Metaphors We Teach By: Some Procedures that Trigger EFL Teacher Trainees’ Reflection

Grażyna Kiliańska-Przybyło, Poland

Grażyna Kiliańska-Przybylo, PhD, is a lecturer at the Institute of English (University of Silesia, Poland) where she is a teacher of English and a teacher trainer. Her academic interests include: teacher training; foreign language teacher education and teacher professional development; reflective teaching; the impact of contextual variables on teaching/learning process. E-mail: grazyna.kilianska-przybylo@us.edu.pl

Menu

Background
Examples of procedures enhancing reflection in teacher education
Study: summary and major findings
Conclusions
References

Background

The value of teachers’ implicit knowledge and the role of teacher’ thinking processes have been recognized since the late 60s (Borg 2006: 6). Bernat (2009) claims that the transformation from a language learner into a language teacher requires conceptual change and reconstruction of the identity. The questions that still remain unanswered are: “How do teacher trainees construct their knowledge about teaching?” and “What is the teacher trainees’ perception of teaching at different stages of the formal training?” (Borg 2003). The article aims at examining the issue of teacher implicit knowledge, which is crucial for understanding teacher’s behaviour. Another aim of the article is to examine various procedures that may help to uncover teacher’s cognitions and answer the questions posed earlier in the paragraph.

The concept of teacher implicit knowledge has intrigued many researchers, who provided different terms for the concept:

BAK: beliefs- assumption – knowledge (Woods 1996: 197)
Implicit knowledge (Švec 2006)
Implicit theories (Woods 1996: 192)
Tacit knowledge (Sternberg 1999 in Švec 2006)
Personal theory (Tann, in James 2001)
Personal practical knowledge (Clandinin and Connelly in Woods 1996: 192)

The review of the studies allows to enumerate the following features of teacher implicit knowledge:

1. personally relevant, situational, oriented towards practice (Clandinin and Connelly in Borg 2006: 59); private, depending on individual’s interpretation of received knowledge and experience (Tann 1993 in James 2001; Musiał 2003: 19).
2. it is structured at least three levels: rules of practice, practical principles and images (Elbaz 1983, in Thornbury 1998: 36). According to Elbaz, images constitute the main ordering feature of practical knowledge.
3. the elements of BAK (beliefs- assumption- knowledge) do not exist as individual entities but coalesce into patterns in particular situations (Woods 1996: 197);
4. some parts of personal practical knowledge are competing among themselves and conditional upon classroom variables (Borg 2006: 60);
5. it is open and developing rather than stable and exhaustible (Borg 2006: 60, Musiał 2003: 19); dynamic (Clandinin and Connelly in Borg 2006: 59);
6. it is only partially articulated: teachers usually cannot explain what they know and use intuitively (Musiał 2003: 19);
7. reflects and reveals their “inappropriate, unrealistic and naïve understanding of teaching and learning.” Borg (2003: 88) ;
8. it informs postactive decisions (those made after a lesson) as well as interactive ones (Borg 2006: 61).

As teacher trainees are often unaware of their own personal knowledge, many researchers have advocated the implementation of awareness-raising tasks. Clandinin (1986 cited in Vieira Abrahão 2006) points out that uncovering and verifying initial cognitions is crucial for bringing about conceptual changes of the trainees. Woodward (1991: 131) says that teacher trainers foremost responsibility is to help inexperienced teachers to build and adjust mental models, i.e. schemata for classroom teaching and learning. Tripp (1993: 5) claims that although most people become expert practitioners through actually doing the job, skilled professional teaching is also an intellectual matter. It requires understanding and reflection.

Examples of procedures enhancing reflection in teacher education

To trigger trainees’ reflection, I use the following procedures:

Procedure 1: ’Generating and discussing metaphors’

I ask participants to complete the two sentence ‘heads’ given just below and then their ideas in pairs or groups. The purpose of the activity is to help teachers to begin to articulate, understand and discuss their personal theories of educating, teaching and learning. If implemented at the beginning of the course, it gives trainees both a memorable start to the course and long-lasting food for thought.

Sentence heads (from James 2001, 164):

Then the participants receive the two lists of metaphors presented below and I ask them to comment on each one in groups. Their task is to find the most appropriate metaphor. This provides a starting point for a discussion on the role and qualities of a FL teacher.

Metaphor lists (from James 2001: 164):
A teacher is: a judge, a juggler, wearing different hats, feeding chickens, a doctor, a football manager, a preacher, a saint- teacher, a moral martyr, a reformer, a film director

Teacher education and development is: creative turbulence, going on a journey, walking down a corridor and opening doors.

Procedure 2: ‘What’s the best image?’

I bring some pictures representing various metaphors. Trainees select those which best depict the idea of the teaching/ learning process. I invite them to suggest their own images.

Procedure 3: ‘Metaphors for a lesson’

I ask participants to select the metaphor which best describes the teacher and the language lesson. I follow the stages suggested by Ur, namely: choose a metaphor, compare choices, analysis, optional follow-up (Ur 1996: 213).

Metaphors for a lesson: a variety show, a conversation, climbing a mountain, doing the shopping, eating a meal, a football game, a wedding, a symphony, a menu, consulting a doctor (source: Ur 1996: 213).

I extend the activity by asking trainees to provide their own ideas. First I provide them with some verbal cues, e.g.:

• Think of a lesson that surprised you the most. What was strange/ surprising in the lesson? What did the teacher do? If you were to compare the lesson to a thing/ an activity, what would it be?
• Recall the best and the worst lessons that you’ve participated in. Describe them briefly and think about the areas in which they differ. Now choose one word or expression for each of them which would give the essence of the lessons and show the difference between them.

The participants are supposed to do it individually and then, discuss their ideas in pairs. Later, some volunteers are invited to share the outcomes of their work to the whole group.

Procedure 4:’Verifying beliefs’

Asking trainees questions would uncover their beliefs about learning and teaching. Richards and Lockhart (1996) provide a sample of such questions. James (2001, 228) offers another example. His worksheet entitled “Getting to know each other: focus on me as a teacher” functions both as “an ice-breaker” (it facilitates group forming) and “a belief generator” (it helps the trainees to verbalize their beliefs).

First, I ask teacher trainees to answer the questions on their own. Next, they are requested to share their ideas in pairs or groups of 3-4. The activity is usually welcome by the trainees, who are responsive and willing to contribute their personal experiences. The participants are often surprised to notice that others have ideas similar to theirs.

Procedure 5: ‘Verbal associations’

Trainees are required to enumerate 6 words beginning with “R” that can be related to teaching and learning. The association task is followed by discussion and clarification of some terms.

Study: summary and major findings

Two groups of trainees (75 altogether) participated in the study. The first group consists of 40 students, aged 21- 22, with no prior formal training as teachers and very limited teaching experience, restricted mostly to giving private English lessons. The students have chosen English language teaching as their specialization. Their training included 380 hours of formal classes (the theory of SLA, ELT methodology, language pedagogy and psychology) and 120 hours of teaching practicum at different schools. The first year of training provided students with background knowledge, but also offered some practical sessions (in the form of tasks or questions, discussions, etc.). At the moment of study the teacher trainees entered the course with a mixture of curiosity and uncertainty of what would happen. They also had some doubts concerning the teaching practicum they were supposed to comply with at the end of the academic year.

The second group comprises 35 students at the age of 23- 24, who had completed the basic teacher training course and obtained qualifications necessary for teaching. Their teaching experience was more diverse as most of them taught in a variety of institutions. The trainees claimed to be overloaded with duties due to the necessity of combining both work and further studies. Yet, they were willing to contribute to the classes as it provided them with support and feedback on the possible problems they encountered in their work.

The study started with the participants’ completion of a series of sentences (see Procedure 1).

The teacher trainees’ perception of teaching – data presentation

Table 1. gives the metaphors most frequently used by the participants.

To judge by the completions offered to “A teacher is like…” (i.e., 19 completions vs. 16 for the group of more experienced trainees), both groups seemed to have a rather teacher-centered view of education, seeing the teacher, for instance, as a guide, a leader, an expert, a facilitator, a person struggling to maintain control. They are inclined towards the dominating role of the teacher in the class, whose role is to look after, supervise, create conducive conditions. The trainees in the two groups exploit the metaphor of garden, gardener and gardening, which evokes the association of effort, hard work, not always bringing positive and desirable results.

Members of both groups do not associate teacher with a model to follow. Teacher’s dominating role is guaranteed by his/ her position. The trainees do not attribute features related to admiration, respect, knowledge. Instead, teacher is rather perceived as a person giving directions, a guide and a person struggling to maintain control.

As far as differences are concerned, we may say that altogether, the trainees with no formal teaching experience provided 19 different completions of “Teaching is like…” (e.g., …like growing a garden), whereas the more experienced trainees provided only 11 (e.g., …like sailing in a boat on a stormy day).

The students belonging to Group I pointed to the unpredictability of the teaching process, which implies trainees’ readiness to face challenges but also their need of help and support. Trainees with no teaching experience tend to overemphasize teacher’s position (e.g. teacher as an expert) and the complexity of the teaching profession. In contrast, the participants from Group II stressed ambiguity and uncertainty of the teaching-learning process (e.g. floating the ocean) as well as the effort (e.g. building the wall), which indicates their attempts to manage the class and cope with teaching despite some obstacles. They stress the fact that teacher needs to be flexible. They also notice the impact of some external factors on the teaching/ learning process (e.g. teacher as a book => teacher as a source of knowledge, which may be consulted but not necessarily).

Teacher trainees were very consistent in the way they define teacher and teaching profession, regardless of their experience. Often the same metaphor was exploited to describe more than one aspect of the process – for example, if teaching was compared to gardening or leading someone through a labyrinth, then the teacher was perceived as a gardener or a guide (explorer), respectively. Here we can see a tendency towards coherence in the personal theories of a teacher trainee at any moment of professional development, which is a valuable hint for a teacher trainer. Yet, what needs to be stressed is the fact that the provided metaphors represent various levels of generalization and sometimes can have a very narrow application. Additionally, they often seem to indicate teacher trainees’ presentism (i.e. judgement informed by present situations and reflecting day-to-day decisions). That is why, the trainees offered a multitude of metaphors on particular issues and individual sometimes proposed several, often including contradictory metaphors (i.e. teacher is presented as a guide but also as a trainer; a parent but also a king/ a queen; a friend and a judge).

A particular set of metaphors offered by a trainee seems to derive from her or his experiences as a learner, what the trainee has learned (e.g., from lectures and reading), what they think should be said or done and limited teaching experience. To the extent that the metaphors reflect personal theories of an individual teacher trainee, these metaphors may also serve as the evidence of the search aiming at establishing one’s own teaching policy. This may be the reason why trainees with limited teaching experience provide long verbalizations, which, are devoid of emotional content in a way that indicates lack of identification with the metaphors produced. Similarly, the trainees with some teaching experience tend to be more emotionally attached to what they say, as the process of reflection upon one’s predisposition towards the profession has already started. Additionally, the study indicated that some beliefs are deeply rooted some beliefs and require time to be changed.

Conclusions

Throughout the year, the trainees were regularly exposed to awareness- raising tasks (Procedures: 1, 3 and 4), which proved extremely useful. Although these groups share some similarities (i.e. both groups represent rather traditional approach to educational system and largely exploit the metaphor of gardener), they also differ significantly in their perception of the role of the teacher and evaluation of the research procedures. While evaluating the course, they seem very enthusiastic and tend to focus on the changes they experience while shaping their professional identity as well as possibilities that the course offers (“I’m much more aware of what teaching is, I’m like an armed soldier.”). Teacher trainees with some experience concentrated on usefulness of the activities offered and provided personal, often critical comments. Training brought two more benefits. Firstly, it made students realize that talking about teaching does not always require professional jargon, but can be done by means of the metaphors used to describe feelings, ideas and concerns. Secondly, it enabled teacher students to generate some novel metaphors about teaching (novel metaphors are the ones in which ideas are combined in new or unusual ways, for details see Littlemore 2001).

References

Bernat, E. (2009). From language learners to language teachers: Conceptual metaphors of role identity in transition. Asian EFL Journal, www.asian-efl-journal.com/Bernat-2009.php

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. In: Language Teaching 36: 81-109.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education. Research and Practice. London: Continuum.

Clandinin, D.J. (1986). Classroom Practice: Teachers Images in Action. Lewes Sussex: The Palmer Press.

Ellis, R. (2001). The metaphorical construction of second language learners. In: Breen, M.P. 2001. Learner Contributions to Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson Education.

James, P. (2001). Teachers in Action. Tasks for In-service Language Teacher Education and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric intelligence and foreign language learning. Humanising Language Teaching Year 3; Issue 2; March 2001 old.hltmag.co.uk/mar01/mart1.htm

Musiał, A. (2003). Teacher Trainees’ Personal Theories of EFL Teaching and Learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Švec, V. (2006). Implicit Knowledge - a New Phenomenon in Teacher Education. In: Juszczyk, St. (ed.). The New Educational Review 10/ 2006, pp: 183- 194.

Tann, S. (1993). Eliciting Student Teachers’ Personal Theories. In: Calderhead, J. and Gates, P. 1993. Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development. London: Falmer Press.

Thornbury, S. (1998). Images of teaching. English Teaching Professional July 1998, issue 8, pp. 36- 37.

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching. Developing Professional Judgement. London: Roultedge

Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vieira Abrahoa, M. H. (2006). The Construction of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge in Initial Teacher Education. In: Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development retrieved from: www.scielo.org.co

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woodward, T. (1991). Models and Metaphors in Language Teacher Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Please check the Train the Trainer course at Pilgrims website.