as a measure that may be trusted. To address this issue, Doherty et al. (2002) conducted research to ensure the SPC would be a valid measure. Doherty et al. (2002) used the results from Teacher Roles

PAGE 160

144 Observation Schedule (TROS) and Classroom Observation Measure (COM), two observational methods already in existence prior to the SPC, to compare to the results gathered from the SPC. Comparisons between the SPC, TROS, and COM revealed that the SPC total scores and TROS summed scores had significant positive correlation as well as did the SPC and COM total scores. Another action that was taken to ensure results gathered from the SPC observations were valid is that of face validity, which is an action taken to ensure those being measured will accept or are in agreement with the results from the measure (Krathwohl, 2009, p. 407). Yamauchi et al. (2012) achieved face validity by incorporating the teachers in the decision making for creating a SPC that would be effective for an earl y childhood education context. In the current study, member check was utilized. Some studies on the Standards have used only one observer while other studies used at least two observers (or raters in the case of videotaped observations). Whether using one or more observers, Krathwohl (2009) talks of reliability from an operational point of view. Taken in the context of observing JPA, reliability is the consistency with which different teachers evidencing the same level of implementation would be assigned the same score by the observer (Krathwohl, 2009). Therefore, if only one observer is used in a study, the chance of variability in scoring could be limited by ensuring that the observer was thoroughly trained in the Standards and in the observational methods. Nevertheless, all the people in the aforementioned studies on the Standards were thoroughly immersed in the logic and application of them, and that factor also added to the effectiveness of the SPC as a measure that could be trusted. For the current study, the researcher corresponded with Annela Teemant, sharing JPA indicators observed and the corresponding rating given from one observation for each teacher observed. This was done to verify that the researcher was

PAGE 161

145 accurately using t he SPC rubric in assessing the actions of the teachers. Correspondence was conducted via email. Mixed Methods Data Analysis As presented in the Research Objectives section, this study focused on identifying the degree to which the JPA standard could be i mplemented after teachers received instructional coaching in the concepts and implementation methods of the standard. The SPC Classroom Observation Rubric was the primary measure for assessing the degree of implementation In addition, the twovalue Mode measure was used to evaluate the monotask ing and multitask ing aspects of the class lessons. As previously explained, the SPC Classroom Observation R ubric is composed of two parts. Since the rubric corresponded to qualitative data collected during the ob se rvation, and the rubric provided for the qualitative data to be immediately linked to a quantitative rating system, conversion mixed data analysis ( Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) was used for this study. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) state that when qualit ative data are transformed into numerical data, quantitizing has taken place. This applies to the SPC scores and the Mode scores. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) explain two important characteristics of conversion mixed data analysis: (a) this type of analy sis occurs when qualitative data are converted into numerical form (quantitizing), and (b) data are collected at the same time because there exists one source of data. In addition to making rating on the rubric easy, quantitizing the data would have allow ed for easier statistical comparison with other teachers, should that had been desired. Thus, for the current study, as specific indicators of the JPA standard occur red (e.g., actions and/or conversations), they were placed into one of the four rating are as on the rubric (0 to 3). Quantitizing immediately took place because the corresponding numerical

PAGE 162

146 values were already connected to the qualitative indicators. These actions took place during each of the five observations and provided immediate results. For each of the four teacher cases, the SPC scores and Mode measures are displayed in a table plotting the scores over the course of the five observations (see Chapter V Presentation of Findings). Observational classes that contained multitasking were a lso provided. Data collected from the initial introductory meeting, the information session, the 30 minute meetings, the semistructured interview, and the member check was analyzed using structural and descriptive coding ( Saldaa, 2009). Structural codin g assigns conceptual phrases, which represent a particular topic, to data that relates directly to the research questions ( Saldaa, 2009). Descriptive coding uses a word or short phrase to provide a summary of a portion of qualitative data, and it can be a pplied for interview transcripts, journals, field notes, and video ( Saldaa, 2009). Structural coding allowed for the researcher to note areas of data that related directly to the research questions. Descriptive coding aided in the answering of the resear ch questions, as well, but it also elucidated other topics that existed in the data. The video from the 30minute meetings and semistructured interview was transcribed before coding began. Since the other meetings were of shorter length or mainly focused on explanation from the researcher, only written notes were analyzed. Triangulation. Triangulation is an import action taken to ensure multiple sources of data are used to attest to the results found (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009; Yin, 2009). Triangulation is the combining and comparing of data from multiple sources, data collection and analysis methods, and other interpretations that arise at the end of the study (Teddlie & Tashakkori,

PAGE 163

147 2009). Tria ngu lation in this study utilized multiple means of data collection to corroborate the same finding (Yin, 2009), illustrated in Figure 25 and discussed afterwards. Figure 25. Data Triangulation The SPC, as explained previously, is used when observing an instance of JPA, for example, at the teacher center. Using the SPC at the teacher center allows for the observer to assess what aspects of JPA are being actualized. In the current study, t he SPC was also used to measure implementation of the standard at other groups where the teacher was not a part. This could have been done using the SPC MAP, but since it looks at aspects more specifically oriented to the other standards, it was not used. Moreover, since the overall result produced by the SPC MAP is the same as the SPC, the SPC was sufficient in assessing groups where the teacher was not present. Additionally, the majority of studies mentioned previously did not use SPC MAP. Mode looks at whet her there is multitasking or not, an additional activity intended to occur during the JPA standard. The pre meetings and debriefing meetings provide d space for teachers questions and learning as well as allow ed Implementation of JPA standard resulting from instructional coaching Introductory Meeting Information Session SPC Mode 30minute coaching meetings Semistructured interview Member check

PAGE 164

148 for them to reveal any changes that were or were not occurring. The semi structured interview provide d time and space for the teachers to express their thoughts about the SPC rubric and their feelings about any personal pedagogical changes they believe d occurred or did not occur They were also able to give their perspective on the experience as a whole. Member checking was used in this study. Member checking is another way to provide triangulation of the researchers interpretations of observations; it involves allowing the person(s) observed t o examine the notes or writings taken by the researcher for accuracy when no more data are to be gathered (Stake, 1995). Mixed Methods Data Legitimation The current study incorporated mixed methods; consequently, this study followed data legitimation as d escribed by Onwuegbuzie, Johnson, and Collins (2011). Onwuegbuzie et al. (2011) discuss nine legitimation types: sample integration, inside outside, weakness minimization, sequential, conversion, paradigmatic mixing, commensurability, multiple validities, and political. Additionally, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010) explain that during the data legitimation phase, discussion should pertain to the quantitative phase, qualitative phase, and the mixed method phase (the nine legitimation types noted above ). They explain that for the quantitative phase, threats to validity should be addressed, and for the qualitative phase, any threats to areas such as trustworthiness, verification, and dependability should be addressed. Since the SPC rubric used during the observation provided a quantitative ranking, there was little concern in the area of legitimation for the quantitative phase. In contrast, for the SPC rubric qualitative phase, it is necessary to address trustworthiness, verification, and dependability. In order to have had inter rater reliability for all of the data, two or more

PAGE 165

149 observers would have needed to view either all of the live classes or a video recording of all classes. In the current study, there was only one observer. Therefore, the allocation of the observed data into one of the four areas on the SPC rubric (e.g., not observed, emerging, developing, or enacting) could not be corroborated with another person. Nevertheless, several measures were taken (or already existed) to address this issue. F irst, the researcher in the current study underwent training for how to conduct observations using the SPC rubric from Annela Teemant (an expert in the field). Second, the researcher was not new to conducting observations with the SPC rubric in live class rooms. Moreover, to ensure that the researcher was applying ratings accurately, qualitative data from one observation for each participant was sent to Teemant along with the SPC rating given and the researchers reasoning for the rating. The researcher s ent Teemant two examples of teachers at the developing level, one example of a teacher at the emerging level, and one example of a teacher at the not observed level. The qualitative observations and the reasoning for the rating given were sent to Teemant by email. The researcher subsequently received verification that qualitative data observed accurately corresponded to the ratings originally given. Conversion was the type of legitimation used in the mixed methods phase of this study, and it serves the purpose of looking at the quality of inferences that come from data that has been transformed (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011). Onwuegbuzie et al. (2011) used Greenes (2006) four domain typology for the development of a research paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences to explain where the types of legitimation may lie. Conversion legitimation (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011) was addressed at the data analysis (interpretations) phase for inquiry logics. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2011) explain that

PAGE 166

150 inquiry logi c should reveal what is important as well as explain it in a defensible manner. In the current study, observations were conducted to record the occurrence of the JPA standard in a classroom. The observational data was recorded qualitatively. The data co llected from the observation met the objective of this study, to explore the degree to which secondary world language teachers were able to implement the characteristics of the JPA standard in their classroom before and after instructional coaching The quantitizing of the qualitative data are important because it allows for the degree of implementation to be readily understood by those viewing the data Q uantitizing data, as opposed to leaving it in a qualitative form, adds more meaning to the data by e stablish ing clear boundaries for understanding the differences between the data. This chapter presented the methodology used in the current study. It presented the methodology for sampling, data collection, data analysis, and data legitimation. The fol lowing chapter presents the findings from the study.

PAGE 167

151 CHAPTER V PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers would be able to implement the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity, after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts and implementation procedures The study was based on the following research questions : 1. Before the instructional coaching with secondary world language teachers in Joint Productive Activity (JPA), using the Standards Performance Continuum Classroom Observation Rubric and other established measures for the Standards for Effective Pedagogy what aspects of JPA already exis t in the classroom environment? 2. After instructional coaching in JPA, what aspects of JPA do secondary world language teachers implement in their instruction: Why and to what degree do they do so ? 3. How do study participants view JPA and the coaching process, including its applicability to world language classes? Findings for the research questions are presented below. Each case (study) is presented individually. Research questions 1 and 2 addressed the degree to which secondary world language teachers impl ementation of the Joint Productive Activity standard changed after receiving instructional coaching. Observations were employed to (a) ascertain each teachers rating in the Joint Productive Activity standard according to the Standards Performance Continuum rubric and to (b) verify the implementation of other pedagogical practices expected to be implemented during the phasing in of the JPA standard. The Pre -

PAGE 168

152 Training Observation reveals the degree of implementation for each teacher prior to instructional c oaching in the JPA standard. The subsequent observations reveal the JPA ratings in accordance with the SPC rubric and based upon the use of accompanying pedagogical practices employed to facilitate the implementation of JPA. The subsequent observations occurred as the teachers proceeded through instructional coaching cycles for the JPA standard. Examples of accompanying pedagogical practices employed to support the implementation of JPA are (a) the ability of teachers to consistently use briefings, debri efings, and activity settings; (b) the ability of teachers to guide students into the creation of classroom community agreements; (c) the ability of teachers to manage time in a consistent and ordered fashion; (d) and the ability of teachers to define role s and relationships (Dalton, 2008; Hilberg, Chang, & Epaloose, 2003; Tharp et al., 2000). These practices should be employed as a fundamental part of implementation as teachers move through the Five Standards Instructional Model the model used as a pace setter for the implementation of the Standards. Each of the following cases presents a listing of the accompanying pedagogical practices that the teacher was observed using. Figure 26 illustrates these pedagogical practices.

PAGE 169

153 Figure 26. Various Pedagogical Practices Employed to Support JPA Implementation The presentation of each case begins with two tables that show the results of the five observations conducted for each teacher. The first table presents the rating of the teacher in accordance to the SPC rubric. The second table presents several of the a forementioned pedagogical practices employed for successful implementation of the JPA standard, namely information relevant to briefing, debriefing, and activity settings. As explained in Chapter III the briefing and debriefing are integral pieces of the class period (Dalton, 2008), and the activity settings are a latter goal of implementation because they become the place in which activities occur (Tharp et al., 2000). The Mode measure is also included in the second table because multitasking would idea lly be used with multiple activity settings. Due to the importance of the briefing, debriefing, and activity settings, they are presented in a table (titled Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information) separate from the other pedagogical practices. In the table, the briefing and debriefing are marked as either observed or not observed. Observed means that during that specific cycle observation, the teacher There is a defining of values There is a defining of expectations Teachers have a design for participation There is a defining of roles and relationships Teachers maintain a cognizance of classroom time Teachers adapt the physical layout of the classroom Teachers consistently use briefings, debriefing, and activity settings Teachers guide students into the creation of classroom community agreements Teachers construct and implement protocols that facilitate classroom management

PAGE 170

154 employed briefing (or debriefing) in accordance with the JPA standard and/or implementation methods (e.g., the Five Standards Instructional Model). Thus, if at the end of the class, the teacher only provided the homework for the next class but did not ref lect with the students about the learning that took place during that class period, the debriefing was rated as not observed. Similarly, at the beginning of the class, if the teacher only presented a list of activities that would occur or only gave instruction for how to do the upcoming activity, the briefing was rated as not observed. Mode is also shown as observed or not observed and it means that either multitasking occurred or did not occur during the class observa tion. As explained in Chapter IV t he Mode measure is usually averaged across the sessions that occur during the class. However, since only Isabel and Frida used multitasking, one time, the decision was made to show only observed or not observed This allowed for the data to be presented more clearly. Additional pedagogical practices employed by each teacher during the implementation of the JPA standard follow the data presented in the two tables. The PreTraining Observation presents data collected prior to the start of the instructional coaching in the JPA standard. After presenting the findings from research questions 1 and 2, Research Question 3, which focuses exclusively on qualitative findings of how participants view JPA and the coaching process, will be presented. Each individual case concludes with notable findings. T he notable findings section (a) presents findings that potentially reveal the views that participants have about JPA and the coaching process and (b) presents findings that may contribute to the explanation of why participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA Notable findings arose from the descriptive coding for topics as the researcher analyzed the data. The notable findings are presented in a separate section because the participants either did n ot reveal this information in the process of

PAGE 171

155 responding to direct questions related to the research questions or the views the participants expressed did not readily relate to a specific research question. Table 15 presents a summary of the notable finding s. This chapter concludes with a summary of findings for all four cases.

PAGE 172

156 Sophia So phia was the only world language teacher who participated in the study that taught a language other than Spanish. Languages that she spoke fluently were French and English. The highest held degrees were a B.A. in French and a B.S. in Marketing. At the time of the study, she had been teaching a total of 10 years; all 10 years were as a French teacher. The class used for the observations in this study was a level II I French class. The grade level of the students in the class ranged from 9th to 12th grade. Additionally, she was teaching two other French III classes and two French II classes. Table 2. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Sop hia based on the SPC rubric Not Observed (0) Emerging (1) Developing (2) Enacting (3) Pre Training Observation X Cycle 1 Observation X Cycle 2 Observation X Cycle 3 Observation X Cycle 4 Observation X

PAGE 173

157 Table 3. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Sophia) Briefing Debriefing Number of Activity Settings Mode (Multitasking) Number of Students in Class Pre Training Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 25 Cycle 1 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 25 Cycle 2 Observation Observed Observed 0 Not Observed 27 Cycle 3 Observation Observed Observed 0 Not Observed 26 Cycle 4 Observation Observed Observed 0 Not Observed 21 Research Question 1 addresses the degree to which teachers were implementing aspects of the JPA standard. The Pre Training Observation revealed that Sophia was operating in the developing level of the SPC rubric. There was no occurrence of additional ped agogical practices employed to facilitate the implementation of JPA. Research Question 2 addresses the degree to which teachers implemented aspects of JPA after receiving coaching in JPA and its accompanying pedagogical practices Table 2 shows that beg inning with the Pre Training Observation, Sophia remained consistent in her direct use of implementing activities for which student collaboration was necessary to produce a joint product (the developing level). With the exception of the Cycle 4 Observatio n, where her rating was at the emerging level, students consistently worked collaboratively in the creation and preparation of a group activity, or the students collaborated in the presentation of an activity (the developing level). Table 3 shows that

PAGE 174

158 fro m the Cycle 1 Observation, Sophia began to consistently implement briefings and from the Cycle 2 Observation, debriefings. Number of Centers refers to the number of activity settings created. Sophia did not reach the point of creating actual activity set tings; therefore, a zero was recorded for each observation. Additionally, Sophia did not implement any multitasking activities in the classroom. Consequently, the multitasking area of the table has been marked as not observed for each observation. The fi rst instance of Sophia receiving a rating of developing occurred during the Pre Training Observation. In groups, the students performed an activity where they needed to use vocabulary words to create sentences. The students all worked together to discuss the meaning of the vocabulary words they were given and proposed ideas for sentences. The activity lasted 14 minutes, and then a member from each group wrote an example sentence on the white board in the front of the class. This is an example of developing on the SPC rubric because all members in the group collaborated to create a tangible product. It included interaction and shared ownership of learning. The Cycle 2 Observation provides an example of Sophia implementing a briefing. The class actually started with the teacher doing a 15 minute warmup exercise. The briefing began afterwards. The teacher had created a large poster compiled of the class rules and agreements for working in groups. It also had goals for students to strive for when workin g in groups. The poster was written in French, and after the class, the researcher verified the content of the poster with the teacher. This qualifies as a briefing because the teacher went over the agreements and rules before beginning the main portion of the class. Moreover, these agreements had been created collaboratively by all members of the class, including the teacher.

PAGE 175

159 Sophia implemented other pedagogical practices associated with JPA implementation: (a) the leading of students in the creation of class rules and agreements, (b) the defining of values, (c) the defining of roles for activities, (d) the use of a timer for class activities, and (e) the implementing of protocols for student actions. Sophia allowed for the students to develop the meani ng of collaboration, and as they proposed ideas for its meaning, she wrote their proposals on the whiteboard located in the front of the class (Figure 27). She used the discussion on collaboration to lead the students into the collaborative development of agreements that the students would adhere to when working in groups (Figure 28). Additionally, Sophia often gave the students clear directions for what needed to be done and the roles available for students when conducting joint activities (Figure 29). F igure 27. Student Thought Meanings and Purposes for Collaboration (First Draft)

PAGE 176

160 Figure 28. Collaboratively Made Agreements for Group Work (First Draft)

PAGE 177

161 Figure 29. Cycle 1 Observation Activity Defining Roles

PAGE 178

162 Research Question 2 also sought to understand why the participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA. Sophia specifically noted that by collaborating with other teachers, she was able to recei ve ideas about how to implement JPA concepts. For example, when responding directly to the question of whether conversations with other teachers participating in the study contributed to her ability to implement aspects of JPA, she stated the following: Ye s, because I would go for ideas, and I would ask them questions while I was implementing something. And they would definitely give me ideas. So, we kind of piggybacked off of each other. I would like to be able to do it more, you know on a regular basis It was more of just like lets get together. Or sometimes in passing, you sometimes just have to take the time to collaborate when you have the time. (Post Cycle Interview, March 21, 2017) Moreover, when Sophia was asked directly if there was anything that aided or hindered her ability to apply aspects of JPA, she again noted collaboration with her colleagues as well as her students openness to change in the classroom. There were several areas that appeared to limit the degree to which Sophia was abl e to implement aspects of JPA. First, when directly asked about what hindered her from implementing aspects of JPA, she said, So, I dont think there was anything that hindered it [the implementation] really. I think the only thing is that I kind of alr eady had my plan for what I wanted to do when this started (Post Cycle Interview, March 21, 2017). Four other areas that arose were that (a) she believed that she had not assimilated the JPA system into her routine, (b) she had not come up with any ideas for how to attain to the enacting level, (c) she felt the need to teach or do an activity in a certain timeframe, and (d) she believed she

PAGE 179

163 needed to work more to become a better user of time in the class. Below is an excerpt from the Cycle 2 Debrief when the researcher was questioning Sophia on her impressions about the Cycle 2 Observation; it reveals her opinion about not having yet assimilated the aspects of JPA into her routine. Researcher (R): H ow did you feel that went? Sophia: I felt it went OK. It wasnt quite the group interaction I wanted it to be. I just feel like Im not there yet. You know, Im not yet part of a routine. (Cycle 2 Debrief, March 9, 2017) In the Cycle 4 Premeeting, she talked about a need she felt to teach a lesson using au thentic material before the unit was finished. This resulted in her not constructing a class that would require the students to work towards making a product. This instance is further discussed in the notable findings below. Research Question 3 attempted to understand the views the participants held with respect to JPA and the coaching process. Sophia noted a variety of positive views she had regarding the JPA standard and its application in the classroom. They are summarized in Figure 30.

PAGE 180

164 Figure 30. JPA Aspects Sophia Viewed as Positive or Important In the Cycle 1 Debrief, Sophia expressed how happy she was that she could learn about the perspectives the students had through the making of the agreements and discussion of the meaning of collaboration, which took place in the Cycle 1 Observation. She declared, Their perspective was so important to see. And they have worked in groups in many different classes and they have all experienced those things. I really, I real ly like that (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 2, 2017) When she speaks of all the students experiencing those things that was with respect to a discussion she conducted with the students about positive and negative experiences they had had when working with groups. That discussion served as a basis for developing agreements that would outline acceptable conduct for group work in that class. In addition, Sophia commented on how the briefing could be used to engage students from the beginning of class. The following excerpt reveals her positive view towards the briefing and how she used it to lead into the developing of a greements; furthermore, the same The establishing of roles for students Managing time or having a timekeeper Students collaborating to create agreements Teacher being able to work with a small group The consistent use of briefings and debriefings The developing of accountability and protocols The importance of the physical layout of the classroom

PAGE 181

165 excerpt reveals her experience with the assigning of roles and how it appeared to aid classroom management: I think it engaged them immediately. I think the briefing is good because sometime s the beginning of class is not, j ust getting them started is not, b ut if you can hook them right from the beginning, and I think that hooked them because they were part of the learning, part of the decision making. So that kind of hooked them so then they were ready to work. And what I noticed, in some of my other classes, some of my pr oblem students were more bought in because I think they were thinking about their responsibility and the r ole, in all that they had to do. (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 2, 2017) With respect to the coaching process as a whole, she believed that the sharing of ideas that accompanied the coaching process allowed for her to rethink things and work through things (Post Cycle Interview, March 21, 2017). However, Sophia did note that she sometimes felt overwhe lmed during the process. The following transcript excerpt attests to some of the pressure she experienced and her recognition that the collaboration with the researcher through the instructional coaching process was necessary, nevertheless. R : What areas of the coaching pr ocess were helpful or limiting, the coaching process bein g what we were doing together? Sophia : Well, just talking through the activities was really helpful. Sometimes logistics are the hardest thing to figure out; how is it going to r un? And that was really helpful. I think time management was rough. I think that the time involved during this time of year was somewhat, you know. I dont wa nt to say consuming, but it was. When you do collaborate, you do take time away

PAGE 182

166 from your pla nning, although i t is part of planning. D o you know what Im saying? R : Uh huh, sure. Sophia : I mean there are other things you have to be working on. So, I did feel a little bit overwhelmed at times. But just because of all of what is going on right now. But I do see the value in that collaboration. The thing is you have to make time for it. You just have to work it into your day. (Post Cycle Intervie w, March 21, 2017) Additionally, Sophia believed that JPA worked effectively with world languages. She explained that it is inherent that a language is collaborative and noted the benefit of students of various levels being able to collaborate on an ac tivity/product together (PostCycle Interview, March 21, 2017). Notable findings. In Sophias case, there were several notable findings that arose throughout the coaching process in JPA; Figure 31 summarizes those findings.

PAGE 183

167 Figure 31. Notable Findings in the Case of Sophia There were several examples of Sophia recognizing that an aspect of JPA was not effectively implemented or that she had knowingly not incorporated aspects of it into her lesson planning. In the Cycle 3 Debrief, she reflected on an activity that she used as an oral assessment. The following excerpt reveals how she realized that sometimes the same person spoke in a particular group. She stated, one thing I did notice, too, is that in some of the stores, the same person talked, and I didnt brief about that, (Cycle 3 Debrief, March 15, 2017). This reflection arose as she recognized that she did not discuss the issue beforehand in the class briefing or afterwards, in the class debrief. In contrast to this type of reflection, in the excerpt from the Cycle 4 Premeeting below, as she planned the lesson with the researcher, she noted that the students would not be producing a joint product and provided her reasoning for why she would not have them do a product: So, that is what I would like to do. I still have one market thing to do for a student, a group, if they are here today. So, it is not a product, but it is authentic material, Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years Implemented JPA in classes in addition to the one used in the study Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally or intentionally) Has the desire to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation

PAGE 184

168 which is what I was trying to get in at least once in m y unit. (Cycle 4 Pre meeting, March 17, 2017) These are the finding as they relate to Sophias case. These findings will be compared with the findings from the other cases at the end of this chapter to provide a global view of the similarities and diffe rences in findings between the cases. At that time, more examples from the notable findings will also be presented for comparison. The next section will present findings from Isabels case.

PAGE 185

169 Isabel Isabel was the only world language teacher born outside of the USA. Languages that she spoke fluently were Spanish and English, Spanish being her first language. The highest held degree was a M.Ed. in Education of the Diverse Learner. At the time of the study, she had been teaching a total of 23 year s; all 23 years were as a Spanish teacher. The class used for the observations in this study was an AP Spanish class. The grade level of the students in the class ranged from 11th to 12th grade. Additionally, she was teaching five other Spanish I classes. Table 4. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Isabel based on the SPC rubric Not Observed (0) Emerging (1) Developing (2) Enacting (3) Pre Training Observation X Cycle 1 Observation X Cycle 2 Observation X Cycle 3 Observation X Cycle 4 Observation X

PAGE 186

170 Table 5. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Isabel) Briefing Debriefing Number of Activity Settings Mode (Multitasking) Number of Students in Class Pre Training Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 18 Cycle 1 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 20 Cycle 2 Observation Observed Observed 0 Not Observed 22 Cycle 3 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Observed 20 Cycle 4 Observation Observed Observed 0 Not Observed 19 Research Question 1 addresses the degree to which teachers were implementing aspects of the JPA standard. The Pre Training Observation revealed that Isabel was operating in the emerging level of the SPC rubric. In addition, the Pre Training Observation revealed that she was already implementing the pedagogical practice of using a timer to time the activities of students. Research Question 2 addresses the degree to which teachers implemented aspects of JPA after receiving coaching in JPA and its accompanying pedagogical practices Table 4 reveals that after receiving instruction in JPA practices, Isabel implemented activities for which student collaboration was necessary to produce a joint product (the developing level). With the exception of the Cycle 3 Observation, where she attempted to have students go through stations that mimicked what they would encounter on the AP exam, students consistently worked collaboratively in the creation and prepa ration of a group activity, or the

PAGE 187

171 students collaborated in the presentation of an activity (the developing level). Table 5 shows that from the Cycle 1 class observation, Isabel began to consistently implement briefings. Number of Centers refers to the number of activity settings created. Isabel did not reach the point of creating actual activity settings; therefore, a zero was recorded for each observation. During the Cycle 3 Observation, Isabel implemented multitasking activities by having seven stat ions set up around the classroom. Consequently, the Cycle 3 Observation area for multitasking has been marked as observed An example of emerging occurred during the Cycle 3 Observation. As mentioned above, Isabel wanted to prepare her students for the AP exam Students were required to do activities that resulted in an individual product. The teacher had previously explained that they could assist each other as need be, since this was not the real test. The teacher providing guidelines for how students may work together and students helping each other with no collaboration towards a joint product is rated at the emerging level on the SPC rubric. At the time of the observation, the researcher was not aware of whether Isabel had told the students ahead of time that they were able to help each other or not; this was a result of the entire class essentially being conducted in Spanish. However, during the Cycle 3 Debrief, the researcher verified this information and was thereby able to assess a rating of emerging. The excerpt below shows the transaction with Isabel: R : Yeah, but, they were not sure about what to compare. So, but I mean, that is why the practice was important. Also, I was wondering about, some of them were helping each other, like, as t hey were going through it. Did they know they could do that? Had you told them that?

PAGE 188

172 Isabel : Yes, I did. And I told them in the test they cannot, but since this was practice they could. Yes. From the Cycle 1 Observation, Isabel consistently went over the agreements before starting each class. Even before learning about briefing as described through the Standards, her Pre Training Observation qualified as a briefing because she involved the students in discussing what would occur during the main class. She used the electronic projector to show a schedule of events for the class period, but then she engaged the students by asking about their expectations for the activities which were about to occur. While it was not as neatly implemented as she did in later cycles, it was more than her informing the students of what would happen in the class. Isabel implemented other pedagogical practices associated with JPA implementation: (a) the leading of students in the creation of class rules and agreements, (b) t he altering of the classroom physical layout, (c) the defining of roles for activities, (d) the use of a timer for class activities, and (e) the praising of students for participating appropriately. In the Cycle 1 Observation, Isabel lead the students in a discussion of the meaning of collaboration. She used the classroom projector to show a slide and begin the discussion (Figure 32). From the discussion on the meaning and purpose of collaboration, the class came up with seven rules/agreements to abide b y when working in groups (Figure 33); they were written on the whiteboard in the front of the class. However, during the course of the class, two different students arose and added an eighth and ninth rule without consulting the teacher first (Figure 34). As previously noted, Isabel consistently discussed the guidelines for group work and collaboration with her class during briefings. Consequently, by the time of the Cycle 4 Observation, three weeks later, the class had added another agreement. Isabel had updated

PAGE 189

173 the appearance of the slide, and she had changed the title of the agreements to better reflect the purpose she wanted to convey (Figure 35). The researcher was not present during the class creation of the tenth agreement, nor was he previously aware that the class had made the additional agreement. Figure 32. Understanding Collaboration Slide

PAGE 190

174 Figure 33. Rules and Agreements for Group Work, Isabels Class (First Draft) Figure 34. Addition to Rules and Agreements by Two Students

PAGE 191

175 Figure 35. Cycle 4 Observation Updated Slide of Agreements Research Question 2 also sought to understand why the participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA. Isabel specifically noted that collaboration with the researcher and collaboration with other teachers participating in the study aided her ability to implement aspects of JPA. She noted that they (her and the other teachers) would speak when they had the chance, and at one point, they had a lunch meeting to discuss what each of them had been doing. In the following excerpt from the Post Cycle Interview transcript, she explains the nature of the communication between her and the other study participants: R: OK, awesome. With respect to the entire process, did you talk with any other teachers about the coaching or JPA. Isabel: Yes. We had a meeting. I mean every time we met we talk ed about little things that we have been doi ng or that we thought were really well. And then

PAGE 192

176 we had, we decided to meet during lunch and actually show each other the product of what we were doing. And so, we got ideas on how to do it, you know. Somebody would just mention, oh, I want to do that so we were like, let me know when youre ready; well help you and give you everything we have. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Additionally, in the Post Cycle interview, she states that an important part of the process was her interaction with the researcher: and I think that one important part of it was the coaching, in that you were there and were able to point things that I could not see because I was, you know, teaching around a nd talking with the kids. And there are other things going tha t you dont see, and also telling me how the different parts were working, and we were going from emerging to developing and its like, Oh I didnt know what this was called, but I was happy that it was happening (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) In the Post Cycle Interview, she also noted that collaborating with the other teachers gave her ideas for how to do the group agreements. R : Awesome, thats great. OK that answered that. Did that discussion [with other participants] contribute to your ability to implement aspects of JPA? Isabel : Yes, because we were comparing notes and. For example, how we did the contract or how they were going to do things. So we were taking pieces and parts. I think that one of them, our department chair, she did it a bit differen tly. She had it in categories, a bout speaking about working with each other [Figure 39] R : Oh yes, I saw that. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017)

PAGE 193

177 In the latter part of the Post Cycle Interview, she adds that collaborating with th e researcher helped her planning. She stated, I think that the meetings [with the researcher] were really helpful because we talked about what was my plan. You helped me with ideas on somethings I could do. So, yes, the coaching is key to this (Post C ycle Interview, March 23, 2017). Isabel did not note any areas that she felt hindered her ability to implement aspects of JPA. The excerpt from the Post Cycle Interview below shows that Isabel did not specify any hindrances, but rather, she felt that things progressed naturally. R: T hats great. Did you feel that anything was aiding or hindering your ability to move, to change, like for example, moving from emerging to developing, developing to enacting? Isabel: I think it happened naturally. I thought that my planning was better, and the expectation was right there. And they had their own contract, I mean all these little pieces were just falling in where they were supposed to. And it just helped. And it worked really well. And Im very happy about it. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Isabel expresses the view of her planning becoming better and seems to attribute certain aspects of class management to the group/class agreements. As presented above, however, these appear to have been supporte d by her collaboration with the participants and researcher. Research Question 3 attempted to understand the views the participants held with respect to JPA and the coaching process. Isabel noted a variety of positive views she had regarding the JPA sta ndard and its application in the classroom. They are summarized in Figure 36.

PAGE 194

178 Figure 36. JPA Aspects Isabel Viewed as Positive or Important In the Cycle 1 Premeeting, Isabel mentioned past issues she had seen when utilizing group work in class, notably, that there are groups that work and do what is expected and groups that dont (Cycle 1 Premeeting, March 3, 2017). However, she was happy with the fact that she was able to implement successful group work during this proce ss, as shown in the Post Cycle Interview excerpt below. R: Thats great. And its going to keep on developing, so that is awesome. And the um, I think you had mentioned something also about when I first came to the orientation and I w as talking about groups and you were thinking ahhh, groups. Isabel : Right. Because I had heard about grouping for years now, and I had tried it, and I had been to presentations about it, and it always falls apart, somewhere. And now it worked, and I was totally surprised, and I thought let me try it one more time and see what happens, and I think that one important part of it was The establishing of roles for students Managing time or having a timekeeper Students collaborating to create agreements Teacher being able to work with a small group Students ability to function effectively in groups Students visibly adhering to the rules and agreements

PAGE 195

179 the coaching, in that you were there and were able to point things that I could not see because I was, you know, teaching around a nd talking with the kids. And there are other things going that you don t see, and also tell ing me how the different parts were working, and we were going from emerging to developing and its like, Oh I didnt know what this was called, but I was happy that it was happening (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Isabel stated that she believed that the SPC rubric was an effective measure for teaching world languages because it reflected what language teachers were doing in the classrooms naturally; furthermore, she noted that the rubric allowed for her to view those daily a ctivities more clearly. As presented above, with respect to the coaching process, when asked about helpful or limiting factors, she noted the coaching as being helpful for discussing her plans for classes. She also mentioned that the coaching allowed her to see things that she did not notice previously (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017). Notable findings. In Isabels case, there were several notable findings that arose throughout the coaching process in JPA; Figure 37 summarizes those findings.

PAGE 196

180 Figure 37. Notable Findings in the Case of Isabel As Isabel implemented aspects of JPA, she provided various examples of the positive reactions from students. During the Cycle 4 Pre meeting, she explained how two students came by her classroom and noted how they were learning more about their fellow students. An excerpt from the transcript is below. The transcript also shows aspects of instructional coaching as the researcher connects what Isabel is describing to the Cycl e of Social Sorting which was taught to the teachers during their orientation meeting. Isabel: Now something I heard yesterday from two of them [her students] the y didnt have my class; they just stopped by. They told me that they really liked what we we re doing, and they wished that we had done that from the beginning because they are learning about each other, and when I make them switch to other groups they are knowing their classmates a bit better, and they feel more like a family. Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally) Has the desire to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation Aware of the positive reaction of her students to JPA implementation (the Cycle of Social Sorting)

PAGE 197

181 R: That is the intersu bjectivity and affinity, that, remember when we were in Matts classroom we looked at that cycle. That is what were seeing happening. That is why the groupings are so important because the first thing is proximity, they need to be around each ot her. But just because I am around you doesnt mean Im going to work with you or do something with you, so now I introduce activity. The activity draws our attention to have to do something, and now Im in this thing with you doing it. And as were doin g this activity, I get intersubjectivity, which is where I start to have the same goals, we start to have the same expectations, and we start to have the same desires. As that is happening, as were doing that, I start to feel, you know what, I have affin ity, I li ke you; I can do this with you. Isabel : Thats exactly right, and especially one of the girls, shes like, I thought I didnt like these people, but they a re fun to work with. And its like because you never tried it, you know. (Cycle 4 Pre meeting, March 17, 2017) Another example was in the Cycle 2 Premeeting. The transcript excerpt is below. Isabel : Yesterday, I had some of the kids from that class, I saw them in the hallway, and one came up during lunch, and they were all excited about last class. They were like Can we do that again, it was so much fun. R : Awesome. Isabel : I was like, oh good. That is how it is supposed to be going from now on. (Cycle 2 Premeeting, March 7, 2017) Isabel also reported students returning to tell her that they noticed the benefit in the new manner in which the class was being conducted:

PAGE 198

182 I mentioned before the s tudents themselves were telling me we like this, this is working; they know what they were supposed to do, what were the expectations. And helping each other, they thought it was great bec ause they could ask each other. You know, its just one, and I have 22 questions coming out, and its like ahhh, but being able to ask each other and help each other worked really well for them so they really liked it. They were excited about it, and they wer e asking are we going to continue doing this, and I said of course, thats why were doing it. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Another notable finding was in Isabels recognition of areas where she realized she had not implemented JPA practices effectively. An example is when she was reflecting on the activities that she implemented during the Cycle 1 Observation. She explained, as they [the students] were finishing up, I started realizing oh, they dont have anything to do (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 6, 2017) In this case, she had forgotten to implement protocols for what to do if a student or group finishes a task early. Another notable finding relates to another teacher that was not participating in the study. Notable findings were explained as findings that potentially related to the research questions. However, in the transcript excerpt below from the Post Cycle Interview, Isabel discusses how another Spanish teacher who was not participating in the study had decided that she wanted to use the JPA standa rd and pedagogical practices in her class next year, as well. R: Awesome. You mentioned also that other teachers or something

PAGE 199

183 Isabel: U h, that were not in the program, like [ says teachers name that was not in the study] and she is going to be doing this also. She saw the value in it, and there are some things that she already is d oing in class, and she said yeah; she was interested in starting next year. Since the researcher was in the building daily, often for most of the day, the researcher had s een this teacher multiple times. The researcher observed that four of the five Spanish teachers, which included the three participating in the study, often ate lunch together in Isabels classroom. During the course of the lunch period, discussion would occasionally form around what the teachers were doing in the study. Even if all of the teachers did not eat together, this particular Spanish teacher was often in Isabels classroom during lunch. Isabel had mentioned to the researcher that this teacher was interested in the study, and at one point the teacher told the researcher directly that she had wanted to participate in the study but was busy attempting to finish the final parts of a second masters degree. Frida had also mentioned that she hoped t hat all the Spanish teachers could collaborate to implement JPA next year. Thus, it is possible that this other teacher expressed her desire to work together in the implementation of JPA during a lunch time interaction. These are the finding as they relate to Isabels case. These findings will be compared with the findings from the other cases at the end of this chapter to provide a global view of the similarities and differences in findings between the cases. The next section will present findings from Fridas case.

PAGE 200

184 Frida Frida was the world language department chair. Languages that she spoke fluently were Spanish and English. The highest held degree was a B.A. in Hispanic Studies. At the time of the study, she had been teaching a total of 18 years; all 18 years were as a Spanish teacher. The class used for the observations in this study was a level IV Honors Spanish class The grade level of the students in the class ranged from 10th to 12th grade. Additionally, she was teaching four other Spanish IV classes. Table 6. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Frida based on the SPC rubric Not Observed (0) Emerging (1) Developing (2) Enacting (3) Pre Training Observation X Cycle 1 Observation X Cycle 2 Observation X Cycle 3 Observation X Cycle 4 Observation X

PAGE 201

185 Table 7. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Frida) Briefing Debriefing Number of Activity Settings Mode (Multitasking) Number of Students in Class Pre Training Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 22 Cycle 1 Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 20 Cycle 2 Observation Not Observed Observed 0 Observed 23 Cycle 3 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 18 Cycle 4 Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 21 Research Question 1 addresses the degree to which teachers were implementing aspects of the JPA standard. The pre observation revealed that Frida was operating in the not observed level of the SPC rubric. There was no occurrence of additional pedagogical practices employed to facilitate the implementation of JPA. Research Question 2 addresses the degree to which teachers implemented aspects of JPA after receiving coaching in JPA and it s accompanying pedagogical practices Table 6 shows that Frida increased to the emerging level and once to the developing level. Table 7 shows that from the Cy cle 1 Observation Frida did not consistently implement briefings and debriefings. Number of Centers refers to the number of activity s ettings created. Frida did not reach the point of creating actual activity settings ; therefore, a zero was recorded for each observation. During the Cycle 2 class observation, Frida implemented multitasking activities

PAGE 202

186 by having six stations set up around the classroom. Consequently, the Cycle 2 Observation area for multitasking has been marked as observed The one examp le of Frida doing a debrief was during the Cycle 2 Observation. It occurred during the last six minutes of the class. In this class, Frida had used a timer to implement stations where the students rotated. She positioned herself as a permanent feature a t one station. She elicited the aid of two students to be timekeepers. They used their cell phones to monitor time. Students were supposed to have 8 minutes at a station, but the timing varied from 8 10 minutes. When this activity was completed, and the students were aware that it had completed, they immediately started to gather their materials and form a line by the door to await the ringing of the endof period bell. Since the concept of debriefing was new to the students, Frida needed to stop them and return them to their seats. She asked them about the group experience and what problems or positive aspects they encountered. Since she did not float to the different stations, she asked some specific questions about the material they had worked on a nd the learning that had taken place at the other stations. The one instance Frida moved to the developing level on the SPC rubric was also during the Cycle 2 Observation. Since she had decided to attempt to sit with a group of students consistently, she created different activities that groups would do at different stations. One station required the students to collaboratively create a Venn diagram. Each group was given a paper that explained what they needed to do at each station. The circles on the V enn diagram were already drawn on the sheet (Figure 41 ). When the students arrived at that station, they discussed what to add to the diagram, and more than one student wrote in the circles to contribute to the finished product. This was rated developing because

PAGE 203

187 it included interaction in the form of discussion and was a tangible product of shared learning. Frida implemented other pedagogical practices associated with JPA implementation: (a) the leading of students in the creation of class rules and agre ements, (b) the defining of roles for activities, (c) the use of a timer for class activities, and (d) the implementing of protocols for student actions. In the Cycle 2 Observation (March 6, 2017), Frida collaborated with the students in the process of cr eating agreements for how they would work in groups, and as they proposed ideas for its meaning, she wrote their proposals on the whiteboard located in the front of the classroom (Figure 38). Ultimately, Frida utilized a student teaching assistant to comp ile the agreements and rules gathered from several classes and had the teaching assistant create a poster of them which she hung on the classroom wall (Figure 39). The researcher first noticed the poster during the Cycle 3 Observation (March 15, 2017).

PAGE 204

188 Figure 38. Rules and Agreements for Group Work, Fridas Class (First Draft)

PAGE 205

189 Figure 39. Wall Poster of Agreements and Rules for Groups Research Question 2 also sought to understand why the participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA. Frida specifically noted that collaboration with the researcher and, to a lesser degree, collaboration with other teachers participating in the study aided her ability to implement aspects of JPA. Specifically, she noted that through her interaction with the researcher, she had new ideas, saw the value of the various JPA aspects, and began to give more consideration to the fostering of the cl assroom culture (community).

PAGE 206

190 At one point, she noted, you know like how we all do our own things, and create our own cultures, but having done this with you, youre making us really think about, you know think about it more (Cycle 4 Premeeting, March 20, 2017). When Frida says it in the quote, she is referring to the classroom culture and community. There were several areas that appeared to limit the degree to which Frida was able to implement aspects of JPA. In the Pos t Cycle interview, when specifically asked whether anything hindered or aided implementation, along with noting that she had not implemented the using of the timer well, she focused on her lack of experience with using the JPA standard: I think hindering i t [her ability to implement JPA aspects] is just my lack of experience. L ike, this was such a quick cycle that I need more time to think about it and com e up with new ways to do things. And not having bought a timer, and I didnt do that as well as I should have. Or I think just having it here will actually help me, just a quick timer. Just lack of ideas. So, I think I can overcome all of it, I just need some time. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Frida mostly noted issues relating to lack of experience with the JPA standard (e.g., needing more practice or ideas) as the main hindrance to implementation. However, several other specific hindrances arose: (a) being influenced by her previous 18 years of teaching and previously used group implementat ion practices, (b) feeling that she needed to allow students to work as long as necessary to complete assignments, and (c) feeling the pressure of simply needing to teach or do an activity in a certain time frame. The Cycle 4 Observation had very little interaction among groups. Most of the class was conducted in a computer lab to allow the students to gather information on an upcoming presentation they were to do. During the

PAGE 207

191 Cycle 4 Debrief, Frida noted that her prior views of using a timer affected her ability to see how to implement a timer in the Cycle 4 Observation: One thing I need to get, like all this stuff, its so true. And I think what youre saying about the timer, because Im so stuck, you know for years of teaching, when I think timer, Im thinking groups, t his and that. But its so true; if I would have told the kids, and I know we talked about this, but i t doesnt mean that I did it, r ight, but if I would have told them you have 15 minutes for this, 15 minutes for this, its so true, doing the briefing (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 22, 2017) Moreover, for the same class, she explained that she was probably feeling that it was necessary to provide the students with enough time to prepare for their presentation, and that resulted in her not imple menting the rotating of groups (multitasking/ Mode) to do different tasks: You know what is interesting about that is, like I always feel that Im capable of doing that type of thing, like where it is rotating, but in my head, and Im not saying it is right, Im just saying in my head I was probably thinking I need to get them the max time, as much as possible on the computer s. But if I would have timed them, they probably would have maximized their time better. Thats kinda funny right? (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 22, 2017) The feeling of needing to provide students with time appeared to be a philosophy she had as a teacher. The following transcript excerpt from the Cycle 4 Pre meeting reveals Frida explaining that she planned to give the students a substantial amount of time in the class to work on the project because she wanted to ensure they would have enough time.

PAGE 208

192 Frida: S o, tomorrow, I think we had talked about, like I think Im a little, it probably just took me longer to get started than I thought it would, so I dont know honestly. Like we may get to some of the presentations. R : R ight. Frida: Towards the end of c lass. But honestly, Im going to give them a good amount of time to work. I did not want them to have to finish it all up without giving them time, without time in class. Because I am kind of like that as a teacher. I dont like to assign projects without enough class time, really. (Cycle 4 Premeeting, March 20, 2017) Research Question 3 attempted to understand the views the participants held with respect to JPA and the coaching process. Frida noted a variety of positive views she had regarding the JP A standard and its application in the classroom. They are summarized in Figure 40. Figure 40. JPA Aspects Frida Viewed as Positive or Important The establishing of roles for students Managing time or having a timekeeper Students collaborating to create agreements The consistent use of briefings and debriefings Students collaboratively working to create a joint product The developing of the classroom culture and student relationships

PAGE 209

193 There were several times throughout the process when Frida noted the importance of using consistent briefings and debriefings with the students. An example is provided in the transcript excerpt below. R: And that is something that is really going well, the briefings That consistency, because they get to a point, and I think I might have mentioned this to you, where if it does not come up, theyre like hey Profe, you forgot to brief Frida: Yeah, and I can see where that is going to help, that is something that I had never, well sometimes I do it, obviously. But it has not been a part of my classroom, like every day, or whatever. And I can see how that will help the kids. Like if we can get into that habit, it will help ; they will feel like they have a voice. And like they can, and I think it will help me as a teacher. (Cycle 4 Pre meeting, March 20, 2017) Frida also noted the importance of students working collaboratively on a joint product. In particular, she reflected on the importance of the joint product when discussing her use of multiple stations (multitasking) with the s tudents. And so, I can see where that two working towards one goal, like it coming together really helps. Bec ause then they are forced to, I dont know, it just would help the buy ins better. Like Im pretty sure on some of these activities like the Venn diagram, like that, I think they were more likely to work together becaus e there were different parts tha n from like this one for example, where they were just answering questions. (Cycle 2 Debrief, March 10, 2017)

PAGE 210

194 In the above quote, Frida was reflecting on the activity where students moved through six stations and did different activities depending on the station they were at. She was comparing the need for collaboration that derived from students working on the V enn diagram (developing level) with the lack of collaboration needed at a different station, which only required that the students answer questions. Each group was provided a sheet that explained what was necessary to do at each station (Figure 41).

PAGE 211

195 Figure 41. Handout Used for Cycle 2 Observation (Station Activities)

PAGE 212

196 With respect to the SPC rubric and its application to world languages, Frida stated that it seemed appropriate, but she consistently insisted that she needed more time with it in order to provide a true opinion (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017). With respect to

PAGE 213

197 the coaching process, while Frida believed it to be valuable, she explains that she would have liked to have had more time and learned more about it. R: Sure. Could you please share any other feelings you may have about the standards or t he coaching cycles? Frida: I just think, I think its really valuable. And I know it was quick, but I think if it could be prolonged, or somehow, maybe slowed down. I wish none of us, I know that we dont have that kind of time, but like slowing it down or prolonging it, I think that would be great. Because the more time, the better. But also, more education up front, maybe about what we were moving towards. I mean I did read what you gave us, and I probably would have liked to have read a lot more about it. ( Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Frida provided more information about the benefit of instructional coaching. In the transcript excerpt from the Post Cycle Interview below, she is responding to a question about the benefit of instructional coaching for teachers in general. In responding, she begins by referencing a point she had made earlier about the benefit of the coaching and the necessity of the coaching in helpi ng her implement JPA. R: OK. Awesome. And the last question, do you feel that having access to instructional coaching would be useful for helping teachers do their jobs? Frida: Yes, and that is what I meant to say, is that, like I told you before, we have some instructional coaches in the building, but I dont feel like it happens. Unless a teachers job is in jeopardy. And so, I wish it would be implemented somehow. But good luck with all the budget cuts. Can I say that? ( Post Cycle Interview March 23, 2017)

PAGE 214

198 When Frida stated that she wishes it would be implemented somehow she was referring to the manner in which she had conducted instructional coaching during the study, having a consistent time for meetings and reflections with the researcher. The findings show that Frida had the least occurrences of developing on the SPC rubric among the four teachers. Additionally, compared to Samanthas two observed rating for briefings/debriefings during the coaching cycles (shown in the next case), Frida only had three, which was also quite low. However, these findings should be viewed in light of all actions performed by Frida. For example, she was the only teacher to reach multitasking in the manner that it is expected to happen in the Standards for Eff ective Pedagogy, where the teacher remains with a group and does not float. Isabel achieved multitasking in a class, but she was not able to sit and be an active participant of a group. Frida was able to successfully construct a multitasking environment that would have allowed her to produce a joint product with the group of students. While she did not create a joint product with the students but instead employed instructional conversation, standard five, she purposefully placed dictionaries on tables to enable the students to function independently of her so she could focus on talking with the group. During that same class, she also created space for the students to talk about the agreements they had made previously in class (Figure 41). With respect t o the rules and agreements, Frida did have conversations with her students about the rules they collaboratively created, but these discussions did not often occur in a briefing. Thus, while she may have not conducted a briefing, for example, she did discuss some of the content that would have normally been included in a briefing. Notable findings. In Fridas case, there were several notable findings that arose throughout the coaching process in JPA; Figure 42 summarizes those findings.

PAGE 215

199 Figure 42. Notable Findings in the Case of Frida Frida reflected on actions she could do to improve upon the lessons she had conducted. In the first debrief meeting with the researcher, a cause for reflection arose as she thought of wa ys to become a consistent member of one group, which would allow for her to participate in the construction of a joint product with the students in that group. In the following quote, she is contrasting the Cycle 1 Observation, in which she had to frequently move to different groups to provide them with the next worksheet, with a different class that she taught later, where she realized the activity worked better when she designated an area for the students to turn in and retrieve new worksheets. Like I sa id, I have done some similar activities like that. But I was really trying to figure out how to assess them and have them collaborate. So, I was really trying to do that but then there were things that I thought about because I am working with you. I could just put all the forms in one area eventually, and they would know to just put down what they have completed and pick up But I was thin king about, because Repeatedly reflected upon how to improve JPA implementation Has the desire to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally or intentionally) Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years Implemented JPA in classes in addition to the one used in the study

PAGE 216

200 it took so much of me having to pass the papers collect the papers And the cool thing is that I have a number of these classes, so I am learning as I go to o, because in one of the classes I just had all of the papers up front. And t here were turn in piles and pick up piles. And they can definitely get to the point where they dont need me as much and I could be with a group. (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 2, 2017) Compared to the other participants, Frida often reflected about how to bett er implement an activity for the future. The table below shows these instances compared to the other participants. Table 8. Instances of Reflecting on How to Improve JPA for the Future Number of Instances Frida 9 Sophia 6 Isabel 4 Samantha 1 Frida had these reflections during 3 different cycles, during debriefings as well as one pre meeting. These are the finding as they relate to Fridas case. These findings will be compared with the findings from the other cases at the end of this chapter to provide a global view of the similarities and differences in findings between the cases. The next section will present findings from Samanthas case.

PAGE 217

201 Samantha Samantha was the third Spanish teacher who participated in the study. Languages that she spoke fluently were Spanish and English. The highest held degree was a B.A. in Psychology. At the time of the study, she had been teaching a total of 10 years; eight years were as a Spanish teacher. The class used for the observations in this study was a level II Spanish class The grade level of the students in the class ranged from 9th to 11th grade. Additionally, she was teaching two other Spanish II classes and three Spanish III classes. Table 9. Joint Productive Activity Rating for Samantha based on the SPC rubric Not Observed (0) Emerging (1) Developing (2) Enacting (3) Pre Training Observation X Cycle 1 Observation X Cycle 2 Observation X Cycle 3 Observation X Cycle 4 Observation X

PAGE 218

202 Table 10. Briefing, Debriefing, Activity Setting, and Mode Information (Samantha) Briefing Debriefing Number of Activity Settings Mode (Multitasking) Number of Students in Class Pre Training Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 20 Cycle 1 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 22 Cycle 2 Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 22 Cycle 3 Observation Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 18 Cycle 4 Observation Not Observed Not Observed 0 Not Observed 23 Research Question 1 addresses the degree to which teachers were implementing aspects of the JPA standard. The Pre Training Observation revealed that Samantha was operating in the emerging level of the SPC rubric. There was no occurrence of additional pedagogical practices employed to facilitate the implementation of JPA. Research Question 2 addresses the degree to which teachers implemented aspects of JPA after receiving coaching in JPA and it s accompanying pedagogical practices Table 9 shows that after receiving instruction in JPA, Samantha remained relatively consistent in her direct use of implementing activities for which student collaboration was necessary to produce a joint product (the developing level). The Cycle 4 Observation was the only time Samantha returned to the emerging level of the SPC rubric. Table 10 shows that from the Cycle 1 O bservation, Samantha did not consistently implement briefings or debriefings. Number of C enters refers to the number of activity s ettings created. Samantha did not reach

PAGE 219

203 the point of creating actual activity settings ; therefore, a zero was recorded for each observation. Additionally, Samantha did not implement any multitasking activities in the classroom. Consequently, the multitasking area of the tabl e has been marked as not observed for each observation. An example of developing was observed in the Cycle 2 Observation. The students first discussed the concepts and themes that were occurring in a Spanish comic book the class had been reading. The gro ups were then required to make a poster size depiction of what they had learned. All students discussed and decided on the content that would go onto the poster. They first wrote in a notebook as they thought of ideas, and then they created the poster. The artistic members of the group were able to do drawings, while the members with better handwriting wrote the sentences for explanation. This activity was rated as developing because the group members collaborated to produce a tangible product (Figure 4 3).

PAGE 220

204 Figure 43. Cycle 2 Observation Student Joint Product Samantha did a similar activity before the Cycle 1 Pre meeting. She assigned three roles to the members of the group. They were required to take an aspect of grammar that they had been studying and make a graphic representation of how it could be used. There were two drawing roles and a teacher role. The teacher guided the actions of the drawers to ensure the depictions accurately reflected the explanations of the grammar aspect they were studying (Figure 44).

PAGE 221

205 Figure 44. Pre Cycle Student Joint Product Samantha derived this idea from visiting the class that Sophia conducted after her Cycle 1 Observation which assigned roles to students (Figure 29). The researcher did not observe the class that followed Sophias Cycle 1 Observation but was aware that she planned to use the large poster paper to do an activity in the next class. In the Cycle 3 Observation, Samantha once more created groups that were rated at the developing level. During this observation, the students had 17 minutes at the end of class to begin preparations for an upcoming presentation they would do; the 17 minutes was not timed by the teacher. The presentation was going to be on a different chapter of the comic book than what was used for the joint produc t shown in Figure 43. Some of the options for

PAGE 222

206 the presentation were to do an interpretive dance, a skit, or draw a comic representing the content of the chapter. After each group decided on the manner of presentation, and after spending some time discuss ing the chapter, one group stood up and began practicing how they would do the dance. This interaction was rated as developing because the group worked together to come to an understanding of the content of the chapter, and then they worked together to re hearse actions for a future performance. This particular groups presentation would be an intangible joint product. Samantha implemented other pedagogical features associated with JPA implementation: (a) the leading of students in the creation of class ru les and agreements, (b) the defining of values, (c) the defining of roles for activities, (d) the use of a timer for class activities, and (e) the implementing of protocols for student actions. For the Cycle 3 Observation, Samantha created an assessment t hat the students could do collaboratively. While she had done similar activities previously, for this assessment, she assigned definite roles to students. One of the roles was that of quality control, and that member was tasked with ensuring that the group exhausted all necessary steps to answer the questions correctly. Additionally, with respect to assessments, Samantha added an area to an assessment that required students to write out the group agreements that had been collaboratively developed previously (Figure 45).

PAGE 223

207 Figure 45. Post Cycle Assessment Including Agreements

PAGE 224

208 Research Question 2 also sought to understand why the participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA. Samantha specifically identified that the collaboration with the researcher and collaboration with other teachers participating in the study aided her ability to implement aspects of JPA. Specifically, she mentions the benefit of the pre meetings and debriefings with the researcher. An example is when she stated, Well, the debriefings helped me a lot to recognize si gns of success and signs of, y ou know, where it wasnt working, failure. And then watc hing other teachers helped also (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017). There were two areas that appeared to limit the degree to which Samantha was able to implement aspects of JPA. The areas, which became evident during the Cycle 4 Debrief and Post Cycle Interview, were (a) she felt that she could not allow group work because she

PAGE 225

209 needed to teach the students some grammatical forms for an upcoming activity and (b) she did not yet feel comfortable trying to teach new material using JPA approaches. Below are excerpts from the Post Cycle interview where she mentions these feeli ngs. Cool. One thing I did notice about today, is that it is the first time in a little while that I have done whole class teaching, mostly because I was just trying to get in the information they would need. I felt like they were restless But that is co ol because usually they are trained for, usually it would not probably be like that if I was doing whole class teaching. But now they are used to it; they have had probably five days, or five instructional, or maybe more of doing group work. I felt like they were anxious to get back into it even though I could not let them. I mean I could have, but I would not have gotten my project done, and I did not want to be doing it after Spring B reak (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 20, 2017) In the Post Cycle Interview excerpt below, Samantha was responding to the question of what would she like to see added or changed with respect to the rubric. At the end of that interchange, she discloses her lack of comfort in trying to employ JPA principles with new material. R : Would you change, or add, or remove anything to this? Samantha : I would really like to, eventually, like if I were doing this for a long time, I would like to kind of be able to have some ideas for how to, things that I would do as a whole group, like tea ching grammar, h ow I would bring that into the system, so I would like to see some more of that. Like how to integrate vocabulary, and integrate grammar, without having to just go to whole class teaching.

PAGE 226

210 R : Oh, okay so you are talking about some specif ic techniques for doing these specific things. Samantha : Yes, that would be really nice. Because I totally get how to implement it when we are working on a project, or doing a practice, but Im not entirely sure that Im, like, comfortable branching out and teaching a grammar lesson that way. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Research Question 3 attempted to understand the views the participants held with respect to JPA and the coaching process. Samantha noted a variety of positive views she had reg arding the JPA standard and its application in the classroom. They are summarized in Figure 46. Figure 46. JPA Aspects Samantha Viewed as Positive or Important One specific example of students developing a sense of accountability arose from a discussion during the Cycle 1 Observation. The discussion was in regard to the rules and agreements they were going to utilize in the classroom. Samantha had written quest ions on The establishing of roles for students Managing time or having a timekeeper The development of student accountability Students collaborating to create agreements The developing of the classroom culture and student relationships

PAGE 227

211 the whiteboard, located in the front of the room, that students could use to self evaluate and determine if they were working effectively in groups. After having that discussion, later in the class, one student of a particular group started talking with a student in a different group across the room. One of the self evaluative questions the class had developed was to ask if a person was on task. Consequently, a student that was seated with the boy who had started the random conversation interrupt ed him and asked him if he was on task. It was not clear whether it was said partially in jest or not, but the question did stop the discussion and resulted in the student returning to the group task. Another area of continual interest was related to a student that would not participate in most class activities. The transcript excerpt below reveals the first time Samantha and the researcher noticed a change in the attitude of the student. This first instance of change in the student came about as the s tudents had to choose roles for an activity. Samantha: I heard something today. That happened right after I was kind of uncomfortable. The same kid that never dances, he was just doodling the whole time that his whole group was participating. And he does that, and Ive spoken with his parents and there is a thing. But I heard anot her kid bring him in by saying well, you like to draw, so how about if you be the artist Then I saw him leap to action. R : Yeah, he was drawing! Samantha: Could you s ee that? R : I could see it from an angle that he was drawing pretty prolifically. Samantha: Y eah, and he was like, well, how would you like me to design this? As soon as they identified his strength, he leaped to action, and I was really surprised

PAGE 228

212 by that. Because, I have not been very successful in getting him to engage this year. And he was mad already today that I put him in a different group. Because I want them out of they had been in the same groups for a while now. And I wanted them working with students that they dont know how to work with yet for this thing. That was interesting. It took the whole entire class, but the last 10 minutes he was in action. (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 2, 2017). With respect to the rubric, Samantha believed that it was better than other rubrics in that it did not place precedence on moving up to and staying at the high level. She explained that the SPC rubric made an allowance for moving through the emerging and developing stages again as new activities were introduced. The interaction she had with the researcher when she explained this is provided below. R: What opinions do you have about the SPC rubric we used in the observations? This is the SPC rubric [showing a hardcopy of the rubric] Do you feel that it accurately appraises the implementation of the standard? Samantha: Uh huh. R: Why? Samantha: I do, but I feel like it is a cycle. And that during different parts of the class, sometimes with a rubric, well a lot of times with a rubric, getting to four means you dont go back to the beginning at all, or getting to the highest point means that you are no longer doing what is up here [pointing to the lower levels] you have improved. But in this rubric it is a little different because some of these things you know, when youre here [pointing to higher levels],

PAGE 229

213 youre still doing some of these developmental phases. And these levels [lower levels] are more informing these levels [higher levels] rather than just this level being where you get too, and you dont go back. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) In the same meeting, she also noted that the rubric/JPA aspects would work well in world languages because of the potential for aspects of JPA to lower anxiety among students: I t brings down s ome of the anxiety that there is. I think a lot of teachers feel like there is some anxiety when it comes to learning foreign languag es because the kids are nervous about making a m istake in front of the teacher and in front of each ot her, and then you br ing them in to this kind of community. I think it reduces the levels of anxiety. (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017). When responding to questions directly about the coaching, Samantha stated that having the chance to teach and then reflect on it and s hare observations was probably the most helpful (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017). Moreover, she believed that coaching teachers in the implementation of JPA could change the educational system: bringing this into the classroom could really help change the culture of education. Really, you know creating a classroom culture, c reating affinity among students; I dont know if I want to project it too far but it could almost make kids excited about going to class, and like in school and things like that (Post Cycle Interview, March 23, 2017) Similar to Frida, Samantha employ ed actions that would have normally been implemented in a briefing at other times during the class, but there is another conspicuous finding with respe ct to how Samantha conceptualized briefings and debriefings. To help

PAGE 230

214 elucidate the issue with Samanthas view of briefings and debriefings, it is beneficial to take Sophias explanation of briefings as a type of exemplar. In every cycle, the researcher m ade mention to the briefing and debriefing and the role it has in aiding the implementation of JPA. In the Cycle 4 Debrief with Sophia, the researcher was discussing the importance of the class debrief with her. He was complementing Sophia because she of ten told the students in the observation that she wanted to brief or debrief That is, she would specifically say the word in the class. While explaining it, Sophia makes several important statements about the briefing. The following transcript excerpt s hows the interaction. R: I think the briefing went well. That really went into some things that they needed to do. And what was also really good about this, and one of the things Im also just going to verify this for my own understanding as well. Your introduction of it was very important, that they know that this is what were actually doing. And so, the, and one of the things, you did it, I have seen consistency with this as it has come about. You said, lets do a briefing on how we will do this like you are using that terminology, which is really important in calling it what it is. Sophia: So they get used to it. R: Yes. Like, we could just say like OK class, lets, because it establishes it as something, when we call it by name. Sophia: It gives it value of itself. R: Yes, in and of itself, right. Because I could kind of go like, OK, lets go over our class agreements, and that would be, good, I guess, because were saying

PAGE 231

215 lets go over our class agreements, and I am calling them these things. But, alright class were going to do our, lets start our briefing time now. And then I go into OK, lets start off by talking about our agreements. How was this forming, does it seem like we are. The briefing establishes what. When I say b riefing, it starts to make some sort of concept with them that this is what we do during this time. We have this discussion about things Sophia: Right. R: You get our input. And so, it was really great that you called it, Sophia: And then they, they come to expect, like they know what theyre getting. Instead, sometimes we say our objectives at the beginning of the day, we say this is what were going to do today it doesnt have as much weight, you know. R: Right. Sophia: You know as something l ike that, because they are involved. R: Right, because it seems like the objectives are like a plan. And they are. Sophia: They are. R: But the briefing is like, it is something where, and this depends on the culture you build, where you show that they are a part of this thing. And so that was really, really great. I was noticing that, because sometimes, I can watch something, and Im saying, it seems like this is a briefing, but. its not necessarily. Its a briefing in its own way in the sens e that it was maybe talking about something. Sophia: You are explaining something.

PAGE 232

216 R: But its not as though it is separated from part of the class. Sophia: Right, because a briefing is different from giving directions. R: Right. Thats a good statem ent right there. Because that is what it is supposed to be. Sophia: Because you can give directions, OK, this is what youre going to do. But a briefing is really talking about. And I wanted. I wish they had spoken more together in French. And that, I think, just has to be established more. I just dont think they are comfortable yet. (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 20, 2017) At the end, Sophia drifts over into thinking about wanting her students to speak more in French and thinks that they are not used to s peaking an extended amount of time in French, but she clearly expresses her understanding of the importance of briefings. In contrast to Sophia, in Samanthas Cycle 4 Debrief, Samantha noted how she did not do a briefing in the Cycle 4 Observation, but she says that she will probably do it when the students do the project presentation. The transcript excerpt below reveals a very distinct difference between how Sophia viewed the briefings compared to how Samantha viewed them. Samantha: Yeah, I was pretty much just teaching vocab, today. They are doing legends, so I needed them to assimilate that vocab. I didnt really like, it was pretty much your traditional just teaching day, just getting the vocab and the grammar concept in. And sometimes in the beginning of the chapter that was pretty much what I would do. So, I didnt do so much of a briefing today, but I probably will as they come into the project. But, I really, probably, I dont know, probably short. Just like this is what were going to do, y ou have the rest of the time to do it, and then we can debrief.

PAGE 233

217 R: And, just as to, Sophia had a good statement. What did she say? [looking for Sophias coaching notebook to read what she had said] It was a good way of sort of explaining the briefing time and what that was. And she was saying that a briefing is different from giving directions. Thats what she said. Samantha: Oh okay. R: Which it is. A briefing is different. You may give directions inside the briefing, but the briefing is different from just giving directions. I was telling her, and this is a good way to say it. Samantha: Yeah, thats a good point. R: Because one of the things, so I told her about how your students were doing the mailbox, and how some of them [the students] were a ble to answer it. And she was like oh yeah, thats a good idea. And she was thinking oh yeah, I could call it this in French, La Poste. And then we were talking about, sort of the instructions and things, and she was saying, I dont remember the exact details of it, and we just had the discussion, but how she was able to do some stuff with the students. Thats what she was talking about. She was talking about she used to wear this hat in elementary school, this French thing that had these ears. And it meant when the teacher has this on you cant ask questions. Samantha: Oh. R: So we were talking about that and that lead into the importance of the briefing and debriefing. Because the students are recognizing that this is a time of where Im givi ng feedback. And the shape always changes. Youre not

PAGE 234

218 always going over agreements; I think we mentioned that also. But it is a check in. Were discussing particulars about stuff. And one of the things that we talked about is that what we will ultimately find, and you would probably have to ask the students about, in order to get this information, is that students will not interrupt the class to ask questions anymore, because they will presume that they have the time to ask it at the debrief. Samantha: Oh, okay, debrief. (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 20, 2017) The very beginning of this excerpt shows that Samantha apparently viewed the briefing as being optional. She also described that if she did implement the briefing, it was going to be for the mere purpose of telling the students what was going to happen in the classroom. It is not clear how she came to this conclusion because she had used it correctly on two occasions. Moreover, the researcher explained the purpose of briefing s and debriefings on mult iple occasions. Notable findings. In Samanthas case, there were several notable findings that arose throughout the coaching process in JPA; Figure 47 summarizes those findings.

PAGE 235

219 Figure 47. Notable Findings in the Case of Samantha There were several instances where Samantha noted that the activities she planned to do were not going to align with JPA principles. In one pre meeting she said, so I know that whole class teaching is not probably ideal, but that is what they re used to now, from grammar So, I have to kind of (Cycle 4 Pre meeting, March 16, 2017). During the debrief with the researcher for the same cycle, she said, it was pretty much your traditional just teaching day, just getting the voc ab and the gram mar concept ins o, I didnt do so much of a briefing today (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 20, 2017). In a different instance, she once more revealed her awareness of the positive change in the student that did not participate until he received the defined role of drawer. In the quote below, from the Cycle 3 Debrief, Samantha notes her astonishment in the degree of change she had been witnessing with him: Yeah, I wish you could have seen him the day that he presented. Because I was like is he the same kid ? Because what is happening now is something kind of, it is like a Has the desire to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally or intentionally) Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years Aware of the positive reaction of her students to JPA implementation (the Cycle of Social Sorting) Implemented JPA in classes in addition to the one used in the study

PAGE 236

220 little interesting with the culture of the class. Because that one student hardly ever participates, but I noticed that as he stood out in front of the crowd, and then today their presentat ion was really good and really creative. And they talked about how two people went on and had 100 kids; it was just funny and creative. They liked referenced something from the story pretty well, and he orchestrated the whole thing. And I was trying to look for if he felt more integrated into the class because I also noticed when we were doing something else that he was sitting down and not doing it but he was smiling, and a couple of people were interacting with him Like we did this karaoke game with the song today where they had to sing it back and forth, but they tied, so I had them do a dance contest with that song and whoever did the better, because we had time, it was PARCC [Testing], and they were done with the presentations so I noticed that they, I noticed that even though he was not interacting, it wasnt uncomfortable because they were like youre going to make us lose and he just smiled and shook his head. But it was actually, to me, an improvement because it wasnt like him being in the corner isolated, uncomfortable. It was more like, Im not doing this, but still somehow there seems to be sort of engagement. So, I wondered if that kind of changed or if that was a cultural change of the class. (Cycle 3 Debrief, March 16, 2017) These are the finding as they relate to Samanthas case. In the next section, these findings will be compared with the findings from the other cases to provide a global view of the similarities and differences in findings between the cases.

PAGE 237

221 Summary of Case St udy Findings This section summarizes the four individual case study findings to allow for easier comparison among the four teachers. Research Question 1 sought to establish where each participant rated on the SPC and identify the pedagogical practices ex pected to be implemented with the JPA Standard. Tables 11 and 12 summarize the findings for SPC ratings and the briefing, debriefing, and Mode across the four cases Since none of the participants implemented actual activity settings they have not been added to the table The Pre Training Observation relates to Research Question 1. During the Pre Training Observation, Isabel was the sole participant to employ a pedagogical practice used in the implementation of JPA, the timer. Table 11. Summary of Ratings on SPC Rubric for All Cases Not Observed (0) Emerging (1) Developing (2) Enacting (3) Pre Training Observation Frida Isabel, Samantha Sophia Cycle 1 Observation Frida Sophia, Isabel, Samantha Cycle 2 Observation Sophia, Isabel, Frida, Samantha Cycle 3 Observation Isabel, Frida Sophia, Samantha Cycle 4 Observation Sophia, Frida, Samantha Isabel

PAGE 238

222 Table 12. Summary of Briefing, Debriefing, and Mode Information (All Cases) Briefing Observed Briefing Not Observed Debriefing Observed Debriefing Not Observed Mode ( Multitasking ) Observed Pre Training Observation Isabel, Frida Sophia, Samantha Sophia, Isabel, Frida Samantha Cycle 1 Observation Sophia, Isabel, Samantha Frida Sophia, Isabel, Frida, Samantha Cycle 2 Observation Sophia, Isabel Frida, Samantha Sophia, Isabel, Frida Samantha Frida Cycle 3 Observation Sophia, Isabel, Frida, Samantha Sophia Isabel, Frida, Samantha Isabel Cycle 4 Observation Sophia, Isabel Frida, Samantha Sophia, Isabel Frida, Samantha Research Question 2 sought to understand why participants implemented or did not implement elements of the JPA standard. Table 13 presents the reasons participants specifically noted as factors aiding their implementation of JPA aspects.

PAGE 239

223 Table 13. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Implemented (All Cases) Category Sophia Isabel Frida Samantha Collaboration with Teachers X X X X Collaboration with the Researcher X X X Openness of Students to Classroom Changes X As the table shows, all four participants believed that collaboration with other study participants aided in their ability to implement aspects of JPA. Frida was the only participant who relegated the benefit of collaborating with other teachers to a lesser degree, stating that that it contributed maybe a little bit to her ability to implement aspects of JPA ( Post Cycle Interview March 23, 2017). In contrast, Sophia was the only participant who did not specifically mention that working with the researcher aided in her ability to implement aspects of JPA. When questioning her about her view of the coaching, she said that it was really helpful ( Post Cycle Interview March 21, 2017) to talk through the activities with the researcher, but unlike her colleagues, even when directly asked as to what aided her ability to implement JPA, she did not mention the researcher. It should be noted that one of the Post Cycle Interview questions asked specifically whether collaboration with participants aided the teacher in the implementation of JPA. In contrast, there was no question that directly ask ed if collaboration with the researcher aided in the implementation of JPA. Sophia was the only participant that identified an additional component aside from collaborating with

PAGE 240

224 study participants or the researcher as directly affecting her ability to imp lement aspects of JPA. Table 14 presents areas participants noted that hindered their ability to implement aspects of JPA. Not all of these findings arose as a result of the researcher directly inquiring about hindrances to the implementation of JPA; so me arose as the researcher and teacher were dialoging about actions that occurred in the classroom. The teacher was either reflecting on an activity from the class or pondering about a future action. These instances were then exposed by the descriptive c oding. Table 14. Summary of Reasons for Why JPA Aspects Were Not Implemented (All Cases) # Category Sophia Isabel Frida Samantha 1 Lack of experience in implementing JPA or assimilating it into ones routine X X X 2 A feeling of pressure to accomplish an academic activity in or by a particular time. X X X 3 Teacher is influenced by her own previous years of teaching in a particular manner X 4 A feeling that students must be given ample time to accomplish an academic activity in or by a certain time X 5 Teacher had already drafted a plan for the year X

PAGE 241

225 Table 14 highlights two conspicuous findings. The first is that at no point during the process does Isabel note anything as being a hindrance to her implementing JPA aspects. Second is that Frida has the highest count of hindering factors. T wo of the hindrances Frida note d surfaced during the Cycle 4 Debrief when she was reflecting about what she did not do during the Cycle 4 O bservation (e.g., failure to use the timer and the feeling that students needed plenty of time to work on the computers) The lack of experience/ failure to add to routine category was the only area that all three teachers specifically noted as a hindering factor for implementing aspects of JPA. Responses placed into this category either directly revealed the participants desire for more time/expe rience with JPA or showed the participants lack of ideas for how to implement aspects of JPA (an area that would potentially develop wit h increased and prolonged use). Additionally, all three teachers made statements that revealed they decided what they would teach based upon time constraints; notwithstanding, none of the three teachers noted this action as being a hindrance to implementing aspects of JPA. Research Question 3 sought to understand the views study participants had of JPA and the coaching p rocess. Table 15 presents a summary of JPA aspects participants spoke of positively or as being important.

PAGE 242

226 Table 15. Positive and Important Views of JPA (All Cases) # Category Sophia Isabel Frida Samantha 1 E stablishing of roles for students X X X X 2 Managing time or having a timekeeper X X X X 3 Students collaborating to create agreements X X X X 4 Teacher being able to work with a small group X X 5 The consistent use of briefings and debriefings X X 6 D eveloping of accountability and protocols X X 7 D eveloping of the classroom culture and student relationships X X 8 The importance of the physical layout of the classroom X 9 Students ability to function effectively in groups X 10 Students visibly adhering to X

PAGE 243

227 the rules and agreements 11 Students collaboratively working to create a joint product X Note The following categories are explained due to potential similarities in the title descriptions. Category 3, S tudents collaborating to create agreements focused on students going through the process to make the agreements. Category 6, D eveloping of accountability and protocols refers to students maintaining accountability for actions that allow smooth progression of class activities. The protocols also allow for the progression of class activities, particularly, by ensuring students can function without the teacher being present. Category 9, S tudents visibly adhering to the rules and agreements refers to students following a variety of rules or agreements that have been made for how to work in groups or may relate to agreements made for things, such as how to use classroom materials. There were three areas that were unanimously vie wed as positive and/or important: the establishing of roles for students, managing time or having a timekeeper, and students collaborating to create agreements. The remaining results are shown in Table 1 5. Among the four participants, they indicated 11 c ategories regarding JPA that they viewed positively or as being important. None of the participants expressed any negative views regarding the JPA standard. Additionally, Sophia, Isabel, and Samantha stated that they believed that JPA was well suited for use in world language classes. Frida did not provide a detailed answer due to the fact that she felt she needed more time to become familiar with the aspects of JPA; however, the other three participants provided clear reasoning for their beliefs. The r easons they noted are presented in Table 16 and came from the Post Cycle Interview for each teacher

PAGE 244

228 Table 16. Teacher Views of JPA in Relation to World Languages Teacher Reasons for Why Teachers Believe JPA is Important for World Language Education Sophia Stated that since languages are inherently collaborative, the collaborative aspects of JPA fit well with world language instruction Isabel Stated that the actions prescribed in JPA were natural actions world language teachers did for teaching, but believed that the JPA standard made those actions clearer Samantha Stated that the community and relationship focus of the JPA standard would help l ower the anxiety level of students using a foreign language in front of the teacher and peers As previously explained, t he notable findings section (a) reveal s the views that participants have about JPA and the coaching process and (b) may contribute to the explanation of why participants implemented or did not implement aspects of JPA. The notable findings are presented in a separate section because the participants either did not reveal this information in the process of responding to direct questions related to the research questions or the views the participants expressed did not readily relate to a spec ific research question. Table 17 presents a summary of the notable findings.

PAGE 245

229 Table 17. Summary of Notable Findings # Category Sophia Isabel Frida Samantha 1 Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years X X X X 2 Has the desire or intention to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation X X X X 3 Implemented JPA in classes in addition to the one used in the study X X X 4 Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally or intentionally) X X X 5 A ware of the positive reaction of her students to JPA implementation (The Cycle of Social Sorting) X X 6 Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally) X 7 Repeatedly reflected upon how to improve JPA implementation X The first group of notable findings contains categories that have implications regarding Research Question 3 how do study participants view JPA and the coaching

PAGE 246

230 process ? The first group is comprised of all categories with the exception of Recognized areas of JPA that were not implemented (unintentionally or intentionally) category number 4. Of this first group, there are two categories that related to all participants: (a) Intends to continue using JPA in upcoming school years (category 1) and (b) Has t he desire to collaborate with colleagues on JPA implementation (category 2) All participants made references to their intention to continue using and developing aspects of JPA during future academic years. For example, Sophia mentioned that a hindrance t o her implementation was that she had already had a plan for what she wanted to do with the students during the current academic year, and presumably, since the study took place during the last quarter of the year, she may have been expressing the difficul ty she had trying to fit JPA into her set routine. Nevertheless, in the transcript excerpt below, she expresses her desire to start with the JPA standard as a guide for preparing her course for next year. Sophia: So, I dont think there was anything that hindered it really. I think the only thing is that I kind of already had my plan for what I wanted to do when this started, but now Im going to look at the opposite. Im going to look at the pedagogy first All of this [pointing to the JPA rubric] and then do the plan, does that make sense? R: Yes. Sophia: So I kind of had to try and fit what I was trying to do already into this, where next year, I can go opposite and make the activities fit more of this structure. R: This pedagogy? Sophia: Yeah, this pedagogy. So, I think that is what I would shoot for. ( Post Cycle Interview March 21, 2017)

PAGE 247

231 In a different example, when the researcher was asking Isabel about whether she would change, add, or remove anything to the SPC, she responded that she would possibly need to make some changes so that she could use it with her level I Spanish class next year: What I thought I would like to do is to implement this with my lower levels next year, so I just want to use it more. I might have to make some changes for level one. Make it simpler because theyre not used to it, but I was saying this is going to benefit my other teachers because by the time that I am done with them, they are used to this process, and the other teachers will be able to use it [ the JPA principles], too. ( Post Cycle Interview March 23, 2017) In both of these instances, the teachers were not responding to questions about whether they intended to continue using JPA in the future. In fact, there were no questions asked in that rega rd at any point during the study. However, all teachers made statements that indicated their intention to continue using JPA in future academic years. Furthermore, in the quote above, Isabel is apparently under the assumption that other Spanish teachers will be continuing or starting the implementation of JPA in future years. This is evidenced by her belief that if she can implement JPA with her Level I Spanish classes, when the students move into Level II, those teachers would be able to continue the im plementation of JPA practices. Additionally, all participants expressed their desire or intention to collaborate with other teachers in the use of JPA. During the Cycle 1 Debrief with Frida, the researcher was telling her of some methods that other teac hers had implemented for the creation of rules and agreements in the class. She initially noted that she had spoken a little with Sophia about what her plan was but had not gone into detail. She then continued by stating, Yeah we

PAGE 248

232 should all get together [talking about the four of them] I think it would be cool if we all started talking to each other a little bit too (Cycle 1 Debrief, March 2, 2017). Also, from the start of the Cycles, Samantha started to observe Sophia and Isabels classes to see how they were implementing aspects of JPA. In the Cycle 4 Premeeting transcript excerpt below for Samantha, Sophia happened to walk by the researcher and Samantha as he was telling her about some of the ideas Sophia was considering to attempt in her class. R: Sophia was thinking about doing a writing thing with them, where they would produce something. [Sophia happens to walk by] Were talking about you. Samantha : So, wait a minute. Were you going to, what writing thing were you going to do? I was just trying to figure out an idea for my next activity. R: I brought up that you had been thinking about possibly trying to do a writing thing. She is also, and Frida did today, shes thinking about what enacting looks like. A writing activity where you woul d come up with writing something together. So, there are different ways of doing it, but the big difference is that you are not on the peripheral side giving instruction and feedback but you are a participant in the creation of this thing. Sophia: So may be you write a book and there was a different ending to that book. Samantha: We just did that. But now we have vocabulary of Mayan legends. And so, I was thinking I might have them listen to one and write one. But I just didnt know. Have you done a w riting activity, or are you going to? Sophia: I havent done it yet, for this. Samantha: OK. If you have, maybe I will just watch it. Which one, which class?

PAGE 249

233 Sophia: Maybe tomorrow. Samantha: Which class? Sophia: All day tomorrow. Samantha: Oh, Oka y. Sophia: Except, when do you see me? Gold three? Samantha: Yeah. (Cycle 4 Premeeting, March 16, 2017) The conversation that transpired shows the collaboration between the two teachers and the desire of Samantha to observe another class. As noted pre viously, Samantha had already started to observe other teachers before her Cycle 1 Premeeting. At the beginning of the Cycle 1 Premeeting, the researcher was not aware that she had observed the class of another teacher doing the study, but realized through conversation that she had done so. The Cycle 1 Pre meeting transcript excerpt below shows the interaction when the researcher noticed the similarity between what Samantha had done and what Sophia and the researcher had discussed for Sophias Cycle 1 O bservation (Figure 28). This interaction took place while Samantha was showing three posters that three groups had made; one of them was shown above in Figure 43. Samantha: W hen they were in the group. So that person was kind of. Actually, they did this a little differently. I did notice that the way that I gave the assignment students interpreted what I wanted them to do differently, which I thought was fine because then when they went up there and executed it, some students th ought Oh, they did their group project like t hat, and we did ours like that, and they were both right. So, I liked that. So, they did this differently. They actually rather than having the teacher just teach the class the teacher was

PAGE 250

234 also kind of informing the artists on what they should do and then the person who was making the game was also kind of using that teaching to decide how to make their game as well. R: Sophia did something kind of s imilar as well. With this here so as we move forward o ne of the things is to implement class management, so she started off. Samantha: yeah After the researcher explained how Sophia had led into the activity with roles by using a briefing and explained how Sophia discussed the rules and agreements, he returned to talking about the posters Samantha was showing. It is during this portion of the interaction that the researcher realizes that Samantha had seen the continuation of the Cycle 1 Observation he had conducted with Sophia; the interaction is continued below. R: They were making one thing. It was not as big as this [the posters Samantha is showing], but it was smaller, but it was sort of the same similar idea. But yeah, so they made one thing but they are all in it. The researcher was helping to guide how they should do the interpretation of the art. So, it was a very similar idea. Samantha: I like that. Actually, that gives me an idea. Thats funny that you mentioned it because I was watching Sophia use these [the large poster papers] R: Ah, yeah, yeah, right, thats where she got these So it was the next class; I probably wasnt there. I reached up and got the paper for her. And she was going to use that for the next class. So, it [the idea Samantha got from Sophia] probably developed out of that.

PAGE 251

235 Samantha: Yeah, so its very organic because not only was I furthering my process by watching what she was doing, because Im in that class and I am also, as a side project, trying to work on my French, so I often tune in to what shes doing. I saw that she was doing that, and I was like you know, I can add that. So thats very cool. Its very organic. And then, once I saw how the students did what I asked them to do, and they interpreted it in different wa ys, then I thought well that is. That kind of furthers the organic process when people are working together, not only am I watching another teacher and improving my process or evolving my process, but now I am collaborating with the student and further evolving their process. Its really cool. During the coaching cycles, Sophia and Frida made clear statements that revealed they were implementing aspects of JPA in classes other than the one being used in the study. However, at the end of the member check meeting, Sophia started a discuss ion about doing a book study on the Standards during the summer, something she had mentioned to the researcher in the Cycle 4 Debrief. The teachers began discussing how they could ask the district to buy them each a book the researcher had recommended on the Standards for Effective Pedagogy Five Standards for Effective Teaching: How to Succeed with All Learners (Dalton, 2008) At that time, Samantha made a reference that she had implemented some aspect of JPA in a different class. She said that she test ed an action in a different class and it worked. She then reflected aloud by saying it was not surprising that it worked because the principles were the same. Nevertheless, since this was conducted after the completion of the coaching cycles, what she im plemented is not clear.

PAGE 252

236 Isabel and Samantha both made multiple references to the positive responses or changes they noticed in students attitudes as they implemented aspects of JPA. Examples of this were presented above However, after the member check meeting, Samantha once more noted how the student had completely changed and how surprised she was. This le d the other three teachers to ask what had taken place that caused the student to change. Samantha and the researcher explained that it began wit h the assigning of roles. Samantha then reflected that seeing the extent of the change in that student made her wonder if there were some things she could have done to have made a difference with other students she had had difficulty with in previous year s. While Isabel and Samantha did not initially call it by name, the observations they often described were a resul t of the Cycle of Social Sorting t aking effect in their classroom, and the researcher, in the position of an instructional coach, often relat ed the situation back to the discussion of the Cycle of Social Sorting, which took place during the orientation training they had participated in before the cycles began. Findings for f ive s tandards i nstructional m odel The Five Standards Instructional Model was used to provide an orderly process through which participants could follow in the implementation of the JPA standard. As noted in Chapter IV the fourth and fifth phase of the model place a large focus on Instr uctional Conversation, a standard that was not taught during the current study. Moreover, to reach the enacting level on the SPC rubric, it was not a requirement that participants move forward through the ph ases of the Instructional Model; notwithstanding the better one adheres to the outline of the Model, the clearer the path to implementation becomes, particularly if implementing all of the Standards. Based on these qualifications, all teachers enacted various aspects of the second phase of the Five St andards Instructional Model, with Isabel and Frida effectively implementing procedures to have

PAGE 253

237 groups of students work on different activities at the same time. Since the teachers only progressed to the second phase, this also provides explanation for the lack of multitasking and the nonexistence of genuine activity settings, aspects that are readil y implemented during phase four of the Five Standards Instructional Model. The next chapter will present the interpretations of the qualitative findings. Afte rwards the mixed methods Interpretation will follow.

PAGE 254

238 CHAPTER VI INTERPRETATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate whether secondary world language teachers would be able to implement the first stand ard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, Joint Productive Activity, after receiving instructional coaching in its concepts and implementation procedures Although a case study may cover more than one case, a cross case synthesis of all the cases allow s for one set of conclusions to be presented; notwithstanding, each case is still treated as an individual case study (Yin, 2009). Thus, this chapter utilizes the results from all four cases to collectively address the research questions. With respect to the research questions, the findings revealed that prior to instructional coaching in JPA, three of four participants were operating in the lower end of the SPC rubric (e.g., not observed or emerging ) and three of four participants were no t implementing any of the accompanying pedagogical practices used to support the implementation of JPA Findings also revealed that overall, the study participants viewed JPA and the coaching process as positive and important. The participants mostly att ributed their success in being able to implement the aspects of JPA to the collaboration they had with each other and the collaboration they had with the researcher through the instructional coaching. There were several major finding from this study whi ch will be discussed below: (a) world language teachers are able to implement Joint Productive Activity (b) world language teachers have only positive views of the JPA standard, (c) world language teachers collaborating with each other is important, (d) in structional coaching is integral to enabling world language teachers to use JPA, and (e) the root cause for the majority of reasons world

PAGE 255

239 language teachers noted for not implementing aspects of JPA may be related to lack of experience with the JPA standard These findings have implications in two broad areas: (a) future research regarding t he Standards specifically with world language teachers as well as (b) the professional development of world language teachers. Consequently, these two areas have been separated into two sections, Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Future Research and Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Professional Development. Major findings that have implications in both areas will be presented accordingly. Following the major findings, some additional interpretations and implications addressing future work for SCT Second Language and specific issues relating to world languages will be discussed. Afterwards, interpretations will be presented with respect to the mixed methods data. Qualitative Interpretations and Implications for Future Research These world language teachers were able to implement JPA Prior to this study, none of the Standards had been implemented in a world language classroom in accorda nce with the design set forth by the creators of the Standards. Based on the findings that revealed the change in pedagogy and implementation of pedagogical practices by the participants, world language teachers appear to be able to implement the JPA stan dard. This is an important finding because while it had been stated that the Standards would work for any subject, this study contributes empirical evidence to the potential effectiveness of the Standards in world languages Thus, the next step for future research may be to increase the number of participants if circumstances allow (e.g., there are enough instructional coaches to work with the teachers). The fact that world language teachers were able to take multiple step s towards setting up an organizational structure in the classroom that would allow for teachers to sit with students for extended periods of time should serve as a catalyst for future

PAGE 256

240 research Future research ers could choose to implement a survey prior t o the start of the study, asking world language teachers what they would like to do in a classroom if they had unlimited time or freedom from having to follow a mandated schedule from the school or district. The survey could also ask explicit questions to find what a teacher would do if they could consistently sit with a group of students for 20 minutes. This information could prove to be helpful for the instructional coach with respect to understanding the thoughts and goals of the teacher. It may also tease out any potential issues that could become a setback as the process moved forward. Furthermore, this questioning prior to the start of the study may help the teachers to more readily visualize ways in which they could apply JPA at the enacting level as this was not a level that any of the teachers in the current study attained. Moreover, since it appears that world language teachers can implement JPA, future studies should consider implementing more of the Standards. While not conducted in the curr ent study, since JPA serves as a basis for implementation of the remaining standards, continuing to implement the other standards would potentially lead to an increase in the rigor of activities (due to the fourth standard, Challenging Activities) and an i ncrease in the depth of dialogue that would occur in class (due to the fifth standard, Instructional Conversation). Along with adding the remaining standards, future research may also seek to measure the outcome of student achievement or perceptions. The current study indirectly documents perceptions and attitude changes students had when participating in world language classes, but a study that placed student achievement and/or attitudes as a research question could provide useful information, supporting further research. At minimum, such studies on world language classes could support the findings of previ ous research, noted in Chapter III which presented the positive results of students who were in classrooms where the Standards were

PAGE 257

241 implemented. As mentioned above, this would be of particular importance since the creators have made the claim that the Standards will work for any subject area. Finally, future research could consider the possibility of employing the Standards at all language levels for each world language offered at the school. The current study included only Spanish teachers and a French teacher as participants. Another action would be to investigate whether differences exist when attempting implementation in high schools, middle schools, or elementary schools. One more possibility would be to attempt implementation in languages that may not be typically in a world language department. For example, the school used for the current study offered American Sign Language as a world langua ge. Since American Sign Language is a true language, it would be interesting to document how sign language teachers could implement the Standards. This would ultimately have implications for the education of the hearing impaired. World language teachers have only positive views of the JPA standard. The findings revealed that the teachers unanimously viewed JPA as being positive and beneficial. This was evidenced by the fact that the four teachers plan to continue implementation in the future academic ye ars, actively collaborated with each other, and implemented JPA principles in other classes. There were multiple aspects that each teacher noted as being important or useful. However, as seen from Isabels comments in the previous chapter, teachers may be wary about participating in studies that place emphasis on small group work because of their previous experiences. Therefore, future studies should consider investing time into preparing documentation that shows qualitative results from teachers who have gone through training in the Standards. Particularly, the qualitative data should show the feeling the teachers have regarding the Standards. This may aid a potential participant in

PAGE 258

242 seeing the value of such a study. Taking such a measure is important b ecause potential participants will most likely expect that a researcher will provide information that reports the method was shown to be successful in previous studies; they are not expecting to be told contrary. However, presenting data that reveals the (positive) perception of the Standards by teachers who have undergone training in the Standards would help provide a sense of practical validity in the sight of potential participants. Of the many texts and studies the researcher read before preparing thi s current study, nearly none of the literature provided quotes from the participating teachers. The Teemant (2014) study contained quotes from several of the participants; however, those quotes addressed the research questions of the study, which did not ask about the feelings teachers had about the Standards. Additionally, in the Teemant (2014) study and Teemant et al., (2011) study, each teacher received $2,000 for their participation. The current study offered no financial incentive. Therefore, for s imilar studies in the future that may not be able to offer financial incentives, having qualitative data of the responses from teachers may be useful when attempting to relay the benefits of the study. Participants collaborating with each other is importan t. The findings showed that all of the teachers believed that collaboration with each other while going through the study was useful. Whether recruiting teachers who will be participating from the beginning or who will serve as backup participants, f utur e studies may need to consider the benefit and detriment of conducting a similar study in a school where the teacher would not have access to another person going through instructional coaching in JPA. In the current study, the researcher secured two extr a teachers who were willing to participate in the event that one of the initial four teachers became unable to complete the coaching cycles and semi structured

PAGE 259

243 interview. One of the participants that served as an extra was at the same school as the four i nitial participants. Had one of the participants needed to withdraw, the backup teacher would have been able to communicate with the other teachers, which presumably would have been beneficial. However, the other teacher who was serving as a backup was l ocated at a different school which was not a part of the same school district. Had this backup teacher been requested to participate, this teacher would have lacked the ability to readily communicate with other participants. While circumstances will vary future studies should consider attempting to have backup teachers that will be able to have access to peer collaboration. Nevertheless, as suggested above, this issue can be overcome by beginning the study with a larger number of participants who are lo cated at the same school or who have the ability to easily communicate with each other. Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA. The value of the coaching in this study is clear, but the findings do reveal potential areas for change when considering a future study. For example, the researcher should consider the feasibility of providing more training before the start of the coaching cycle to help acclimate the teachers to the various aspects and literature surrounding the Standa rds. As explained in Chapter IV Teemant (2014) and Teemant et al. (2011) implemented all five standards in 7 coaching cycles. However, the training provided to teachers in advance was significantly longer (30 hours) than the orientation given to the tea chers in the current study. The implication is that while the 4 coaching cycles in the current study may have been long enough for the teachers to implement JPA at the enacting level, the teachers may have needed more training before starting the coaching cycles. Further research will be needed to discern the amount of training that should be provided when not teaching all of the Standards. Additionally, the

PAGE 260

244 findings suggest that the training should provide specific examples for how world language teache rs may apply JPA principles to the tasks they usually conduct in the classroom (e.g., teaching grammatical forms or vocabulary). The findings also suggest that in future studies, it may be of benefit to begin the study closer to the start of the school ye ar, or even start training in the summer, as opposed to towards the latter end of the school year. This may help to alleviate or reduce the impact of any end of year stressors that teachers may be dealing with. The above action plan provides practical st eps future studies could perform to better orient participants for thinking about how they might perform different aspects of JPA. These are suggestions, but it is difficult to know how much time teachers will freely contribute based solely on the basis t hat they will learn an extremely useful and intriguing pedagogy. As previously noted, the teachers in the Teemant (2014) and Teemant et al., (2011) received payment for time. If a financial contribution to the teachers is not possible, the researcher may be able to investigate alternative measures that would be of benefit, such as investigating the possibility of the teachers receiving professional development credit with the district. The root cause for teachers not implementing aspects of JPA. One area of interest is that the findings may suggest that there is an intricate relationship between the participants lack of experience/familiarity with the JPA standard and their reliance on whole class/traditional methods. That is, the findings suggest that the relationship is not a mere equation of the less experience in JPA teachers possess, the more wholeclass teaching they conduct, and vice versa. To understand this relationship, it is necessary to first examine the view the teachers had of ti me. Table 14 (p. 214) presented a summary of reasons for why aspects of JPA were not implemented. Two categories that Sophia, Frida, and Samantha

PAGE 261

245 raised as being issues for why they did not implement JPA were (a) lack of experience and (b) the need/desir e to accomplish certain tasks in a specific time frame. Focusing on the relationship to time, the findings suggest that teachers learning to implement JPA will make decisions about whether they implement JPA principles based on the time they have to do certain academic activities. Recall that Sophias reasoning for not having the students make a product was because she wanted to get in authentic material, which is what [she] was trying to get in at least once in [her] unit (Cycle 4 Pre meeting, March 17 2017). It was not exactly clear when the unit was going to be ending, but Sophia apparently felt that she needed to use authentic material sooner rather than later. In Fridas case, when she was in conversation with the researcher about how she might i mplement actions that would allow her the time to work with a small group uninterrupted, she said the following: Yeah, exactly, I think youre right. I can see next class, totally spending time with them. And I kind of wanted to get to that point today, but I know I just dont have the time, I just got some other stuff I need to get through. (Cycle 3 Pre meeting, March 15, 2017) Frida was attempting to convey that there was not enough time to do everything she wanted to accomplish in a 90minute time slot, including possibly sitting with a group as an active participant. The excerpt above reveals that Frida still viewed the JPA aspect of a teacher working with a small group of students as an activity in addition to other activities she would need to accom plish, as opposed to realizing that the teacher student group is supposed to be the norm for classroom instruction. In Samanthas case, recall she taught in a whole class style because she was just trying to get in the information they would need to com plete the presentation before Spring Break (Cycle 4 Debrief, March 30, 2017).

PAGE 262

246 While all three teachers raise the issue of time as a hindrance, it is likely that the underlying cause for the nonapplication of JPA aspects was the lack of experience and f amiliarity with the Standards. For example, these teachers already had an established way for conducting certain grammar exercises. If they had planned to conduct a grammar exercise in a class, but for some reason there was not sufficient time to do so, the nonimplementation could be attributed to time. However, in the case of these three teachers, time does not seem to be applicable because the greater issue of them lacking experience exists. The findings supported this as well. Sophia stated that she had not yet figured out how she could implement a joint product with the students, and Samantha noted that she did not yet recognize how to teach new material using JPA principles; consequently, Sophia did not move to the enacting level although she had been planning to do the writing project with a group of students for the Cycle 4 Observation, and Samantha reverted to whole class teaching in the Cycle 4 Observation after using JPA style groups for the first three observation cycles. Frida did not make a statement that identified a specific issue, but she often spoke of her lack of familiarity, as exemplified by her response about the effectiveness of the rubric, the application of JPA to world languages, and her desire to have had more training prior to the start of the cycles. Had the teachers been more experienced, issues relating to time limitations may have been more valid. Another example that shows lack of experience/ familiarity with the Standards is when Sophia mentioned that she was experienci ng trouble fitting the aspects of the Standards into the plan she had made for the current academic year (category 5 from Table 14). Ironically, since the Standards are not a specific method for how to teach but rather a pedagogical framework, it is likel y that the plans she had could have been implemented

PAGE 263

247 through JPA principles. Thus, of the five categories in Table 14, four of them can be attributed to a lack of familiarity with the Standards. Influence from previous years of teaching (category 3) has not been added to the lack of familiarity group. The influence of ones own previous years of teaching may become less of a factor as teachers grow in their understanding and experiential knowledge of JPA. However, one reason for why it has been excluded is because Frida, who noted this issue, had experience using timers in class prior to the study. She did not use them often, but she had used them, and that prior experience may have affected her ability to use a timer differently. In contrast, the othe r areas that teachers attributed to lack of experience were truly areas or actions they had not encountered prior to the study. Another issue that may be related to the participants lack of experience was shown in the notable findings sections. Sophia, F rida, and Samantha had instances where they knew beforehand that they would not implement certain aspects of JPA. These actions are contrasted with Isabel who only had instances of not applying a JPA aspect because she had forgotten to do it or forgotten to plan it (unintentional). While no decisive conclusions may be drawn, it is interesting that the three participants that mentioned hindrances for applying aspects of JPA also had instances of intentionally not applying aspects of JPA. In contrast, the one participant that did not note having any hindrances also did not have any instances of intentionally not applying aspects of JPA. Considering this possible relationship, future studies should attempt to minimize the amount of hindrances the participan ts may encounter. As mentioned above, it seems that these hindrances are rooted in the greater issue of not having enoug h experience.

PAGE 264

248 F uture research should consider brainstorming potential hindrances that may arise and how to lessen the occurrence of t hem in order to support maximum implementation. This may include, but is not limited to, the researcher considering beforehand school /district circumstances, student populations, participant teaching experience, and amount of contact hours with the parti cipants. Nevertheless, recognizing the apparent impact from a lack of familiarity with the Standards, a more proactive approach would be to provide more training prior to the beginning of the cycles, although potential issues with this were addressed above (e.g., how much time would teachers volunteer without compensation). In addition to increasing the amount of training before the coaching cycles, future studies could check in with teachers more frequently to identify potential hindrances (such as those noted in Table 14). In this study, the categories in Table 14 arose through dialogue occurring throughout the process, and the implications were not realized until the coding began after the completion of the coaching cycles and interview. Future studie s, having this foresight, may be able to have protocols in place to address these issues as they arise. Therefore, as opposed to waiting until the Post Cycle Interview to explicitly ask about hindrances, the researcher(s) may employ explicit checks at the end of each cycle, specifically asking what is hindering implementation. Similar to asking about hindrances after the completion of each cycle, it would be beneficial for future researchers to explicitly verify the perceptions that participants are formin g about the pedagogical practices after the completion of each cycle. Implications for the need to explicitly check the perceptions participants held about these practices became evident after coding interactions between the researcher and Samantha. The findings for Samantha showed that she was quite consistent in receiving ratings on the SPC rubric at the

PAGE 265

249 developing level, but her implementation of briefings and debriefings were the lowest of the four teachers. As discussed in the findings section for S amantha, it is not clear why she seemed to have a misconstrued view of the briefings and debriefings. Nevertheless, the stark contrast in the perceptions of briefings and debriefings between Samantha and Sophia may account for why Samantha had the lowest occurrence of briefings and debriefings and Sophia had the highest occurrence. It is possible that if the researcher had explicitly checked Samanthas understanding of briefings and debriefings at predetermined times during the study, this lack of understanding (ultimately due to a lack of experience and knowledge in the Standards) on Samanthas part could have been addressed earlier. Therefore, future studies need to implement protocols that purposefully and e xplicitly question participants about their views of the pedagogical practices. The early identification of misperceptions held by the teachers would enable them to make adjustments and conduct more effective lessons using the Standards. Qualitative Inter pretations and Implications for Professional Development These w orld language teachers possess positive views of the JPA standard. The findings revealed that the teachers unanimously viewed JPA as a being positive and beneficial. Since teachers appear to find value in the JPA standard, districts and schools should consider providing more professional development in all of the Standards, potentially for all teachers. As noted in the Future Research section, as groups of teachers successfully complete instructional coaching on the implementation of the Standards, the district should consider how it might share the positive views with other teachers in the district. The district would also need to consider if it would make such training mandatory, for example, for new

PAGE 266

250 teachers coming to the district. The district could also compose a video of teacher responses to use as a promotion to raise the interest for all teachers. Participants collaboratin g with each other is important The findings showed that all of the teachers believed that collaboration with each other while going through the study was useful. Therefore, a district or school should do their best to ensure that the teachers going through the instructional coaching have colleagues they may work w ith. This raises an issue that has already been noted from the Teemant and colleague studies, namely the issue of financial incentives. The findings from this study suggest that instructional coaching may need to take place at the beginning of the year, if not in the summer. For the district approaching this as a potential professional development, timing will be important. It would be necessary to provide an environment that enables teachers to collaborate. However, how many teachers could the distric t gather to work in the summer ? As noted in the next section, since instructional coaching is integral but not a short term process, the district may need to consider ways for how they would encourage teachers to participate during the school year. In th e same way that researchers conducting future studies with the Standards will need to consider what they may offer teachers in exchange for their participation, districts will need to do the similarly. However, it is very likely that the district has more options than the researcher. Possibilities include providing professional development credit which may help with licensure, extra payment, or increases in salary. The measures available for use will vary by district, but whatever action is employed, the district will need to ensure there are sufficient participants to allow for collaboration between the teachers. Instructional coaching is integral to enabling teachers to use JPA. This study supports previous literature that emphasizes the lack of efficacy in using professional

PAGE 267

251 development that is short term. Instructional coaching was a necessary action for guiding the teachers through the course of the study. The consistent cont act that instructional coaching provided is a distinguishing characteristic of this form of professional development, as opposed to other short term forms. The most compelling example from the current study supporting instructional coaching was when Frida noted that they had people in the building who were called instructional coaches, but it did not appear to happen in the manner that she had experienced with the researcher. Considering the observed importance of instructional coaching in the current stud y, schools and school districts may need to consider the types of professional development they provide for their teachers and staff. It is understandable that there may be financial constraints, as Frida alluded to. However, if instructional coaching ca n support teachers by bringing about change that may continue into future academic years, as exemplified by the teachers in the current study actively planning to continue using JPA for the upcoming academic year, there may be value in restructuring or reevaluating how instructional coaching is performed. Notwithstanding, a restructuring of an instructional coaching program alone will not be a sufficient action to ensure successful implementation of the Standards, either by a school district or by researchers. In this study, an important feature of instructional coaching was the knowledge the researcher had in the pedagogy (all the Standards) and not just of world languages and Second Language Acquisi tion. As explained in Chapter II one of the notable characteristics of the instructional coach is that the coach has extensive knowledge of scientifically grounded teaching practices and the ability to model those practices (Knight, 2009a). Using the Standards as a pedagogical guide for teachers, instruction al coaching could provide the dialogue, guidance, and consistency needed to

PAGE 268

252 increase the relevancy of professional development, regardless of the subject being taught. Without a comprehensive understanding of the Standards, the instructional coach would not be able to provide the feedback and direction needed to move the teachers forward. The instructional coach would need to understand the expert novice relationship in order to effectively work in the ZPD of the teachers. The role of the instructional c oach must be more than that of a person who the teacher goes to in order to share ideas or think through a problem with. In addition to having in depth understanding of the Standards, the instructional coach would benefit from having knowledge of the cat egories presented in Table 14 and the relationship they have to a participants lack of familiarity with the Standards. If the instructional coach is aware of these potential hindrances, upon hearing statements from the participants similar to those in Ta ble 14, the coach could take proactive measures by providing examples of how to implement an activity in accordance with the Standards, or the instructional coach may attempt to fill the knowledge gap. Additional Interpretations and Implications SCT Seco nd Language T he current study has implications relating to training teachers in specific methods used in SCT Second Language. These implications pertain to future research and professional development. Discussed in earlier chapters is the point that wh ile there is a substantial amount of literature on SCT Second Language and several studies on SCT Second Language exist, there is a lack of literature detailing or documenting how to implement the SCT content in world language classrooms. The literature explains the concepts and may provide examples of an activity that actualizes SCT principles, but there is no information about constructing the entire classroom and its activities in a form that

PAGE 269

253 reflects SCT theory. However, based on the findings of the current study, the Standards through instructional coaching present a means by which SCT material may be ta ught to world language teachers Researchers of SCT Second Language who seek to have teachers implement a method for research may choose to partner with an instructional coach who has a thorough knowledge of the Standards. While the researcher may not be focused on professional development, utilizing instructional coaching in the study would allow for the implementation procedures to be documented. If world language classrooms are going to implement more SCT principles consistently, SCT Second Language researchers will need to adopt a larger framework to expose teachers to the methods they develop. The Standards are able to fill this gap. World languages. The current study has several implications for world language education in general. Aside from the benefits that arise from the expert novice relationship, classroom teachers enacting JPA will be better positioned to closely evaluate the language development of students on a regular basis. Groups in JPA are founded on the intersubjectivity and affinity of the Cycle of Social Sorting. Moreover, these group occur in classrooms where community agreements have been formed, and they follow a system of implementation based upon the Five Standards Instructional Model. Compared to the unsystematic grouping practices that take place in many world language classrooms, implementing the Standards could lead to several benefits. Possible benefits are the inc rease in opportunity for students to speak in the target language, increased opportunities for students to create a variety of products other than written, and for students to develop stronger relationships with peers in the classroom. As the teacher enga ges in the joint creation of a product with a student, following the theory behind the Standards (and the Five

PAGE 270

254 Standards Instructional Model), the concerns noted in Chapters I and II regarding communicative approaches are also addressed (e.g., teachers creating arbitrary talk with students or teachers believing there are too many students in a class to conduct communicative practices). Mixed Methods Data Interpretation This study incorporated mixed methods; when interpreting mixed methods data, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010) discuss the importance of looking at various types of significance that may be applicable to the study: statistical, practical, clinical and economic. Another important aspect is design quality and interpretive rigor (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Design quality examines to what degree the most appropriate procedures have been chosen and implemented in order to answer the research questions ; they include within design consistency, design suitability, design fidelity, and analytic adequacy. Interpretive rigor examines to what degree the interpretations found from the data are credible; it includes interpretative agreement, interpretive distinctiveness, interpretive consistency, theoretical consistency, and integrative efficacy. In the area of significance, the most pertinent area is clinical significance. Due to the small number of participants in this study, statistical and practical significance were not ex amined. Additionally, economic significance does not have immediate bearing on this current study. Clinical significance, however, does exist in that the degree to which the JPA standard was actualized in the classroom affect s the quality of instruction that the students receive. It also affects the teachers own professional practice. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010) explain that design fidelity addresses the rigor of the implementation as well as whether sampling and data collection were adequately carried out.

PAGE 271

255 As explained previously, this study used convenience sampling to acquire four participant s. This was acceptable, especially since results are not for generalizing purposes. With respect to data collection, issues potentially surrounding one obse r ver were addressed in Chapter IV but they are once more discussed in the area below. The data collected for the purely qualitative areas of the study were all video recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy. Addressing the interpretive rigor of the study, when there is only one observer, it is potentially difficult to make decisive conclusions in the areas of interpretive distinctiveness, interpretive consistency, and particularly interpretive agreement (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010). Nevertheless, si nce the researcher received validation for 4 ratings (20%), which had been sent to the rubric designer, Annela Teemant, her agreement with the original decisions by the researcher provides support in these three areas. Researchers in future studies may not have access to the rubric designer, but other measures could be enacted to compensate for th is issue. As noted in Chapter III two raters could be used to rate the observation classes. Another possibility is to video record the class and then have anot her rater rate the observation. Regardless of the action taken, the first requirement will be to ensure that the rater has been sufficiently trained and has sufficient knowledge about the Standards and the theory that supports them. Limitations Due to the small number of participants, no generalizations were able to be made from this study Additionally, to increase the interpretive rigor of the study, another observer would have been needed, or the researcher would have needed to video record the observation classes and request that an additional rater, trained in the Standards, rate the classes. Another limitation relates to the length of the study. While the study was relatively

PAGE 272

256 short, spanning slightly more than seven weeks in its entirety, the larg er issue regarding length relates to verifying sustainability. Unlike the Teemant (2014) study, where the researcher went back to the school a year later to verify the degree of fidelity to the Standards, this current study has no plan in place to verify to what extent the world language teachers will still be implementing aspects of JPA, for example, in a year from the end of the last coaching cycle. Conclusions This study attempted to employ Joint Productive Activity, the first standard of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, in a world language classroom, an action that had not been attempted previously. Participants in this study broadened their perspectives by adjusting their image of student roles, classroom community, and group activity. The study provides insight into how sociocultural principles may be operationalized in a world language classroom through a systematic implementation of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy. The findings suggest that JPA and the other Standards could be used to strengthen and expand the teaching practice of world language teachers as well as provide a variety of benefits for the students in the class.

PAGE 273

257 REFERENCES Afitska, O. (2015). Role of focus on form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: Some insights from recent second language acquisition research. Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 5773. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2012.701320 Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk Cambridge : Dialogos Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465483. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.1994.tb02064.x Asher, J. (2000). Le arning another language through actions (1st ed.). Los Gatos, Calif ornia : Sky Oakes Prod. Atkinson, D. ( 2011a ). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Atkinson, D. ( 2011b). Cognitivism and second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Bakhtin, M. M. (1988). The dialogic imagination: Four essays Austin, TX : University of Texas Press. Begeny, J. C., Yeager, A., & Martnez, R. S. (2012). Effects of small group and one onone reading fluency interventions with second grade, low performing Spanish readers. Jour nal of Behavioral Education, 21(1), 5879. doi:10.1007/s108640119141x Bolukbas, F., Keskin, F., & Polat, M. (2011). The effectiveness of cooperative learning on the reading comprehension skills in Turkish as a foreign language. TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4). Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/ Borz ova, E. (2014). Mingles in the foreign language c lassroom. English Teaching Forum 52(2), 2027. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1035883 Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515534. doi:10.1080/09500782.2011.597861

PAGE 274

258 Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interact ional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272296. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/rte. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (2nd ed.). New York NY: Scribner. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1 47. Retrieved from http://ibatefl.com/wp content/uploads/2012/08/CLT CanaleSwain.pdf Center for Research o n Education, Diversity & Excellence (2004). Observing the five standards in practice: Development and application of the standards performance continuum (Research Brief No. 11). Retrieved from University of California Berkeley, The Center for Research on E ducation, Diversity & Excellence website: http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/rb11.pdf Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotskys analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygo tskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 3964). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Chomsky, N. (1964). [The development of grammar in child l anguage]: Discussion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29(1), 3542. doi:10.2307/1165753 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in s pecial education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67100. Retrieved from http://www.ldw ldcj.org/ Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 192216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of the ory, research and practice New York, NY: Longman. Dalton, S. S. (1998). Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching practice (Research Report No. 4). Retrieved from University of California Berkeley, The Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence website: http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/

PAGE 275

259 Dalton, S. S. (2008). Five standards for effective teaching: How to succeed wit h all learners, grades K 8. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Dalton, S. S. & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Standards for pedagogy: Research, theory and practice. In G. Wells & Guy Claxton (Eds.) Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education. (pp. 181194). doi: 10.1002/9780470753545.ch14 Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17 (3), 303322. doi:10.1177/1362168813482934 Deakin, R., Crick, R., Taylor, M., Ritchie, S., Samuel, E. and Durant, K. (2005) A s ystematic review of the impact of citizenship education on student learning and achievement. London: EPPI Centre. DeKeyser, R.M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 4263). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Doherty, R. W., & Hilberg, R. S. (2007). Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English proficiency, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 24 34. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.1.2435 Doherty, R. W., & Hilberg, R. S. (2008). Efficacy of five standards in raising student achievement: Findings from three studies. Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 195206. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.4.195206 Doherty, R. G., Hi lberg, R. S., Epaloose, G., & Tharp, R.G. (2002). Standards performance continuum: Development and validation of a measure of effective pedagogy. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 7889. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20#.VXozQ_lVi ko Doherty, W. R., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R.G. (2003). Five standards and student achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1). Retrieved from http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/research/crede/pdf/nabe.pdf Doherty, R. W., Echevarria, J ., Estrada, P., Goldenberg, C., Hilberg, R. S., Saunders, W. M., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Research evidence: Five standards for effective pedagogy and student outcomes (Technical Report No. G1). Retrieved from University of California Berkeley, The Center fo r Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence website: http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/

PAGE 276

260 Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisi tion [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Eisenchlas, S. ( 2010). Conceptualising "c ommunication" in foreign l anguage i nstruction. Babel 44(2), 1221. Retrieved from http://afmlta.asn.au/babel journal/ Ekembe, E. E. (2014). Interaction and uptake in large foreign language classrooms. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 45(3), 237 251. doi: 10.1177/0033688214547036 Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and language acquisition. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182201. doi: 10.1017/S0261444809990139 Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Ellison, J., & Hayes, C. (2009). Cognitive coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 192216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Farooq, M. U. (2015). Creating a c ommunicative l angu age t eaching e nvironment for i mproving s tudents' c ommunicative c ompetence at EFL/EAP university l evel. International Education Studies 8(4), 179191. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060917 Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A stepby step guide (5 th ed.). Los Angeles CA: Sage Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Galperin, P I (1970 ). An experimental study in the formation of mental actions. In E. Stones (Ed.), Readings in educational psychology: Learning and teaching ( pp. 142 154). London: Methuen. Gauvain, M. (2005). Sociocultural contexts of learning. In A. E. Maynard & M. I. Martini (Eds.), Learning in Cultural Context (pp. 227245). Retrieved from http://0 download.springer.com.skyline.ucdenver.edu/static/pdf/563/bok%

PAGE 277

261 Giroux, H. A. ( 2001) Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (case of Firat University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613625. doi:10.1080/03043790701433343 Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry Research in the Schools, 13(1), 9398. Retrieved from http://www.msera.org/old site/rits.htm Grenfell, M. (2007). Language learner strategy research and modern f oreign language teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 9 22. doi: 10.1080/09571730701315576 Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Halliday, M. A. (1980). Three aspects of childrens language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In J. Webster (Ed.), The language of early childhood, (pp. 308326). London: Continuum Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). [Kindle edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal, 60(3), 242252. doi:10.1093/elt/c cl004 Herrell, A. & Jordan, M. ( 2015) 50 strategies for teaching English language learners (5th ed.) Boston, MA : Pearson Hilberg, R. S., Chang, J. M., & Epaloose, G. (2003). Designing effective activity centers for diverse learners: A guide for teachers at all grade levels and for all subject areas. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/ Hilberg, S., Doherty, W., & Reveles, C. (2004). Training manual and resources for five standards coaching. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz. Hilberg, R. S., Tharp, R. G., & DeGeest, L. (2000). The efficacy of CREDE's standards based instruction in American Indian mathematics classes. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33( 2), 3240. doi: 10.1080/1066568000330206 Hymes D ( 1972). On communicative competence. In J B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269293). Harmondsworth: Penguin

PAGE 278

262 Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics; an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia PA : University of Pennsylvania Press. Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (2016). Retrieved from Montclair State University, The College of Education and Human Services website: http://www.montcla ir.edu/cehs/academics/centers and institutes/iapc/ Johnson, C. (2011). Activities using process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in the foreign language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 44 (1), 3039. doi:10.1111/j.17561221.2011.00090.x Johnson, K. E. (2009). Trends in second language teacher education. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 2029). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, R. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore: Brookes Press. Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 47(4), 1215. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational leadership.aspx Kamiya, N. (2012). Proactive and reactive focus on form and gestures in EFL classrooms in Japan. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 40(3), 386397. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2012.09.005 Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence based, small group reading instr uction for E nglish language learners in elementary grades: Secondary tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153168. doi :10.2307/30035561 Karpov, K. V. (2003). Vygotskys doctrine if scientific concepts: Its role for contemporary education. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 6582). New York NY: Cambridge University Press Kato, Y. (2016). What do we want small group activities for? voices from EFL teachers in J apan. TESL EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 19(4), 15. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1092831 Kearney, E. (2015). A highleverage language teaching practice: Leading an open ended group discussion. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 100123. doi: 10.1111/flan.12128

PAGE 279

263 Knight, J. (2009a ). Introduction. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspe ctives (pp. 192216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Knight, J. (2009b). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press. Kozulin, A. (2001). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvar d University Press. Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 1538). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Kras hen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications New York, NY: Longman Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Lange, C., Costley, J., & Han, S. L. (2016). Informal cooperative learning in small g roups : The effect of scaffolding on participation. Issues in Educational Research, 26(2), 260279. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier.html Lantolf, J. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349370). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Lantolf, J. (2011). The socioc ultural approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 1133. doi:10.1177/1362168810383328 Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

PAGE 280

264 Larsen Freeman, D. (2015). Rese arch into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263280. doi: 10.1017/S0261444814000408 Larsen Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language t eaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Larsen Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research New York, NY: Longman. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University P ress. Lee, H. (2014) Inquiry based teaching in second and foreign language pedagogy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6). doi: 10.4304/jltr.5.6.12361244 Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framew ork for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly 23, 587604. doi:10.1037/10453830.23.4.587 Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 265275. doi: 10.1007/s1113500791053 Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 6169. doi:10.1002/j.15566678.2010.tb00151.x Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Promises and problems of teaching with popular culture: A linguistic ethnographic analysis of discourse genre mixing in a literacy lesson. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 4 069. doi:10.1598/RRQ.46.1.3 Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue New York, NY: Routledge. Lefstein, A., Snell, J., & Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: Expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 866885. doi:10.1002/berj.3164 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 281

265 Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom New York NY : Cambridge University Press. Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22(3), 222240. doi:10.1080/09500780802152499 Lyman F. (1981). "The responsive c lassroom discussion." In A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest (pp. 109114). College Park, MD: University of Maryland College of Education. McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., Chen, C. T., Kraemer, J., & Parr, J. (2009). 6 principles for teaching English language learners in all classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward "English only". System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguist ics, 39(2), 251263. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/system/ Mercer, N. (2007). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(2), 137168. doi: 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137 Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G. M. P. (2003). A typology of research p urposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nishino, T. (2012). Modeling teacher belie fs and practices in context: A multimethods a pproach. Modern Language Journal 96(3), 380399. doi: 10.1111/j.15404781.2012.01364.x Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R. & Prendergast, C. (1997) Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of l anguage and learning in the English c l assroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR122/onwuegbuzie2.pdf

PAGE 282

266 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. T. (2011). Assessing legitim ation in mixed research: A new f ramework. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 45, 12531271. doi: 10.1007/s11135 00992899 Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Overland, P., Fields, L., & Noonan, J. (2011). Can communicative principles enhance classical language acquisition? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 583598. doi:10.1111/j.19449720.2011.01149.x Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261279. doi:10.1080/09658416.2010.516831 Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233265. doi : 10.1191/1362168805lr166oa Razfar, A., Khisty, L. L., & Chval, K. (2011). Re mediating second language acquisition: A sociocultural perspective for language development. Mind, Culture, And Activity, 18(3), 195215. doi: 10.1080/10749030903494427 Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context Oxford University Press. Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /I/ by Japanese l earners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595633. doi: 10.1111/j.14679922.2011.00639.x Saldaa, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGrawHill. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1 27). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129

PAGE 283

267 Segal, A., Pollak, I., & Lefstein, A. (2017). Democracy, voice and dialogic pedagogy: The struggle to be heard and heeded. Language and Education, 31(1), 6 25. doi:10.1080/09500782.2016.1230124 Segal, A., Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2016). Dialogic teaching to the highstakes standardised test? Research Papers in Education, 115. doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1225803 Shehadeh, A ., & Coombe, C. (Ed s .). (2010). A pplications of task based learning in TESOL Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Shen, F. (2013). Using group discussion with Taiwan's EFL c olleg e s tudents: A comparison of comprehension instruction for book club, literature circles, and instructional c onversations. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 5878. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1078722 Singh, G., & Richards, J. C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the course room. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 201208). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form focused instruction: Reflections on past present and future r esearch. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225236. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000224 Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questions of relevance. Language Teaching, 48( 1), 6981. doi: 10.1017/S026144481200050X Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18 (4), 453473. doi: 10.1177/1362168813519883 Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 6482). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 369 391. Retrieved from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives (Vol. 7). [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 284

268 Teemant, A. (2012). Standards performance continuum plus: Six s tandards for effective pedagogy Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN. Teemant, A. (2014). A mixedmethods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of diverse learners Urban Education, 49(5), 574604. doi:10.1177/0042085913481362 Teemant, A., Leland, C., & Berghoff, B. (2013). Development and validation of a measure of critical stance for instructional coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 136147. Retrieved f rom http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051X Teemant, A., Wink, J., & Tyra, S. (2011). Effects of coaching on teacher use of sociocultural instructional practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 683693. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.006 Tharp, R. G. (2011). Delta theory and psychosocial systems: The practice of influence and change [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity (Research Report No. 2). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED341254 Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1998). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In D. Faulkner, K. Littleton, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning relationships in the classroom (pp. 93110). New York, NY: Routledge. Tharp, R.G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Te aching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Toll, C. A. (2009). Literacy coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 192216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2004). 'philosophy for children': A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 365380. doi:10.1080/0267152042000248016 VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Early theories in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. (pp. 1735). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). [Kindle PDF version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.

PAGE 285

269 Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology Ar monk, NY: Sharpe Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (2008). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. Human Development, 51(1), 66 79. doi:10.1159/000112532 Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1998). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. In D. Faulkner, K. Littleton, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning relationships in the classroom (pp. 1330). New York, NY: Routl edge. White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. (pp. 3755). New York, NY: Routledge. Williams, K. (2013). A c ase for explicit grammar instruction in English as second/foreign language classrooms. Academic Leadership Journal in Student Research, 1 Retrieved from https://gvsu.edu/ours/academic leadership journal in student research 469.htm Wong, C. (2012). A case study of college level second language teachers' perceptions and implementations of communicative language teaching. The Professional Educator, 36(1), 1. Retrieved from http://wp.auburn.edu/educate/about history/ Woods, D., & Cakir, H. (2011). Two dimensions of teacher knowledge: The case of communicative language teaching. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 381390. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.07.010 Wyatt, T R., Yamauchi, L. A., & Chapman DeSou sa, B. (2012). Using the CREDE s tandards for e ffective pedagogy in a Greenlandic settlement s chool. Multicultural Perspectives 14 (2), 6572. doi: 10.1080/15210960.2012.673304 Yamauchi, L. A., Im, S., & Schonleber, N S. (2012). Adapting strategies of effective i nst ruction for culturally diverse preschoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(1), 5472. doi: 10.1080/10901027.2011.650783 Yez Prieto, M. C. (2008). On literature and the secret art of invisible words: Teaching literature through language Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

PAGE 286

270 Zepeda, S. J. (2015). Job embedded professional development: Support, collaboration, and learning in schools New York, NY: Routledge.

PAGE 287

271 APPENDIX A Observation Sheet [Assigned ID #: ________] Teacher: ________________________ Grade: _________ Room: ________ Site: _____________________ Observer: ___________________ Observation Date :________________ Length of Observation : _______________ Beginning: ________________ End: _________________ Gender: 1 = female 2 = male Ethnicity: 1 = EuroAmerican 2 = Asian American 3 = Hispanic American 4 = Native American 5 = African American 6 = Other:________________________ Subject areas observed World Language Name (e.g., Spanish, French, etc.)__________________________ Total Number of Students: _______________ Classroom Organization/Length of Time: Number of Organizational (Key: WC: Whole Class; P= Pairs; SG= Changes: _____________ Small Groups; IND= Individual) ________| _________ to ____________ ________| _________ to ____________ ________| _________ to ____________ ________| _________ to ____________ ________| _________ to ____________ Number of personnel present : _____ Roles: ___________ (1: Teacher 2: Teacher aide 3. Reading Specialist 4: Parent 5. Volunteer 6: Bilingual aide; 7: Student Teacher; 8: SPED; 9: Librarian/Tech; 10: Other ________) Briefing : ___observed ___not observed Debriefing: ___obs erved ___not observed Activity Centers (Small Groups Instruction with 2 to 7 students per group): ___ Yes ___ No

PAGE 288

272 Total Number Different Activity Centers : ______ Mode: ___Simultaneous ___Sequential ___ NA Teacher Center: ____Yes ____No Follow Up Center: ____Yes ____No Activity Settings Ratings Evidence Supporting Rating Whole Class Individual Pair Centers: ___ of ___(#) Independent Center Teacher Center Teacher Center w/enacting level IC Task Card (Circle): Y N NA ___ JPA Whole Class Individual Pair Centers: ___ of ___(#) Independent Center Teacher Center Teacher Center w/enacting level IC Task Card (Circle): Y N NA ___ JPA Whole Class Individual Pair Centers: ___ of ___(#) ___ JPA

PAGE 289

273 Independent Center Teacher Center Teacher Center w/enacting level IC Task Card (Circle): Y N NA Whole Class Individual Pair Centers: ___ of ___(#) Independent Center Teacher Center Teacher Center w/enacting level IC Task Card (Circle): Y N NA ___ JPA A dapted from the Indian a University Purdue University Indianapolis Observation sheet

PAGE 290

274 APPENDIX B Semi Structured Interview Protocol Demographic Data Gender Country of birth At what age did you first come to the USA Highest level of education Name of degree(s) Total years teaching world languages Total years teaching Fluently spoken languages Years of experience teaching outside of the USA Date: Location: Time: Interviewer: Interviewee: Part 1) Semi structured interview questions 1) Could you tell me when you first started studying or learning a different language? 2) Could you tell me about any differences you feel exist between when you studied another language in school and how most world l anguage classes are conducted now? 3) With respect to the entire process, did you talk with any other teachers about the coaching or JPA? Probes : What was the nature of these conversations? Did they contribute to your ability to implement aspects of JPA? 4) Th inking about pedagogy as we have discussed it, do you believe that any areas of your personal pedagogy have changed or are changing?

PAGE 291

275 Probes : Why or why not? Could you provide examples? Did anything aid or hinder change (e.g., moving from developing to enacting) ? When or how did you notice the change? 5) Can you explain which aspect of the pedagogy seemed most useful for you? Probes : Why? Part 2) Semi structured interview questions 1) What opinions do you have about the SPC rubric we used in the observations? Probes : Do you feel it accurately appraises the implementation of the Standard? Why or why not? 2) Do you feel that the SPC rubric works effectively in world language classes? Probes : Why or why not? Would you change, add, or remove anythi ng? Why or why not? Part 3) Semi structured interview questions about the whole process 1) Could you please share any other feelings you may have about the Standards or the coaching cycles? Probes : What areas of the coaching process were helpful or limiting ? 2) Do you feel that having access to instructional coaching would be useful for helping teachers do their jobs? Probes : Why or why not?

PAGE 292

276 APPENDIX C Consent Form Consent to participate in World Language Instructional Coaching (training) As World Language teacher s you are being asked to participate in a study of teacher training. This study investigates the use of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy in world language instruction and seeks to understand factors that may facilitate or impede their use in the classroom. Your participation in the training would include: Two to four meetings totaling two hours, during which the methods and purpose of the training will be explained. These meetings will focus mainly on one of the Standards for Effecti ve Pedagogy the framework that you will be asked to implement in the classroom. These meetings will take place at a time convenient for you (before, during, or after school). Four coaching cycles. A cycle consists of one 30 minute pre meeting, a class observation, and one 30 minute debriefing meeting. o The pre meeting and the debriefing meeting do not need to be on the same day as the observation. o The pre meeting is to discuss what techniques will be attempted during the observational lesson and to discuss other planning issues. o The observation will last the entire class period. o The debriefing meeting is for reflecting on the lesson, identifying any concerns, ideas, or positive aspects you perceived. o The instructional coach will also reflect on the lesson with you, relating feedback to the goals mutually agreed upon in the pre meeting. A semi structured interview to solicit you your views about the Standards and the training process in general. It is estimated that the entire study will take a pproximately seven weeks. Over this time, excluding the observations, actual meeting time will be one hour a week for the first six weeks. The semi structured interview during the last week should take no longer than 40 minutes depending on the depth of t he answers provided to the questions. The pre meetings, debriefing meetings, and semi structured interview will be recorded to ensure accurate responses and to decrease the time length of those meetings. There may be risks the researcher has not thought of. Possible discomforts or risks: Feeling nervous because your actions are being observed with respect to a pedagogical standard. Feeling uncomfortable discussing language teaching practices that are currently under debate in the field of second languag e education or second language acquisition.

PAGE 293

277 Possible benefits: Developing knowledge or information that may help influence world language education policies in the district, state, and move the field of world language teaching forward. Becoming familiar with a scientifically tested pedagogy that has produced positive results for students and positively affected the professional practice of many teachers. Every effort will be made to protect your privacy and confidentiality. Names of participant s, schools, and districts will be changed or not published at all. All recordings created will be kept in a passwordsecure database or locked storage cabinet with personal identification of individuals removed. If you have questions, you can call Coli n Hueston. You may also email at Colin.Hueston@ucdenver.edu Feel free to ask questions at any time. You may have questions about your rights as a participant in this study. If you have questions, you can call the COMIRB (the responsible Institutional Review Board). Their number is (303) 7241055. You have a choice about participating in this study. You do not have to participate in this study if you do not want to. You may stop participation in this study for any reason at any time. By participating in this study, you are agreeing to have your anonymous responses viewed by other researchers and people who may read about this work.

PAGE 294

278 APPENDIX D Rubric for Developing Interrater Reliability St andards Performance Continuum Plus: Six Standards for Effective Pedagogy: Annotated Rubric for Developing Inter rater Reliability Joint Productive Activity: Focus on Collaboration Notes and Examples Not Observed (0) Students work independently of one another Individual work, worksheets, writing, reading, that is intended to be done independently, is not observed for JPA. Round robin reading is not observed. Turntaking without any assistance is not observed. Emerging (1) Students are seated with a par tner or group, AND Students must be seated with a partner or small group to do work that meets one or more of the following criteria: (a) collaborate Students individually produce a product (see below) that becomes part of a larg er group, class, or school product, such as an ABC book, mural, debate, newspaper, or yearbook. Compiling individual work is not collaboration. Coordinated and synchronized activities like morning message or calisthenics are rated at the emerging level. T urn taking reading in small groups with assistance is emerging, and if the teacher solely assists in reading skill development, not comprehension, it is considered individual contributions to the reading of the text. Developing (2) The teacher and student s collaborate on a joint product in a whole class setting, A product can be tangible (i.e., Venn, story map, outline, report, solve math problem, debates, skits, organized games, etc) or intangible (i.e., comprehension of a story, introductory lectures, ps ychological development of empathy, understanding of loyalty as a concept, or

PAGE 295

279 community meetings about shared values, or physical acquisition of a skill). For intangible products, you must see clear evidence of a unifying objective. Rehearsal of a song, play, or sports drill for a future performance or game is rated at the developing level. To be considered a joint product in a whole class setting, there must be evidence of teacher and student collaboration to develop a tangible or intangible product. Coll aboration must include interaction and shared ownership of learning. OR students collaborate on a joint product in pairs or small groups. This is typically unassisted collaboration on a product; however, a teacher may float through to assist students, but it does not meet the criteria of being a full participant. It is also possible to have a teacher seated at a table with students but observe no collaboration or interaction with the teacher to produce a shared product. A center where the teacher sits silently or children listen to a teacher talk would be rated at the emerging level. Enacting (3) The teacher and a small group of students collaborate on a joint product. (Teacher does not float.) The teacher must be a full and continuous member of a small group (2 to 7 students), producing a shared tangible or intangible product. Co construction of meaning or comprehension, not solely skill development, is the focus. If there is no teacher student collaboration or interaction, the activity is rated at the emerging level. A mere presence of a teacher at a center does not automatically indicate the enacting level. Integrating (4) The teacher designs, enacts, and collaborates in joint productive activities that d emonstrate skillful integration of multiple standards simultaneously. 3 X 3 Rule: Three standards at the enacting level in a single activity setting (not across different activities) results in the 3s being raised to 4s. Teemant, A. (2012, June 30). Standards performance continuum plus: Six standar ds for effective pedagogy. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN