Exploring a Practice-Based Approach to Foreign Language Teacher Preparation: A Work in Progress

Abstract

This article describes the implementation of a practice-based approach to foreign language (FL) teacher preparation. After briefly framing the discussion in relation to the literature on the practice-based approach in teacher education – including Phase I of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Research Priorities – we present the implementation and integration of this approach in the context of FL teacher preparation. The successes and challenges encountered throughout the implementation experience are discussed, and recommendations are made for practice-based course design in FL teacher preparation programs and for future research on the practice-based approach.

The Implementation of High‐Leverage Teaching Practices: From the University Classroom to the Field Site

“…The present study is an extension of exploratory research on a practice‐based approach in foreign language teacher preparation conducted at the University of Pittsburgh in 2010–2011 (Troyan, Davin, & Donato, ). In the exploratory study, researchers implemented a practice‐based approach in a practicum course in which candidates rehearsed and reflected on their implementation of three high‐leverage teaching practices around which the 15‐week course was centered: (1) using the target language comprehensibly during instruction, (2) questioning to build and assess student understanding, and (3) teaching grammar using an inductive and co‐constructed approach to form‐meaning relationships (Troyan et al, ).…”

“…The present study is an extension of exploratory research on a practice‐based approach in foreign language teacher preparation conducted at the University of Pittsburgh in 2010–2011 (Troyan, Davin, & Donato, ). In the exploratory study, researchers implemented a practice‐based approach in a practicum course in which candidates rehearsed and reflected on their implementation of three high‐leverage teaching practices around which the 15‐week course was centered: (1) using the target language comprehensibly during instruction, (2) questioning to build and assess student understanding, and (3) teaching grammar using an inductive and co‐constructed approach to form‐meaning relationships (Troyan et al, ). However, questions remained concerning the teacher candidates' ability to continue to implement these high‐leverage practices after participation in the teaching methods course, particularly since substantial evidence suggests that upon entering the classroom, teacher candidates struggle to enact the theories, methods, and techniques that they have learned within their university coursework (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hammerness et al, ; Kagan, ; Kennedy, ; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, ).…”

“…In previous phases of this work, we referred to the first high‐leverage teaching practice as “using the target language comprehensibly during instruction” (Troyan et al, , p. 162) due to the prevalence of this practice in methods textbooks, articles, and the professional discourse. However, this title was too reminiscent of Krashen's input hypothesis (Krashen, , , ; Krashen & Terrell, 1983), which does not recognize the essential role of interaction.…”

Using the EPOSTL for Dialogic Reflection in EFL Teacher Education

“…This does not negate the value of experiential knowledge nor the sanctioned literature to which they are exposed to in the coursework and the practicum experience. Recent EFL implementation studies have explored how to introduce new elements into a program to enhance the teacher learning process without corrupting or completely overhauling it (Troyan, Davin & Donato, 2013). As a relatively new program element, the EPOSTL, and the dialogic reflection it generates, operates in tandem with and as an outgrowth of the myriad ways that trainees are exposed to in the profession, whether they be the contextualized challenges of classroom practice, or the review of the principles behind certain theoretical assumptions being explored.…”

Language teacher education in the age of ambiguity: Educating responsive meaning makers in the world

“…Such pedagogies have been extensively discussed elsewhere in this special issue and more broadly (e.g., Johnson & Golombek, 2016;Troyan, Davin, & Donato, 2013). Yet, the changing landscape of both what language teachers are expected to do and how the research community is beginning to understand those tasks and the experiences by which language teachers grow into them, may mean a more radical reenvisioning of the scope of language teacher education.…”