Self-Reflection
Understanding Second Language Teacher Practice Using Microanalysis and Self-Re?ection:A Collaborative Case Study
ANNE LAZARATON ESL/ILES
214Nolte Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis,MN55455 Email:lazaratn@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html, NORIKO ISHIHARA 214Nolte Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis,MN55455 Email:ishi0029@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,
Research on second/foreign language teacher impressions,re?ections,and beliefs continues to illuminate various facets of language teacher knowledge and practice,but it has only recently begun to question the relationship between these teacher characteristics and actual classroom discourse.This collaborative case study undertaken by a discourse analyst and an English as a second language teacher concurrently analyzed data from one segment of transcribed gram-mar classroom interaction and the teacher’s focused self-re?ections in order to examine the insights both participants independently brought to bear on the understanding of the non-verbal behavior in the segment under scrutiny.Through these analyses and the collaborative dialogue that ensued,both the discourse analyst and the teacher came to reevaluate their research methodologies and to conclude that the microanalysis of classroom discourse and the teacher self-re?ections complemented each other by providing insights that neither method generated in isolation.
IN RECENT YEARS,THE FIELD OF APPLIED linguistics has witnessed the emergence and ex-pansion of second/foreign language(L2)teacher education as a vibrant sub?eld,one that is,in some ways,almost independent from other sub-?elds such as language assessment and language acquisition,due to its unique theme of educat-ing and informing pre-and in-service language teachers.The vast majority of empirical work on L2teacher practice has focused on teacher be-liefs,impressions,and re?ections about decision-making process,practical knowledge,and the like—data sources that are the standard in lan-guage teacher education research(e.g.,Freeman &Johnson,1998b;Johnson,1999).The methods of self-re?ection and narrative inquiry in the study of language teaching have been shown to be use-The Modern Language Journal,89,iv,(2005)
0026-7902/05/529–542$1.50/0
C 2005The Modern Language Journal ful and viable tools for teacher professional de-velopment(Cheng,2003;Johnson&Golombek, 2002).
However,such research,focusing on language teacher knowledge and beliefs,has,until recently, neglected to consider an additional,potentially crucial factor—the actual discourse produced in these teachers’classes.Close examination of class-room discourse recorded precisely as it happens not only allows detailed analyses of classroom practices,but can also validate or provide coun-terevidence to the self-re?ection provided by the teacher.It would be a mistake in this kind of close examination of classroom discourse to consider only the insights of the discourse analyst and not the insights of the participants in that discourse—in particular the classroom teacher.The teacher’s interpretation of the discourse might also support or discon?rm the researcher’s analysis of this talk. In other words,it is an empirical question whether or not,or to what extent,there is a match between (a)what teachers say they know and believe,and
530The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
what they actually do,and(b)the researcher’s and the teacher’s understanding of the classroom discourse,as revealed by?ne-grained analyses of it.This article reports on a collaborative case study by a discourse analyst and a practicing English as a second language(ESL)teacher and represents an initial attempt to answer three related questions on this topic:
1.What insights can a discourse analyst bring to bear on the understanding of a teacher’s non-verbal behavior as displayed in the classroom dis-course,and what additional insights can he or she gain through collaborative dialogue with the teacher that were not otherwise obvious by work-ing independently?
2.What insights can an ESL classroom teacher bring to bear on the understanding of his or her own nonverbal behavior as displayed in the class-room discourse,and what additional insights can he or she gain through collaborative dialogue with a discourse analyst that were not otherwise obvi-ous by working independently?
3.How can the analyst and the ESL teacher come to reevaluate their respective methodolo-gies as a result of collaborative dialogue? BACKGROUND
In recent years,applied linguists have focused their attention on L2teacher education and prac-tice;classroom discourse has been a locus of interest for quite some time.On the one hand, there is a growing body of research published on the topic of language teacher education in the form of books(e.g.,Freeman&Richards, 1996;Johnson,2000;Richards&Nunan,1990) and research articles(e.g.,the special issue on language teacher education in the1998TESOL Quarterly[Freeman&Johnson,1998a],and many more elsewhere).Studies in language teacher education are now regularly presented at confer-ences such as the annual convention of Teach-ers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL;under the rubric of the teacher ed-ucation interest section).The biannual confer-ence speci?cally on this topic,the International Conference on Language Teacher Education (ICLTE),is now well-established with increasing participation by teacher educators from around the globe.Themes that are prevalent in this scholarship include:the conceptualization of the teachers’knowledge base and its relationship to student learning(e.g.,Freeman&Johnson, 1998b;Johnson&Freeman,2001;Johnston& Goettsch,2000);teacher practice or beliefs,or both(e.g.,Breen,Hird,Milton,Oliver,&Thwaite, 2001;Burns,1992;Crookes,1997;Johnson,1992); the role of theory in language teacher education (e.g.,Johnson,1996;Schlessman,1997);curricula and instructional techniques in language teacher education programs(e.g.,Freeman&Cornwell, 1993;Ishihara,2003;Kamhi-Stein,2000;Stoynoff, 1999);and re?ective teaching and action research (e.g.,Johnson&Golombek,2002;Johnston,2001; Richards&Lockhart,1996;Stanley,1998,1999). From a teacher’s standpoint,systematic self-re?ection(i.e.,critical self-inquiry about one’s own teaching practice)requires the teacher to make a serious and sustained commitment to scrutinizing teaching principles and practices;this self-critique process is known to be rigorous and sometimes painstaking(Johnston,2001;Stanley, 1998).Action research,which most often relies on teachers’self-re?ection on their own teaching be-liefs and practice,if conducted systematically and extensively,promotes the construction of teach-ers’knowledge of their own practice,including experiential knowledge,disciplinary knowledge, and sociocultural knowledge of the teaching con-text.Although?rst-person narratives have gener-ally been marginalized as valid data in the social and human sciences(Pavlenko&Lantolf,2000), in the body of research on language teaching, self-reports have been extensively and reliably em-ployed as legitimate data sources(e.g.,Freeman &Richards,1996;Johnson,2000;Johnson& Golombek,2002;Woods,1996).Furthermore, the process of action research through re?ective practice or self-inquiry enables the construction of teacher-generated knowledge(Cheng,2003), thus empowering teachers as the creators and not just the holders of such knowledge(Beattie,1995; Johnson,1996).
On the other hand,applied linguistics re-searchers have long been preoccupied by the na-ture of talk produced in L2classrooms,especially classes where students are learning ESL.For the most part,this research has examined classroom discourse in order to determine its impact on lan-guage acquisition by the learner,but has not ex-plored the relationship between talk in classrooms and teacher knowledge or beliefs.Chaudron (1988),for example,summarized literally hun-dreds of studies(most of which were both experimental and quantitative in nature)that ana-lyzed:the amount and type of teacher talk;learner verbal behavior with respect to age,culture,and language task;teacher–student interaction in the L2classroom as shown through questioning be-havior and corrective feedback;and the in?u-ence of these factors on learning outcomes.More
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara531
recently,Johnson’s(1995)book analyzed the ways in which teacher communication patterns in?u-ence and in some ways restrict student partic-ipation opportunities,and by extension,their acquisition of a L2.Several later studies have em-ployed interpretive techniques in analyzing ac-tual recorded and transcribed talk to understand, for example,the means by which ESL teachers answered student requests for de?nitions of un-known vocabulary(Markee,1995),the ways in which the discourse patterns present in an adult ESL conversation class were in?uenced by partic-ular instructional goals of the teacher(Ulichny, 1996),and the ways in which teacher practices in the classroom led to“community strati?cation,”where“de?cient”students were barred from ben-e?cial classroom activities(Toohey,1998).Yet, a notable limitation of almost all of this L2 classroom-based research,in its nearly exclusive focus on the learner,is its failure to consider the insights and perspectives of the teachers in question.
It is heartening to see that a few studies(in-cluding several unpublished doctoral disserta-tions)have begun to question the assumed(or overlooked)link between beliefs about teach-ing and how teaching is actually practiced. Martinez(2000)investigated the relationship between the educational beliefs and the class-room literacy practices of a?rst-grade bilingual teacher.Her conceptions of her students,her students’learning,as well as her perceptions about literacy instruction and the extra-classroom demands on her,were shown to guide her lit-eracy practices.Tucker(2001)also compared teacher beliefs about language learning theories and teaching methods with classroom practice in data collected from middle school English class-rooms in China.Tucker found that there was no relationship between stated beliefs and actual practice.
Mastrini-McAteer(1997)looked at the beliefs and practices of18third-grade reading teachers and concluded that just over one quarter of the teachers taught in congruence with their stated beliefs about reading instruction;prior experi-ence seemed to in?uence beliefs about reading instruction the most,while actual classroom prac-tices were most affected by the materials used in the classes.In addition,classes in which the teachers taught reading according to their be-liefs showed signi?cantly greater gains in stu-dent achievement.Classroom literacy practices were also analyzed by Wharton-McDonald,Press-ley,and Hampston(1998),who conducted in-terviews with and observations of three groups (n=9)of?rst grade teachers.Data from the observations indicated that the three outstand-ing teachers’classes were rich in authentic read-ing and writing practice;these activities were balanced with explicit instruction in literacy skills. Comments from the teachers were taken as evi-dence of teacher beliefs about the importance of scaffolding,of having high expectations of stu-dents,and of having an awareness of purpose about class activities.
Finally,rather than looking broadly at class-room practice via observations,Oskoz and Liskin-Gasparro(2001)published a case study on the beliefs about and the discourse of corrective feed-back in a university-level Spanish class.Three hours of classroom instruction were audiotaped and coded for various features of feedback re-ported in previous literature.The teacher,a native speaker of Spanish,was also interviewed to elicit information about her beliefs on this classroom practice.She professed a belief that students were inhibited by frequent correction,but the data indicated that she provided extensive corrective feedback,not just in form-focused activities,but in activities with a communicative focus,where she claimed to use recasts most frequently. Still,what is missing in this small body of work is an explicit connection between classroom dis-course,on the one hand,and the teacher’s voice, on the other.It is the thesis of the present ar-ticle that both language teacher educators and discourse analysts need to consider both forms of information—that is,the insights gleaned from teacher-directed,self-re?ective action re-search and the results generated from researcher-directed microanalyses of classroom discourse. This collaborative process would allow us to de-termine,?rst,if there is a congruence between analyses of discourse and analyses of beliefs and impressions,and if there is not,to suggest a line of research that would stimulate further teacher re?ection and reinforce the discourse analysts’empirical claims.That is,such research has the potential to inform us about,on the one hand, what sorts of unique information each type of analysis provides,and on the other,how each anal-ysis may complement the other.This article rep-resents an initial attempt to consider the insights provided by these two approaches to understand-ing L2teacher practice by reporting the results of a collaborative case study project undertaken by an applied linguistics researcher using discourse analysis and an ESL classroom teacher using re-?ective practice.After a synopsis of our data col-lection procedures,we present the results of our collaborative research.
532The Modern Language Journal 89(2005)
METHOD
The data for this study were collected over a 20-month period in 2001–2002.Table 1represents a schematic of this process.Participants
Initially,the researcher (R)was awarded a grant to analyze the discourse that is present in In-tensive English Program (IEP)ESL classrooms at a large,Midwestern university.In February 2001,she approached two teachers (T and an-other teacher,who is not discussed in this article)who agreed to take part in the study,which in-volved videotaping three 50-minute classes each during a 15-week semester.T’s classes were video-taped by university language center personnel during February,March,and April of 2001in a university classroom equipped with two mounted corner cameras,several external microphones suspended from the ceiling,and one Sound Grab-ber table microphone at the front of the room.The camera setup allowed the researcher to view T’s whole body movements and her gaze,but did not capture in any systematic way the behavior or the talk of the students.
T,a female master’s degree candidate in ESL in her late 20s from Japan,had 5years of EFL teaching experience in a private language school in Japan and 1year of U.S.ESL experience as a teaching assistant in the IEP at the time of the tap-ing.Three of her Level 4(of 7)university intensive English grammar classes were taped.The teach-ing points for those days were:(a)relative clauses and gerunds,(b)past progressive verb tense,and (c)mass/count nouns and quanti?ers.
TABLE 1
Data Collection Procedures Researcher
Teacher
Videotaping of teaching:February–April,2001Initial inquiry:February–March,2001Initial impressions about teaching:February–April,2001
Transcription of verbal channel by a research assistant:July,2001
R1Addition of nonverbal behavior to transcript and microanalysis:July,2002T1–T2Initial reactions and re?ections:July,2001;July,2002R2–R4Written reactions to teacher’s writings:October 22,2002–November 18,2002T3–T6Written reactions and re?ections:October 5,2002–November 18,2002????→←????Meetings to watch videotapes and
collaborate on ideas:August 21,2002–October 24,2002←????????→
Note.R =Researcher;T =Teacher;R1–R4=Researcher’s analytic notes,comments;T1–T6=Teacher’s data source for action research.
A total of 23students were participants in one or more of the three videotaped classes.There was a nearly even mix of males and females,from their late teens to their early 30s.Nearly half of the students were from Korea and about one quarter were from Saudi Arabia;10other countries were represented in this group of learners.Procedures
R carefully viewed each of T’s three tapes af-ter recording in order to come up with some initial questions that might be pursued in fu-ture discourse analyses.One aspect of T’s behav-ior that immediately struck R as notable was the frequency and the variety of nonverbal behavior—including gestures,gaze,and body positioning—that T employed in her intermediate-level grammar classroom,especially behavior that ac-companied a number of unplanned explanations of vocabulary that arose during her three focus-on-form lessons.R decided that gesture use would be one area that she would look into further.T and R discussed the possibility of doing some collabo-rative research on T’s teaching,but this research was not undertaken until the fall of 2002.
Coincidentally,at about the same time,T,be-ing in the second year of her master’s program in teaching ESL,was engaged in some serious self-re?ection about her classroom teaching.Attempt-ing to evaluate her own teaching on the one hand (Where do I stand as an ESL teacher after sev-eral years of teaching EFL and ESL,and what are the issues of my teaching?),she was challenged to grapple with more fundamental questions (What prevents me from teaching as I believe?What are my teaching principles?)in the fast-paced life of
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara533
a teacher and graduate student.On the other hand,she felt that,due to the nurturing nature of the master’s degree program in which she was enrolled,she had not received much construc-tive feedback about her teaching,yet she thought some critique would be crucial to improve her teaching.Therefore,she accepted R’s request to participate in the study as an opportunity for both a diagnosis of and a systematic re?ection on her teaching.In order to investigate her teaching be-havior and to make more speci?c inquiries about her teaching,T adopted the methods of self-re?ection.Of course,it was evident that her teach-ing concerns could not be dissociated from her status as a nonnative English-speaking teacher, and her re?ection,as it is presented below,occa-sionally draws on this perspective.Nevertheless, the focus of this article rests on one aspect of her teaching,namely her use of nonverbal behavior, and we view our research more broadly,as an issue relevant to both native-and nonnative-speaking language teachers seeking professional develop-ment.The action research(or more speci?cally, exploratory practice)1on her part prompted fur-ther questions and self-examination,which will be discussed in detail.
During the summer of2001,a graduate research assistant,under the supervision of R, transcribed the audio portion of the three video-tapes using conversation analysis(CA)conven-tions(Atkinson&Heritage,1984;see Appendix). This process resulted in about75pages of tran-scription for T’s three50-minute classes. Then,over the summer of2002,R undertook a detailed analysis of T’s nonverbal behavior,us-ing the broad categories summarized by McNeill (1992).2This analysis required additional tran-scription of the visual aspects of her teaching, using a“second-line transcript”(see Lazaraton, 2002).In July,2002,R completed a manuscript on T’s nonverbal behavior(see Lazaraton,2004,for a comprehensive literature review on this topic); some of the?ndings from this analysis are dis-cussed below.Concurrently but independently,T was asked to begin an examination of her nonver-bal behavior on the teaching videos.The initial re?ections from and reactions to the videotapes by T are included in the results section. Beginning in August of2002and continuing to October of the same year,T and R met to view the videotapes together and discuss their content. Each of these seven meetings was audiotaped.T produced a rough transcription following each session so that we would have a written record of what we discussed,from which we would be able extract relevant analytic comments.Following our third meeting,T began a series of four written re-?ections and reactions,to which R responded in turn.This process resulted in a written,collab-orative dialogue between T and R,from which we were able to detect several themes,including corrective feedback practices,classroom manage-ment issues,cultural knowledge displays,and non-verbal behavior.Before turning to a discussion of this last aspect of T’s classroom practice—her nonverbal behavior—we would note the poten-tial richness of our data and the multiple layers of information they contain.It is no easy task to in-terweave these layers of information.The results we now present are just one(and certainly not the only or the best)attempt to make sense of our experiences with the data.
RESULTS
Three central?ndings that emerged from our collaboration are discussed below:(a)R’s dis-course analysis of T’s nonverbal behavior and her subsequent awareness of its limitations;(b)T’s interpretation of her teaching practice through action research,that is,her journey of self-re?ection,and the insights gained through col-laborative dialogue with R;and(c)T’s and R’s methodological reevaluations,derived from and stimulated during the collaboration,for under-standing L2teacher classroom discourse and for understanding teaching and articulating beliefs. R’s Discourse Analysis of T’s Nonverbal Behavior Using information gleaned from the few em-pirical applied linguistics studies on nonver-bal behavior(e.g.,Allen,2000;Gullberg,1998; McCafferty,1998,2002)and employing the dis-course analytic technique of microanalysis(as in Lazaraton,2002;Markee,2000),R carefully scru-tinized the nonverbal behavior that occurred dur-ing one sort of classroom talk in the data:the unplanned vocabulary explanations in T’s gram-mar lessons.Sequences in which vocabulary was explained seemed a logical place to start examin-ing nonverbal behavior,given that such behavior, as a communication strategy,is thought to serve one or more functions:as a replacement of,a sup-port for,or an accompaniment to lexical items or referents in discourse(e.g.,D¨o rnyei&Scott, 1997).One sort of information that is commonly conveyed in the ESL classroom is the meaning of vocabulary words,which as we know,is perhaps the prototypical language use situation requiring the deployment of nonverbal behavior.For exam-ple,words like mislay,weave,majority of,and argue
534The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
were all explained verbally and with accompany-ing gestures,body movement,and gaze by T.The most complex and most interesting of the frag-ments analyzed concerned T’s explanation of the word hypothesis.This explanation took place in the context of practice with count,noncount nouns, and the plural forms of count nouns.T had just explained the irregular plural form for hypothe-sis and theory,when a student(S1)asked her to de?ne hypothesis(see Excerpt1).
In line2of Excerpt1,T con?rms the word be-ing asked about by echoing hypothesis?while walk-ing towards the class from the board and assum-ing a thoughtful pose.She begins her explanation with“if you’re writing a(.)thesis”(a term which itself may be unfamiliar to these young,unma-triculated ESL students).Then she says“and you see one thing”and at one thing,her hands,with palms vertical and out?at,move up and down three times.The verbal emphasis on one thing is reinforced by the“beat”gestures that go with it. Next,she says“and you’re thinking of why:,”with why in clause?nal position and emphasized by its lengthened vowel.Concurrent with the onset of talk is her metaphoric gesture,pointing her right index?nger to her head(again,suggesting thinking).The kay serves as a con?rmation check, followed by“an you’re guessing,”the last word co-occurring with her right index?nger,still at her temple,making a circling motion(a metaphoric gesture suggesting wheels of thought).
After a.2second pause in line8,she continues, using the target vocabulary word,“hypothesis one this is beca:use of this.”An enumerative structure is projected by the one and a cause and effect rhetorical structure is suggested by the beca:use. The hand gestures that come with this talk are as follows:at“hypothesis one,”her hands,in front of her at her chest,are placed in a clapping position, which she moves from right to left.This may also signal metaphorically a cause and its effects. The verbal production of“hypothesis two”in line10occurs with the same hand position as for“hypothesis one”:both hands in front of her in a clapping position at her chest level.This phrase is followed by“so you’re(.2)uh lining up(.2)reasons”in lines10and12.At you’re,T’s right hand moves vertically from chest to waist in three chop movements,a metaphorical gesture suggesting the physical structure of a list.At lin-ing up,there are two more of the same vertical chop gestures,again suggesting a vertical list(al-though lining up is perhaps more a horizontal no-tion).Finally,at reasons,there are two more of the same gesture,followed by a self-correction,pos-sible reasons,which occurs with?ve hand chops,then the restatement of the lexical item in line 14:“they’re called(.)hypotheses.”
In line15,S1shows her(mis)understanding of this explanation by asking,“just like um:like an opinion or?”An unidenti?ed student repeats rea-son in line16,which is overlapped by T herself repeating“reasons yeah”in line17.She then un-dertakes a second attempt to explain hypothesis at “like you say:,”she resumes the thoughtful pose again,which is followed by“students in this class are nowt happy”(apparently an example of an observation she might make),at which time she again points to her head with her right index?n-ger.She then adds“and I am thinking why?”At why?she looks out the window of the classroom they are in.She adds“maybe it’s because it’s so: snowing so much.”At maybe,she points out the window,where the students can see a snowstorm raging(a good possible reason to be unhappy on April16!).And at so much,she puts her right thumb up in a“thumbs up”position to indicate number1.She then adds another possible reason in line25:“maybe its um maybe they don’t like American food?”Here maybe is accompanied by a head shake“no,”and at food,she adds her raised right index?nger to her raised right thumb to signal number2.
After a comprehension check,kay in line27, she says“I’m guessing reasons”(contrasting with lining up reasons in her?rst attempt),which oc-curs with two more vertical chops of the same metaphoric gesture for a list structure.She?n-ishes up her explanation by saying“they are hypotheses”in line29,which again is accompa-nied by three vertical chops.During the2.5sec-ond pause in line31and through line34,she nods.She also does two verbal comprehension checks,umkay and alright,before resuming her instruction on these nouns.
Here is R’s conclusion about this fragment:
In this example,T demonstrates both the highly com-plex and interrelated nature of gestures and speech and her competence at using these forms of commu-nication;we also see how these gestures add critical information to the verbal explanation being given.
A metaphorical gesture which implies“thinking”by pointing to the head,the concept of“guessing”that is conveyed through the metaphorical gesture“wheels of thought,”a cause and effect structure which is im-plied by the right to left“beat”gestures,and a physical list of reasons which is depicted by creating an imagi-nary vertical list with hand chops:all of these gestures support and add redundancy to the verbal message she relates.(R1,7/11/02)
Whereas this conclusion is still valid for R,she also understood that her transcription of the
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara535 EXCERPT1
Hypothesis
1S1:um whats mean(.)hy?-
2TE:hypothesis?,.hhh[um if you’re writing a(.)thesis
3[walk toward class,
assumes“thoughtful pose”
4(.)and you see[one thing(.)[and you’re thinking of
5[palms?at[point rt.index
and vertical?nger to head
move up and
down3times
6why:(.)kay?an you’re[guessing
7[index?nger in circle
motion
8(.2)[hypothesis[one[this is be[ca:use of[this
9[hands in clapping[hands in clapping
position at chest position at chest,
move R→L in two move R→L in three
beats beats
10(.2)[hypothesis[two so[you’re(.2)uh
11[hands in clapping[RH?at and horizontal
position at chest move down in three chop
move R→L in two movements
beats
12[lining up(.2)[reasons(.)[possible reasons
13?→[RH?at and horizontal[same but
move down in two chop?ve chops
movements
14they’re called(.)hypotheses
15S1:just like um:like an opinion or?
16S?:rea[son
17TE:[reasons yeah.(.)[like you say:(.2)
18[thoughtful pose
19[students in this class are nowt happy
20[point rt.index?nger to head
21(.)and I am thinking[why?(.2)
22[look out window
23[maybe it’s because it’s so:snowing[so much,
24[point out window[thumb shows
#1
25(.5)maybe[its um maybe they don’t like
26[shake head“no”
27american[food?,kay?
28[index?nger shows#2
29[I’m guessing reasons(.)[they are hypotheses.
30[RH?at and horizontal[same but
move down in two chop three chops
movements
31[(2.5)
32[nodding thru line33
33TE:umkay
34(2.0)
35TE:[alright?
36[looks to left then down
536The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
nonverbal behavior might have been too rough, and her data too meager.But it was only as a re-sult of this collaborative study that she was made acutely aware of the inherent limitations of her microanalysis for understanding this segment of classroom discourse.This realization was one im-portant outcome of the collaborative dialogues in which R and T engaged:
T:While I gave two sets of explanations for what hy-pothesis meant,I used two ways to demonstrate the parallel relationship of hypotheses.When explaining that hypotheses are educated guesses,I used vertical gestures listing those guesses,intending to visualize the plural form of the word,the focal point of that grammar class.(T4,10/19/02)
R:Huh.I didn’t get the fact that the gestures were to indicate plural—in fact,I forgot that this segment was about singular versus plural and not primarily about the meaning of the word!(R2,10/22/02)
T:When the student asked me what hypothesis meant, my mindset was still“singular-plural”mode.Besides, I had explained that some nouns were count,some others noncount,and still others could be either de-pending on the situation....Another point I made was that the distinction between count and noncount nouns was also sometimes counterintuitive and con-fusing....Such conceptualization of nouns is very complex for this level of students(and perhaps any-one else)....So while I explained the meaning of hypothesis,what I was trying to convey explicitly or im-plicitly,or at least what I had in the back of my mind was:(1)the meaning of the word,(2)the fact that even though it is an abstract noun,it can be counted (and always so,never noncount,unlike cheese,coffee or communication that can be either),(3)the irregular form of the plural of the word(as similar to oasis-oases, crisis-crises,basis-bases that we had discussed earlier in a few class periods before),and(4)the pronuncia-tion of the plural form(with the lengthened vowel [i:]with a secondary stress as opposed to unstressed schwa in the singular form)as well as the pronuncia-tion of singular(as it was dif?cult for this level,as you see S1[one of the students in the video]could not pronounce the word while asking its meaning).(T5, 10/26/02)
R:Okay,and all I got in my analysis was the construc-tion of the vocabulary explanation itself—the words and gestures used to convey this information(1)I totally missed(2),its count noncount status,(3)its irregular form,since the sequence I analyzed did not consider the immediately prior talk on this,and(4) the pronunciation aspect.So I only saw what I was looking for—the overall goals of the sequence,and the class,were lost on me.(R4,11/18/02)
After this dialogue with T,R returned to the video-tape to view the segment again,and retranscribed the word hypothesis as hypotheses in line29,where the plural morpheme is said more emphatically. Although this?ne-tuning of the data represen-tation may not constitute an actual reanalysis of this segment,T’s input made for a more accurate transcription of the key word,and,by extension, a more informed view on what occurred,as well as why.In other words,the microanalysis worked well for understanding what happened in the segment,and how the explanation was accom-plished.But it was limited to the sequence at hand; the larger pedagogical focus of the segment was missed.
T’s Interpretations and Insights
In T’s initial inquiries,very little attention was paid to nonverbal behavior;her written records (T1,7/01;T2,7/02)made no mention of that topic.The verbal aspects of teaching were so cen-tral for T that the nonverbal counterpart did not draw her attention.Moreover,in the collaborative dialogue with R,T initially expressed her skepti-cism a few times as to how meaningful her gestures were,and whether the gestures looked confusing. In her perception,her gestural repertoire was so limited that she suspected that the same gestures used for multiple purposes might have confused her students(Collaborative meetings4,9/16/02; and6,10/2/02).
However,through re?ection and discussion with R,T developed a new understanding about her nonverbal behavior in the classroom.Both studying R’s discourse analysis and collaboratively reviewing the teaching segment in question added objective evidence to T’s understanding of her own teaching.She came to believe that her non-verbal behavior was systematic and coordinated with the verbal explanation of the vocabulary: R:We can’t see it without a transcript,but the way that the gesture was coordinated with talk was just,it’s amazing how we do that as speakers.How the gestures get totally coordinated with the talk.(Collaborative meeting6,10/2/02)
R:I was looking at the explanations integrated with the nonverbal behavior....You got the words,and the gestures,totally integrated with each other to convey the meaning of the word.(Collaborative meeting5, 9/25/02)
T:What I thought were my idiosyncratic gestures in-deed had labels,or had been used by others...(e.g., wheels of thought;the thoughtful pose,the cause and effect gesture).Since I try to use nonverbal behavior that is appropriate in American culture while teach-ing...I was happy to learn that my gestures made sense to a Western audience and were viewed as mean-ingful behavior that was consistent with my verbal
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara537
behavior...it was reassuring that these microanalyses veri?ed my appropriate understanding and use of my second language nonverbal behavior.(T4,10/19/02) This understanding gained through collaboration and re?ection stimulated and?nally enabled T to analyze and articulate her beliefs about nonverbal behavior in L2teaching.First,upon hearing R’s comments“Gestures...have multiple meanings, just like words have multiple meanings”(Meeting 7,10/24/02),T came to realize the multifunc-tional nature of gestures.
Then,T’s renewed understanding of her use of gesture and her articulated belief about the use of nonverbal behavior in the L2classroom was transformed into her new experiential knowl-edge,evidence of which we can see in her written re?ection:
T:It[non-verbal behavior]can certainly be an effec-tive teaching aid that can bolster both teaching and student comprehension,provided that it is used in a pedagogically and culturally appropriate manner. To be effective,non-verbal behavior must be coordi-nated with the verbal counterpart in a non-obtrusive way,and used to send a consistent message.(T4, 10/19/02)
This excerpt from T’s re?ections clearly shows that the attention to nonverbal behavior brought by R provided T with an opportunity to re?ect on one aspect of her teaching practice that she would never have examined if she had been work-ing independently.The tools of re?ection(in this case,the combination of[a]reviewing the video-taped teaching independently and collaboratively and[b]studying R’s discourse analysis and inter-pretation)led T to a new understanding of her teaching with regard to nonverbal behavior.With this tangible and objective evidence,T was able to articulate her belief about nonverbal behavior in the L2classroom,which came to be new experi-ential knowledge of her own teaching.
T’s and R’s Methodological Reevaluations
For R,T’s?nal questions about the discourse analysis in which she engaged were quite reveal-ing.
T:How much did microanalysis inform you about my teaching?(T5,10/28/02)
R:It’s hard for me to answer this question about just this segment,because I have spent the last year using microanalysis to analyze lots of stuff in your teaching (and from the other teacher).What the microanalysis analysis has shown me is that for each of the factors I have looked at—cultural explanations,vocabulary explanations,gestural use,and corrective feedback—
there is a great deal of systematicity in your teaching. You have a repertoire of tools you use to accomplish these pedagogical activities.I have concluded in al-most every case they SEEM no different to me than what a native speaker would do,but I have no data to back that up.(R4,11/18/02)
T:Could you have gotten the same insights just by watching the videotaped segment in question a num-ber of times?
R:No.I would have had some hunches that I could make,and I would be able to talk about your teaching in general ways,but only through the detailed and systematic analysis,watching the segments again and again,looking at the transcripts again and again.This is the only way I feel that I have“evidence”for the claims I want to make....Watching the video is too ?eeting—I have no way of holding in my mind what I see,and I have no way of comparing it with other segments that might or might not be alike.Microanal-ysis is like a pair of glasses that I put on that impose or suggest some sort of order(but not the only or-der,or even the best order)on the messy data that I analyze.It is interesting though that my initial im-pression,back when the data were collected,is that you use gestures very effectively and this is part of what makes you a good teacher.Microanalysis has not changed my opinion—it’s just given me a leg to stand on,so to speak.(R4,11/18/02)
T:How important is it to you to make any claim about second language teaching and teacher development? R:From a“pure CA”standpoint,not important at all. Real world pedagogical applications are just not cen-tral to CA.From an applied perspective,somewhat, although I think CA is limited in terms of what it can claim.It can explain how things are done,but not why.On the other hand,most(all?)language teacher research is concerned with why,so some how work is called for.However,I think that a triangulation of methods,like we have employed in this study,does show promise in ways that CA and self-re?ection just can’t by themselves.If you think of CA as the how is-sue,and self-re?ection as the why,it would make sense to do them together.(R4,11/18/02)
That is,R has a better grasp of the value,and the limits,of her discourse analysis of T’s teaching. The microanalysis shed light on how T brought her nonverbal behavior to bear on the vocabu-lary explanations she gave,but not on why.Only T could“round out”the analysis in such a way as to provide R with the necessary information to understand what the“Hypothesis”segment actu-ally entailed,and how it was contextualized within the larger pedagogical frame of the activity,the class,and the course itself.In other words,R was forced to reexamine her own beliefs about participant voice in interpretive research,an al-ways contentious issue in applied linguistics and
538The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
other related disciplines(e.g.,Chapelle&Duff, 2003;Lazaraton,2003;Markee,2000;Moerman, 1988;Richards,2003).Although R has,to date,es-chewed appealing to or relying on ethnographic information from participants in her research,in line with prescriptions from conversation analysis, she has begun to question this purist stance.In this study,T’s input resulted in a retranscription of the key word being de?ned in the segment;this result only reinforces the point for R that T’s voice is perhaps the central one to which we should lis-ten,because it is her insights,experiences,and re?ections that underlie the study itself.
For T,the process of action research and the construction of new knowledge can be traced in her self-re?ective writing:
T:In our collaborative dialogues,R asked me ques-tions that I would never ask myself,and pushed me to think why I taught as I taught.Some of these questions stuck in my mind and stimulated further contemplation within myself.I questioned and re-thought what I had told her,taking it to another level of thinking and understanding.How do I know what I know?What shapes my view of second language teach-ing/learning?In other words,such collaborative re-?ection and further re?ection bridges my personal experience of being an EFL/ESL teacher/learner to my current teacher beliefs and professional identity in the United States.(T3,10/05/02)
The collaborative dialogues with R elicited T’s long-forgotten recollection of her past experience reading a book on her?rst language(L1)and L2language gestures(Williams,1998)and teach-ing gestures in her EFL classroom.The discus-sions also reminded T of the stated beliefs she had about teaching culture before entering the master’s degree program in ESL.Through ex-tensive self-re?ection,the empirical investigation of the classroom discourse,and the collaborative discussion with R,the action research employed in this study enabled her to make a connec-tion between deeply buried subconscious beliefs, half-forgotten experience,and the currently con-structed knowledge of her teaching,thus lead-ing to her continued professional growth.Some teacher education literature argues that inquiry into teachers’personal and professional language learning and teaching experiences allows teachers to link such experiences to their current teach-ing beliefs and practice(Fang,1996;Johnson& Golombek,2002).The methodological process of self-re?ection and action research can also engender in-depth critical self-exploration by stepping back,re?ecting,interpreting,and artic-ulating one’s own practice of teaching to arrive at an awareness of one’s own knowledge about teaching(the construction and reconstruction of the teachers’knowledge;Beattie,1995;John-son,1996).A teacher’s experiential knowledge entails not only contextualized knowledge of the class(e.g.,speci?c knowledge of the curriculum, materials,and learners,namely,the knowledge necessary for teaching and evaluating his or her classroom practice),but also knowledge of how his or her teaching beliefs came to be and how they relate to his or her own practice.This study also suggests that such knowledge can inform both the teacher and the discourse analyst in a broader context when the teacher functions as a research collaborator.
LIMITATIONS
Although we are pleased with the outcomes of our study,we would be remiss if we did not men-tion several potential drawbacks of this sort of collaborative work.For one,the labor-intensive nature of microanalysis of transcribed talk is well known by those who work in this area,and the time spent meeting each other,emailing back and forth to follow up and push ourselves forward, and systematically recording these events makes us somewhat cautious in recommending this ap-proach to others.We should note that the results discussed here are only a small part of the data collected.In the future,we plan to follow a simi-lar path in exploring our analyses of the corrective feedback that T used in her classes. Furthermore,we are acutely aware that our data,although quite enlightening,do not,in their current state,shed light on whether T’s newly gained knowledge about her teaching in fact led to enhanced teacher practice.Unfortunately,T has not formally taught ESL since the data were collected,so we have no information on this important question.In a similar vein,although earlier studies have reported learners’enhanced listening comprehension by use of a certain type of gestures(“illustrators,”Harris,2003),we have no evidence that the gestures T used led to enhanced student understanding(Johnson& Freeman,2001)in this particular classroom.The majority of the students are no longer in the coun-try,and even if they were,we know of no reliable or valid way of assessing the value of nonverbal behavior in student understanding or learning. In addition,because the discourse data came from videotapes of classroom interaction,the presence of the recording equipment undoubt-edly in?uenced T’s classroom behavior.In fact, in one of our collaborative meetings,T noted that she felt very self-conscious during the
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara539
tapings,perhaps not every moment but pretty much throughout the classes.Likewise,her stu-dents might have acted slightly differently be-cause of the change in the seating arrangement from the regular classroom.These observations are not meant to negate our?ndings,but to sug-gest that we interpret them prudently,with respect to how T might or might not behave in a“normal”situation.
No de?nitive claims about the nature of T’s nonverbal behavior can be made based on the one fragment analyzed in this article.Space limitations in publication venues almost always preclude mention of each relevant case in inter-pretive research.However,even an analysis and presentation of all such instances in the data are still subject to questions about how representa-tive they are of T’s behavior in other,untaped lessons,with other students,teaching other lan-guage skills.
Finally,of course,even though this collabo-rative process surely added to T’s experiential knowledge of her own practice,we cannot make claims about the generalizability of the expe-riential knowledge gains in this case study,or about how this experiential knowledge?ts into the larger knowledge base of language teacher educators.And,we cannot be sure about the ef-fectiveness of our research methodology for sup-plementing the interpretations of other discourse analysts working with other classroom teachers. IMPLICATIONS
In terms of concrete suggestions for teacher training and development,we note these impli-cations.First,teacher education programs may want to stress the importance of nonverbal be-havior in L2teaching.Although nonverbal com-munication reinforces or delivers meaning not communicated by verbal messages,it has been largely neglected in L2pedagogy(Harris,2003). For example,one prominent teacher education textbook used to teach Second Language Acqui-sition(Brown,2000)discusses various modes of nonverbal communication as part of communica-tive competence,but its application to L2peda-gogy is addressed in only one of the discussion questions in the conclusion of the chapter.If nonverbal communication is to be counted as an effective teaching aid or strategy,then it needs to be given more attention in teacher develop-ment programs(Shaw,2002).Native speakers use nonverbal communication at a subconscious level (Brown,2000),yet language teachers must be-come aware of its largely culturally speci?c nature as well as the ways they actually use it and how it can be best exploited in L2teaching.Nonnative-speaking language teachers may need to adjust their L1-based nonverbal behavior so as not to confuse learners when the L1-based nonverbal be-havior is employed concurrently with the verbal target language.Given that nonverbal behavior is largely subconscious and if no training is provided on its effective application,it is likely that lan-guage teachers will use it without ever re?ecting on or analyzing how such behavior is implicated in learning in the L2classroom. Furthermore,in order to achieve the goal of effective language teaching,the importance of teaching by principles(Brown,2001)has been ar-gued.The numerous instructional decisions that teachers make in practice must be consistent with each other as well as with the teacher’s princi-ples/beliefs;this consistency can be perhaps best attained by examining one’s teaching beliefs from a theoretical perspective and establishing a ratio-nale for each instructional decision.Scrutinizing one’s practice and beliefs may prompt more in-formed or analyzed instructional decisions,which should lead to new practices that are more co-herent.Conversely,a newly adopted practice can cause teachers to renew their teaching beliefs (Markee,1997).The present study has shown that the collaboration between R and T brought T’s use of gestures to light and promoted a deeper understanding of her practice,which led to an articulated belief on her part.Although investi-gating potential or actual changes in T’s practice is beyond the scope of this study(again,because T has not formally taught ESL in recent years),such an analyzed belief about and awareness of her practice might facilitate behaviors that are more consistent with her principles in terms of the use of gestures.This improved consistency points to a potentially successful marriage of research and practice in teacher development. CONCLUSION
To reiterate,we make the following claims based on the study reported here.First,the lan-guage teacher in this study was able to grasp more fully her own teaching practice,especially after one aspect of it—her nonverbal behavior—was brought to her attention by the discourse ana-lyst,who found this behavior remarkable.Sec-ond,the discourse analysis and the teacher self-re?ection together provided information that was unavailable to either the discourse analyst or the teacher using just one approach.Finally,not only did the two types of research generate different
540The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
information,but the particular results were then ?ltered through our collaboration,which ulti-mately shaped the perspectives that R and T have today on both discourse analysis methodology and L2teacher practice,in general,and on T’s practice in particular.We hope that this article will engender further discussions among applied linguists about some fundamental issues in L2 classroom practice that have not received enough attention in our discipline. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Elaine Tarone and the anony-mous reviewers for their helpful comments on previ-ous drafts of this article.Any errors that remain are,of course,our own.
NOTES
1Although the term action research is used in this ar-ticle for its broad scope(i.e.,teacher-initiated investi-gation of teaching practice;see Richards&Lockhart, 1996),more speci?cally,T was engaged in exploratory practice.Allwright(2001)distinguished action research, in which a problem in the current practice calls for ac-tion for change,from exploratory practice,which derives from the teacher’s“puzzle”that promotes action for un-derstanding.
2The McNeill system for classifying hand movements that occur in face-to-face interaction include the follow-ing categories:
Iconic gestures are closely related to the semantic con-tent of speech,or as Schegloff(1984)put it,“shape links them to lexical components of the talk”(p.275),which his work shows are generally pre-positioned with respect to the lexical element they invoke.Iconic gestures may be kinetographic,representing some bodily action like sweeping the?oor,or pictographic,representing the ac-tual form of an object,like outlining the shape of a box.
Metaphoric gestures may be pictographic or kineto-graphic like iconics,but they represent an abstract idea rather than a concrete object or action.An example is circling one’s?nger at one’s temple to signify the “wheels of thought.”
Deictic gestures have a pointing function,either actual or metaphoric.For example,we may point to an object in the immediate environment,or we may point behind us to represent past time.
Beats are gestures that have the same form regardless of the content to which they are linked.In a beat ges-ture,the hand moves with a rhythmical pulse that lines up with the stress peaks of speech.A typical beat gesture is a simple?ick of the hand or?ngers up and down,or back and forth;the movement is short and fast.Beats do not have referential meaning;rather,they seem to regulate the?ow of speech.
McNeill’s classi?cation system also includes two hand movements that are not considered to be“speech-associated”gestures,and they are often excluded from systematic study.Emblems are culturally speci?c repre-sentations of visual or logical objects that have standard-ized meanings.Examples include the V sign for victory, the raised middle?nger as an obscene gesture,and the like.Adaptors are unconscious movements performed by speakers,often in the form of grooming behaviors (playing with hair,rubbing one’s chin,etc.). REFERENCES
Allen,L.Q.(2000).Nonverbal accommodations in foreign language teacher talk.Applied Language
Learning,11,155–176.
Allwright,D.(2001).Three major processes of teacher development and the appropriate design crite-
ria for developing and using them.In B.John-
ston&S.Irujo(Eds.),Research and practice in lan-
guage teacher education:Voices from the?eld(CARLA
Working Paper No.19,pp.115–134).Minneapolis,
MN:Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition.
Atkinson,J.M.,&Heritage,J.(Eds.).(1984).Struc-tures of social action:Studies in conversation analysis.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Beattie,M.(1995).New prospects for teacher education: Narrative ways of knowing teaching and teacher
https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,cational Research,37(1),53–70. Breen,M.P.,Hird,B.,Milton,M.,Oliver,R.,&Thwaite,
A.(2001).Making sense of language teaching:
Teachers’principles and classroom practices.Ap-
plied Linguistics,22,470–501.
Brown,H.D.(2000).Principles of language learning and teaching(4th ed.).New York:Addison Wes-
ley Longman.
Brown,H.D.(2001).Teaching by principles:An interactive approach to language pedagogy(2nd ed.).New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Burns,A.(1992).Teacher beliefs and their in?uence on classroom practice.Prospect,7(3),56–66. Chapelle,C.,&Duff,P.A.(2003).Some guidelines for conducting quantitative and qualitative research
in TESOL:Conversation analysis.TESOL Quar-
terly,37,169–172.
Chaudron, C.(1988).Second language classrooms.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Cheng,A.(2003).[Review of the book Teachers’nar-rative inquiry as professional development].TESOL
Quarterly,37,181–182.
Crookes,G.(1997).What in?uences what and how sec-ond and foreign language teachers teach?Modern
Language Journal,81,67–79.
D¨o rnyei,Z.,&Scott,M.L.(1997).Communication strategies in a second language:De?nitions and
https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,nguage Learning,47,173–210. Fang,Z.(1996).A review of research on teacher beliefs and https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,cational Research,38,47–65.
Anne Lazaraton and Noriko Ishihara541
Freeman,D.,&Cornwell,W.S.(Eds.).(1993).New ways in teacher education.Alexandria,VA:Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Freeman,D.,&Johnson,K.E.(Eds.).(1998a).Research and practice in English language teacher educa-
tion[Special issue].TESOL Quarterly,32(3). Freeman,D.,&Johnson,K.E.(1998b).Reconceptu-alizing the knowledge-base of language teacher
education.TESOL Quarterly,32,397–417. Freeman,D.,&Richards,J.C.(1996).Teacher learning in language teaching.New York:Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Gullberg,M.(1998).Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse.Lund,Sweden:Lund
University Press.
Harris,T.(2003).Listening with your eyes:The impor-tance of speech-related gestures in the language
classroom.Foreign Language Annals,36,180–
187.
Ishihara,N.(2003).Curriculum components of the practicum in ESL.MinneTESOL/WITESOL Jour-
nal,20,1–20.
Johnson,K.E.(1992).Learning to teach:Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers.
TESOL Quarterly,26,507–535.
Johnson,K.E.(1995).Understanding communication in second language classrooms.New York:Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson,K.E.(1996).The role of theory in L2teacher education.TESOL Quarterly,30,765–771. Johnson,K.E.(1999).Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action.Boston:Heinle.
Johnson,K.E.(Ed.).(2000).Teacher education.Alexan-dria,VA:Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages.
Johnson,K.E.,&Freeman,D.(2001,May).Toward link-ing teacher knowledge and student learning.Paper
presented at the2nd International Conference
on Language Teacher Education,University of
Minnesota,Minneapolis.
Johnson,K.E.,&Golombek,P.R.(2002).Inquiry into experience.In K.E.Johnson&P.R.Golombek
(Eds.),Teachers’narrative inquiry as professional de-
velopment(pp.1–14).Cambridge:Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Johnston,B.(2001,May).Preparing re?ective teachers.Pa-per presented at the2nd International Confer-
ence on Language Teacher Education,University
of Minnesota,Minneapolis.
Johnston,B.,&Goettsch,K.(2000).In search of the knowledge base of language teaching:Explana-
tions by experienced teachers.Canadian Modern
Language Review,56,437–468.
Kamhi-Stein,L. D.(2000).Integrating computer-mediated communication tools into the prac-
ticum.In K. E.Johnson(Ed.),Teacher educa-
tion(pp.119–135).Alexandria,VA:Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Lazaraton,A.(2002).A qualitative approach to the valida-tion of oral language tests.Cambridge:Cambridge
University https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,zaraton,A.(2003).Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics:Whose criteria and
whose research?Modern Language Journal,87,1–
12.
Lazaraton,A.(2004).Gesture and speech in the vocab-ulary explanations of one ESL teacher:A micro-
analytic https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,nguage Learning,54,79–117. Markee,N.P.P.(1995).Teachers’answers to students’questions:Problematizing the issue of making
meaning.Issues in Applied Linguistics,6(2),63–92. Markee,N.P.P.(1997).Managing curricular innovation.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Markee,N.P.P.(2000).Conversation analysis.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Martinez,C.(2000).Constructing meaning:A study of a teacher’s educational beliefs and literacy practices
in a?rst grade bilingual classroom.Dissertation
Abstracts International,61(11),4265A.(UMI No.
9993004)
Mastrini-McAteer,M.L.(1997).Teacher beliefs and practices as they relate to reading instruction and
student achievement.Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional,58(12),4601A.(UMI No.9817730) McCafferty,S.G.(1998).Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech.Applied Linguistics,19,73–96. McCafferty,S.G.(2002).Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learn-
ing.Modern Language Journal,86,192–203. McNeill,D.(1992).Hand and mind:What the hands reveal about thought.Chicago:Chicago University Press. Moerman,M.(1988).Talking culture:Ethnography and conversation analysis.Philadelphia:University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Oskoz,A.,&Liskin-Gasparro,J.E.(2001).Corrective feedback,learner uptake,and teacher beliefs:A
pilot study.In X.Bonch-Bruevich,W.J.Crawford,
J.Hellermann,C.Higgins,&H.Nguyen(Eds.),
The past,present,and future of second language re-
search(pp.209–228).Somerville,MA:Cascadilla
Press.
Pavlenko,A.,&Lantolf,J.P.(2000).Second language learning as participation and the(re)construction
of selves.In A.Pavlenko&https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b3273719.html,ntolf(Eds.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning
(pp.155–177).Oxford:Oxford University Press. Richards,J.C.,&Lockhart,C.(1996).Re?ective teach-ing in second language classrooms.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards,J.C.,&Nunan,D.(Eds.).(1990).Second language teacher education.Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Richards,K.(2003).Qualitative inquiry in TESOL.
Hampshire,England:Palgrave Macmillan. Schegloff,E.A.(1984).On some gestures’relation to talk.In J.M.Atkinson&J.Heritage(Eds.),Struc-
tures of social action:Studies in conversation analysis
(pp.266–296).Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Schlessman,A.(1997).Comments on Karen E.John-son’s“The role of theory in L2teacher educa-
tion”:Re?ective experience as a foundation for
542The Modern Language Journal89(2005)
intelligent L2teacher education.TESOL Quarterly,
31,775–779.
Shaw,P.(2002,April).Physical aspects of language teacher training.Paper presented at the36th Annual
TESOL Convention,Salt Lake City,UT. Stanley,C.(1998).A framework for teacher re?ectivity.
TESOL Quarterly,32,584–591.
Stanley,C.(1999).Learning to think,feel and teach re?ectively.In J.Arnold(Ed.),Affect in language
learning(pp.109–124).Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Stoynoff,S.(1999).The TESOL practicum:An inte-grated model in the U.S.TESOL Quarterly,33,
145–151.
Toohey,K.(1998).“Breaking them up,taking them away”:ESL students in Grade1.TESOL Quarterly,
32,61–84.Tucker,R.A.,Jr.(2001).Beliefs and practices of teachers of English as a foreign language in Guiyang China
middle schools.Dissertation Abstracts International,
62(03),886A.(UMI No.3010126)
Ulichny,P.(1996).Performed conversations in an ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly,30,739–
764.
Wharton-McDonald,R.,Pressley,M.,&Hampston,J.
M.(1998).Literacy instruction in nine?rst-grade
classrooms:Teacher characteristics and student
achievement.Elementary School Journal,99,2,101–
128.
Williams,S.N.(1998).The illustrated handbook of Ameri-can and Japanese gestures.Tokyo:Kondansha Inter-
national Ltd.
Woods,D.(1996).Teacher cognition in language teaching.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX
Transcription Notation Symbols
(adapted from Atkinson&Heritage,1984)
1.Un?lled pauses or gaps—periods of silence,timed in tenths of a second by counting“beats”of elapsed time. Micropauses,those of less than.2seconds,are symbolized(.);longer pauses appear as a time within parentheses: (.5)is?ve tenths of a second.
2.Colon(:)—a lengthened sound or syllable;more colons prolong the stretch.
3.Dash(-)—a cut-off,usually a glottal stop.
4..hhh—an inbreath;.hhh!—strong inhalation.
5.Punctuation—markers of intonation rather than clausal structure;a period(.)is falling intonation,a question mark(?)is rising intonation,a comma(,)is continuing intonation.A question mark followed by a comma(?,) represents rising intonation,but is weaker than a(?).An exclamation mark(!)is animated intonation.
6.Brackets([])—overlapping talk,where utterances start and/or end simultaneously.
7.Underlining or CAPS—a word or SOund is emphasized.
Forthcoming in The Modern Language Journal
Larry Vandergrift.“Second Language Listening:Listening Ability or Language Pro?ciency?”
Hiram H.Maxim.“Integrating Textual Thinking into the Introductory College-Level Foreign Language Classroom”Kim McDonough.“Action Research and the Professional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants”
Barbara Mullock.“The Pedagogical Knowledge Base of Four TESOL Teachers”
Nobuko Chikamatsu.“L2Developmental Word Recognition:A Study of L1English readers of L2Japanese”Yanfang Tang.“Beyond Behavior:Goals of Cultural Learning in the Second Language Classroom”
Julio Roca De Larios,Rosa M.Manch′on,&Liz Murphy.“Generating Text in Native and Foreign Language Writing: A Temporal Analysis of Problem-Solving Formulation Processes”