Presentation for the event: "Updating and Exploring CLT Possibilities for the 21st Century"

1. Frank Giraldo
Masters in English Didactics
University of Caldas

2. Exploring CLT
possibilities in a
Professional
Development Program
for In-service English
Language Teachers

3. A Professional Development Program
Qualitative Action
Research
In-service / Pre-service English language
teachers’ classroom performance

4. Question and Purpose
What is the effect of a
Professional Development Program
on the in-service and pre-service English language
teachers’
classroom performance in an English language institute?
• Find out nature of impact of PDP on the teachers’
classroom performance.

5. Rationale
• Learning
to reflect
to work collaboratively
to analyze and change experience
• Educating teachers
in a post-method pedagogy
on context-sensitive grounds
SLTE
6 teachers’
professionalism in
ELT
Teacher Educator

6. S
E
T
T
I
N
G

7. Needs identified among in-service teachers
Reflection
and
awareness
upon own
classroom
practice
Practice of
current
language
teaching
methodolo
gies
Awareness
on the
importance
of student
motivation
and
participation
in class
Approa
ch to
gramm
ar
teachin
g
Tasks for
different
learning
styles and
strategies
Problem: Birth of action research cycle

8. General Objective
To
improve
the
teaching
performance of in-service and
pre-service English language
teachers
through
the
implementation
of
a
professional
development
program.
What is the effect of a Professional Development Program on
the in-service/pre-service English language teachers’
classroom performance in an English language institute?

9. Specific Objectives
1. To increase teachers’ awareness about their own classroom
practice.
2. To strengthen the teachers’ practice of current methodologies
for language teaching.
3. To raise teachers’ awareness on the importance of students’
motivation and participation in class.
4. To promote a principled approach to grammar teaching.
5. To foster the inclusion of tasks for different learning styles and
strategies.

10. Professional Development:
Freeman, 1989
Villegas-Reimers, 2003
Diaz-Maggioli, 2004
Richards and Farrell, 2005
Wilde, 2010
Curriculum Development:
Brown, 1995
Richards, 2001
Nation and Macalister, 2010
Theoretical
Framework
Teacher Performance:
Ur, 1991
Brown, 2001
Harmer, 2007
Westwood, 2008
Ontario’s Educational Board, 2010
Richards, 2011
Reflective Teaching:
Cruickshank, 1981
Zeichner, 1982
Bartlett, 1990
Richards and Lockhart, 1994
Ur, 1991
Harmer, 2007b

11. Current Methodologies for
Language Teaching:
Stryker and Leaver, 1997
Richards and Rodgers, 2001
Bingham and Skehan, 2002
Brown, 2007
Harmer, 2007b
Student Motivation and
Participation:
Ur, 1991
Lightbown and Spada, 2006
Harmer, 2007a
Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011
Theoretical
Framework
Grammar teaching:
Ur, 1991
Thornbury, 1999
Brown, 2007
Learner Styles/Learning Strategies:
Lightbown and Spada, 2006
Oxford, 1990; 2003

12. Álvarez and Prada
2005
Sierra
2007
Theoretical
Framework
Cadavid, Quinchía, and Díaz
2009

13. Approach
Naturalistic
Anti-positivist
Idiographic
Burrell and Morgan, 1979
Method
Action Research
Carr and Kemmis, 1983
Methodology
Methodology
Qualitative
Creswell, 1979

14. D
I
A
G
N
O
S
T
I
C
S
T
A
G
E

15. Needs identified among in-service teachers
Reflection
and
awareness
upon own
classroom
practice
Practice of
current
language
teaching
methodolog
ies
Awareness
on the
importance of
student
motivation
and
participation
in class
Approach
to
grammar
teaching
Tasks for
different
learning
styles and
strategies

16. A
C
T
I
O
N
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
S
T
A
G
E
S

17. The Professional
Development Program
•
•
•
-
7 sessions, 3 hours, weekly
Praxizing (Sharkey, 2009)
Activities:
Discussions of readings assigned prior to workshops
Tutor presentations
Class observations: live and videoed
Planning, executing and reflecting upon lessons
Learning activities
Talks by experts; talks with students

18. SAMPLE
PDP LESSON

22. SAMPLE
DATA

25. • The in-service teachers made effective
connections between theory and practice
through the design of a lesson plan. This
practical activity demanded conscious work
from them.
• There were contradictions between what
they said they did and what they really did
in their teaching. The analysis of their own
lesson plan helped them reach that
conclusion.
• There was an increasing awareness towards
Communicative Language Teaching.

26. • The tutor guidance was key for good results.
When I interacted with them, the practical
activity was more enriching.
• Observation went well because it combined
theory and practice.
• The lesson plan with activities from the three
current methodologies helped them relate theory
and practice.
• There was more individual attention to every
single in-service teacher.
• There was an increasing awareness on
structuring activities more logically.

27. Participant # 2
• S/He has changed his/her teaching.
• S/He has more theory to apply in classes
and has positive results among students.
• S/He has been able to become aware of
his/her and his/her students’ progress.
• S/He has applied all current
methodologies for language teaching.
S/He didn’t do it before but is now. S/He
has seen the results.

28. Participant # 2
• S/He has increased his/her interest in
these methodologies and has applied
them, which s/he didn’t do before.
• S/He has developed strong interests
towards task-based language teaching and
in general towards all current
methodologies for language teaching.

31. Participant 4
Observation 1:
Students use language structures meaningfully
and to interact with others. Language at the oral
level is then used for a writing product, which
means activities are coherent somehow.
Observation 2:
Your grammar teaching is improving continuously
and the pacing is consistent. Lesson coherence:
between eliciting parts of a house, describing
your own as support and listening activity, and
the students talking about their own house,
coherence was high.

32. Participant 4
Observation 1:
Give tasks a clear communicative goal.
They wrote the routine to show you their
linguistic competences, which is perfectly
fine. In CLT and TBLT, what would they do
this for?
Observation 2:
The way they did the writing was only for
language display purposes, not for
communication.

33. “So, for example, when I would give
my lesson on Saturday, and then we
would have the course on Thursday,
and it was about a certain, you know,
concept or something, then I would
reflect if I have done it, if I haven’t
done it; if I should do it better, how
should I do it better? So, I would be
constantly reflecting, you know, on
what I already know and how I can
improve that, and yeah.”
Extract from an interview.

34. FINDING
On classroom performance
Holistic view of language
Principled approach to grammar teaching
Structured, coherent teaching
Planning based on current methodologies
Care for students’ needs and motivation

35. FINDING
On awareness of teaching and classroom
performance
Noticeable improvement in grammar
teaching
Beginning practice in methodologies for ELT
Sensitivity towards students’ needs and
motivations
Strategy-based instruction
Coherent teaching

36. FINDING
On the Professional Development Program as a Reason
for Improvement
Successful combination of theory and practice:
-
Theory and classroom activities
Experiential learning activities
Talks by experts
Practical planning activities
Reflection upon teaching
Role of teacher educator
- Feedback on practical planning activities: making sense of theory
- Observation cycle: Pre, while, post (reflection in action)
- Reflection on action: Theorizing from practice

37. Conclusions
and
recommendations

38. Professional development programs do
have an impact on teachers’ classroom
performance.
1
Conditions for this to happen:
•Teachers’ prior knowledge.
•Particular contexts.
•Sensitive to teachers’ needs.
•Not a top-down agenda.
•Careful needs analysis: Experience,
knowledge, beliefs, skills.

39. Theory and practice have a symbiotic
relationship in professional development
programs, and this relationship directly
benefits teachers’ classroom practice.
2
But how?
•Teachers using, criticizing and adding to
theory.
•Bringing improvement thanks to
reflection.
•Theory: reflects teaching needs, explicit
use of it in workshops; meaningful use of
it; practice and follow-up.

40. The teacher educator plays an important
role in helping teachers improve.
3
What should this role be like?
•Focus on strengths and aspects to improve.
•Connect theory and practice: Critical questions.
•F2F contact; monitoring plan: Observation
system
•Talking about teaching; making sense of
theory.
•Professional growth and feedback for PDP.

41. Special recommendation
4
Licenciaturas should consider
the findings in this AR study.
Use them how?
•Subjects combining theory
and practice.
•Attention to practicum
courses.

42. References (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Álvarez, G. and Prada, C. (2005). Teachers in a public school engage in a study group to reach
general agreements about a common approach to teaching English. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers’
Professional Development, 6, 119-132.
Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan
(Eds.), Second Language teacher education (pp. 202-214).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bingham, M. and Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language
instruction. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207-228). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved January 9th, 2013 from
http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/research/files/145.pdf
Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.).
New York: Pearson Longman.
Burns, A. & Richards, J. (2009).The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Cadavid, I., Quinchía, D. and Mosquera, C. (2009). Una propuesta holística de desarrollo
profesional para maestros de inglés de la básica primaria. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 14
(21), 133-158.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research.
London: Deakin University Press.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L.& Morrison, K. (1998).Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

43. References (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council of Europe (2001).Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,
and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004).Teacher-Centered Professional Development. ASCD Publications.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation.(2nd ed.) Harlow, UK: Pearson
Longman.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and
related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (1), 27-45.
Glaser, B. J. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research.New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.
González, A. (2007). Professional development of EFL teachers in Colombia. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y
Cultura, 12 (18), 309-332.
Harmer, J. (2007a).How to teach English. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007b).The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
Hopkins, D. (1995). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006).How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching language through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam, PHI: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Macaro, E. (2009). Developments in language learner strategies. In V. Cook & L. Wei (Eds.),
Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language teaching and learning. Volume 1 (pp.10-36). London: MPG
Books Group.
Ministry of Education in Ontario, Canada (2010). Teacher performance appraisal: Technical
requirements manual. Available at:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/pdfs/TPA_Manual_English_september2010l.pdf

44. References (3)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004).Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London:
Hodder Arnold, Hodder Education.
Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2010).Language curriculum design. New York:
Routledge.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston, MA: Newbury House Publisher.
Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Learning
styles and Strategies / Oxford, GALA.
Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T. (2005).Professional development for English language
teachers (strategies for teacher learning). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T. (2001).Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45. References (4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sharkey, J. (2009). Can we praxize second language teacher education? An invitation to join a
collective collaborative challenge. Íkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 14, (22), 125-150.
Sierra, A. (2007). Developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes through a study: A study on teachers’
professional development. IKALA: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 12 (18), 277-306.
Stryker, S. & Leaver, B. (1997).Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and
methods. Georgetown University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1999).How to teach grammar. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Ur, P.(1991). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the
literature. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Wallace, Michael J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Victoria, AU: ACER Press.
Wilde, J. (2010). Guidelines for professional development: An overview. In C. Casteel and K. G.
Ballantyne (Eds.), Professional Development in Action: Improving Teaching for English Learners. (pp. 511). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Available at
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf
Wright, T. (2010).Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Lang.
Teach., 43 (3), 259–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46. frankgiraldodesign.wordpress
.com
icaros@utp.edu.co