The role of teacher cognitions in the design and planning of a content-based class

The Role of Teacher Cognitions in the Design and Planning of a Content-based Class

Christopher Stobart Instituto de Idiomas Universidad del Norte Barranquilla

Contents Setting the scene 2. Literature review 3. Research objectives 4. Methodology 5. Results 6. Conclusion 1.

Setting the scene Beliefs Teacher Cognition Assumptions Knowledge

Influenced by

Planning Decisions Influenced by

How can I be a better teacher?

Quality of Teaching and S learning

How can I improve my decision making?

Literature Review Think

Do

Teacher cognition “unobservable cognitive dimension” (Borg 2003)

Educational psychology 1970’s

Teacher Education 1980’s

Language Teaching 1990´s (Borg 2009)

Literature Review “what is really happening in our teaching and why we really do what we do” (Woods 1996) Teacher considered an “unknown quantity” in SLA. (Larson-Freeman 1991)

“teachers are active, thinking decision makers who play an important role in shaping classroom events” (Borg 2006)

“the notion of teacher cognition is somewhat ambiguous” (Kagan1990)

(Borg 2003)

Research question

What planning procedures do I use when structuring a level 8 undergraduate English syllabus in the Language Institute of the Universidad Del Norte?

Specific questions 1

2 3

• What planning decisions do I make at different stages of the design process?

• What motivates these decisions?

(BAK)

• Why do I make these decisions?

Methodology 3 instruments

Qualitative

Decisions

•Instrument summary document 6 classes

•Comments on patterns and trends •Triangulation of data

• Journal • Video Observation • Lesson plan analysis

• Pre • Interactive • Post

• 2 hours each • Leadership Module • Pilot course

Video Observation

9.3 Class 1

Teacher Journals

What event occured?

What decisions were made and What factors led to this when? decision?

What components of BAK were involved when making the decision?

What was the outcome of the decision in terms of my learning as a teacher when designing a syllabus?

Student punctuality affecting class planning

I needed to change the activity very quickly as the 1st activity lays the foundations for the rest of the class. I had to create 2 groups and just give them 2 of the 4 leadership styles. I tried to pick an engaging topic which would create communication and discourse between the group. DURING task

Wanting to keep interest high and explain effectively the message of message of the activity.

Regrouping had to occur for the activity to be completed

B- Comes from my belief that the 1st activity lays the foundation for the rest of the class. It needs to inform about what we will be doing or engage the Ss in the class.

Not much changedepends more on students than syllabus design External factors need to be taken into consideration; they can affect the outcome of the activity.

Consider how I can improve punctuality in the class.

Student uncertainty over activity instructions

The leaders were not sure how to proceed in the groups and just acted as normal, there was no clear difference in their behaviour. I decided not to intervene as it would have complicated matters further. I had the chance to explain after the activity to combat any doubts.

POST class

Uncertainty visible from the leaders and confusion when the group was asked to identify the leaders’ style. They were not too sure what they needed to do after clarifying terms

Knowledge of how students react when they don’t fully understand a task.

I assumed the students would be able to adapt to the acting role quickly, I thought they had enough time and background knowledge to fulfill the role Beliefs on how to explain and give instructions I didn’t intervene as I thought it wouldn’t have improved the quality of the activity. These interventions can sometimes hinder the momentum of an activity and reduce its effectiveness.

For next class I will distribute a little note that explains their leadership style, they can refer to this during the length of the activity. It is also important to consider how I begin a class, perhaps an activity can be introduced that allows the majority of the class to arrive.

Journal summary Class 1- 14th October Objectives:

Define leadership and discuss different types of leaders.

Describe traits of effective leaders Discuss and evaluate different leadership styles.

Moment of decision:

1 pre-class 3 during class 1 post class

Type of decisions made

Pre-class: B, K During class 1: B, A K, K

During class 2: B, A During/post class 3: B, A, K

Comments In this class, the majority of the decisions came during the class. The pre-class decision was based on previous experience teaching this class with different material.

The mix of decisions is evenly spread over Beliefs, Assumptions and Knowledge.

Lesson Plan Analysis

•Comments written on lesson plans about modifications to class and course. •Introduction activities not aiding understanding

Lesson plan analysis Class 1: This lesson plan displays comments about the type of activity that would be beneficial in the future and also suggestions for how to improve the introductory activity that was used in class. There are also comment made about adjusting the length of the presentation involved in the class in order to keep the students focused on the themes and move them on to a more production based activity. Notes made on the type of final activity that would best serve the class along with the introduction of a problem -solving activity to conclude the session.

Comments Omission of task evident in lesson plan.

Notes taken to describe the change of activity in class.

I wrote comments explaining the type of activity I would introduce in the future.

Annotations made to signal the need for a more suitable final task. A group work activity involving some type of problem solving objective.

A future solution to this problem was

Actual written comments “match definitions in pairs..…didn’t do, include next time” “Final task- problem solving game with leadership activity” “Give info cards to explain”

proposed comments made in lesson plan stating need to review vocab using a different activity

Match definitions in pairs, go back and review. Include next time.

Instrument summary document Decision PRE-CLASS Modified lesson plan content I decided to take out a vocab activity where the Ss had to write definitions for the categories on the board. The class was very information centered and the students were losing their focus and attention

Journal (K) Knowledge about dynamic classes from the ICELT course, it is recommended to offer variety in methodology to maintain the students’ attention.

(B) Too much of the same style of activity causes the Ss to lose focus. We had been following the same strategies of a teacher led class and it was obvious to see their interest dropping off.

Lesson Plans

1-DURING CLASS Realization that the balance of the class wasn’t right and it needed changing.

I decided a final activity (a post task) could be used to show different qualities of leadership, it would also change the pace of the class and make it more dynamic.

(K)Knowledge of the problem solving activities and their benefits in the acquisition of language. They are designed to help people work as a team and generate leaders.

(A)I am assuming that actually doing a visual activity would be a better example that talking about the idea theoretically.

(B)Beliefs about how more meaningful activities can improve language learning and that fun/dynamic activities can effectively transmit important language ideas.

(K) Knowledge about interaction patterns during a class and how then need to vary in order to maintain students’ attention and interest in a subject

Annotations made to signal the need for a more suitable final task. A group work activity involving some type of problem solving objective.

“Final taskproblem solving game with leadership activity”

Omission of task evident in lesson plan.

Notes taken to describe the change of activity in class.

I wrote comments explaining the type of activity I would introduce in the future. “match definitions in pairs..…didn’t do, include next time”

Observation No indication in teacher language. Decision occurred before class.

Implications Pre-class planning decision was made using knowledge of what is “best practice” and what I assume would be best for the students.

Which one of the two cognitions is the most dominant? It seems my knowledge is being used to justify the beliefs I have and practices I implement in the class room.

Comments made describing the type of activity I asked the students to perform.

They were linking the ideas from class to their local situations and culture. so……. what we are going to do now is I want you to think locally, so in your groups I want you to write a list, you have a space in your books, I want you to write some ideas about this…(writing)………..what’ s the best leadership style in Colombia? In general, which one do you think is the most effective in your culture and society?

This interactive decision was seen in all 3 instruments and was noted twice during the lesson and once post-class.

All 3 areas were used to come to a decision to best serve the needs of the class.

It seems my personal convictions (beliefs, assumptions) carried more weight in this decision and had more influence over my actions. The decision was taken quickly and this deep cognitive decision surfaces out from the beliefs and assumptions I have about teaching, whilst being modified and justified by my professional knowledge.

Class summary implications Class 1: By looking at the results, it seems that knowledge cognitions were being predominantly utilized to justify decisions made pre-class. Knowledge cognitions were registered more in pre and post-decisions than interactive decisions. Interactive decisions displayed a range of cognitions but there seems to be a weighting preference towards belief and assumption cognitions regarding the final decision. Quicker, “in the moment� decisions� originated more from beliefs and assumptions than knowledge cognitions as there is less time to consider all the ramifications and impacts of the decisions I was taking. Decisions that have more time available for critical reflection show a broader range of cognitive influences than those which are made quickly under time constraints.

Instrument summary Moment of decision

Number of total decisions in the

Decisions based

Decisions based on

Decisions based on

units of analysis

on Belief

Assumption

Knowledge cognition

cognition

cognition

Pre-class

23

7

6

10

During class

40

12

12

16

Post class

20

8

4

8

Results •Interactive decisions, double the number of pre and post •Reading classes- B and A decisions negative impact

•Consider contextual influence on learning

•Pre and post class decisions •More influence from knowledge •Similar decison origins ratio •Process influenced decisions being made

Results •Interactive decisions dominated by B and A

Classes 1-3

Classes 4-6

• Even proportion of BAK decisions

• More K decisions • Less A decisions • Interactive decision more balanced

Conclusions •My beliefs and assumptions dominant in interactive decisions- NEGATIVE •K more visible later in study •Knowledge based decisions vital to filter and validate assumption and belief cognitions (Pennington 1995) Knowledge

Beliefs

Assumption

•Awareness of B and A vital to assess classroom decisions •Do we know?

Conclusions •More aware of what I do and why •Analyse “what” and “why” •Impact of decisions on class and student learning •Identification of areas for improvement •Reading classes •Assumptions on what students understand, benefit from •Personal reflection of teaching practices and decision making •Sounds obvious right?

What does the future hold……?

•Changes in beliefs in ESP Especialization students- 2 semester study •Teacher cognition in Evaluation/ assessment

•Everyday application of self-reflection in Teaching environments •Practical and effective model needed

Thanks for your interest

cstobart@uninorte.edu.co

References Borg, S. (2003). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do.

Language Teaching 36, 81-109 Borg, S. (2009). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved 2010 from http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/people/staff.php?staff=29 Breen, M, P. (1991). Understanding the language teacher. In R.K Johnson (ed.): The Second Language Curriculum.

Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, D, M. (1990). Ways of evaluating Teacher Cognition: Inferences Concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research. Vol 60 No. 3. Pp. 419-469

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Research on language teaching methodologies: A review of the past and an agenda for the future. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pennington, M, C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. TESOL Quarterly. Vol 29, No. 4, pp. 705-731 Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge