Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 2)

(ตอนที่ 2)

Understan


Case Studies o


Amy B. M. Ts



Ml
taSffla




THE CAMBRIDGE APPLIED LINGUISTICS SERIES Series editors: Michael H. Long and Jack C. Richards
This series presents the findings of work in applied linguistics which are of direct relevance to language teaching and learning and of particular interest to applied linguists, researchers, language teachers, and teacher trainers.
Recent publications in this series:
Cognition and Second Language Instruction edited by Peter Robinson Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition by Carol A. Chapelle Contrastive Rhetoric - Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing
by Vila Connor Corpora in Applied Linguistics by Susan Hunston
Criterion-Referenced Language Testing by James Dean Brown and Thorn Hudson Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning edited by EH Hinkel Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon by David Singleton Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition edited by Catherine
Doughty and Jessica Williams Immersion Education: International Perspectives edited by Robert Keith Johnson and
Merrill Swain Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research
edited by Lyle R Bachman and Andrew D. Cohen Learning Vocabulary in Another Language by I.S.P. Nation Network-based Language Teaching - Concepts and Practice edited by
Mark Warschauer and Richard Kern Pragmatics in Language Teaching edited by Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes edited by John Flowerdew
and Matthew Peacock Researching and Applying Metaphor edited by Lynne Cameron and Graham Low Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition edited by James Coady and
Thomas Huckin Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching edited by Sandra Lee McKay and
Nancy H. Hornberger Text, Role, and Context - Developing Academic Literacies by Ann M. Johns



id (® \o<&S\ Understanding Expertise in Teaching Case Studies of Second Language Teachers Amy B. M. Tsui The University of Hong Kong ACADEMIC RESOURCE CENTER MAHASARAKHAMUNIVERSITY THAILAND SBK CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS THE CAMBRIDGE APPLIED LINGUISTICS SERIES Series editors: Michael H. Long and Jack C. Richards This series presents the findings of work in applied linguistics which are of direct relevance to language teaching and learning and of particular interest to applied linguists, researchers, language teachers, and teacher trainers. Recent publications in this series: Cognition and Second Language Instruction edited by Peter Robinson Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition by Carol A. Chapelle Contrastive Rhetoric - Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing by Ulla Connor Corpora in Applied Linguistics by Susan Hunston Criterion-Referenced Language Testing by James Dean Brown and Thorn Hudson Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning edited by Eli Hinkel Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon by David Singleton Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition edited by Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams Immersion Education: International Perspectives edited by Robert Keith Johnson and Merrill Swain Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research edited by Lyle R Bachman and Andrew D. Cohen Learning Vocabulary in Another Language by I.S.R Nation Network-based Language Teaching - Concepts and Practice edited by Mark Warschauer and Richard Kern Pragmatics in Language Teaching edited by Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes edited by John Flowerdew and Matthew Peacock Researching and Applying Metaphor edited by Lynne Cameron and Graham Low Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition edited by James Coady and Thomas Huckin Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching edited by Sandra Lee McKay and Nancy H. Hornberger Text, Role, and Context - Developing Academic Literacies by Ann M. Johns Contents Series Editors Preface page IX Acknowledgments xi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Conceptions of Expertise 9 Chapter 3 Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 22 Chapter 4 Teacher Knowledge 42 Chapter 5 The Case Studies 67 Chapter 6 The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 79 Chapter 7 Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom for ESL Learning 136 Chapter 8 Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 177 s. e. Chapter 9 Taking on the Challenge: Exploring Process Writing 225 Chapter 10 Understanding Expertise in Teaching Appendix 1 Reader's Comment Form on First Draft for the Second Writing Task (Angel's First Draft) Appendix 2 Learner Training in Making Revisions References Index 245 283 285 287 303 *. - . J ^-J _



.?*
mw^m-ru^'o,

420.7 TS789U 1-2003 c.l

Series Editors' Preface
While the nature of expertise has long attracted the attention of re-searchers in the field of cognitive psychology, until recently it has been relatively less explored in relation to classroom teaching and even less so in the field of second and foreign language teaching. Yet an under¬standing of how skilled and expert practitioners carry out their work is crucial to many aspects of teacher education. For example, it pro¬vides a benchmark against which less successful teaching can be com¬pared. It provides information relevant to the design of teacher educa¬tion programs. It provides a model of successful teaching that can be used to help understand the difficulties faced by novice teachers. It helps us understand the route novice teachers pass through as they acquire new knowledge and skills, and it helps us better understand the complexity of teaching.
While it is relatively easy to arrive at a common sense understanding of what we mean by expertise, it has proved a somewhat elusive concept for researchers to pin down and investigate. The author of this book has therefore provided a major service to the field of applied linguistics in this first detailed study of what expertise in language teaching consists of and how it develops in language teachers.
Through exploring the classroom practices and knowledge of her subjects in four fascinating and illuminating case studies, Tsui succeeds in clarifying the nature of expertise in ESL teaching, the factors that shape and influence its development, and how teachers employ their expertise in teaching. In the process, Tsui critically examines an extensive litera¬ture on teacher cognition and shows how teachers' theories, knowledge, experience, and goals shape their classroom practices and their transi¬tions from novices to experts. But as the author emphasizes, the book does not set out to generalize about ESL teachers as a profession: rather it seeks to explore the concept of expertise in teaching using ESL teachers as its subject matter.
This book thus provides a valuable addition to the literature on teacher cognition in second language teaching and will be of considerable interest to teachers, and teacher educators in TESOL, as well as others interested

x Series Editors' Preface
in better understanding the nature of expertise. It provides an excellent example of how theory and research can illuminate our understanding j of a familiar process such as teaching, and prompt us to rethink some of the assumptions we often hold about the nature of teaching and how teaching skills are acquired.
Michael H. Long Jack C. Richards

nt Acknowledgments
ig ^
ae
m
ag
ds
As a teacher educator, I have always been fascinated by excellent teachers and have always wondered how they have gotten to where they are now. Some of these teachers are my former students, I am pleased to say. A year's sabbatical from the University of Hong Kong allowed me to embark on a study of Marina, a teacher whom I have always admired, and three of her colleagues, one of whom was my student when the study was conducted, and two who became my students after the study.
A study of this kind depends very much on whether the teachers are willing to give me time amid their very busy teaching schedules. I am immensely grateful to the four teachers, Marina, Eva, Ching, and Genie (pseudonyms), for allowing me to intrude not only into their professional lives at work but also into their private lives. In particular, I owe a great debt to Marina, who was always very willing and ready to spend time
I with me even when she had had only an hour's sleep the night before.
■ I also wish to thank the school's principal, whose name shall remain unknown, for her kind support.
Since the idea of writing this book was first conceived, I have benefited from discussions with a number of people. James Calderhead, whose work I admire, gave me invaluable advice on narrowing the scope of my study at a very early stage. Brian Cooke and Graham Lock read the book proposal and the sample chapters. Their insightful comments helped me to obtain very positive feedback from the reviewers. The reviewers of the sample chapters, one of whom is Devon Woods, gave me very detailed feedback, which helped me to shape the rest of the book. I thank all of them for helping me to get the writing off the ground.
When I emerged from heaps and heaps of drafts, I wondered if anybody would be interested in reading this book at all. Ference Marton generously offered to read it on the plane on his way to a conference. His constructive criticism was immensely encouraging and his com¬ments helped me to see my work from a new perspective. Peter Falvey, amid writing his own book and getting six research students through their Ph.D.s, went through every single chapter meticulously within two weeks, picking out inconsistencies, unclear concepts, and stylistic

xii Acknowledgments
problems. I am very grateful to both of them for their generosity and friendship.
This book draws heavily on the work of Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia. I was lucky enough to discuss my work with them when they were visiting my department. I would like to thank both of them. In particular I must thank Marlene for reading several chapters and revisiting the notion of expertise with me amid her impossible schedule of managing her department and setting up projects in different parts of the world.
I also want to thank my research assistants who have meticulously transcribed the data and translated them from Cantonese to English: Michelle Woo, Grace Wong, Maria Chan, Ken Ho, and Sonia Cheung. Especially, I want to thank Maria for helping me to analyze the data with NUD*IST and Sonia for complying with my numerous requests. My technical colleagues, Sarnsom, Carven, and Benz helped me to video¬tape the lessons, and Dave made sure that my hard drive and zip drive were working properly. Winky Mok helped me with the final touches of the manuscript. I am grateful to all of them.
I am indebted to Jack Richards, the series editor, for encouraging me to put in a proposal when I shared my initial thoughts with him and for his positive and prompt responses to it. Mary Carson and Mary Vaughn have been most supportive and patient in answering my endless queries.
A number of colleagues kindly took over the running of the department when I locked myself up at home to finish the manuscript. They are Steve Andrews, Fran Lopez-Real, Flora Kan, Ida Mok, Nancy Law, and S. K. Tse, who have all served as Acting Head of Department. I thank them for their collegiality and friendship.
Finally, I must thank my husband, Chi Kin, for being most under-standing and supportive, especially when I was working under pressure to meet the deadline. He asked me at one stage when he could have his wife back. As I am typing this line, I am pleased to tell him that he can now have his wife back.

Introduction
In all professions there are people who perform exceptionally well and whose performance is regarded as exemplary, to be emulated by fel¬low members in the profession, particularly novices. These people are often referred to as experts. When we say people are experts in their profession, we expect them to possess certain qualities, such as being very knowledgeable in their field; being able to engage in skillful prac¬tice; and being able to make accurate diagnoses, insightful analyses, and the right decisions, often within a very short period of time. However, what exactly constitutes their expertise is something that is not yet fully understood. Researchers in artificial intelligence have been trying for several decades to approximate the way the expert human mind works, but so far they have not been able to fully capture human ex¬pertise. In the past twenty years or so, expertise has become a topic that has drawn increasing attention from researchers in professional education.
Just as there are experts in other professions, there are experts in the teaching profession. As teachers or teacher educators, we have all come across teachers who are able to command students' respect, to motivate them to learn, to maintain their interest, to get them involved in tasks, and to sustain their attention, even on a hot Friday afternoon. The lessons seem to flow smoothly from one stage to another stage, inte¬grating new information with what was covered in the previous lesson, the previous week, and even the previous year. These teachers seem to be able to get into the minds of their students and anticipate the ques¬tions that they will ask, the difficulties that they will have, and even the pranks that they will play - and these teachers will have effective means to counter them. The apparent effortlessness and fluidity with which these teachers accomplish the task of teaching in an environment as complex as the classroom had, for a long time, been taken as some¬thing that comes automatically with experience, until the last fifteen years or so when educational researchers began to study expertise in teaching.

2 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
1.1 Studies of Expertise in Teaching
Drawing on insights from the studies of expertise in other professions, and the studies of student-teachers, beginning teachers, and experienced teachers, investigations of teaching expertise have examined the char-acteristics of expert teachers and how they differ from novice teachers (see Berliner, 1994, for a detailed summary). These studies were heavily influenced by the information-processing model of the mind adopted by most of the expertise studies in other professions. The studies compared the cognitive processes in which expert and novice teachers engage when they plan and conduct lessons, and the quality of their reflections on their teaching. These studies show that expert teachers bear characteristics that have been identified in experts in other professions. According to Berliner (1992; 1995), expert teachers provide models of successful teaching that could serve as the scaffolding for novice teachers to attain a greater degree of competence (see Berliner, 1992; 1995). However, how far do these characteristics capture the nature of expert teachers' work and their teaching act in the classroom? Do expert teachers actually engage in the kinds of cognitive processes delineated as they conduct their everyday lives in their classrooms and their schools? How far do these characteris-tics highlight the critical differences between novice and expert teachers?
1.2 Neglected Aspects in Expertise Studies
As mentioned above, most of the expert-novice studies were based on information-processing theory in cognitive psychology, which assumes that the cognitive processes in which teachers engage take place in their minds and are independent of the context. However, ethnographic case studies of teachers' work and teachers' lives show that the knowledge and skills teachers develop are closely bound up with the specific contexts in which they work and in their own personal histories. This distinctive knowledge held by teachers has been characterized as personal, practical, and situated. The relationship between the knowledge that they develop and the context in which they work is dialectical. That is to say, teachers' knowledge must be understood in terms of the way they respond to their contexts of work, and this in turn shapes the contexts in which their knowledge is developed. Seen in this light, the way expert teachers relate to their contexts of work would be an important feature of expertise. This aspect, however, has not been fully addressed by existing studies in teaching expertise.
In addition to the above aspect, there seem to be two further areas that have not been given the attention that they deserve. First, as Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) point out, like expert-novice studies in other

Introduction 3
domains, the focus of these studies has been on what experts can do that novices cannot. Few studies have investigated how and why expert teach-:ssions ers become what they are while their peers simply remain experienced 'ienced nonexperts (see, however, Bullough, 1989; Bullough and Baughman, t char- 1993; 1995). Second, most of the studies of novice and expert teach-•achers ers nave f°cusecl on tne management of the classroom or on the generic leavilv aspects of teaching. Not many have investigated the subject-content as-»ted bv Pect °^ teacner knowledge and the way novice and expert teachers deal ipared w*tn lt m tne classroom (f°r exceptions, see the work of Leinhardt and 1 when ner colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh and the collection of studies n their m trophy, 1991; Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990). This is partly because :sthat many of these studies investigated teachers across a number of subject ^rliner disciplines. Shulman (1987) points out that the management of the class-£ that room and the "management of ideas" are equally important aspects of reater teacher knowledge (p. 1). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) further point :ar do out tnat understanding the knowledge base of expert teachers is a very I their important part of understanding expertise in teaching. In other words, in the t0 understand the knowledge base of expert teachers, it is necessary to rycjay include an investigation of their subject-specific knowledge, how it dif-teris- ^ers fr°m tnat °^ novice teachers, and how expert teachers develop this hers? knowledge.
Research on second-language teacher education has had a relatively
late start. Although there is a body of practice in second-language teacher
education, little has been done on second-language teachers that could
provide a theoretical basis for second-language teacher education. The
d on first substantial piece of work on second-language teacher education was
;imes a vomme edited by Richards and Nunan (1990). Since then, there have
their keen a numDer °f studies in this area, notably those by Richards and
case Lockhart (1994) on reflective teaching in second language classrooms and
edge an edited volume by Freeman and Richards (1996) on teacher learning
■exts *n lanSuaSe teaching. Relatively little work has been done on expertise
:t|ve in ESL (English as a Second Language) teaching (see however, Richards,
jcaj Li, and Tang, 1995) and still less on the development of expertise in ESL
,j0p teaching.
iers' This book is an attempt to further our understanding of teaching ex-
j to pertise through case studies of ESL teachers. It addresses the following
[je|r questions:
late • What are the critical differences between expert and novice teachers?
:ise- • How does a teacher become an expert teacher? What are the phases
s in that he or she goes through in the process of acquiring expertise?
• What are the factors that shape the development of expertise?
eas
[ter After addressing these three questions, the concept of expertise will be
ker revisited to see if we have come to a new understanding of expertise.

4 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
1.3 Case Studies of ESL Teachers
The case studies, which took a year and a half to complete, consist of four ESL teachers; Marina, Ching, Eva, and Genie. These four teachers have different academic backgrounds and professional training, are at different phases of their professional development, and have attained different levels of teaching competence. When the study began, Marina, the expert teacher, was in her eighth year of teaching. Genie was in her second year of teaching and was still very much a novice teacher. Eva and Ching, the experienced teachers, were both in their fifth year of teaching. The classroom practices and knowledge of these four teachers, specifi¬cally in ESL teaching, were investigated in order to gain a more com¬prehensive understanding of what constitutes expertise in ESL teaching. Investigations were also conducted on the professional developments of these four teachers, and the factors and sources of influence that shaped their development, in order to gain a better understanding of teaching expertise as a process rather than a state that is reached after a number of years of experience. The investigation of the professional development of Marina, in particular, will illuminate the process of acquiring and maintaining expertise.
1.4 Identifying Novice and Expert Teachers
Studying novice and expert teachers necessarily raises the question of how one identifies them. Identifying novice teachers is relatively straight-forward. The term novice teacher is commonly used in the literature to describe teachers with little or no teaching experience. They are either student-teachers or teachers in their first year of teaching. Occasionally, the term novice is used for people who are in business and industry, but have an interest in teaching. These people have subject matter knowledge, but no teaching experience at all and no formal pedagogical training (see, for example, Sabers, Cushing, and Berliner, 1991). In some studies the term postulant has been used instead to distinguish them from novice teachers (see for example Berliner and Carter, 1989).
The identification of expert teachers is more problematic. As Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) point out, it is much harder to identify an ex¬pert teacher than, say, an expert brain surgeon, who can remove brain tumors. This is because unravelling what distinguishes an expert from a nonexpert teacher is very difficult. There is as yet no reliable way of identifying expert teachers (see also Leinhardt, 1990). In all studies of novice and expert teachers, teaching experience (usually more than five years of teaching) is one of the criteria for selecting expert teachers.

Introduction 5
|n some studies it is the only criterion (see, for example, Peterson and Comeaux, 1987). In most studies, in addition to teaching experience, ex-triple^ Pert teachers were identified by nominations or recommendations from lese /on < school administrators, usually the principal, or the school district board 1 traini as outstanding teachers. In some cases the nominated teachers were fur-id have ^er screened by the research team (see for example Sabers et al., 1991). began I ^n ot^er cases there were further criteria such as being selected as a coop--enie w f erating teacher by university faculties or a mentor-teacher by the school ?acher *d district boards (see, for example, Westerman, 1991; Swanson, O'Connor, >ar oft \£. anc' Cooney, 1990), being awarded teacher of the year by the state, and lchers 'ifi- hav*n£ attained a master's degree (see, for example, Swanson et al., 1990; a ^ ' m.Copeland, Birmingham, DeMeulle, D'Emidio-Caston, and Natal, 1994). £S£ t Mngln L^inhardt and Greeno's study (1986), expertise was linked to the aca-?/0p ts 0demic achievement of students. Expert mathematics teachers were iden-that sh^^ified by the scores of their students being in the top 15 percent of the °f teachinjchool for at least three years in the past five years. In Leinhardt, Putnam, 1 number o>tein, and Baxter (1991), the criteria were extended to include supervisor eveiopmei#nd peer nomination.
'UIrmg anc Among the criteria cited in the research studies so far, the more fre¬
quently used criteria are years of teaching experience and recommenda¬
tion by school administrators. Neither criterion is without problems.
First, experience and expertise are not synonymous, as Bereiter and
Scardamalia have so convincingly argued (see 1.3). Second, it is often
unclear what criteria school principals used when recommending out¬
standing teachers, as pointed out by Olson (1992). Apart from individ-
estion of ual variations in principals' recommendations, there are also cultural
straight- or societal variations. In different cultures or societies, the criteria for
'ature to judging teaching expertise may vary. For example, a very examination-
'e either oriented education system may use student scores in public examinations
;J°naiIy, as an important criterion for identifying expert teachers. The additional
fry? but external and objective criteria used in the studies such as awards, aca-
^pdge, demic qualifications, and student achievement are equally problematic.
'aming The use of student achievement as a criterion for determining excellence
•tudies in teaching is questionable for a number of reasons, one of which is
novice that it represents a narrow view of what effective teaching embraces (see
Shulman, 1992, for a critique of the process-product research paradigm).
reiter The use of academic qualifications is problematic because an academic
a ex- degree, be it a master's or even a doctoral degree, is no indication of
>rain teaching competence. There are professors who are very distinguished
r°m in their own fields but who are very poor teachers. The use of outside
Y of awards, such as the teacher of the year award as outlined by Berliner
5 of (1986) is also problematic in that, according to Berliner, the judges
five are often untrained, inexperienced, and from professions other than
-rs- teaching.

6 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
ol
So far, there have been no commonly accepted criteria or methods for
identifying expert teachers. In fact, for the reasons outlined above, it is
highly doubtful whether it is possible to formulate commonly accepted ^
criteria, and how meaningful it is to do so. Very often, the terms expert ,
m a i
teacher and experienced teacher are used interchangeably (see, for exam¬
ple, Peterson and Comeaux, 1987). There is also a tendency to equate
expertise with technical specialization (see, for example, Welker, 1991).
This reflects not so much a lack of clarity in thinking, or methodological •
weakness, as our limited understanding of expertise in teaching. While we c
are still trying to grapple with what constitutes expertise in teaching, we i
en cli
CO
in in. so
have no choice but to rely on a combination of criteria such as experi¬
ence, reputation, and recommendation, as well as classroom observation i c
to identify expert teachers. In the case studies of the four ESL teachers, Q
the expert teacher, Marina, was identified in such a way. As we shall see
in the concluding chapter, the investigation of Marina's expertise leads /$
to a reconceptualization of the notion of expertise.
1.5 Overview of the Book
This book is written for teachers, teacher-educators, and researchers who are interested in teaching expertise, teachers5 professional development,
and teacher knowledge in general. The first part of the book (Chapters 2 0f
through 4) provides reviews of important studies in expertise and ex- re,
pertise in teaching and teacher knowledge. In Chapter 4, a reconceptu- OL
alization of teacher knowledge as integrated and situated is proposed. stl
These chapters provide the background knowledge and the theoretical
en an
framework for understanding the discussion of the case studies, and es- te;
pecially the theoretical arguments in the concluding chapter, Chapter 10.
The second part of the book (Chapters 5 through 9) provides detailed
descriptions of the professional development of these four teachers, the co
thinking and knowledge of ESL teachers at different levels of teaching de
competence, and how they deal with specific aspects of ESL teaching. js
This part will be of special interest and relevance to ESL teachers and g0
ESL teacher educators. Chapter 10 addresses unanswered questions and in,
revisits the concept of expertise. is
Chapter 2 examines three prominent theories of expertise which have me THAILAND
are »ro~
r3 is The systematic study of expertise began with the work of deGroot
ery (1965), who investigated the differences between chess masters and
ne? less competent chess players. He found, for example, that chess mas-
iey ters are able to recognize and reproduce chess patterns very quickly
nly and accurately whereas less competent players cannot. At about the
ity. same time, research had already begun on getting computers to simu-
eet late practical human intelligence in problem solving. Note the work of
°f Herbert Simon and Allen Newall, which used an information-processing
^er approach in getting computers to simulate master chess players (see
ing Newall, 1963; Newall, Shaw, and Simon, 1963). Subsequently, there
'Is, were further studies not only on experts in chess playing (see, for ex-
>w, ample, Newell and Simon, 1972; Simon and Chase, 1973), but on
?er experts in other fields such as medicine, law, radiology, and aeronau-
ng tics (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986; Chi et al., 1988), nursing (Benner,
ed 1984; Benner, Tanner, and Chesla, 1996), and physics problem solv-
vn ing (see, for example, Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser, 1981). More recent
ier studies of expertise have covered experts in skills like dance (Solso and
by Dallop, 1995), music appreciation and performance (Sloboda, 1991),
he professional acting (Noice and Noice, 1997), and naturalistic decision-
de making of experts in a wide range of areas from nuclear power plant
n- emergencies to the military (see, for example, the volume of collected
he | papers in Zsambok and Klein, 1997). Some of these studies adopted an
's, information processing approach, but some adopted fundamentally dif¬
ferent approaches that are philosophical and phenomenological in ori-
of I entation. In these studies various theories of expertise have been put
ctl forward to characterize experts and the ways in which they differ from
h- I novices.
•is i In this chapter we shall examine some of the prominent theories of
es ! human expertise that have been most frequently cited in the study
rs \ of teaching expertise and the critical features of expertise expounded
-d \ in these theories. The insights provided by these theories will serve
re | as the basis for discussing existing studies on expertise in teaching in
Chapter 3.

10 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
2.1 Expertise as Intuition and Tacit Knowledge th

ui
One of the most frequently cited studies on expertise is Dreyfus and pt
Dreyfus (1986), whose theory was first developed in reaction against
claims by researchers working the cognitive psychology tradition, partic- ^
ularly in artificial intelligence, that the machine can simulate the human
mind by means of analytic reasoning and rule formulation. They argued th
against the rationalist approach which perceives intelligent practice as th
the mere application of knowledge and rules to instrumental decision- sc
making. For example, they observed that master chess players did not cr
actually go through all the possible alternatives before coming to the best
move, in the way that the computer had been programmed to do (Newall,
Shaw, and Simon, 1963); they simply zeroed in on the most promising
situation and then started testing out what they can do from there (see ar
Dreyfus, 1972, p. 14). The interesting question is how human beings ru
can immediately identify the most promising few possibilities, something ar
computers cannot do. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980; 1986) studied the skill ar
acquisition process of airplane pilots, drivers, and adult second-language th
learners, and put forward the following statement: fo
Human understanding was a skill akin to knowing how to find one's way
about the world, rather than knowing a lot of facts and rules for relating them. St
Our basic understanding was thus a knowing how rather than a knowing that. (1986, p. 4; original emphasis)
Pi
Their proposition echoes Gilbert Ryle's observation that the distinction ^
between "knowing how" and "knowing that" is a false dichotomy and jn
that knowing and action are one and the same thing (see Ryle, 1949, n,
p. 32). Dreyfus and Dreyfus argued that "knowing how," not "knowing t0
that," is at the very core of human expertise. For example, in flying fe
or driving, the expertise of pilots or drivers lies in their hunches and f0
intuitions gained through their experience rather than in their knowledge ^
m
CL
oi
of a set of rules regarding how to operate the plane or the car. Dreyfus 0j
and Dreyfus observed that once pilots or drivers started consciously to
apply rules to their behavior, their performance deteriorated, and they
behaved like novices. Dreyfus and Dreyfus proposed a five-stage model
of skill acquisition from novice to expert, which is briefly summarized
below. $t
Stage 1: Novice
in
The novices' actions are guided by rules and a set of objective facts and th
features related to the skill. There is little consideration for the context dt
of the actions. For example, the novice driver learning how to drive a or
stick-shift car is told at what speed to change gears and at what distance w
to follow the preceding car. These rules are given without the context of cc

Conceptions of Expertise 11

5 and ntext ive a ;ance xt of

the traffic conditions. Novices are usually not taught the circumstances under which the rules should be violated, and they often judge their own performance by how well they follow the rules.
Stage 2: Advanced Beginners
After novices have had experience applying the rules in real situations, they begin to recognize situational elements that they need to consider for their actions. For example, an advanced-beginner driver will use engine sounds as well as context-free rules of gear-shifting to decide whether to change gears or not.
Stage 3: Competent
With more experience, competent performers learn how to cope with an overwhelming amount of information, by using both context-free rules and situational elements. They are now able to assess the situation and distinguish important from unimportant information. Their actions are goal-directed, and they make conscious planning decisions to achieve their goals. Because they make conscious decisions, they feel responsible for their actions and are emotionally involved with the outcome in a way that novices and advanced beginners seldom are.
Stage 4: Proficient
This stage is marked by the emergence of intuition, or know-how. Proficient performers are now able to act without conscious deliberation because, as a result of their experience, they can recall similar situations in the past and the courses of actions taken that were effective. They have "holistic similarity recognition" ability, which is the intuitive ability to recognize patterns without decomposing them into their component features (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986, p. 28). At this stage, proficient per-formers still engage in analytical thinking and conscious decisions when they encounter information that they assess to be important on the basis of their experience. For example, on a rainy day the proficient driver may intuitively realize that he is driving too fast when he approaches a curve. He then decides consciously whether he should apply the brakes or remove his foot from the accelerator.
Stage 5: Expert
This stage is marked by effortless and fluid performance guided by intuition. Experts are now totally engaged in skilled performance so that their skills become part of themselves. There is no need for conscious decision-making or problem solving. They just do what normally works on the basis of their experience. It is only when the outcomes are critical, when the situation is novel, and when time allows that experts engage in conscious deliberation before acting.

12 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
Dreyfus and Dreyfus summarize their description of the five stages as follows:
Thus according to our description of skill acquisition, the novice and advanced beginner exercise no judgment, the competent performer judges by means of conscious deliberation, and those who are proficient or expert make judgments based upon their prior concrete experiences in a manner that defies explanation (p. 36).
There are several critical features in Dreyfus and Dreyfus' model. First, expertise is characterized by "knowing how" rather than "knowing that." Expert knowledge is embedded in the expert's action rather than in a body of propositional knowledge that can be separated from ac¬tion. Second, expertise is intuitive. According to Dreyfus and Dreyfus, "Hunches and intuitions, ..., are the very core of expert decision-making" (p. 10). Third, experience is a crucial factor in the development of expertise; for it is the only way through which intuition is acquired. They maintain that "a high level of skill in any unstructured problem area seems to require considerable concrete experience with real situa¬tions ..." (original emphasis, p. 20). Fourth, most expert performance is automatic and nonreflective. It is only when the situation is novel, when there is time, and when the decisions are important that experts engage in deliberation before acting. This kind of deliberation requires reflecting critically on one's intuition. Dreyfus and Dreyfus referred to this kind of deliberation as "deliberative rationality" (p. 36), which was elaborated by Dreyfus (1997) as "detached, reasoned observation of one's intuitive behavior with an eye to challenging and perhaps improving intuition without replacing it by the purely theory-based action of the novice, ad¬vanced beginner, or competent performer" (p. 28). Finally, the intuition, or know-how, of experts is experiential and tacit; it cannot be articulated (Polanyi, 1966).
Benner (1984) applied the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition (see Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1980, cited in Benner, 1984) to the analysis of expert nursing practice and found that much of the expert performance in nursing does not involve conscious deliberation and analytic judgment at all. Benner et al. (1996), working in the phenomenological paradigm, further adapted and enriched the Dreyfus model to the analysis of clinical judgment of expert nurses and illustrated how the technical rationality models of clinical judgment misrepresented the significant aspects of ex¬pert clinical judgment. Expert practice, according to them, is being able to "see" and "read" the "salient issues in the situation" without imposing a set of preconceived expectations and to respond to these salient issues with increased intuition (Benner et al., p. 142).
The Dreyfus model was found to capture powerfully the complexity of professional expertise that is acquired only after much experience in a

Conceptions of Expertise 13
specific domain when an intuitive, deep, and more holistic understanding of the situation enables the expert to identify very quickly the salient information and attend to the abnormal. It also highlights the fact that much of the knowledge that experts have is tacit and is embedded in their action. In Schon's words, it is "tacit knowing-in-action" (1983, p. 49).
Dreyfus' conception of expertise is a much more convincing way of looking at how experts operate than the conception of expertise based on an information-processing model. This is especially so in its emphasis on the tacit "knowing-how," gained as a result of years of experience. There are, however, certain features of expertise delineated in the Dreyfus model that can be questioned. First, what Dreyfus and Dreyfus refer to as "conscious deliberation" and "analytical thinking" in decision-making and problem-solving have been relegated to something that rarely occurs except when there are deviations from the normal pattern. This is true only if we are thinking about tasks that are repetitive and need to be completed in a very short period of time. For example, an expert teacher who has been conducting group work in class for a number of years may not need to make conscious decisions with regard to how to get students to work in groups since it is highly likely that they have already set up routines with which students are familiar. However, there are other tasks that are very much part of the professional lives of teachers which require conscious deliberation. For example, when teachers plan a lesson, evalu¬ate curriculum materials, and decide on their scheme of work for the whole year, they are very much involved in conscious decision-making. In other words, whether conscious deliberation is involved depends on the nature of the task. For tasks that are routine and repetitive, and where rapid interpretation and decisions are needed, the automatic intuitive per¬formance of experts is what distinguishes them from novices. However, for tasks that are not routine, and sometimes even problematic, it is often the kind of analytical thinking that experts engage in and the deliberative decisions that they make that distinguish them from novices.
Second, the model suggests that the acquisition of "knowing-how" through experience enables experts to act nonreflectively. Experience is undoubtedly a crucial factor. However, it does not necessarily result in the development of expertise. Some people never seem to improve although they have been at the job for a number of years. There is a familiar saying that states, for some people, eighteen years of experience is one year's experience repeated seventeen times. Experience will only contribute to ex¬pertise if practitioners are capable of learning from it. To learn from expe¬rience requires that practitioners constantly reflect on their practices. It is this combination of highly motivated learning and the ability to reflect on experience that distinguishes the novice from the expert (Berliner, 1994).
Third, the reason experts are able to make rapid interpretations and decisions, according to Dreyfus and Dreyfus, is that they have

14 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
accumulated memories of numerous distinguishable situations as a result of their experience. Therefore, when they are faced with a situation or a problem, they can recall similar situations or problems as well as their > associated interpretations or solutions. "At this point not only is a situa¬tion, when seen as similar to a prior one, understood, but the associated decision, action, or tactic simultaneously comes to mind" (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986, p. 32). It is questionable whether the rapid interpretations and decisions that experts are able to make is because they simply recall similar situations and adopt the associated interpretations or solutions, or because they are able to learn from experience and hence identify salient features and perceive the situation in a way that differentiates them from novices.
2.2 Expertise as Conscious Deliberation and Organized Knowledge Base
Unlike Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) who see expertise as very much the "knowing how" in expert performance, Glaser and Chi (1988) adopt a cognitive psychological approach and see expertise as very much related to the cognitive processes of the mind. They summarize the findings of studies of expertise in a wide range of skills, including practical skills such as taking restaurant orders, mental calculation; and professional skills such as computer programming, judicial decision-making, and medi¬cal diagnosis (see Chi et al., 1988). They delineate the characteristics of experts that they believe are generalizable across domains (see also Glaser, 1990). The following is a brief summary:
1. Experts have developed a specialized domain of knowledge as a result of thousands of hours of practice. In domains of knowledge in which they do not specialize, they behave as novices.
2. Experts are able to recognize meaningful patterns in their specialized domain very quickly. This superior perceptual ability reflects the better * organization and retrieval structures of their knowledge base. For example, chess masters are able to recognize clusters of the chess pieces
they see, and radiologists are able to see patterns in numerous X-ray
plates because they are able to retrieve the information stored in their (
minds much more quickly. [
3. Experts are fast in their performance and problem-solving. Through ]
extensive practice, they have developed automaticity in performing c
certain aspects of a task, and this frees up their conscious processing f
capacity for other aspects of the task. They are also able to arrive c
at a solution to a problem without an extensive search because of c

Conceptions of Expertise 15

a result ion or a as their
a situa-sociated 'fus and etations ly recall dons, or y salient >m from
lized
mch the adopt a 1 related dings of ills such lal skills d medi-cistics of 3 Glaser,
s a result in which
ecialized he better ase. For :ss pieces us X-ray 1 in their
Through rforming •ocessing to arrive cause of

their experience. For example, chess masters are able to play "light¬ning chess" because, as a result of their experience, they are able to recognize very quickly patterns and the sequence of moves that these patterns trigger.
4. Experts have skilled memory, both short-term and long-term. They are better able to recall more details than novices, again because the automaticity of their skills frees up resources for greater memory storage.
5. Experts see and represent a problem at a deeper and more principled level, whereas novices tend to do so at a superficial level. For exam¬ple, when asked to organize categories in physics problems, expert physicists used principles of mechanics, whereas novices did not.
6. When problem-solving, experts try to understand a problem first, whereas novices tend to plunge immediately into finding the solution. A well-known example provided by Paige and Simon (1966) involved asking students to solve a simple algebra problem of finding out the length of the board before it was sawed into two pieces where one piece is two-thirds of the length of the board, and the other piece was longer than the first piece by four feet. While some students imme¬diately applied equations and came up with a negative length, other students analyzed the problem and remarked that there was some¬thing wrong with the problem because one cannot have a board with negative length.
7. Experts have strong self-monitoring, or meta-cognitive, skills. They are more aware than novices of their mistakes, their failures to com-prehend, and the difficulties that they will have in solving a problem. This reflects experts' greater domain knowledge as well as their dif-ferent representation of that knowledge.
Though there are similarities between the features that they identified and those delineated in the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model, for example, the im-portance of experience in the development of expertise, and the speed and automaticity of their performance, there are two important differences. The first difference is that while Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) argue that expertise is embedded in the skilled performance in which experts are engaged, and that this "knowing how defies explanation" (p. 36), Glaser and Chi (1988) see expertise as having very much to do with the highly organized and sophisticated knowledge base that experts possess. This knowledge base enables experts to see and represent problems in a deeper and more principled manner, and to solve problems more skill-fully. This echoes Chase and Simon's (1973) observation that the ability of chess masters to select the best possible moves in a very short time is due to their direct access to knowledge of chess configurations, which

16 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
served as cues for retrieval of best move possibilities. They conclude that the differences between experts and novices in a wide range of domains are very much related to their immediate access to relevant knowledge (see also Ericsson and Smith, 1991). Furthermore, Glaser and Chi (1988) maintain that experts are able to access an organized body of con¬ceptual and procedural knowledge with "superior monitoring and self-regulation skills" (p. xxi).
This leads us to the second difference. According to Glaser and Chi, experts do not just rely on their intuition. They engage in monitoring and self-regulation. In other words, they engage in conscious deliberation in their performance. This view is shared by Eraut (1994), who perceives deliberation as a critical feature of expertise, which lies at the heart of professional work. He argues that conscious deliberation is not rare in the lives of experts. For example, architects or engineers who work on a project for two years will have plenty of scope for reflection and deliber-ation. Experts will often be involved in teamwork or consultation, which necessarily involves deliberation. Eraut further points out that while the work of many professionals are routine cases and well-defined problems that can be handled automatically without deliberation, there are others that are ill-defined problems. These problems require conscious delib-eration, and "it is the ability to cope with difficult, ill-defined problems rather than only routine matters which is often adjudged to be the essence of professional expertise" (Eraut, 1994, p. 152).
Dreyfus and Dreyfus' characterization of expert performance as largely automatic and nonreflective has also been questioned. Eraut (1994) points out that there are two reasons why experts need to be reflective: one is that the intuition and routinized behavior of experts may not be correct all the time (see also Leinhardt, 1990); the other is that their skills may get out-of-date. Hence, to engage in reflection and self-evaluation is very important for experts to maintain their expertise.
Too many theories of professional expertise tend to treat experts as infallible, in spite of much evidence to the contrary. Not only do professionals succumb to many of the common weaknesses which psychologists have shown to be regular features of human judgment; but some allow aspects of their expertise to decay and become a little less relevant or even out of date. Thus there is a need for professionals to retain critical control over the more intuitive parts of their expertise by regular reflection, self-evaluation, and a disposition to learn from colleagues. This implies from time to time treating apparently routine cases as problematic and making time to deliberate and consult. (Eraut, 1994, p. 155)
The importance of reflection is central to Schon's (1983) influen¬tial theory of professional knowledge. He observes that professional practitioners often engage in "reflection-on-action" and "reflection-in-action." The former takes place after the action when they think back on what they have done or what they have experienced, often in order

Conceptions of Expertise 17

de that omains wledge (1988) )f con-id self-id Chi, ing and ition in srceives teart of rare in rk on a ieliber-, which bile the oblems : others > delib-oblems essence

to prepare themselves for the future. The latter takes place during the action, especially when they encounter situations that are unanticipated, problematic, or unique, and they may arrive at a new way of looking at a problem or a phenomenon, hence generating a new understanding. He explains:
... professional practitioners often think about what they are doing, sometimes even while doing it. Stimulated by surprise, they turn thought back on action and on the knowing which is implicit in action.... There is some puzzling, or troubling, or interesting phenomenon with which the individual is trying to deal. As he tries to make sense of it, he also reflects on the understandings which have been implicit in his action, understandings which he surfaces, criticizes, restructures, and embodies in further action, (p. 50)
In other words, there seems to be an alternative conception of expertise, in which experts are characterized as possessing a body of highly orga-nized and sophisticated knowledge, being able to engage in conscious deliberation, self-monitoring and self-evaluating as well as engaging in reflective practice. The questions that need to be addressed are first, how far the knowledge that experts develop can be separated from their ex¬pert performance and how far this knowledge can be articulated. Second, what is the place of conscious deliberation and reflection in expert per-formance and in the development of expertise?



.nee as , Eraut I to be experts )ther is on and pertise.
llible, in mb to :regular ;o decay dfor leir a from ases as ». 155)
nfluen-:ssional ;ion-in-k back a order

2.3 Expertise as a Continuous Process
In much of the explications of expertise reported above, expertise is per-ceived as a state of superior performance reached as a result of years of experience and practice. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) propose that expertise should be seen as a process rather than a state. Most of the studies of expertise compare the performances of experts with those of novices on the same tasks. Bereiter and Scardamalia point out that this kind of comparison is not likely to help us understand expertise and how it is acquired. Experts, with plenty of practice and experience, inevitably perform better and faster than novices. What researchers need to do, they argue, is to study experts and experienced nonexperts, and investigate how experts develop their expertise over time.
Bereiter and Scardamalia's theory of expertise was developed from their study of writing, where they observed phenomena that contradicted findings commonly reported in expert-novice comparisons. First, expert-novice comparisons maintain that expertise is acquired through thou-sands of hours of practice. However, Bereiter and Scardamalia found that not many people become good writers, no matter how much practice they have had. Many people just become fluent bad writers. They also found

18 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
oi
that, contrary to Dreyfus and Dreyfus's theory, some drivers go through
the stages of skill development from conscious rule learning to automatic ^
operation of the car but do not end up being good drivers. This view is
shared by Ericsson and Smith (1991), who point out that "one should be
particularly careful about accepting one's number of years of experience ^u
as an accurate measure of one's level of expertise" (p. 27). They main¬
tain that the learning mechanisms that mediate the improvements from t^
experience have a crucial role to play in the acquisition of expertise.
Second, expert-novice comparisons assert that expert performance is |n
characterized by automaticity, effortlessness, and fluidity. Bereiter and s^
Scardamalia point out that this "on-top-of-it" image of experts does not tfa
seem to fit all experts. Many experts work very hard and long hours, ev
and they often set standards for themselves and others that are slightly ^
beyond reach. They argue that this image of effortless performance of be
experts could well be derived from the fact that the same task is given to th
the experts and the novices in expert-novice studies. The task is usually nc
well below the competence level of experts so that novices can handle ra
them as well, resulting in the experts being able to handle it without acj
much effort. In order to test their hypothesis, they gave expert and less- tic
competent writers a writing task on a topic like "describe your own job" co
where knowledge of the topic can be assumed, and where the task can pr
be approached at any level they like. They found that the former, apart to
from producing much better writing with richer ideas, worked harder th
and took much longer time to complete the task than less-competent
writers. They laboriously searched for ideas, evaluated and reconsidered un
them before arriving at a main point. By contrast, less-competent writers ex
did much less thinking and arrived at the main point very quickly. The ist
same results were obtained when they looked at learners of music and or
medicine. The fact that expert writers agonized over the writing task, in
argue Bereiter and Scardamalia, is because they took it as a challenging a c
task of producing an original essay. Less-competent writers took it as a a r
simple task of putting down all they knew about the job. In other words, ha
it is the way expert writers chose to treat the task that distinguishes them pa
from nonexperts. he
Bereiter and Scardamalia make a similar observation about expert co:
and nonexpert problem solving. They point out that the critical differ- tht
ence does not lie in the efficiency in problem-solving, but rather, in the ing
kinds of problems that experts and nonexperts solve. They maintain re\
that experts "tackle problems that increase their expertise, whereas non- COJ
experts tend to tackle problems for which they do not have to extend
themselves" (p. 78). Hence, it is when people work "at the edge of their tisi
competence" (p. 34) that they develop expertise. These observations zee
lead to one of the core concepts in their theory of expertise - that i ^
experts approach a task in a way that maximizes their opportunities for *

Conceptions of Expertise 19

through itomatic s view is lould be perience ;y main-its from rtise. nance is dter and does not g hours, : slightly lance of given to 5 usually i handle without and less-iwn job" task can er, apart d harder impetent nsidered X writers ;kly. The usic and ing task, allenging >k it as a ir words, hes them
it expert al differ-er, in the maintain ;eas non-o extend e of their srvations ;e - that nities for

growth, whereas nonexperts approach it in a way that minimizes these opportunities.
Another core concept in Bereiter and Scardamalia's theory of exper¬tise is what they call "the process of expertise" (p. 82). They point out that with experience, conscious efforts to solve problems are replaced by well-developed routines.1 For experts, the mental resources freed up by the use of routines will be "reinvested" in the pursuit of new goals and problem-solving at a higher level, which they did not have the capac¬ity to deal with earlier. Nonexperts, however, will simply have a dimini-shing number of problems to solve as they develop routines to handle them. Bereiter and Scardamalia remark that "Given enough experience, everybody acquires the repertoire (of learned patterns and procedures). What gets people into ruts is reducing problems to levels that can be handled by those learned patterns and procedures" (p. 111). Hence, the critical distinction between experts and experienced nonexperts is not that the former do things well and the latter do things badly, but rather that experts problematize what seem to be routine practices and address them, whereas experienced nonexperts simply carry out prac¬ticed routines. "Reinvestment" and "progressive problem solving," ac-cording to them, are two aspects of the same process. It is a continuous process, and it is in this process of continually reinvesting their resources to take on further challenges that experts extend the growing edge of their expertise.
Bereiter and Scardamalia's theory brought two new perspectives to our understanding of expertise. First, most of the expertise studies compare expert and novice performances. One is never sure whether the character¬istics of experts identified are critical features of experienced performance or expert performance. For example, the automaticity and effortlessness in routinized performance often associated with expertise could well be a consequence of experience. The majority of experienced teachers have a number of classroom management routines that novice teachers do not have. Yet, only a small percentage of them are expert teachers. By com-paring experts with experienced nonexperts, Bereiter and Scardamalia helped to disentangle experience from expertise. Second, expert-novice comparisons give a static picture; they show what experts are like, but they do not show how experts acquire and maintain expertise. By look¬ing at the process of acquisition of expertise, Bereiter and Scardamalia revealed characteristics of experts that were masked by expert-novice comparisons.
In the above discussion, we examined the characteristics of exper-tise proposed by different theories of expertise, which can be generali-zed across disciplines. This discussion is necessary because most studies
1 According to Bereiter and Scardamalia, a problem exists whenever there is a goal to which one does not have a known way to achieve (see 1993, p. 83).

20 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
of teaching expertise have drawn on the insights from these theories, b
especially the theories put forward by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) and rt
Glaser and Chi (1988). As we shall see in Chapter 3, many of the char- > rr
acteristics of experts and novices reported above have also been found n
in expert and novice teachers. k:
2.4 Summary
r(
ct
a
w
In this chapter some of the theories of expertise and prominent studies st
frequently cited in the study of teaching expertise have been examined. e?
There are three aspects of expertise that have been discussed: First, the cc
characteristics of expert performance; second, the critical features that distinguish experts from novices or experienced nonexperts; third, how expertise is acquired and maintained. There seems to be a large degree of convergence on the first aspect. All theories agree that experience and practice have an important role in the acquisition of expertise and that experts are able to attain a high standard of performance which is marked by automaticity, effortlessness, and fluidity. There are divergent views, however, with regard to the second aspect. In particular, there are debates about whether expert knowledge is intuitive and tacit knowledge embed-ded in expert performance or sophisticated and well-organized propo-sitional knowledge external to expert performance that can be retrieved or accessed. There are also debates regarding whether conscious deliber¬ation and reflection are features of expertise. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) consider that it is the intuitive and routinized performance of experts brought about by experience that distinguish them from novices. Glaser and Chi (1988), however, see expertise as involving automatic perfor¬mance as well as conscious deliberations and reflections. Eraut (1994) argues that it is not routinized performance but conscious deliberation in dealing with ill-defined problems that sets experts apart from novices. Furthermore, it is because of their ability to reflect and self-monitor that experts are able to maintain their superior performance. Most studies have addressed the first two aspects, but very few have addressed the third aspect. Bereiter and Scardamalia's theory of expertise as a continuous process is one of the few. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) assert that com¬paring novice and experts is not very helpful in understanding expertise because experience is often mistaken as expertise. They propose compar¬ing experts with experienced nonexperts to disentangle experience from expertise. They further observe that the abundant comparative studies merely show what experts are like, but do not show how they get to where they are. They propose looking at how experts acquire and maintain expertise. Expertise, according to them, is a process, rather than a state, in which experts keep extending the upper edge of their competence

Conceptions of Expertise 21

leories, 16) and .e char-. found
studies mined. rst, the es that d, how degree tee and id that narked views, lebates imbed-propo-trieved leliber-(1986) :xperts Glaser perfor-(1994) ^ration ovices. or that studies e third inuous t com-pertise >mpar-e from itudies where lintain i state, etence

by setting for themselves very high standards and working very hard to reach these standards. Bereiter and Scardamalia see the development and maintenance of expertise as a process in which experts continuously reinvest their mental resources, freed up by the acquisition of relevant knowledge through experience, in problematizing what is taken as routine, in reformulating problems and in solving them. Their con-ceptualization of expertise as a process rather than a state provides a new perspective for understanding expertise that departs from the vvay it has been understood in expert-novice comparisons. Most of the studies of expertise in teaching draw on the first two conceptions of expertise, particularly studies that have taken the form of expert-novice comparisons, which we shall review in the following chapter.
ACA DEJVMC RESOURCE CENTER
MAhASAUAKHAMUNlVEUSlTY
THAILAND

3 Characteristics of Expert and ar€
Novice Teachers tw
3.
In
ing
19
ola
In the previous chapter, I reviewed three major theories of expertise and ^
act an< h w their delineation of the characteristics of experts across skills and disci-plines. In this chapter, I shall examine the characteristics of novice and expert teachers that have been identified in the literature on teaching ex-pertise and see to what extent they share the characteristics of novices and experts in other professions. V spe or ma se< Studies of expertise in teaching mostly took the form of novice-expert A • comparisons. They drew on studies of teachers' mental processes in plan¬ ning and decision-making, which were seen as a link between thought "Jf and action, and were heavily influenced by an information processing t model of the mind in cognitive psychology (see Calderhead, 1996). In some studies, laboratory tasks were designed, and elicitations of teach¬ ers' thought processes were conducted. In other cases direct observations of classroom teaching and stimulated-recall interviews were used. Most fQl studies comparing expert and novice teachers focused on their cognitive -jyi processes in different phases of teaching, taking on board the distinction stu made by Jackson (1968) between 'preactive' and 'interactive' phases of teaching. The former refers to the period before teaching, when teachers j-0 are planning the lesson and evaluating and selecting teaching methods sin and materials. The latter refers to the time when teachers are interacting ^. with students in the classroom. Jackson pointed out that there are qual- tne itative differences in what teachers do in these two phases. Clark and am Peterson (1986) proposed a third phase, the "postactive" phase, to de- jyf_( scribe the period when teachers reflect on their teaching after a lesson and tna make decisions about subsequent teaching. However, as they themselves are pointed out, the distinction in teacher thinking between the preactive and tea the postactive phases is not as marked as that between the preactive and an( interactive phases because of the cyclical nature of the teaching process. did Reflections on teaching in the postactive phase often serve as input for not planning in the preactive phases. the In the rest of this chapter, I shall discuss the findings of expert- the novice studies in the preactive and the interactive phases of teaching. It should be noted, however, that decision-making in these two phases l I 22 Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 23 are intertwined and it is sometimes not easy to distinguish between the two.1 tpertise and Is and disci-' novice and teaching ex-s of novices Dvice-expert sses in plan-sen thought i processing i, 1996). In ns of teach-)bservations used. Most dr cognitive i distinction e' phases of len teachers ng methods ; interacting :re are qual-. Clark and hase, to de-a lesson and 7 themselves reactive and reactive and ing process. as input for i of expert- of teaching. two phases 3.1 Preactive Phase In the preactive phase, planning is considered the most important think¬ing process in which teachers engage (Kounin, 1970; Doyle, 1977; Yinger, 1979; Calderhead, 1984). Calderhead (1984) points out that "it is in planning that teachers translate syllabus guidelines, institutional expec-tations, and their own beliefs and ideologies of education into guides for action in the classroom. This aspect of teaching provides the structure and purpose for what teachers and pupils do in the classroom" (p. 69). A model of planning, which consists of a linear sequence of decisions, which is widely adopted in teacher education programs, is that proposed by Tyler (1950). First of all, decisions are made about aims and objectives. Aims are the more general statement of purpose, and objectives are the specific realizations of aims. Decisions are then made about the content of the lesson, that is, the kind of materials or activities that would help to achieve the objectives. Following this, the organization of activities, or the presentation of materials, is decided upon. Finally, evaluations are made about the lesson. These evaluations serve as input for future lessons. Research on the actual planning process of experienced teachers has found, however, that teachers seldom plan in the manner suggested by Tyler. Instead, they consider first aspects such as materials and resources, students' interests and abilities. Aims and purposes are considered last (see Taylor, 1970). The decisions that teachers make when planning have to do with mostly activities, teaching strategies, and content. Only a small proportion has to do with objectives (see Zahorik, 1975; Peterson, Marx, and Clark, 1978). For many teachers, activities or content are the basic structural units of planning and action in the classroom (Clark and Yinger, 1979; Kagan and Tippins, 1992; McCutcheon, 1980; Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Yinger, 1980). However, this does not mean that experienced teachers do not consider aims and objectives when they are planning. In Morine-Dershimer's (1979) study of the mental plan of teachers, it was found that when teachers were probed about objectives and teaching strategies, they had ready answers. This suggests that they did consider such aspects of instruction although these aspects may not have figured explicitly in stated plans. Nunan (1992) observes that though the plans and instructional objectives may be transformed in the teaching act, they provide a framework for the interactive decisions 1 I am grateful to Devon Woods for pointing this out to me. 24 Understanding Expertise in Teaching during the lesson and the evaluation afterwards. In McCutcheon's study ! 1 - (1980), teachers reported that the objectives were implicit in the activities ; 'J and that it was not necessary to write them down (see also Clark and : Whei Yinger, 1987). The question is therefore not whether teachers consider parec objectives, but when they do so. Mcleod (1981, cited in Clark and each Peterson, 1986) found that teachers thought about intended learning expej outcomes more in the interactive phase than in the preactive phase. flow Sadro-Brown (1990) found that decisions about objectives and content to "v were made at the yearly level, while decisions at the daily level typically reasc concerned activities, instructional methods and materials, and individual requi student needs. on te Calderhead (1984) proposed an alternative conception of teacher done planning as a problem-solving process. He wrote: in Cl folio Research on teachers' planning suggests that teachers engage in a process that contrasts sharply with the prescribed rational planning model— the process of jsjot j planning seems to be more appropriately conceptualized as a problem-solving a sc|1, process. Teachers, faced with a variety of factors such as pupils with certain |^est j knowledge, abilities and interests, the availability of particular textbooks and disru materials, the syllabus, the timetable, the expectations of head-teachers and unref others, and their knowledge of previous teaching encounters, have to solve classi the problem of how to structure the time and experiences of pupils in the classroom. Teachers, it seems, adopt a more pragmatic approach than that ™t prescribed for curriculum design. Rather than start with a conception of what is to be achieved and deduce which classroom activities would therefore be on t; ideal, teachers start with a conception of their working context and from that remf decide what is possible." (p. 74, original emphasis) p!ac< of h( This problem-solving process is not linear, but cyclic and recursive. N Teachers may begin with a vague conception of an activity that will take jectr shape in the implementation process. It will then be refined and elabo- the ? rated in subsequent implementations until it becomes a set of routines as, * that is incorporated in their weekly or yearly planning (Clark and Yinger, instr 1987; Kagan and Tippins, 1992). In this process teachers will draw on the < their knowledge of a wide range of domains, such as knowledge of the omy students, the materials, teaching strategies, context (including the con- buil< text of the classroom), the school, and the expectations of parents and of tl students themselves. They will also plan in a way that suits their own per- men sonal style. One of the teachers in Sadro-Brown's study (1990) said, "I'm lum comfortable with the Frankenstein model that I've created" (p. 66; see (ibic also Sardo, 1982, cited in Clark and Peterson, 1986). Calderhead sums fron up planning as a "creative, interactive, problem-finding and problem- thoi solving process" (1993, p. 15). curr In the ensuing discussion, I shall examine the characteristics of expert Ii and novice teachers' planning identified in the expert-novice comparative guid studies. rely Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 25 on's study s activities Clark and s consider Dlark and i learning ive phase. id content 1 typically individual }f teacher ocess that : process of m-solving certain ooks and ers and 3 solve n the .n that n of what fore be from that recursive. t will take ind elabo-f routines nd Yinger, 1 draw on dge of the * the con-sents and r own per-said, "I'm p. 66; see lead sums problem- ; of expert mparative 3.1.1 Lesson planning When the planning processes of expert or experienced teachers were com-pared to those of novice teachers, it was found that some novices planned each lesson by following the Tyler model closely, whereas experienced or expert teachers never did. The latter were more concerned about the flow of the activities over a period of time, or how to get the classroom to "work" (Carter, Sabers, Cushing, Pinnegar, and Berliner, 1987). The reason novice teachers followed the model closely was because they were required to do so in their professional training courses. In fact, in a study on teacher planning, student teachers reported that they would not have done so in their practicum otherwise. (Neale, Pace, and Case, 1983; cited in Clark and Peterson, 1986). Brown and Mclntyre (1992) observe the following: Hot infrequently the students return to the college or university after a spell in a school bewailing the fact that teaching is not so straightforward, and their best laid plans have gone awry because of unexpected events, constraints, disruptions and so on. The model they have been given, they often claim, is unrealistic and takes inadequate account of the practicalities of schools and classrooms, (p. 69) When the experienced teachers in their study were asked to comment on the current practices in the preparation of teachers, most of them remarked that "A formal 'aims and objectives' approach may have a place in planning the work of a class but it is divorced from the reality of how teachers think about their actual teaching" (ibid., p. 88). Novice teachers were also found to adhere closely to the stated ob¬jectives in the prescribed curriculum guide. In Westerman's study (1991) the novice teachers explained their planning by making remarks such as, "The main topic is graphs, and the curriculum guide gives you an instructional objective," and "I just had to make sure that they met all the objectives" (p. 296). The expert teachers demonstrated more auton¬omy in their planning. While they used the curriculum guidelines for building their lessons, they made modifications according to the needs of their students and their own goals. One of the expert teachers com-mented, "I always do what I am supposed to do (i.e., teach the curricu¬lum objectives), but then how I implement it comes from my own self" (ibid.). Novice teachers, on the other hand, lacked confidence to depart from what was prescribed or to try out alternative teaching methods even though they believed the alternatives might be better than what they were currently using (see Borko and Livingston, 1989). In other words, novice teachers tend to act according to rules and guidelines laid down by people with authority, whereas expert teachers rely on their own judgment and exercise autonomy when planning. 26 Understanding Expertise in Teaching teac 3,1.2 Long-term and short-term planning Besides the differences outlined above, most expert teachers were found sem to engage in longer-term planning (cf. McCutcheon, 1980).2 Besides that lesson planning, they also engaged in unit planning, daily planning, en& weekly planning, term planning, and yearly planning. When they "'a' engaged in yearly planning, they established the content to be covered, sim a sequence for the curriculum components for the whole year, and a evei timeline for content coverage. When they planned at the unit or chapter - level, they determined a timeline for each topic. Their decisions were P often made on the basis of how things went in the previous year (Yinger, ^ri| 1980; Borko and Livingston, 1989). Cal Novice teachers, on the other hand, were found to engage in short- term planning, usually not going beyond the next couple of sections ] or pages. One reason was that they had to spend so much time and !!^te energy preparing for teaching the following day that they did not have £ the spare capacity to think too far ahead. A novice teacher in Borko 01 and Livingston's study (1989) remarked that her lack of experience and seo professional knowledge had an impact on her planning. She commented: ma This is all so new to me that thinking up, I have to do a lot of thinking ahead of the time. I really do. I have to think out what kind of questions to ask. I have to «m think out the answers to the questions... so that my answers are theoretically ] correct and yet simple enough to make sense... I can't ad-lib it too well, (see ■ also Westerman, 1991) ou; Expert teachers, by contrast, were described as much more efficient in h^ lesson planning. They had various plans in their memory because of their tha previous experience, and they rarely had to design classroom activities sib from scratch. They usually had well-mastered routines for these activi- det ties. For these teachers, planning often involved recalling how the lesson thf went the last time it was taught, and deciding whether amendments were M< needed. Unlike experts, novices had little or no previous experience to fall ter back on and less knowledge of their students and the teaching materials. inf They had to devote plenty of time and energy to design activities and coi to think of techniques to set up and maintain them. Calderhead (1984) tio points out that what is "routine" to experienced teachers are "conscious soi decisions" to novice teachers (p. 15). to to 3.1.3 Written and mental lesson plans Li' sti Differences were also identified between the forms of the lesson plans tin that expert and novice teachers make. Most studies reported that expert (C 2 McCutcheon's study (1980, p. 11) found that experienced teachers did not engage in , long-range planning. For some of them it was because long-range planning was handled by the textbooks, Others reported that planning too far ahead would lead to pi; inflexibility; they could not incorporate children's interests. an Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 27 vere found ).2 Besides planning, ^hen they >e covered, ear, and a or chapter sions were ar (Yinger,
e in short-Df sections t time and d not have : in Borko xience and >mmented:
ng ahead of I have to soretically well, (see
efficient in ase of their a activities lese activi-
the lesson nents were ence to fall
materials. ivities and ;ad (1984) 'conscious
sson plans ;hat expert
)t engage in ig was ould lead to

teachers planned their lessons mentally, sometimes with brief notes re-sembling a list for grocery shopping as a reminder. McCutcheon observes that the richest form of planning is the mental dialogs that teachers engage in before writing the plans or before the lesson. These mental dialogs include rehearsing a lesson and recalling what happened when a similar lesson was taught. These dialogs often take place continuously, even through the summer months. The teachers in his study said that they "take school home" (p. 8). He also found that expert teachers planned at odd moments like taking a shower, watching football, or driving home (see also Morine-Dershimer, 1979; McCutcheon, 1980; Calderhead, 1984; Livingston and Borko, 1989).
Novice teachers' plans were found to be much more detailed. Some of them wrote down what they were going to say and the actions that they intended to carry out, even noting down what they would write on the blackboard. Sometimes they just read their notes out. (Calderhead, 1984; Borko and Livingston, 1989). In Kagan and Tippin's study (1992), when secondary teachers were not confident about their knowledge of subject matter and their ability to maintain discipline in disruptive classes, they scripted their lessons into minilectures to make sure that the content they delivered was correct and to show the disruptive students that they "mean business."
It was argued that one reason why expert teachers seldom need to write detailed lesson plans is that they have a rich memory of previ-ous lessons that they can call on when they are planning. They also have repertoires of well-mastered routines for a variety of situations that they can call upon easily when planning lessons. Another pos¬sible reason is their belief that it is impossible to determine in great detail how a lesson should proceed. There are many contingencies in the classroom that will affect the development of the lesson. Brown and Mclntyre (1992) found that the experienced teachers had basic, consis-tent, planned patterns for their teaching, but the patterns were "almost infinitely flexible and implementation was crucially influenced by the conditions which impinged upon their teaching" (p. 44). These condi¬tions included students' behavior and performance, availability of re-sources, time of the day, and time of the year. Expert teachers are able to anticipate possible situations in lessons and have contingency plans to deal with these situations (Housner and Griffey, 1985; Borko and Livingston, 1989). They are also able to anticipate the difficulties that students are likely to have, and they have in store a number of rou¬tines that they can immediately call upon in response to student cues (Carter et al., 1987). Novice teachers often have difficulties anticipating problems in the classroom and the difficulties that students have with the curriculum, and novice teachers are reluctant to depart from their plans in response to student cues (Borko and Livingston, 1989; Kagan and Tippins, 1992).

28 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
In other words, while expert teachers incorporate an element of flexi- i o bility in their plans, they plan for what they want to achieve in the lesson i and the general direction that the lesson should take. They are always f m
prepared to respond to cues in the classroom and change their plans. To
Novice teachers, on the other hand, being less able to anticipate problems, ch
are much less flexible in their planning. on
th; N< 3.1.4 Planning thoughts is Although the written lesson plans of expert teachers are very brief, their th mental plans are very rich. Expert teachers in "Westerman's study (1991) ge thought in terms of how their individual lessons fit into the entire curricu- fu lum, how the lessons related to the curriculum content already covered ph earlier in the year, and how they were related to other subjects in the cur- an riculum. Novice teachers had difficulties making sense of the sequence of an topics in textbooks and consequently they planned each lesson as discrete units on the basis of the prescribed objectives without understanding how ef\ the units fit together (Schram, Feiman-Nemser, and Ball, 1989). th Expert teachers take into consideration students' prior learning, aca- lit' demic performances, and abilities when planning lessons. They also pay ro attention to competencies and difficulties of individual students and make ex strategic decisions accordingly (Calderhead, 1984; Housner and Griffey, ne 1985). In Carter et al.'s study (1987), when expert teachers were asked "e to take over a new class, they were more concerned about finding out be the students' knowledge of the subject matter for the teacher's benefit. ( so Novice teachers, on the other hand, focused more on reviewing the con- sei tent with students for the latter's benefit rather than for their own benefit. at In studying teachers' statements about planning, Leinhardt (1989) found th that the expert teachers in her study always began their planning by stat- ca ing what their students had learned the day before, whereas none of the th novice teachers did (see also Paine, 1989; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, w^ and Berliner, 1988; Fogarty, "Wang, and Creek, 1983). Their planning t" thoughts contained more details and included student actions, not just an teacher action, and planning for test point(s) within the lesson, which st< were checkpoints to evaluate student understanding or lesson progress. "C Most of their plans demonstrated that the flow of the lesson was driven Pc by instructional logic, whereas most of the novice teachers did not show nc any guiding logic to their instructional actions. *' The above findings show that expert teachers draw upon a wide range of knowledge when they are planning, including knowledge of the pupils, ar both as a group and as individuals, the curriculum, classroom organiza- co tion, student learning, and the subject matter. Novice teachers have a ac much less sophisticated knowledge base, and therefore, they have much cc less to draw upon. te' Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 29 mt of flexi-1 the lesson are always :heir plans, t problems, brief, their udy(1991) ire curricu-dy covered j in the cur-iequence of i as discrete indinghow 9). rning, aca-ey also pay s and make ,nd Griffey, were asked finding out *r's benefit. ng the con-wn benefit. 989) found ing by stat-none of the bers, Stein, ir planning as, not just son, which n progress. was driven d not show wide range f the pupils, Q organiza-lers have a have much 3.1-5 Characteristics of expert and novice teachers in preactive teaching To summarize the above discussion, we may say that there are four main characteristics of preactive thinking identified in the research literature, ori which novice and expert teachers differ. The first characteristic is that in the planning process, expert teachers exercise more autonomy, Novice teachers' planning is guided by rules and models. As Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) point out, these rules are often devoid of context. This is why novice teachers often have problems implementing their plans in the classroom when there are many contextual elements affecting the general direction of the lesson. Expert teachers, on the other hand, are fully aware of the contextual variables that they need to consider when planning. From their experience, they know what works in the classroom and what does not. Hence they are much more ready to depart from rules and take responsibility for their own actions. The second characteristic is that expert teachers are much more efficient in lesson planning. They spend much less time planning, and yet their planning is often much more effective. According to the research literature, this is because expert teachers have in store well-established routines that they can call upon when planning. They can also recall their experience in teaching similar lessons and make whatever amendments necessary. It appears that there is a certain degree of "automaticity" and "effortlessness" in their planning, because they can rely on routinized behavior and "what normally works," especially if they are planning for something that they have taught before. In this respect, expert teachers seem to be similar to experts in other fields. However, the research liter¬ature also found that expert teachers' mental plans are much richer and that they do engage in detailed planning. Since this is the case, how far can we say that their planning is "effortless"? Furthermore, we can see that expert teachers also engage in conscious deliberation and reflection when they are doing long-term planning, when they consider whether they need to make any amendments to what they did the year before, and when they make mental plans. Teachers who have high professional standards often reflect on how their lessons went in previous years and how they could improve on them. As Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) point out, teachers who always go by routinized behavior and "what normally works" are those who get into a rut and wallow in mediocrity. Therefore, how far is their planning "automatic"? The third characteristic of preactive thinking is that expert teachers are much more flexible in planning; they are much more responsive to contextual cues, and much more ready to make changes to their plans accordingly. In other words, it is the way teachers relate to their specific context of work that differentiate the expert from the novice. For expert teachers, the context is very much an integral part of their teaching act, 30 Understanding Expertise in Teaching whereas for novice teachers, context is very often taken as something external and ignored. The fourth characteristic is that the planning thoughts of expert ) teachers reflect a rich and integrated knowledge base. When they plan, \ they integrate their knowledge of the curriculum, the students, teaching j methods and strategies, the context including expectations of the princi¬pal, teachers and parents, the classroom setting, the time of the day, the time of the year, and so on. The discussion in this section shows that teacher thinking and decision-making in the preactive phase are inextricably linked to those in the interactive phase. Decisions made in the preactive phase are subject to modification as teachers implement them in the classroom. As pointed out above, one of the characteristics of expertise in teaching is teachers' ability to respond to the contingencies in the classroom. We shall therefore turn to the interactive phase of teaching and exam¬ine the differences between novice and expert teachers that have been identified. 3.2 Interactive Phase The classroom is a complex and relatively unpredictable environment where many things happen very quickly at the same time. Doyle, drawing on the work of Jackson (1968) and Smith and Geoffrey (1968), depicts the classroom as follows: A classroom is multidimensional in that many events occur over time, many purposes are served, and many people with different styles and desires participate. The sheer quantity of elements, in other words, is large. In addition, many events in a classroom occur simultaneously. While phrasing a question, a teacher must monitor different levels of involvement in work, search for an appropriate student to answer, anticipate interruptions, and judge whether particular students are violating classroom rules The simultaneous occurrence of multiple elements shortens the time frame and confers immediacy to the flow of classroom experience. Decisions must be made rapidly with little time for reflection. At the same time, these qualities of classroom life together with a high frequency of interruptions make the course of events at a given moment unpredictable." {1979, p. 44; my emphasis) Because of the multidimensionality, simultaneity, immediacy, and unpre-dictability of the classroom, teachers need to be able to process simultane¬ously transmitted information very quickly, to attend to multiple events simultaneously, to detect signs of disruptive behavior and to act on them before they become problems (Kounin, 1970). This is a very demanding task. Copeland (1987) describes teachers who are successful classroom managers as having "eyes in the back of the head" (p. 220). ces bas Pet the tea is \ noi car an the dec i fol tha ag po: us i tyr tirr yoi the so to In tea tiv ma ma len the wi m£ lisl (Y: tea hei caj 19 Sh tai tia 19 Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 31 something of expert they plan, ;, teaching the princi-le day, the 1 decision-ose in the re subject room. As 1 teaching dassroom. ind exam-have been wronment *, drawing B), depicts e, many es In hrasing a vork, ,and judge lultaneous lade :s of the course asis) .nd unpre-iimultane-ple events ;t on them emanding classroom Various attempts have been made to capture teachers' cognitive pro¬cesses in the interactive phase. For example, Peterson and Clark (1978), based on a model of teacher thinking proposed by Snow (1972, cited in Peterson and Clark, 1978), put forward a model of decision-making in the interactive phase. The model represents a cyclical process in which teachers observe cues from students and decide whether student behavior is within tolerable limits. If it is, then they continue with the lesson. If not, they decide whether there are alternative teaching behaviors that can bring student behavior back to tolerable limits. If they do not have an alternative, they will continue with the lesson as before. If they do, then they may make the decision to behave differently, or they may still decide to continue as before. Calderhead (1984) points out that not ail decisions made by teachers follow the same model. He suggests that there are three types of decisions that we make in everyday life. The first type are decisions that involve a great deal of thinking, identifying the alternatives, and evaluating the possible outcomes. These decisions for example, making career choices, usually take time. He refers to them as "reflective decisions." The second type are those which have to be made instantaneously; there is very little time for considering alternatives and evaluating the outcome, as in when you are crossing the road and a bus is speeding toward you. He refers to them as "immediate decisions." The last type are decisions that are made so often that they become automatic and routine. For example, decisions to change gears when driving. He refers to them as "routine decisions." In different contexts, different types of decisions will be made. In the teaching situation, he points out, there are some decisions that are reflec¬tive, such as planning the curriculum and selecting teaching methods and materials. There are other decisions, however, which are, and must be, made immediately. For example, decisions regarding disciplinary prob-lems cannot wait until the teacher has weighed several alternatives. If the disciplinary problems are unanticipated, then "immediate decisions" will be made; but if they are recurrent, then "routine decisions" will be made. The term routine refers to a set of procedures which has been estab-lished over time to control and coordinate specific sequences of behavior (Yinger 1979). Researchers have proposed that by setting up routines, teachers make the timing, sequencing, and students' behavior predictable, hence reducing their information processing load and freeing up their capacity to monitor deviations from the original plan (Clark and Yinger, 1979; Joyce, 1979; Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Peterson and Clark, 1978; Shavelson and Stern, 1981). The use of routine is therefore a very impor-tant part of interactive teaching. In fact, it is considered to be an essen¬tial element in classroom survival (Brophy and Good, 1986; Calderhead, 1984; Doyle, 1986). 32 Understanding Expertise in Teaching the me? me i It has been pointed out that teacher decision-making usually takes place when the routine is not going ahead as planned. When that happens, contrary to Peterson and Clark's description in their model, teachers do not consider a number of alternatives. They are more likely to see if there T^' is a routine available that they can use to deal with the anomaly. If there is no available routine, they will improvise. If the anomaly does not require j «T immediate action, then they will respond to it either after the lesson or in a subsequent lesson (see Shavelson and Stern, 1981). The studies reviewed above suggest that teachers' decision-making is .-i triggered by student behavior that is not within the teacher's tolerance limit. However, investigations in the antecedents for teachers' interactive , ■ decisions showed that most of the time, the decisions were not made in \ patt evei san< response to students' intolerable behavior, but rather in response to a student's question, a choice of appropriate techniques, transition from one activity to another, insufficient time left in the lesson, shortage of materials, the teacher's own emotional state, and so on (Marland, 1977, i • Wodlinger, 1980, cited in Clark and Peterson, 1986; Forgarty et al., |1Q 1983). Clark and Peterson (1986) call for more descriptive research on jev how teachers make interactive decisions. t|lc Studies of expert-novice teaching have drawn on the findings in teacher jn„ decision-making processes to compare the cognitive processes that expert :ust and novice teachers are engaged in interactive teaching, which we shall fOIT discuss below. tjie ( "Yc 3.2.1 Making sense of and attending to classroom events be r' lool As mentioned above, in interactive teaching, multiple events take place eXp( simultaneously at a very fast pace. To operate successfully in the class- me , room, teachers need to be able to make sense of the events and to respond wer to them. To investigate how expert and beginning teachers perceive ca]j and monitor the simultaneous occurrence of events in the classroom, (pet Sabers et al. (1991) showed them a videotape of one classroom period B that was edited into three tapes, each showing a different view of the ers' classroom. These three tapes were played simultaneously and teachers terp were asked to monitor all three screens. They were asked to describe the i the instructional and management techniques used by the teacher, to com think aloud about what they were seeing, to respond to questions about teac content, student and teacher attitudes, the environment, and to recall thin specific details afterwards. Sabers et al. found that expert teachers were a be able to make sense of the events that "puzzled" the beginning teachers (whom they called "advanced beginners") and "baffled" those with- &xPl out any classroom experience (whom they called "novices"). Beginning ' teachers, on the other hand, were overwhelmed by the complex incom- appr ing information. When asked to comment on the classroom events and BeS' the I Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 33 ually takes it happens, :eachers do see if there y. If there is not require e lesson or i-making is s tolerance interactive ot made in ponse to a jition from ihortage of and, 1977, arty et al., esearch on s in teacher that expert ;h we shall ents take place i the class-to respond rs perceive classroom, iom period iew of the id teachers :o describe teacher, to ions about d to recall chers were lg teachers hose with- Beginning lex incom-events and the teacher's instructional practices, expert teachers frequently assigned meaning to the classroom events that they saw and made evaluative judg-ments about them. Beginning teachers' comments were often detailed but descriptive, "reminiscent of radio announcers reporting an athletic event" (p. 73). For example, one of the beginning teachers commented: "In the right monitor, we have the teacher lecturing, students taking notes," whereas one of the expert teachers commented: "on the left monitor, the students' note taking indicates that they have seen sheets like this and have had presentations like this before; it is fairly effi¬cient at this point because they're used to the format they are using" (p. 72). Similar to master chess players who can recognize thousands of chess patterns, expert teachers can readily recognize patterns in classroom events and hence make sense of them because of their hundreds and thou-sands of hours of experience in the classroom. In a study that Berliner and his colleagues conducted, novice and expert teachers were shown briefly a photographic slide of a science laboratory session three times. After each viewing, teachers were asked to write down what they saw and to update the information in the second and third viewing. After the second view¬ing, one of the expert teachers said, "It's not necessarily a lab class. There just seemed to be more writing activity. There were people filling out forms. It could have been the end of a lab class after they started putting the equipment away...." After the third viewing, the expert teacher said, "Yeah - there was... very little equipment out, and it almost appeared to be towards the end of the hour. The books appeared to be closed. Almost looked like it was a clean-up type situation" (Berliner, 1986, p. 11). The expert teacher's perception was correct; it was a cleaning-up activity at the end of a laboratory session. It is likely that because classroom events were perceived in a meaningful way, expert teachers were able to re¬call them much better than novices who could not make sense of them (Peterson and Comeaux, 1987). Besides being able to make sense of classroom events, expert teach¬ers' perceptions of classroom events were also more analytical and in-terpretive. In Saber et al.'s study (1991), when asked to comment on the teacher's instructional practices, expert teachers gave more elaborate comments, which were analytical and interpretive, whereas beginning teachers merely described what they saw with little evidence of analytical thinking. The following are extracts of the comments from an expert and a beginning teacher. Expert teacher: There was some formal lecture, and there was a formal activity. I think the technique that she used was very low key, perhaps a process type approach to teaching science rather than a very structured approach. Beginning teacher: It looks... well, mostly lecture. She had some activities for the kids to do. Some use of media. She used the overhead a little bit. (p. 74) 34 Understanding Expertise in Teaching Similar findings have been obtained in Berliner and his colleague's study reported above. Expert teachers were found to draw upon their rich store of classroom knowledge to interpret what they saw on the slide. For example, after viewing a slide of a mathematics lesson, one of the expert teachers said, "there aren't a whole lot of humorous math problems so I assumed a couple of the students must have been talking - from their facial expressions - about something other than the assignment" (Berliner and Carter, 1989, p. 60). Novice teachers' descriptions, according to Berliner and Carter, were detailed but "flat" (ibid.), with no explanations for what they described and showed little relationship between events. It is interesting to note that the expert teachers in this study were cautious in interpretation and demonstrated an awareness of the possible variables not presented in the slides that could affect their interpretation of the classroom events. A further dimension on which expert and novice teachers were found to differ is selectivity. The term selectivity, as proposed by Corno (1981, p. 364), refers to "an ability to separate important from salient incidental information." One possible reason why, in Sabers et al.'s study (1991) reported above, the "advanced beginners" and "novices" experienced information overload when they were watching the videotapes is that they were not selective when they processed the information. As Doyle (1977) points out, the demand created by the complex environment of the classroom is very great and one of the strategies by which teachers deal with it is to simplify the complexity by being selective about the events to which they attend. His study of "successful" and "unsuccessful" stu¬dent teachers3 found that the former were better able to differentiate the immediate and long-term significance of classroom events. Morine and Vallance's study of more and less "effective" teachers4 found that less "effective" teachers took into consideration more items of information on almost all aspects of their interactive decision-making compared to more "effective" teachers (Morine and Vailance, 1975, cited in Clark and Peterson, 1986, p. 279). Similar findings have been reported in comparisons of expert and novice teachers. Sabers et al. (1991, p. 64) observe that expert teachers "assess only certain classroom behaviors and events, namely, those need¬ing immediate teacher attention. Other perceived behaviors and events are rapidly assessed as being less critical, resulting in a decision by the teacher to delay action or to take no action at all." In many studies 3 "Successful" teachers were defined as those who maintained high levels of student involvement and low levels of disruption (see Doyle, 1977, p. 53fn). 4 'Effective' teachers were those whose students had higher gain scores on achievement tests, and less 'effective' teachers were those whose students had lower gain scores. This definition of effectiveness is typically used in the process-product paradigm (see Shulman, 1992). Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 35 gue's study r rich store slide. For : the expert roblems so from their :" (Berliner cording to :planations n events. It cautious in e variables tion of the vere found rno (1981, ; incidental idy (1991) xperienced pes is that . As Doyle nentofthe ichers deal the events :ssful" stu-•entiate the lorine and .d that less lformation mpared to d in Clark expert and rt teachers :hose need-and events ;ion by the my studies f student achievement in scores. radigm (see it was found that what expert teachers attended to were things re-lated to instructional objectives. Carter et al. (1987) gave expert and novice teachers detailed information about the students of a new class that they were going to take over, including grades, demographic data, and teacher comments. When they were asked to recall the information about these students, expert teachers could only remember the number of students in this class, but not the number of female and male students, the ethnicity of the students, and the number of students in a specified grade. However, they remembered that one of the students was visually impaired because they thought this information was important. Carter et al. point out that this could be because the number of students and the presence of a visually impaired student in the class have important im-plications for instructional and managerial decisions, but not the specific details about individual students. Novice teachers, on the other hand, remembered many more details about the students, but they did not dif-ferentiate the importance of the various pieces of information given to them. Selectivity is also observed in the interactive teaching of expert teach¬ers. Just as chess masters do not consider a large number of possibilities for the next move but only the good moves, expert teachers do not con¬sider a large number of alternative routines when the lesson does not go according to what has been planned. In most cases they consider only one alternative routine (Shavelson and Stern, 1981). In terms of the kind of events to which expert and novice teachers attend, novice teachers were found to attend more to student behavior, especially behavior that they consider to be unruly, and consequently, events related to the achievement of instructional objectives were given less attention (Veenman, 1984; Copeland, 1987; Sabers et al., 1991). By contrast, expert teachers were more concerned about instructional ob-jectives. They were keen to maximize time on-task, to make sure that students were engaged in meaningful activities, and to minimize off-task time. Hence, they tended to ignore minor interruptions and inattention, and to attend to only major disruptions (Reynolds, 1992). Nunan's study (1992) showed that compared to inexperienced ESL teachers, experi-enced ones made twice as many decisions relating to language and fo-cused significantly more on content than on classroom processes. Fogarty et al. (1983) found that in expert teachers' reports of the cues that led them to make interactive decisions, few pertained to students' disruptive behavior. This was partly because they ignored disruptive behavior and partly because they were able to prevent disruptive behaviors by picking up behavioral cues and taking action accordingly (Westerman, 1991; see also Reynolds, 1992). This suggests that the selectivity demonstrated by teachers is a reflection of their perception of what a classroom should be like (Peterson and Clark, 1978). 36 Understanding Expertise in Teaching From the above findings, we can see that expert teachers are not only :me more efficient in recognizing meaningful patterns and making sense of L IK multiple events, they are also more selective in attending to classroom ! 0f tn, events. In fact, the latter could be a reason for the former. They are better stude able to differentiate important from unimportant information and events y[\ through their experience. This frees their capacity to attend to the more exper important ones. Their criteria for selection are often governed by the ann for the former. They ^s.
nportant information any studies have pointed out that the reason why expert and x capacity to attend to tnced teachers are able to respond very quickly to classroom events tion are often governedmprovise is because they have developed repertoires of routines ter student learning. Ashling a variety of situations. As mentioned before, the use of rou-apparently, lets us proca very important part in interactive teaching; it creates and man-vailabie from the envire learning environment (Doyle, 1986; Brophy and Good, 1986). very limited working j like experts in other professions, the use of routines frees up
resources of expert teachers so that they can deal with other
itinized aspects of teaching. Routines have often been taken as
ures that teachers pick up as they gather experience and in which
s very little thinking involved. This is probably because teachers
■t we have discussed sojen unable to give a well articulated account of what is embed-
)f and attending to cb the routines that they use and why they use them. However, as
ids made on teachers as (1992) argues, "Teachers may not be able to give a well articu-
nality of classroom evepropositional account of their practice. But complex ideas about
om events require that D teach are embedded in the familiar routines of the classroom"
' improvise when the evi. Routines are realizations of teachers' conceptions of how life in
o change their plans whssroom should be structured to facilitate student learning. They
ig the metaphor of \m\ no means thoughtless.
ig not only involves c< d to differ in their at Pro^em representation and problem-solving 'eported that in their s; experts in fields like physics and social science can represent and i able to use student reproblems that are guided by principles (Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser, ' discussion and keep ; Chi et ai., 1988), expert teachers are able to analyze and inter-e able to maintain a llassroom events and problems in a principled way and provide -centeredness. They wcations for their suggestions for alternative practices. Peterson and i mathematical probkaux (1987) presented ten pairs of experienced5 and novice teachers By contrast, novice three classroom scenes and asked them to describe the scenes, to an-of the lesson when rethe problems that the teacher faced during interactive teaching, and roblems with questio^gest alternatives. The findings showed that experienced teachers1 :d to curtail questions ses of classroom events reflected a knowledge of classroom proce-led, despite the fact th and principles of effective classroom teaching. They also provided r words, instead of ncations for their comments. For example, one of the experienced .ce teachers suited thesrs commented on a teacher returning an essay test by pointing 'esterman, 1991; cf. hat the teacher could read the essay aloud if it was a good one, or and "unsuccessful" te some comments on errors made, or clear some misconceptions. eloped to simplify tht to localize attention 'term experienced teacher is used interchangeably with expert teachers in Peterson udents in one activitComeaux's paper. 38 Understanding Expertise in Teaching This teacher said, "You can use the test as a learning experience rather c than just hand it back, to put away, or throw away probably" (p. 328). Novice teachers, by contrast, gave simple comments with little justi- y^ fication (see also Kagan and Tippins, 1992). As Berliner (1994) points catj out, the teacher's comment reflected the teacher's understanding of the rna pedagogical principle that tests can be used for teaching and learning and •< not just for evaluation purposes. He reported that in one of his expert- exf novice studies, when teachers were asked to respond to scenarios about ye educational problems associated with gifted children, they found that c]a; the responses from expert teachers' representations of the problem were bet am much more sophisticated and principled. For example, one of scenarios described Mark, an eight-year-old Asian boy who had hearing prob¬ lems but liked mathematics, science, and who had a strong interest in -i : computers. In response to this scenario, novice teachers gave superficial responses like "Mark seems like a very talented individual with many jn t diverse interests" and "Mark should be encouraged by his teacher to continue his science experiments and work on the computer." By con- tj trast, one of the expert teachers wrote, "Mark's needs can be broken ■ v into three broad areas: academic enrichment, emotional adjustment, and ^ training to cope with his handicap" (p. 175). Berliner pointed out that the me sophisticated problem representation by the expert teacher was necessary for effective problem solving. con nov 3.2.4 Characteristics of expert and novice teachers in the interactive phase fact inte From the studies reported in the above discussion, we can see that the g characteristics, identified in the expert-novice comparative studies, which differentiate expert teachers from novice teachers are quite similar to the Th characteristics which differentiate experts and novices in other domains. in t The first characteristic is efficiency in processing information in the class- sch room. Like experts in other fields, expert teachers are able to make sense 1 of and recognize patterns in a large quantity of simultaneously transmit- in, ted information within a short period of time. The second characteristic bet is selectivity in processing information. Similar to expert chess players Pet who are selective in processing only the good moves, expert teachers are eve more selective in information processing, and they often consider student are learning the most important criterion for selection. The third character- (set istic is the ability of expert teachers to improvise. Expert teachers are tha better able to respond to student needs and classroom events that require der decisions and actions because they have well-established routines, which as ' they can call upon to respond to a variety of unanticipated events. Like experts in other domains, expert teachers attend to a larger number sid< of important events in the classroom because of automaticity resulting tan Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 39 :nce rather ' (p. 328). little justi-94) points ling of the arning and tiis expert-rios about :ound that blem were f scenarios ring prob-interest in superficial vith many teacher to ." By con-be broken :ment, and iut that the i necessary the >e that the lies, which lilar to the r domains. i the class-nake sense r transmit-iracteristic *ss players lachers are ler student character-achers are lat require ties, which merits. Like it number y resulting

from the use of routines. The fourth characteristic is that expert teach¬ers' representation and analysis of problems are deeper and principled. Like experts in physics who used principles of mechanics to organize categories, expert teachers are able to offer interpretations and solutions that are guided by principles.
While these characteristics seem to be a convincing description of what expert teachers are capable of doing, how far do the cognitive processes identified capture the teaching act and the nature of teachers' work in the classroom? How far do these characteristics highlight critical differences between expert and novice teachers?
3.3 Knowledge Schemata
In the review of studies on teachers' cognitive processes in the preactive and interactive phases teaching, references have frequently been made to the knowledge base of expert and novice teachers. Teacher knowledge is very much understood from the perspective of cognitive psychologists who used the term schema to describe the way knowledge is stored in memory (see, for example, Anderson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1980). For ex¬ample, Livingston and Borko (1989, p. 37) observe:
... the cognitive schemata of experts typically are more elaborate, more complex, more interconnected, and more easily accessible than those of novices.... Therefore, expert teachers have larger, better-integrated stores of facts, principles, and experiences to draw upon as they engage in planning, interactive teaching and reflection (see also Peterson and Comeaux, 1987; Borko and Livingston, 1989; Westerman, 1991; Leinhardt et al., 1991).
The characteristics of expert and novice teachers that have been identified in the research literature are believed to be related to their "knowledge schemata."
Expert teachers' ability to interpret, recognize meaningful patterns in, and make sense of multiple classroom events is attributed to their better-developed schemata for classroom events than novice teachers (see Peterson and Clark, 1978). Expert teachers' better recall of classroom events and their more principled ways of analyzing and solving problems are considered to be caused by their more-complex knowledge schemata (see Peterson and Comeaux, 1987). Peterson and Comeaux further argue that it is this knowledge schemata that affect teachers' perception and un-derstanding of classroom events, the students, and their problem-solving, as well as decision-making in interactive teaching.
The rich and elaborate schemata of expert teachers are also con¬sidered to be crucial in helping them determine the relative impor-tance and the relevance of information to their planning and teaching

40 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
(see Carter et al., 1987). This is why they are able to attend selectively as
to information that is crucial to teaching. By contrast, novice teachers' jcn
schemata are still being developed in the process of decision-making. Therefore, they are less able to determine whether the information is rele¬vant, and they consider much more information before they make deci¬sions in both planning and teaching. Consequently, they are less efficient ! 3,. in both processes (see Livingston and Borko, 1989, p. 39).
The more sophisticated knowledge schemata of expert teachers are i jn
also used to account for improvisational skills. According to Livingston > tea
and Borko (1989), to improvise successfully, teachers need to have an : COi
extensive network of interconnected, easily accessible schemata from nia
which they can select particular strategies, routines, and information ing
in interactive teaching. Novice teachers have difficulties improvising to
when the lesson deviates from their plan. This, Livingstone and Borko otl
explain, is because they do not have as many "appropriate schemata for ing
instructional strategies to draw upon," nor do they have "sufficiently sei
well-developed schemata for pedagogical content knowledge to enable in£
the construction of explanations or examples on the spot" (ibid.). The in
extensive network of strategies and routines that expert teachers possess roi
also enables them to plan more efficiently than novice teachers. ne(
It is indisputable that expert teachers have much richer knowledge of is r
all aspects of their work as a teacher than novice teachers. As Bereiter the
and Scardamalia (1993) point out, there are no experts who lack expert doi
knowledge of their fields. However, does teacher knowledge consist of rel;
structured facts that are stored in individual teachers* memory and can be (Se
retrieved and accessed as necessary? Or is teacher knowledge embedded tea
in the very act of teaching, which is highly context specific? How far does
the concept of "knowledge schemata" accurately capture the nature of doi
teacher knowledge, and how it is developed? tic
Many of the expert-novice studies focused on the management of the ties
classroom or the more generic aspects of teacher behavior, such as pac- per
ing, questioning, explanation, or qualities like clarity and enthusiasm stu
(see Ball, 1991; Brophy, 1991). They were relatively less focused on the wa
"management of ideas" in the classroom (Shulman, 1987, p. 1) until an< Shulman's call for attention to teachers' subject matter knowledge in 1986 (see 4.1.4). As Shulman points out, both emphases are necessary. The lack of attention to the knowledge of expert teachers until recently is partly because much of their knowledge is tacit. Very often, experts themselves are unaware of the knowledge that they have. Even if they are aware of it, they are unable to articulate it, as pointed out above. Unlike performance in the classroom, the knowledge that is embedded in it is not observable and often very difficult to tease out. The lack of attention is also partly because teachers have never been seen as possessing a body of professional knowledge (see Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion). Yet, Characteristics of Expert and Novice Teachers 41 selectively s teachers' n-making. ion is rele-nake deci-ss efficient achers are Livingston :o have an nata from formation nprovising md Borko lemata for sufficiently to enable ibid.). The srs possess 'S. )wledge of ^s Bereiter ack expert consist of and can be embedded w far does : nature of lent of the ich as pac-nthusiasm sed on the p. 1) until jwledge in lecessary. til recently :n, experts if they are ive. Unlike led in it is f attention ing a body ision). Yet, as Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) point out, understanding teachers' knowledge and how it is developed as they live through their experiences is crucial to the understanding of expertise. 3,4 Summary In this chapter I have summarized the characteristics of novice and expert teachers as reported in studies of teaching expertise. Most of these studies compare the cognitive processes of expert and novice teachers, looking mainly at teacher planning in the preactive phase and teacher think¬ing and decision making in the interactive phase. The findings replicate to a large extent the common features identified in expertise studies in other domains, particularly those that adopted the information process-ing approach. Expert teachers are more efficient in planning and more selective in information processing. They are also able to recognize mean-ingful patterns quickly. They demonstrate more autonomy and flexibility in both planning arid teaching. Because they have a large repertoire of routines on which to rely, they are able to improvise and respond to the needs of the students and the situation very quickly. The automaticity that is made possible by the availability of these routines allows them to direct their attention to more important information. Similar to experts in other domains, these characteristics of their cognitive processes are very much related to their sophisticated knowledge schemata and knowledge base. (See Berliner, 1994, for a discussion of the similarities between expert teachers and experts in other domains.) A review of these studies shows that like expert-novice studies in other domains, the focus has been very much on what experts can do that novices cannot. The findings provide valuable insight into the complexi-ties of teaching and the tacit knowledge that teachers gain through ex-perience. However, like many expertise studies, there are relatively few studies that address the question of how expertise is developed and the ways in which their knowledge development differs from less experienced and novice teachers. 4 Teacher Knowledge la ki ev 4. ai 4. In Chapter 3,1 outlined findings of studies on novice-expert teacher com- * nc ve M tir sti is parisons. I pointed out that these studies were heavily influenced by the information-processing model in cognitive psychology, and that though the features of expertise in teaching identified were commonly found in expertise studies in other domains, I questioned whether these studies accurately captured the way teacher knowledge is held and developed. I also pointed out the lack of attention being paid to the subject content aspects of teacher knowledge. In this chapter, I shall focus on approaches to investigating teacher knowledge, which are fundamentally different ^r from the information processing model, and discuss the insights that they ( provide for investigating teachers' lives, teachers' knowledge and how it is acquired. One of these approaches focuses on teacher knowledge as personal, , practical, and tacit knowledge developed in the course of engaging in the teaching act and responding to the context of situation. It is very much , an sei US( it. th( influenced by the work of philosophers. Studies adopting this approach focus on teachers' personal understanding of the practical situations in which they work and how their professional knowledge is embedded in and developed through their daily practices. Another approach takes an anthropological perspective on teacher knowledge. It sees teacher knowledge as situated in the specific context in which teachers oper- "*j ate. It focuses on the characteristic features of the environment in which ■ teachers work and the knowledge so developed. These studies are mostly interpretive case studies involving close analyses of teachers' own inter- Th pretation of their work and classroom events. A third approach examines °* the domains of teacher knowledge and focuses in particular on teachers' .. subject matter knowledge and the effective representation of this knowl¬ edge to students, referred to as pedagogical content knowledge. It adopts an analytical approach and sees teacher knowledge as more formal and kn propositional than personal and practical. Studies of teachers' pedagogi¬ cal content knowledge focus on the relationship between teachers' subject 4 matter knowledge, the quality of their instruction and the curricular decisions that they make. They include empirical studies as well as case Or studies involving interviews and intensive classroom observations. In the tea 42 Teacher Knowledge 43 last section of this chapter, I shall present a reconceptualization of teacher knowledge and a framework for interpreting and understanding teachers' everyday practices and the knowledge embedded in these practices. .cher com-ced by the Lat though Y found in ise studies leveloped. ct content pproaches / different s that they ind how it personal, 5ing in the /ery much approach uations in bedded in iach takes es teacher tiers oper-t in which are mostly 3wn inter-. examines 1 teachers' lis knowl-. It adopts Drmal and pedagogi-rs' subject curricular ell as case 3ns. In the 4.1 Teacher Knowledge as Reflective Practice and Personal Practical Knowledge 4,1.1 "Knowing bow" and "tacit knowing" The study of the knowledge held by teachers as a distinctive kind of knowledge which is fundamentally different from scientific or tech-nological knowledge (considered systematic, rigorous, and objective), is very much influenced by the work of philosophers like Gilbert Ryle and Michael Polanyi. Ryle (1949) was the first one to point out that the dis-tinction made between "knowing how" and "knowing that" is a miscon-strual of the nature of knowledge (p. 29) and that to say that the former is an application of the latter is a misrepresentation of what happens in practice. Polanyi, a scientist-turned-philosopher, explored human knowledge from the starting point that "we can know more than we can tell" (1966, p. 4) An example that he gave was knowing a person's face and being able to recognize it among thousands of people, and yet not being able to tell how one can recognize this face. He argues that this kind of tacit knowledge is an indispensable part of all knowledge, and that the de¬clared aim of modern science to establish a strictly detached, objective, and formalized knowledge is misleading. Knowledge of theory, he ob¬serves, cannot be established until it has been interiorized and extensively used to interpret experience, and true knowledge lies in our ability to use it. Echoing Ryle (1949), Polanyi asserts that the more intellectual and the more practical kinds of knowledge do not exist independent of each other. Moreover, the explicit formalization of knowledge cannot replace its tacit counterpart. For example, he maintains: The skill of a driver cannot be replaced by a thorough schooling in the theory of the motorcar; the knowledge I have of my own body differs altogether from the knowledge of its physiology; and the rules of rhyming and prosody do not tell me what a poem told me, without any knowledge of its rules, (p. 20) He used the term knowing to cover both theoretical and practical knowledge (p. 7). 4A.2 "Knowing-in-action" and "reflection-in action" One of the most influential works on studies of teacher knowledge and teachers' work is that of Schon (1983). Schon's conception of professional 44 Understanding Expertise in Teaching knowledge was very much influenced by the work of Polanyi (1966). In his work, The Reflective Practitioner (1983), Schon heavily criticized the view of professional knowledge expounded in the Technical Rationality model, which perceives professional knowledge as having four essen¬tial properties: specialized, firmly bounded, scientific, and standardized (p. 23). Hence, professions like medicine and law are considered "major" professions because they are grounded in systematic, rigorous, scientific knowledge or technological knowledge based on science. Professions like social work, librarianship, and education are considered "minor" professions because they lack such a knowledge base (Glazer, 1974). Professional knowledge is seen as consisting of a hierarchy of three com¬ponents: the highest level is the underlying principle or basic science component, followed by an applied science component, from which di¬agnostic procedures and problem-solutions are derived. The lowest level is a skills component, which is the application of the underlying basic and applied science to actual performance (Schein, 1973). Hence, the more basic and general the knowledge, the higher the status of people who possess that knowledge. This hierarchical separation is reflected in the curricular pattern of professional education, which usually starts with a common science core, with the skills component, often called practicum or clinical work, occurring later. Schon argues that this is a misconception of what professionals do. He points out that while it is true that there is a "high, hard ground" where practitioners can apply rigorous, research-based theory, there is also "a swampy lowland where situations are confusing 'messes' incapable of technical solution." (Schon, 1983, p. 42). In the world of practice, according to Schon, problems of great human concern are often not in the former but in the latter. Practitioners often find themselves in situations that are highly complex and fraught with uncertainty, insta¬bility, uniqueness, and value conflict (ibid., p. 39). They cannot simply apply research-based theory to problem-solving because problems do not present themselves as given. They have to identify the problem by making sense of situations that are ill-defined, messy, and full of uncer¬tainties. Even when the problem has been identified, they may find that the problem is unique, so that they cannot solve it by applying established theory or technique. According to Schon, those who involve themselves in messy but important problems of great human concern often describe their methods of inquiry as "experience, trial and error, intuition, and muddling through" (ibid, p. 43). Following Polanyi, he proposes that what professionals do in their workaday life is "knowing-in-action," that is, their skillful practice reveals a kind of knowing that does not stem from a prior intellectual operation (ibid., p. 51). Echoing Ryle's (1949) conception of "knowing how," Schon points out that knowing and action are not two separate things but one; that is, the knowing is in the action itself. This kind of "knowing-in-action" is tacit. Teacher Knowledge 45 (1966). In iticized the lationality :our essen-mdardized :d "major" 3, scientific Professions d "minor" ser, 1974). three corn-sic science i which di-swest level g basic and :, the more eople who cted in the arts with a practicum lals do. He nd" where ere is also ' incapable )f practice, often not mselves in inty, insta-not simply oblems do iroblem by il of uncer-.y find that established themselves sn describe aition, and jposes that in-action," .t does not Ding Ryle's it knowing knowing is Schon's conception of professional knowledge focuses on how pro-fessionals develop this kind of knowledge. He points out that although "knowing-in-action" is intuitive and automatic, practitioners do engage in reflection in two ways: they reflect-on-action and reflect-in-action. The former takes place when they reflect on what they have done or what they have experienced, often in order to prepare themselves for future actions. The latter takes place during the action, especially when they encounter situations which are unanticipated, problematic, or unique, and they ar¬rive at a new way of looking at a phenomenon or a problem, hence generating a new understanding which leads to immediate action. The process of generating new understanding is called "reframing." Schon argues that when a practitioner is engaged in this kind of reflective pro¬cess, he or she becomes a researcher in the practice context, and the knowledge acquired in this process is a legitimate form of professional knowing, which is rigorous in its own right (ibid., p. 69). The distinction that Schon makes between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, as Eraut (1994) points out, is more theoretical than real. When real ex¬amples are examined, it is difficult to draw the line between the two and the distinction disappears. To the extent that professional knowledge is tacit and intuitive, and that professionals engage in reflection when they encounter unantici-pated, problematic situations, Schon's conception of professional knowl-edge is similar to the position that Dreyfus and Dreyfus take with regard to expertise. However, insofar as Schon's conception of reflection as play¬ing a central role in professionals' development of knowledge, he parts company with Dreyfus and Dreyfus. 4,1.3 Personal Practical Knowledge One of the earliest systematic studies of teachers' knowledge is Elbaz's (1983) study of a very experienced high school teacher, Sarah. The study was motivated by the basic assumption that practical knowledge exists and that the nature and defining characteristics of this knowledge can be understood by examining teachers' everyday practices and the think¬ing behind these practices, and by getting teachers to tell stories about their teaching. Elbaz is not interested in whether Sarah is instructionally effective or whether her actions are predicted by theory. Rather, she is interested in what Sarah knows about her work, how she understands it, and how she uses her knowledge in carrying out her tasks as a teacher. The study of Sarah led Elbaz to conclude that teachers hold a special kind of knowledge in distinctive ways. She refers to this kind of knowl-edge as practical knowledge because, according to her, the term "focuses attention on the action and decision-oriented nature of the teacher's situ¬ation, and construes her knowledge as a function, in part, of her response to that situation" (p. 5). This kind of knowledge is oriented to a particular 46 Understanding Expertise in Teaching practical context and social context, and is highly experiential and per¬sonal. Elbaz summarizes her conception of teacher's practical knowledge as follows: This knowledge encompasses first hand experience of students' learning styles, interests, needs, strengths and difficulties, and a repertoire of instructional techniques and classroom management skills. The teacher knows the social structure of the school and what it requires, of teacher and student, for survival and for success; she knows the community of which the school is a part, and has a sense of what it will and will not accept. This experiential knowledge is informed by the teacher's theoretical knowledge of subject matter, and of areas such as child development, learning and social theory. All of these kinds of knowledge, as integrated by the individual teacher in terms of personal values and beliefs and as oriented to her practical situation, will be referred to as 'practical knowledge' (1983, p. 5). According to Elbaz, the above description includes five categories of knowledge, which reflect differences that are relevant to teachers: knowl¬edge of subject matter, which includes not only knowledge of the subject discipline that the teacher is teaching, but also theories related to learning; knowledge of the curriculum, which refers to the structuring of learning experience and the curriculum content; knowledge of instruction, which includes classroom routines, classroom management, and student needs; knowledge of self, which includes knowledge of individual's character¬istics such as one's own personality, age, attitudes, values and beliefs, as well as personal goals; and knowledge of the milieu of schooling, which refers to the social structure of the school and its surrounding community. These five categories of knowledge, according to Elbaz, are static. However, their relationship with the world of practice is dynamic. They shape practice, but they are also shaped by practice. They con¬stitute "knowledge of practice" and "knowledge mediated fey practice" (p. 47). While Elbaz sees teacher's knowledge as intuitive and tacit, and less accessible in formally articulated and codified form, nevertheless, she sees deliberative process and intuitive and reflective processes as equally im-portant. She argues that "deliberative process is the main way in which practical knowledge is examined in terms of its adequacy of particu¬lar problems, but intuitive and reflective processes that focus on gen¬eral issues, goals, and beliefs are likely to be equally important for some teachers" (p. 15). Influenced by the work of Dewey (1938) andphenome-nologists (for example, the work of Alfred Schutz, 1962-73; Schutz and Luckman, 1974), Elbaz sees a close interrelation between theory and practice. However, instead of taking knowing and action as one and the same thing, and theory as embedded in action, Elbaz considers teacher knowledge as not just knowledge of how to do things, but also knowl¬edge that has propositional content. In other words, for her, there is ad dec call quf are orit of I 1 knc edg ati\ pro of; thei \ edg to I per, cal cau it is / CO! rati 'he; thrc Our of t< stor relh me a me a chai Clai Difi the thrc the Nar expt mea of a' whit Teacher Knowledge 47 d and per-cnowledge ling styles, :tional e social for survival part, and iwledge is tid of areas inds of nal values l to as tegories of :rs: knowl-;he subject o learning; )f learning ion, which lent needs; character-nd beliefs, schooling, rrounding Elbaz, are > dynamic. They con-
> practice"
t, and less ss, she sees quaily im-y in which )f particu-is on gen-t for some phenome-ichutz and heory and ne and the ;rs teacher .so knowl-:r, there is

a distinction between procedural knowledge, the "knowing how," and declarative knowledge, the "knowing that." She sees Schwab's (1969) call for the conceptualization of teacher's work in practical terms inade¬quate as a characterization of teachers' practice because teachers' actions are informed by theory rather than divorced from it. The "theoretical orientation" of the teacher's knowledge, however, is an implicit theory of knowledge which informs his or her practical knowledge (p. 21).
From the above discussion, we can see that Elbaz's approach to teacher knowledge was to bring together two opposing perspectives of knowl-edge, the empiric-analytical perspective, which sees knowledge as declar-ative; and the phenomenologicai perspective, which sees knowledge as procedural. What she tried to do, according to her, was to develop a way of studying teacher knowledge that "acknowledges the importance of theory while firmly situated in practice" (p. 23).
While Elbaz's work emphasizes the practical aspect of teacher knowl¬edge in the sense of knowledge as a function of a teacher's response to the situation, the work of Clandinin and Connelly emphasizes the personal aspect of teacher knowledge, and refers to it as "personal practi¬cal knowledge." They argue that this kind of knowledge is "personal" be¬cause it is derived from a person's narrative, and it is "practical" because it is aimed at meeting the demands of a particular situation (see p. 185).
Adopting an experiential philosophical approach, Clandinin and Connelly see teacher knowledge as experiential and embodied in the nar-ratives of a teacher's life (see Clandinin and Connelly, 1987). Therefore, they seek to understand the personal practical knowledge of teachers through teachers' narratives.
Our best understanding of teacher knowledge is a narrative one In this view
of teachers' knowledge, teachers know their lives in terms of stories. They live stories, tell stories of those lives, retell stories with changed possibilities, and relive the changed stories. In this narrative view of teachers' knowledge, we mean more than teachers' telling stories of specific children and events. We mean that their way of being in the classroom is storied: As teachers they are characters in their own stories of teaching, which they author. (Connelly and Clandinin, 1995, p. 12)
Different from Elbaz, Connelly and Clandinin perceive teaching not as the application of theory; but as the unification of theory and practice through what they referred to as the "narrative unities" of experience of the teacher.
Narrative unity is a continuum within a person's experience which renders life experiences meaningful through the unity they achieve for the person. What we mean by unity is a union in a particular person in a particular time and place of all that has been and undergone in the past and in the past of the tradition which helps to shape him. (Connelly and Clandinin, 1985, p. 198)

48 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
According to Clandinin, in the stories that teachers tell and retell, live The
and relive, the "images" that they use are a powerful means by which their n th
perception of work can be understood. An image embodies "a person's ' AUT[
experience, finds expression in practice, and is the perspective from which oart
new experience is taken" (1986, p. 166). For example, one of the images iaVt
that was used by their teacher, Stephanie, was "classroom as home," and njric
it was expressed in the way she tried to enhance a homelike environment t-he c
of the classroom by making and displaying cookies in the way that she mair
would at home. This image emerged from her early learning and teaching t0pe
experience in which there was a lack of closeness. It also emerged from the < her home, school, and professional experience, which contributed to her ! and perception of the classroom as a place to "live" and where her pupils i relat felt comfortable and cared for. ' Linjt The characterization of teachers' knowledge as "personal practical ' with knowledge" is best summarized by Clandinin as follows: j It is knowledge that reflects the individual's prior knowledge and acknowledges ° rf the contextual nature of that teacher's knowledge. It is a kind of knowledge l"essl carved out of, and shaped by, situations; knowledge that is constructed and of si reconstructed as we live out our stories and retell and relive them through men processes of reflection (1992, p.125). of sii is de And 4.2 Teacher Knowledge as Situated Knowledge of tl emb In the discussion of the conception of teacher knowledge as personal s'tua practical knowledge in the preceding section, frequent references have phys been made by researchers to the situated nature of teacher knowledge. time The conception of teacher knowledge as "situated knowledge" is influ- in th enced by an anthropological and psychological approach to knowledge, the » notably in the works of Lave (1988) and Lave and Wenger (1991), which kno: see knowledge as contextually developed as practitioners respond to the prin< specific context in which they operate. It is diametrically opposed to con- seen ventional theories of action, knowledge, and learning in which context ing I is seen as the container in which other things are placed, knowledge is a of ki collection of real entities that reside in the head, and learning is a process Lein of acquiring existing knowledge. For Lave, learning and participation in if wt social practice is one and the same thing, and learning and knowing is an worl "engagement in changing processes of human activities" (1993, p. 12). In Lave's (1988) conception of knowledge as "situated knowledge" em- that anated from her study of everyday social practices. For example, in study- als° ing the practice of mathematics in a variety of common settings, such as in 1 ha\ grocery shopping in the supermarket and in test situations, she observed com that the same people responded differently in different settings: the prob- teac^ lem was defined differently and the answers so developed were different. oiffe 1 retell, live which their "a person's from which the images lome," and ivironment ay that she id teaching erged from ■uted to her her pupils al practical knowledges Lowledge cted and irough is personal ences have tnowledge. ;e" is influ-cnowledge, '91), which ?ond to the ised to con-ich context wledge is a is a process icipation in swing is an 93, p. 12). ledge" em-.e, in study->, such as in te observed s: theprob-e different.

Teacher Knowledge 49
The relationship between the problem and the answer is a dialectical one in that "the problem was defined at the same time as an answer developed during the problem." Problem and answer both "took form in action in a particular, culturally structured setting, the supermarket" (p. 2) (see also Lave et al., 1984; Scribner, 1984). Hence, she argued against taking cog¬nition as something constant and stable held by the individual whereas the contexts in which they operate are specific and variable. Instead, she maintains that "persons-acting, arenas, activity appear to be implicated together in the very constitution of activity" (p. 170). In other words, the conventional division between the mind and body no longer exists, and setting, activity, and mind are connected through their constitutive relations with "the person-acting" (ibid., p. 181). A more appropriate unit of analysis should, therefore, be "the whole person in action, acting with the settings of that activity" (ibid., p. 17).
The notion of "situated knowledge" has been adopted by a number of researchers as a way of understanding teachers' work and their pro-fessional knowledge. Leinhardt (1988) investigated expert teachers' use of situated knowledge in selecting and using examples to explain ele¬mentary mathematical concepts. She found that just as in other forms of situated knowledge that is contextually developed, teacher knowledge is developed in the specific context of the school and classroom setting. And just as the former tends to make use of the characteristic features of the context when coming up with solutions, the knowledge that is embedded in the teaching act makes use of the features of the teaching situation, such as who the students are, what the classroom is like, the physical environment of the school, the time of the year and even the time of the day. In other words, this kind of knowledge is "embedded in the artifacts of a context" (p. 148). She observes that in dealing with the teaching task and in solving problems, teachers often use situated knowledge rather than "generative knowledge" which is context-free, principled, and can be generalized across situations because the former seems to be more accurately and flexibly used and more effective in help¬ing learners learn and in solving problems than the latter. Yet, this kind of knowledge has been seen as rather low level, limited, and inelegant. Leinhardt points out that "we can learn much about the art of teaching if we seriously consider the nature of the environment in which teachers work and reason" (ibid., p. 147).
In this section I have discussed conceptions of teacher knowledge that have been influential in the teacher education literature. I have also discussed the different theoretical antecedents of these conceptions. I have shown that though they have different emphases, they share some common views about the nature of teacher knowledge. All of them see teachers as possessing a specialized kind of knowledge that is distinctly different from scientific or technological knowledge. It is knowledge that

50 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

is very much embedded in teachers' daily teaching practices, oriented to the particular situation in which it arises and is often not articulated. While Elbaz and Connelly and Clandinin are interested in the kind of teacher knowledge that is embedded in teachers' narratives, stories, and images, Schon and his followers are interested in how teacher knowledge is developed through reflection and reframing. Leinhardt and researchers working with the notion of situated knowledge are interested in under¬standing the teaching act as a joint constitution of the context and the teacher-acting. The emphasis of practical knowledge is very much on the personal experiential knowledge of teachers as manifested in teachers' practical rules and principles, routines, rhythms, and images. The em¬phasis of knowing-in-action and reflective practice is on understanding teacher knowledge developed not only through experience but also on re¬flection, particularly when they come across problematic situations. The emphasis of situated knowledge is on the dialectical relationship between context and knowledge. These researchers provide perspectives for un¬derstanding teachers, teacher knowledge, and teaching in ways that are fundamentally different from studies of teacher expertise conducted so far. In the following section, we shall discuss yet another approach to teacher knowledge that is largely conceptual and analytical but which has been no less influential.
4.3 Teacher Knowledge as Content Knowledge1
Different from the conceptions outlined above, which emphasize the sit- ;
uated and experiential nature of teacher knowledge, Shulman's theory \
of teacher knowledge is conceptual and analytical (see Shulman, 1986; ,
Wilson, Shulman, and Richert, 1987). Shulman points out that ques- i
tions regarding how teachers' understanding of the subject matter affects \
the quality of their instructions, how teachers transform their knowl- j
edge of subject discipline into a form that is comprehensible to students, j
how teachers deal with faulty curriculum materials, and how they use \
their subject knowledge to generate explanations and representations,!
are central to teaching and that these questions have been neglected by i
researchers of practical knowledge. Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987) j
maintain: |
i 1 The term content knowledge is used in the sense of Shulman (1986), which includes subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, as opposed to pedagogical knowledge. In the teacher knowledge literature, the term subject matter knowledge sometimes encompasses pedagogical content knowledge, and sometimes refers strictly to knowledge of the discipline. In this book the term subject matter knowledge is used in the latter sense. Subject matter knowledge for teaching will be referred to as pedagogical content knowledge.

...b
that
teacl
ofth
porn
Shul rese;
In th
inves insrn resea enter subdi subje trans Nor ( stude absen the st
Tc his o "Knc devel ics, a: of the Bropl work subje> curri' of the in tha elude: stanti parad of dai are us the fie accep p. 29) interp in tha and hi studer a subj

oriented to .rticulated, he kind of tories, and knowledge 'esearchers 1 in under-xt and the uch on the i teachers' 5. The em-erstanding also on re¬unions. The ip between /es for un-ys that are iducted so >proach to but which
size the sit-in's theory Aan, 1986; that ques-tter affects eir knowl-o students, w they use sentations, jglected by iert(1987)
;h includes
dto
>ject matter
sometimes
t matter
ins will be

Teacher Knowledge 51
by emphasizing the practical and to some extent, idiosyncratic knowledge that teachers use, these researchers present a truncated conceptualization of teacher knowledge. Teachers have theoretical, as well as practical, knowledge of the subject matter that informs and is informed by their teaching; any oortrait of teacher knowledge should include both aspects." (p. 108)
Shulman (1986) refers to the neglect of subject matter in the various research paradigms for the study of teaching as the "missing paradigm."
In their necessary simplification of the complexities of classroom teaching, investigators ignored one central aspect of classroom life: the content of instruction, the subject matter. This omission also characterized most other research paradigms in the study of teaching. Occasionally subject matter entered into the research as a context variable - a control characteristic for
subdividing data set by content categories But no one focused on the
subject matter content itself. No one asked how subject matter was transformed from the knowledge of the teacher into the content of instruction. Hor did they ask how particular formulations of that content related to what students came to know or misconstrue. My colleagues and I refer to the absence of focus on subject matter among the various research paradigms for the study of teaching as the "missing paradigm" problem. (1986, p. 6)
To address questions relating to the "missing paradigm," Shulman and his colleagues at Stanford University launched a research program on "Knowledge Growth in Teaching," in which they studied the knowledge development of novice secondary teachers in English, science, mathemat-ics, and social studies in the year of teacher preparation and the first year of their teaching. (For some of their studies, see the collection of papers in Brophy, 1991.) Shulman proposed for investigation a theoretical frame¬work that distinguished among three categories of content knowledge: subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Subject matter knowledge includes the knowledge of the content of a subject discipline, that is, the major facts and concepts in that discipline and their relationships (see Grossman, 1990). It also in-cludes its substantive and syntactic structures (Schwab,1964). The sub¬stantive structures of a discipline refer to "the explanatory frameworks or paradigms that are used to guide inquiry in the field and to make sense of data" and the syntactic structures are "the canons of evidence that are used by members of the disciplinary community to guide inquiry in the field. They are the means by which new knowledge is introduced and accepted into that community" (Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman, 1989, p. 29). According to Shulman, teachers' knowledge of the explanatory or interpretive frameworks used in a discipline and how to conduct inquiry in that discipline has an important influence on their curricular decisions and how they represent the content and the nature of the discipline to the students. Pedagogical content knowledge refers to the representation of a subject by the use of analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations,

52 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
and demonstrations in order to make it comprehensible to students. In order for a representation to be effective, teachers need to understand what makes a particular topic easy or difficult for students, what their preconceptions and misconceptions are, and what strategies are effec-tive in dealing with their misconceptions. Curricular knowledge refers to knowledge of the programs and available materials designed for the teaching of particular topics at a given level. Subsequently, Shulman and his colleagues added four more categories of teacher knowledge: gen¬eral pedagogical knowledge, which is knowledge of principles and skills! of teaching and learning that are generally applicable across subjects; j knowledge of educational aims, goals, and purposes; knowledge of j learners, including knowledge of learners' characteristics and cognition, j their learning development and motivation; and knowledge of other; content, that is, content that is outside the scope of the subject that they are teaching. They suggest that teachers draw upon all these seven \ categories of teacher knowledge when they make decisions about their content teaching (see Wilson, Shulman, and Richert, 1987).
Shulman's conception of teacher knowledge has been very influen¬tial, and a number of studies have been conducted based on this con¬ception, emphasizing especially the role of subject matter knowledge \ and its relation to pedagogical content knowledge. It is interesting to [ note, however, that Shulman was not the first one to propose that sub¬ject matter knowledge is an important component of teacher knowledge (see Carlsen, 1991), nor is he the first one to make a distinction between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, although the latter is his coinage (see Grossman, 1990). In expounding her con-ception of "practical knowledge," Elbaz (1983) specifically points out; that "the teacher's subject matter knowledge, no less than other areas of her knowledge, is practical knowledge, shaped by and for the prac-, tical situation" (p. 55). Elbaz illustrates this point with data from her: teacher, Sarah, to show how her knowledge of learning skills affected the; way she organized the Learning Course that she directed, and how her \ knowledge was modified in the process of teaching (see also Buchmann, ] 1984). The distinction between subject matter knowledge and the spe-j cialized knowledge of subject matter for teaching dates back to Deweyi (1902), who points out that a scientist's knowledge of the subject matter! is different from the specialized understanding of the same subject matter; by the teacher who is concerned with "how his own knowledge of the | subject matter may assist in interpreting the child's needs and doings, andj determining the medium in which the child should be properly directed" (p. 286).
Despite the fact that Shulman's conception is not revolutionary, it has made a strong impact on the study of teacher knowledge. This is probably j because it was proposed at a time when most of the empirical research;

on te cific s ol att earlie reseai matte 1974; rer kr and a assess grade Stude were i the er edge i sponc (see C bet we and b matte has of reach* has re sional to dis-being lookir two h follow
Succes: of a pa LI riders concep the cor 'psych< subject include to com matter Sub there 1 affects on ma ing (se Teacher Knowledge 53 students. In understand what their s are effeo ledge refers ;ned for the lulman and dedge: gen-:s and skills ss subjects; owledge of I cognition, *e of other mbject that these seven about their sry influen->n this con-knowledge teresting to se that sub-knowledge on between ;e, although ng her con-■ points out other areas )r the prac-ta from her affected the nd how her Buchmann, .nd the spe-k to Dewey Dject matter bject matter ledge of the doings, and ly directed"
>nary, it has
is probably
:al research

teaching focused on generic aspects of teaching and neglected spe-ific subject matter content (see Ball and McDiarmid, 1990). The lack i attention to subject matter content was partly due to the fact that arlier empirical studies, referred to by some as the "presage-product" research, failed to show significant correlation between teachers' subject matter knowledge and students' achievement (see Dunkin and Biddle, 1974)- One reason for the lack of correlation is the way subject mat-ter knowledge and student achievement were inadequately understood and assessed in these studies. Teachers' subject matter knowledge was assessed by the number of hours that they had taken in a subject, their erade point averages, and their scores in standardized achievement tests. Student achievement was assessed by standardized tests, all of which were inadequate indicators. Another reason for the lack of correlation is the erroneous assumption that the relationship between teacher knowl¬edge and student achievement is linear; that there is a one-to-one corre-spondence between what teachers know and how much students learn (see Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman, 1989). By making a distinction between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, and by pointing out that successful teaching requires not just subject matter knowledge, but also pedagogical content knowledge, Shulman has offered a convincing explanation for the lack of correlation between teacher knowledge and student achievement in the earlier studies, and has reinstated the role of subject matter knowledge in teachers' profes¬sional knowledge base. He has persuasively argued that it is inadequate to discuss pedagogical skills without looking at the content of what is being taught, just as it is inadequate to discuss subject matter without looking at how it is being taught. The interrelationship between the two has been expounded by Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987) as follows:
Successful teachers cannot simply have an intuitive or personal understanding of a particular concept, principle, or theory. Rather, in order to foster understanding, they must themselves understand ways of representing the concept for students. They must have knowledge of the ways of transforming the content for the purposes of teaching. In Dewey's terms, they must 'psychologize' the subject matter. In order to transform or psychologize the subject matter, teachers must have a knowledge of the subject matter that includes a personal understanding of the content as well as knowledge of ways to communicate that understanding, to foster the development of subject matter knowledge in the minds of students, (p.110)
Subsequent to Shulman's call to search for the "missing paradigm," there have been a number of studies on how subject matter knowledge affects the process and quality of teaching. Studies have been conducted on mathematics teaching (see, for example, Ball, 1991), science teach¬ing (see, for example, Hashweh, 1987; Smith and Neale, 1989; Carlsen,

54 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

1991; Munby and Russell, 1991), English teaching (see, for example Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman, 1989; Grossman, 1990), and history teaching (see, for example Wilson, and Wineburg, 1988). However, the number of studies of the knowledge base of expert and novice teach¬ers is relatively small (see, for example, Leinhardt and Smith, 1985-Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986; Leinhardt, 1989; Leinhardt et al., 199\\ Gudmunsdottir and Shulman, 1989; Wineburg and Wilson, 1991).
Studies of the subject matter knowledge of teachers found that in preactive planning, teachers with less subject matter knowledge followed the textbook's structure closely, whereas those with more subject matter knowledge not only rejected the textbook's structure but were able to offer alternative organizations. They were better able than the former to detect ill-articulated themes and unimportant concepts, more ready to discard activities not essential to the development of the theme and to enrich and expand activities that develop the theme (see Hashweh, 1987; Lantz and Kass, 1987; Reynolds, Haymore, Ringstaff, and Grossman, 1988; Wilson and Wineburg, 1988).
In interactive teaching, teachers who had better subject knowledge were observed to be able to help students make conceptual connections, provide appropriate and varied representations, and construct active and meaningful dialogs with students. Teachers with limited knowledge were found to present the subject as a collection of static facts. Their subject representations consisted of impoverished or inappropriate examples and analogies. They also tended to emphasize seat work assignments and rou-tinized student input as opposed to meaningful dialog. They might even I overutilize rules, which can lead to misunderstandings (see Stein, Baxter, and Leinhardt, 1990). More knowledgeable teachers were also observed to be more likely to detect students' preconceptions and correct them, to deal with students' difficulties, and to exploit opportunities for useful di¬gressions. By contrast, less knowledgeable teachers might reinforce mis¬conceptions, incorrectly criticize students' correct answers, and accept erroneous results. The examination questions of more knowledgeable teachers required synthesis of ideas and higher intellectual processes, whereas those of less knowledgeable teachers were mainly recall ques¬tions (see Hashweh, 1985).
Less-knowledgeable teachers were also found to use a variety of strate¬gies such as avoidance strategy. For example, in Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman's study (1989), the English teachers avoided teaching grammar! whenever possible because they lacked knowledge of grammar. Their lack | of knowledge also affected the style of their instruction. They resorted to; straight lecturing to avoid student questions. For example, one English! teacher in Grossman's study, because of her lack of confidence in gram-j mar, went over the grammar homework review very quickly and avoided; eye contact with her students so that they would not have the opportunity

to i » cite
has stri knc oft star mat of s kno amp teac istr) tog how how tau£ the ; with labo cont Ir is th to st leagi of ti and J their natic and < ies si rich, ing.: activ expb as an terize takin introi judgr Novi< lessoi lessoi ; Teacher Knowledge 55 3r example and history however, the ) ovice teach-nith, 1985; * al., 1991; i 1991). und that in Ige followed bject matter vere able to . the former more ready neme and to iweh, 1987; . Grossman, : knowledge ;onnections, :t active and wledge were "heir subject samples and :nts and rou-r might even tein, Baxter, Iso observed :ect them, to :or useful di-dnforce mis-, and accept owledgeable d processes, recall ques- ety of strate-Wilson, and ng grammar ir. Their lack y resorted to one English ace in gram-and avoided opportunity to ask what she perceived to be difficult questions (see Grossman, 1987, cited in Grossman et al, 1989). The above studies show that teachers' disciplinary knowledge often has a decisive influence on the process, content, and quality of their in-struction. Wilson and Wineburg (1988) further observe that the lack of knowledge in a particular discipline not only compromises the quality of teachers' instruction, but also limits their ability to learn and under¬stand that particular discipline. In these studies, the discussions of subject matter knowledge were inextricably linked with teachers' representation of subject matter. Some studies have shown that although subject matter knowledge is necessary for successful teaching, it is not sufficient. For ex-ample, Munby and Russell's (1991) case study of a secondary chemistry teacher who had worked for eleven years as a research technician in chem¬istry showed that while the teacher's knowledge of chemistry enabled her to give clear, precise and accurate instructions, she was unable to show how each part of her instructions was related to the unit being taught and how forthcoming material was conceptually related to the material just taught. Nor was she able to provide opportunities for students to pursue the steps to solve problems independently. By contrast, her experience with laboratory work generated practical knowledge about managing laboratory work with her students. Her classroom teaching was in stark contrast to her laboratory sessions. Indeed, in studies of the knowledge of expert and novice teachers, it is the different ways in which they represent subject matter knowledge to students that distinguish experts from novices. Leinhardt and her col-leagues at the University of Pittsburgh investigated the following aspects of the teaching of novice and expert teachers: their activity structures and routines, their organization and content of subject matter knowledge, their lesson plans, goals and actions for teaching a particular topic, expla-nations, and representations (see Leinhardt and Smith, 1985; Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986; Leinhardt, 1989; Leinhardt et al., 1991). These stud-ies show that expert teachers' reported mental lesson plans were detailed, rich, and demonstrated an awareness of critical points in content learn¬ing. Their lessons were characterized by fluid movement from one type of activity to another, with transparent goals and cohesive structures. Their explanations were clear and well-connected, and their lessons worked as an integrated whole. Their subject matter presentations were charac-terized by multiple-representation systems which were carefully selected, taking students from the familiar to the unfamiliar. They were able to introduce the total topic gradually by manageable bits and by careful judgment of the amount of repetition and practice that were needed. Novice teachers' lessons, by contrast, were characterized by fragmented lesson structures with ambiguous goals that were often abandoned. Their lessons did not fit together within or across topic boundaries. No steps 56 Understanding Expertise in Teaching were taken to ensure that students had the necessary procedural skills to handle the steps of a new procedure, and hence students were often taken from the unfamiliar to the unfamiliar. Novice teachers' explanations were not well connected, and they made mistakes that confused students con¬ceptually. They also lacked the analytic skills to understand where failure occurred and when implicit goals were not achieved. Leinhardt (1989) suggested that the differences could be due to novice teachers' lack of a cohesive schema for a lesson and their lack of sufficient subject mat¬ter knowledge to be flexible when teaching. However, she also observed that although the novice math teachers in the study showed significant subject matter knowledge, they did not seem to be able to access it when teaching. Her summarizing statement on expertise, made on the basis of her data, shows the centrality of not only a sound knowledge base in subject matter but, more importantly, its effective representation. Expertise is characterized by speed of action, forward-directed solutions, accuracy, enriched representations, and rich elaborations of knowledge in terms of depth and organizational quality, (p. 94) Gudmunsdottir and Shulman (1989) investigated the teaching of social studies by a novice and by an expert teacher with thirty-seven years of teaching experience, both of whom had expert content knowledge in their disciplines. They observed that these two teachers differed in ; two respects. First, the expert teacher had developed a comprehensive overview as well as a clear point of view about the subject matter, whereas the novice teacher had not. Second, while the expert teacher had plenty of opportunities to re-define his content knowledge to construct pedagogical content knowledge, the novice teacher did not. The expert teacher knew a number of ways of segmenting and structuring the curriculum and was aware of the pros and cons of each approach. The novice teacher, by contrast, knew only one way and could only visualize one unit at a time. Gudmunsdottir and Shulman (1989, p. 33) summed up the difference as follows: The most dramatic differences between the novice and the expert are that the expert has pedagogical content knowledge that enables him to see the larger picture in several ways, and he has the flexibility to select a teaching method that does justice to the topic. The novice, however, is getting a good start in constructing pedagogical content knowledge, starting small, and progressing to seeing more and larger possibilities in the curriculum, both in terms of unit of organization and pedagogical flexibility. "Wmeburg and Wilson (1991) examined how two expert history teach¬ers transformed their knowledge of history to make it accessible to stu¬dents. They observed that these two teachers used diverse methods to convey their subject matter knowledge, including examples, analogies, demonstrations, role-plays, stories, and debates. All of these methods, how thel ing< knc and Kno' conn poss< mani possi modi (199 Tl expe edge draw mod' of pr subjc edge as a t knov knov misc< tive r and 1 a spe pone To a bo vi know into f ma tic know 4.4 4,4.1 In the sectio edge i be set Teacher Knowledge 57 ral skills to )ften taken itionswere idents con-lere failure rdt (1989) :rs' lack of ibject mat-o observed significant ess it when :he basis of [ge base in ion. tions, dge in tig of social even years knowledge differed in prehensive er, whereas :d plenty of edagogical icher knew m and was teacher, by t at a time. fference as ce that the he larger g method 1 start in ogressing ■ms of unit tory teach-ible to stu-nethods to analogies, e methods, however, shared the common feature of functioning as a bridge between the teacher's sophisticated understanding and the developing understand¬ing of the students. They remarked that it was in the pedagogical content knowledge of these teachers that their expertise was best seen. Wineburg and Wilson concluded that Knowledge of subject matter is central to teaching but expert knowledge of content is not the singular determinant of good teaching Both teachers possess rich and deep understandings of many things, understandings that manifest themselves in the ability to draw from a broad range of pedagogical possibilities. In fact, it may be their very ability to alternate between different modes of teaching that earns them the designation "wise practitioner." (1991, p. 336) The above studies show that understanding the knowledge bases of expert and novice teachers, particularly their pedagogical content knowl¬edge, is crucial to understanding expertise in teaching. Grossman (1990), drawing on various models of teacher knowledge, especially Shulman's model, proposed four general areas of knowledge as the cornerstones of professional knowledge for teaching: general pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowl-edge of context. In her model, pedagogical content knowledge is presented as a central component that interacts with the other three components of knowledge. In addition to Shulman's conception of pedagogical content knowledge, which includes knowledge of students' existing knowledge, misconceptions, and preconceptions about the subject matter and effec¬tive means of representing the subject matter, Grossman adds knowledge and beliefs about the purposes for teaching a specific subject discipline at a specific level and knowledge of the curriculum as important subcom-ponents of pedagogical content knowledge. To summarize, the studies of teachers' content knowledge reported above show that central to successful teaching is pedagogical content knowledge, which is the transformation of subject matter knowledge into forms of representation that are accessible to learners. The transfor-mation process requires an adequate understanding of the subject matter, knowledge of learners, curriculum, context, and pedagogy. 4.4 Reconceptualizing Teacher Knowledge 4.4.1 Teacher knowledge domains In the studies of teachers' content knowledge reviewed in the previous section, there seems to be a consensus that teachers' subject matter knowl¬edge is something that can be clearly identified as such, and that it can be set apart from other components of teacher knowledge. However, 58 Understanding Expertise in Teaching this view has been questioned by various researchers. McNamara (1991) observes that subject matter knowledge is inextricable from pedagogic content knowledge. Calderhead and Miller (1986) maintain that the dis¬tinction between procedural knowledge and subject matter knowledge is often made, but it is more analytical than real. In their study, the student-teachers in primary schools indicated that they found subject matter knowledge useful and mentioned the ways in which it helped them to plan lessons, to diagnose pupils' difficulties, and to respond to pupils' ques¬tions and unexpected classroom events. However, these student-teachers never referred to their subject matter knowledge or their degree studies in their planning protocols, nor did they mention it in interactive stimulated recall and student assessment. Calderhead and Miller suggest that student teachers' planning could be influenced indirectly by their subject matter knowledge, but it is doubtful whether subject matter knowledge influ¬ences their practice through conscious processing. They point out that the categories of teacher knowledge provide a useful analytical frame¬work for thinking about teaching, but in the complex task of teaching the boundaries between these knowledge bases may be less easily distinguish¬able and less meaningful because they constantly intermesh in practice (see also Bennett, 1993). Grossman herself, despite her categorization of teacher knowledge, cautions that the components of teacher knowledge are less distinct in practice than in theory (see Grossman, 1990). Similarly, Feiman-Nemser and Parker's (1990) study of the conversa¬tions between experienced teachers and novice teachers found that although subject matter concerns permeated the tasks of teaching, teach¬ers rarely spoke directly about the meaning of the subject content. Subject matter was always discussed in relation to students' thinking and understanding and in relation to classroom management and or-ganization. The suggestions given by most of the experienced teachers often reflected an integration of knowledge of subjects with knowl¬edge of students, contexts, curriculum and pedagogy. As Feiman-Nemser and Floden point out, "in practice, teacher's knowledge functions as an organized whole, orienting the teacher to her situation and allowing her to act" (1986, p. 513; see also Eraut, 1994). It is the melding of these knowledge domains that is at the heart of teaching (see McDiarmid, Ball, and Anderson, 1989). 4.4.2 General pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge Discussions of teacher knowledge and classroom practices often make a distinction between general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. While it is true that there are pedagogical princi-ples and skills that are general to the teaching of all subject disciplines (foi the ject is c gov a si ESL in p ing. tim< fror are and cabl gent to a tent taug 4.4. and Ano kno\ nent (see the e Shuh itself and i as w( (199 entiti curri< conte and ( becai em be 4.4A meta It has under Teacher Knowledge 59 nara(199l) \ pedagogic :hat the dis-nowledge is the student-tject matter hem to plan upils' ques-;nt-teacher$ se studies in ; stimulated that student ?ject matter ledge influ-int out that tical frame-caching the distinguish-in practice orization of knowledge 90). .e conversa-found that hing, teach-:ct content. ts5 thinking ent and or-ed teachers nth knowl-tan-Nemser :tions as an llowing her ng of these armid, Ball, :al often make pedagogical ;ical princi-: disciplines /for example, taking roll-calls, collecting homework, and so on), much of the so-called general pedagogical skills are governed by the specific sub¬ject content being taught. For example, classroom organization, which ! 0ften considered a kind of general pedagogical skill, is very much governed by the specific curriculum content of each lesson or unit for a specific grade level, and even for a specific class. For example, in an KSL speaking skill lesson, a teacher is likely to organize students to work in pairs or groups in order to maximize the opportunities for speak¬ing- However, if the teacher is introducing phonetic symbols for the first time, it is likely that there will be a fair amount of lockstep teacher-fronted instruction so that the teacher can demonstrate how the sounds are produced. In other words, how the classroom should be organized and managed in order that student learning will be maximized is inextri-cably linked to teachers' knowledge of the subject matter. The so-called general pedagogical skill, which should be more appropriately referred to as the management of learning, is as much part of pedagogical con¬tent knowledge as the effective representation of the subject matter being taught, which can be referred to as the enactment of the curriculum. 4.4.3 Pedagogical content knowledge as integrated and situated Another consensus that is implicit in the discussion of teachers' content knowledge is that pedagogical content knowledge is a separate compo-nent and that it interacts with other components of teacher knowledge (see Grossman, 1990). However, if pedagogical content knowledge is the effective representation of subject matter knowledge to learners, as Shulman puts it, it involves not only an understanding of the content itself, but also an understanding of the learners, their preconceptions and misconceptions, and the teaching strategies for dealing with them, as well as the specific contexts in which the teaching takes place. Hillocks (1999) argues that the categories of knowledge do not exist as separate entities from which teachers draw when designing and planning their curricula; they interact with each other. I would argue that pedagogical content knowledge, which is central to the teaching act, is an integrated and coherent whole. This kind of knowledge is situated and practical because it is closely tied to the specific context of the classroom and is embodied in teachers' classroom practices. 4.4A Understanding teacher knowledge: Teachers' metaphors, images, and beliefs It has been suggested that very often teachers' knowledge can be better understood through the metaphors that they use or the images that they 60 Understanding Expertise in Teaching have formed of teaching. These metaphors and images are often de-rived from their past experiences, which shape their understanding of social situations (see Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). For example, Bullough Knowles, and Crow (1992) found that one of the teachers in their case studies adopted the metaphor of "policeman" to give coherence of mean¬ing to his experience of managing a class of students with behavioral problems and the teaching role that he was expected by the school to embrace. Another one of their teachers used the metaphor of "rescuer" to represent her understanding of her role as taking caring of students and protecting them from failure in order to build up their self-esteem, This metaphor was derived from her childhood experience of being "rescued" from a miserable home by her teachers. Grant's study (1992) of three teachers of different content subjects found that they used different metaphors to represent their thinking about the teaching of their subjects. The physics teacher used the metaphor of "magicland" to represent the excitement that science can offer to children. The history teacher thought of history as a "game" in which students could see historical events from different perspectives. The English teacher used the metaphor a diffi¬cult "journey" to represent the hard work but the gratifying outcome in the learning of literature (p. 433). As Schon (1979) points out, the metaphors that we use encapsulate the way we think about and make sense of reality as well as the way we come to see the world in a cer¬tain way. They are therefore a powerful tool for understanding teacher knowledge. Closely related to teachers' metaphors are their images of teaching. Clandinin (1986) suggests that teachers' "images," such as "classroom as home" and "language as the key" are powerful ways of summarizing the way they think about their classroom. The term images has also been used to refer to the way teachers seem to have organized their knowledge (see for example, Johnston, 1990). It has been pointed out that student-teachers and beginning teachers start out with images of what teaching is like and should be. They may have positive or negative images of teaching, which are often influenced by their past experiences, especially their experiences in schools. More experienced teachers' images, on the other hand, are influenced by their own experiences at work and at home. These images permeate their practical experience in the classroom and shape their understanding of their work as teachers and their classroom practices (see Calderhead and Robson, 1991; Johnston, 1992; Powell, 1992). Another notion that is often used in relation to explications of teacher knowledge is "teacher beliefs." In the teacher education literature, beliefs are equated with knowledge by some (see for example Kagan, 1990), or not easily distinguishable (see for example Calderhead, 1996) and con¬sidered distinct from knowledge by others. This is because of the different interpr ceived then it and dc people 1996). idiosyn tical kr though and Cc attentic import; multidi tize act percept The tions, a been co Woods tegratec asBAK proposi (P. 196; teaching Wood a ries, anc knowlec ment an In thi values a tions of out that a power learn (se Yung, 2< example through and mar Conni values a] Therefor edge em I ceptions such con Teacher Knowledge 61 re often de-manding of le, Bullough, in their case nee of mean-i behavioral he school to of "rescuer" j of students self-esteem. ice of being .dy (1992) of sed different leir subjects. •epresent the :her thought events from phor a diffi-ing outcome ints out, the it and make rid in a cer-ding teacher of teaching. "classroom ;ummarizing tas also been r knowledge ;hat student-hat teaching re images of ;s, especially .ages, on the ind at home. issroom and ir classroom ?92; Powell, is of teacher iture, beliefs n, 1990), or >6) and con-the different

interpretations of the nature of teacher knowledge. If knowledge is per¬ceived as propositional in nature and dependent on truth conditions, then it is distinct from beliefs because the latter do not have truth value and do not have to be agreed on as being true by a community of people (see Feiman-Nemser and Floden, 1986; Lehrer, 1990; Richardson, 1996). However, if teacher knowledge is considered as personalized, idiosyncratic, and highly context specific, as in teachers' "personal prac¬tical knowledge," then there is considerable overlap between the two, though they are not synonymous (see for example Elbaz, 1983; Clandinin and Connelly, 1987). Teacher beliefs have been given a great deal of attention in the teacher education research literature because of their important role in helping teachers to make sense of the complex and multidimensional nature of classroom life, to identify goals, to priori¬tize actions to be taken (see Nespor, 1987), and to shape their evolving perceptions of themselves as teachers (Johnson, 1994).
The term belief has been used together with terms such as assump-tions, conceptions, personal theories almost interchangeably. They have been considered by some researchers as inextricable (see Pajares, 1992). Woods (1996), for example, proposes a hypothetical concept of "an in-tegrated network" of beliefs, assumption, and knowledge (referred to as BAK) on the basis that they can be "posited in terms of interrelated propositions" in the sense that "certain propositions presuppose others" (p. 196). This network, he argues, affects the way a teacher interprets teaching events and hence the teaching decisions that are made. Similarly, Wood and Bennett (2000) subsume skills, experiences, beliefs, memo¬ries, and assumptions under teacher knowledge. They propose that such knowledge influences the way teachers construct their learning environ-ment and curriculum tasks.
In this book, teachers' metaphors, images, beliefs, assumptions, and values are subsumed under a more general notion of teachers' concep¬tions of teaching and learning. Research on teacher learning has pointed out that the conceptions of teaching and learning held by teachers have a powerful influence on their classroom practices, what and how they learn (seefor example, Calderhead andRobson, 1991; Richardson, 1994; Yung, 2000). In the studies reviewed in this chapter, we have seen many examples of how teachers' personal assumptions, values, and beliefs filter through to their classroom practices and the way they define problems and manage dilemmas in the classroom.
Connelly and Clandinin (1994) point out that teachers' personal values and beliefs are very much shaped by their personal experiences. Therefore, in understanding teachers' classroom practices and the knowl¬edge embodied in these practices, it is important to understand their con-ceptions of teaching and learning and the sources of influence that shape such conceptions.


fr-

62 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
One often mentioned source is what Lortie (1975) refers to as an "apprenticeship of observation." Lortie points out that all teachers have had the experience of being a student, and this experience often pro-vides them with an image of what teaching is and, in some cases, what teaching should be like. This source of influence is particularly strong for teachers who join the profession without professional training and hence have nothing but their past experience to fall back on, even when the experience was unpleasant (see also Brookhart and Freeman, 1992* Calderhead and Robson, 1991; Johnston, 1992).
Grossman (1990) points out that a further dimension of influence re-sulting from an apprenticeship of observation is that teachers' memories of themselves as students often shape their expectations of students as well as their conceptions of how students learn (see also Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann, 1986). For example, teachers often compare what their students are like now with what they themselves were like when they were students and expect the former to behave similarly.
Another source of influence is the academic background that teachers have. Studies on teachers' subject matter knowledge have focused on how the quality of teaching was compromised when teachers were educated in subject disciplines other than the one that they are teaching (see the review of studies of teachers' subject matter knowledge in the earlier sections of this chapter). However, little has been said about how their own disciplinary backgrounds affect their personal beliefs and values and how they in turn filter through to their conceptions of teaching and learning. For example, a teacher with a social science background may have beliefs and values that are quite different from a teacher with a science background.
A third source of influence is teachers' own teaching experience. It has been repeatedly pointed out in research on teacher education that teachers consider classroom experience the most important source of knowledge about teaching (see, for example, Lanier and Little, 1986; Anning, 1988).
The fourth source of influence is the personal life experience of teach-ers which shapes their "substantial self" (Nias, 1984), which is the per-son that they bring into the classroom context. Bullough, Knowles, and Crow (1992) believe that beginning teachers often enter preservice courses with partial but firmly held conceptions of themselves as teachers and a teaching schema that is developed over years of life experience (see also Lyons, 1990). These conceptions not only influence the way they begin to teach, but also act as life-long references for their identity as teachers (see, for example, Goodson, 1992a; Bell and Gilbert, 1994; Raymond, Butt, and Townsend, 1992). As Goodson (1991) points out, "Life experiences and background are obviously key ingredients of the

Teacher Knowledge 63

rs to as an ichers have
often pro-:ases, what arly strong ■aining and
even when nan, 1992;
lfluence re-' memories students as an-Nemser what their when they
at teachers sed on how e educated ng (see the the earlier : how their and values aching and round may her with a
>erience. It
ration that
source of
trie, 1986;
:e of teach-is the per-Knowles, preservice as teachers experience :e the way ;ir identity >ert, 1994; joints out, *nts of the

person that we are, of our sense of self. To the degree that we invest 0Ur 'self in our teaching, experience and background therefore shape our practice" (p. 144). It is this personal dimension that is being em-phasized in Connelly and Clandinin's conception of teacher knowledge as personal practical knowledge. In recent years a number of studies have been conducted on teachers' lives and biographies and their roles in teacher development (see, for example, the studies collected in Goodson, 1992b; see Carter and Doyle, 1996 for a summary of studies in this
area).
Despite the fact that teacher education courses have been criticized as a waste of time (Conant, 1963), studies of the interrelationship be-tween teacher education courses and teachers' beliefs and classroom prac¬tices have shown such courses to be a source of influence. For example, Grossman's study (1990) showed that the three teachers with profes-sional preparation shared striking similarities in their conceptions of teaching English. The importance of helping students to bring in their own experiences in understanding literature, using a process-oriented approach to writing, and providing scaffolding for students in literature and writing are three examples. All three teachers attributed their concep-tions to the influence of the professional coursework that they attended. By contrast, the other three teachers with no professional preparation differ considerably in their conceptions of teaching English. For example, while one of them believes that teaching English is mainly an explication of literary texts, another one sees teaching English as communication. The kinds of influence that teacher education courses have on teachers' conceptions of teaching, however, are dependent on a multitude of fac¬tors (see Calderhead and Shorrock, 1997). Similarly, Borg (1998) found that the initial teacher training course had a powerful impact on the per-sonal pedagogical system of an experienced EFL teacher, so much so that even negative classroom experience did not bring about change in his work.
To summarize, one can say that teachers have their own personal conceptions of teaching and learning, which are influenced by their per¬sonal life experience, beliefs and values, their disciplinary training, their teaching and learning experiences, and their professional training, if they have any. These conceptions have a powerful influence on the way teachers make sense of their work (see Calderhead, 1988). They may be changed or modified as teachers gain experience or as they encounter critical incidents that challenge them. They may also be very resistant to change. The interaction between teachers' knowledge, conceptions of teaching and learning, and the world of practice, is an important dimen¬sion that should be taken into consideration in understanding teacher knowledge.

64 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
4.4,5 Dialectical relationship between teacher knowledge and context
As I have pointed out before, many of the expert-novice studies reviewed in the previous chapter were based on information-processing theory which assumes that the cognitive processes that teachers engage in take place in their minds and are independent of the context. However, as we have seen, philosophical and anthropological approaches to knowledge as well as ethnographic case studies of teachers' work and teachers' lives show that the knowledge that teachers develop is jointly constituted by the acting teacher and the context in which they operate. Lave (1988) points out that "A dialectical relation is more than a declaration of re¬ciprocal effects by two terms upon one another.... A dialectical relation exists when its component elements are created, are brought into being, only in conjunction with one another" (p. 146). That is to say, teacher's knowledge and the practices in which it is embedded jointly constitute the context in which they operate, and this in turn is an integral part of the knowledge so constituted. As Putnam and Borko (1997) remark, "How a person learns a particular set of knowledge and skills, as well as the situation in which a person learns, become fundamental parts of what is learned" (p. 1254). Teachers' knowledge therefore must be understood in terms of the way they respond to their contexts of work, which shape the contexts in which their knowledge is developed. This includes their interactions with people in their contexts of work, where they constantly construct and reconstruct their understandings of their work as teachers (see also Grimmett, MacKinnon, Erickson, and Riecken, 1990). Freeman (2000) observes that "The knowledge that animates language teaching can - and needs to - be found within the activity of teaching itself and not beyond it, in work about teaching" (p. 1). By "the activity of teaching," Freeman is referring to "the teacher and learners as participants: to the ways in which they conduct their work together; to the background of that work; to the tacit norms and the explicit rules they evolve to do the work in the classroom, institution, and wider community; and to the tools they use to get the job done. All this together constitutes knowledge" (ibid.). In understanding teacher knowledge development, therefore, it is important to understand how teacher knowledge is jointly constituted by the contexts in which they operate and the way they per¬ceive and respond to them.
The reconceptualization of teacher knowledge discussed in this sec-tion, that is, the integrated nature of teacher knowledge and its dialectical relation with context of work, as well as the powerful influence of concep¬tions of teaching and learning on teacher knowledge, will be used as an interpretive framework for understanding the knowledge that is embod¬ied in the classroom practices of the four ESL teachers in the case studies.



Teacher Knowledge 65

s reviewed ng theory, age in take ever, as we knowledge :hers' lives stituted by ave (1988) tion of re-:al relation into beingj y, teacher's
constitute tegral part 7) remark, , as well as rtsof what mderstood hich shape ludes their constantly as teachers ). Freeman ;e teaching elf and not teaching," ,nts: to the ackground
evolve to unity; and constitutes '■elopment, ;e is jointly y they per-
n this sec-dialectical of concep-used as an is embod-ise studies.

4,5 Summary
In this chapter influential conceptions of knowledge and characteriza¬tions of teacher knowledge have been reviewed. Echoing Ryle (1949) and following Polanyi (1966), Schon (1983) sees professional knowledge as 'knowing-in-action' and emphasizes the nature of teacher knowledge being embedded in the teaching act which is tacit and often not easy to articulate. His characterization of the professional as the "reflective prac-titioner" highlights the importance of reflection in the development of professional knowledge and professional expertise. The characterization of teacher knowledge as practical knowledge by Elbaz (1983) emphasizes the practical dimension of teacher knowledge - practical in the sense of its being closely tied to the teachers' experience and the specific contexts of the classroom and in the sense of its action and decision-oriented na¬ture. Similarly, the characterization by Connelly and Clandinin of teacher knowledge as personal knowledge emphasizes the importance of personal experience in shaping teachers' understanding of teaching and their sto¬ries of teaching. This personal dimension has also been pointed out by Elbaz, who sees the knowledge of self, which includes personal beliefs and values, as an area that integrates other areas of practical knowl-edge. Shulman's characterization of teacher knowledge as comprising various distinct components (the most important being subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge) brings in a different but complementary dimension of teacher knowledge that provides a useful analytical framework for understanding teaching. In the analysis of the teaching act, however, it is often difficult to distinguish among them.
All of the above characterizations of teacher knowledge perceive teacher knowledge as as related to the world of practice. Teachers' knowl-edge shapes their classroom practices, but their classroom practices in turn shape their knowledge, as they reflect on their practices during and after the action, and they come to a new understanding of teaching. This kind of reframing of teacher knowledge is particularly evident when teachers come across problems and puzzling situations.
Drawing on the insights provided by the various characterizations of teacher knowledge, this chapter draws attention to four aspects of teacher knowledge. First, teacher knowledge as manifested in teachers' classroom practices is often an integrated whole that cannot be separated into distinct knowledge domains. Second, teachers' personal conceptions of teaching and learning play a very important part in their management of teaching and learning. These personal conceptions are influenced by their personal life experiences, their learning experience, their teaching experience, their academic background, as well as the opportunities for professional development, including professional courses. Third, teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, which is embodied in the act

66 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
of teaching, can be perceived as mainly two intertwined dimensions the management of learning and the enactment of the curriculum in the classroom. Fourth, there is a dialectical relation between teachers' knowl¬edge and their world of practice. As teachers respond to their contexts of work and reflect on their practices, they come to a new understanding of teaching and learning. The knowledge that they develop in this process constitutes part of the contexts in which they operate and part of their world of practice.

mensions, urn in the ITS' knowl-ontexts of :anding of is process rt of their

C The Case Studies

The study reported in this book adopted a case study methodology. The case study approach is more about a unit of analysis than about data col¬lection strategy. This study took as a unit of analysis what Lave (1988) refers to as the "whole person in action, acting with the settings of that action" (p. 17). It focuses on the ways in which the teacher, as "teacher-acting," following Lave's "person-acting" (ibid., p. 180), relate to their specific contexts of work, how they make sense of their work as a teacher, and how their knowledge, perceptions, and understanding of their work develop over time. It sees a dialectical relationship between teachers' con¬texts of work and the way teachers respond to them, which entails that the knowledge so constituted would be different. In order to make a rich and thick description of this situated knowledge, multiple case studies were used. Four ESL teachers teaching in the same school were selected for the study in order to highlight how teachers relate differently to what would be considered very similar contexts and how the knowledge can be constituted differently.
Yin (1994) points out that case studies do not aim at making general-izations about populations or universes, but rather at expanding or gener¬alizing theoretical propositions. The study reported in this book does not aim to generalize how ESL teachers, as a population, develop expertise in teaching or how ESL teachers at different levels of expertise differ from one another. Rather, its aim is to explore the concept of expertise in teaching and to further our understanding of expertise as a process, using ESL teachers as cases for investigation. For each case study teacher, data is collected from a variety of sources and by a variety of means (see 5.3). From the data, key features and themes in individual cases are identified and used for cross-case analyses. The interpretation and discussion of the data are made in the context of the theoretical propositions that the study aims to generalize.
5.1 The Linguistic Context of Hong Kong
In order to understand the four case study teachers' lives and how they make sense of their work as ESL teachers, it is very important to bear
67

68 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
in mind the larger context in which schooling is situated as well as the specific contexts in which teaching is situated. For the former, the lin-guistic context of Hong Kong is crucial. In Hong Kong, 96 percent of the population is Chinese, the overwhelming majority being Cantonese speakers (Tsui and Bunton, 2000). Only 1.3 percent are native-speakers of English (see Bacon-Shone and Bolton, 1998). In recent years there has been a steady increase in the percentage of the population who re¬ported that they knew English well, quite well, and very well, rising from less than 10 percent in the early eighties to nearly 40 percent in the late nineties. English is used in most written business commu¬nications, and both English and modern standard Chinese are used in all official communications. However, English is not widely used for social interaction or for oral communication in business and govern¬ment. For this reason, it has been argued that English is a foreign language rather than a second language in Hong Kong. However, be¬cause English is one of the official languages, even after the change of sovereignty in 1997, and is widely used in written communication, it is regarded as a second language. In Hong Kong, English has always been considered a prestigious and important language because of its role in business and international communication. The situation has not changed after 1997 although its role in government is not as important as before.
Before 1998 most of the secondary schools used or claimed to use English as a medium of instruction. In reality, most of the so-called English medium schools used a mixture of English and Cantonese for instruction when the teachers felt that their students could not follow the lessons in English. The use of mixed code in teaching was disap-proved by education policy-makers on the ground that sustained use of mixed code by learners who are still trying to master the target language will prevent them from making the effort to express them-selves solely in that language, hence adversely affecting their target lan-guage development. Consequently, in 1998, Chinese was mandated as the instruction medium for three quarters of the secondary schools which failed to demonstrate that their students had the ability to learn content subjects through English. Schools that were allowed to use English as the medium of instruction were required to observe strictly the rule of using only English in the classroom. In social in¬teraction, however, mixed code is widely used. Most publicity mate¬rials are bilingual, and it is very common to see slogans written in mixed code. There are also Chinese and English television and radio channels. In other words, although English is not required for a wide range of communication purposes, it is not difficult to access materials in English.

The Case Studies 69

well as the
ier, the li„.
percent of
Cantonese fe-speakers years there Dn who re¬sell, rising 40 percent ss commu¬ne used in y used for id govern-
a foreign iwever, be-
change of lication, it las always ause of its on has not important
ned to use s so-called itonese for not follow was disap-tained use the target ress them-target lan-indated as try schools
ability to dlowed to :o observe
social in-city mate-written in and radio for a wide ; materials

5 2 The School Context
Marina, Ching, Eva, and Genie are four ESL teachers teaching in the same secondary school, St. Peter's Secondary School, in Hong Kong. A large number of schools in Hong Kong are run by religious orders, such as the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, Buddhists, and Taoists. St. Peter's does not belong to any particular religious order hut is run by a Protestant organization formed by a group of Protestants with a mission to spread the Protestant faith through education. Some of these schools give preference to teachers who are either Protestants or Catholics when making appointments. At St. Peter's, all teachers are Protestants, but they prefer to call themselves "Christians" because of the negative connotation associated with the word protestant historically. St. Peters is located in a relatively old housing estate, which consists of closely packed blocks of government subsidized public housing that charges very low rent for low-income families. The school is medium sized with twenty-four classes and slightly more than 900 students. It is one of the older school premises that is very small and compact. It con¬sists of a T-shaped six-story building and an open-air playground where physical education lessons take place. Apart from the home classroom for each class, there are very few special purpose rooms and no activity rooms. The physical environment of the school is far from satisfactory. Like most classrooms in Hong Kong, the classrooms in St. Peter's are very small and can barely house thirty-six to forty desks put either in double rows or single rows, and a teacher's desk. There is one big staff room in the school, which houses most of the teaching staff, and a small staff room where the vice-principal and the head teacher for guidance and counsel¬ing sit. In the big staff room, each teacher has a small desk of three feet by four-and-a half feet on which textbooks, the students' exercise books and teaching materials were put. There are a few public bookshelves and three computers for common access at one end of the room. When teachers need to talk to students individually during recess or lunchtime, they usually have to do so standing in the corridor outside the staff room. The majority of the students at St. Peter's come from the housing es¬tate and are working-class children. Their parents have little education and do not speak English. Therefore, the students have very little ex-posure to English at home, and they seldom watch English television programs. They will not get support for their academic work from their parents. The banding1 of the school is about two to three, which indicates
1 In Hong Kong, secondary schools are divided into five bands, with band one having students of highest academic ability and band five having students of lowest academic ability. Most schools have students of two consecutive bands. In 2001, the government merged five bands into three.

70 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
that the academic ability of the students is about average in the whole secondary school student population in Hong Kong. The school is an English medium school. When the study was conducted, the new pol-icy for medium of instruction was not in place yet. Therefore, mixed code was prevalent in classrooms, except for English classrooms. Unlike middle-class children, the students of St. Peter's cannot afford to travel abroad for holidays. Therefore, the English classroom is almost the only place where they have exposure to English and where they are forced to use English for communication. Most students live in the housing estate where the flats are very small, ranging from three to five hundred square feet, with one or two bedrooms. They often have to share a room with their siblings and there is very little space to do their homework properly. The home environment is often very noisy at night because their parents and grandparents will have the television on for the whole evening. In other words, apart from not being able to get parental support, the home environment is also not conducive to academic study.
St. Peter's is well known for its supportive, collaborative, and collegiate culture. The school principal is very supportive of her staff and respects its professional judgement. She is always ready to make, or to allow her staff members to make, adjustments to their teaching schedules in order that they can pursue further professional development. She is highly regarded by her staff. The school has set up what they call a double class-teacher system, whereby each class is looked after by two class-teachers, one being an experienced teacher and the other a new teacher. Normally, one would expect the new teacher to be an assistant to the experienced teacher. In this school, however, the new teacher is given the respon¬sibility of being a class-teacher with the assistance and guidance of an experienced teacher. In addition to the double class-teacher system, they also have an agreement among experienced teachers that they can be as¬signed to a new teacher for pastoral care if need arises. Since the majority of the teaching staff sit in one big staff room, experienced teachers are seated next to or near new teachers to facilitate interaction between new and old teachers.
5.3 The Four ESL Teachers
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, all four case study teachers are from the same school. In most schools in Hong Kong, teachers teaching the same subject form a "subject panel," and each panel is headed by a senior teacher, referred as the panel chair, who is responsible for the organization of teaching and assessment of a particular subject and for quality assurance. The expert teacher in this study, Marina, is the chair of the English panel (which is equivalent to a head teacher in schools

in t Uni the trai 1 Ma uca' Cer teac viso was she, con; trail aftei Min a ted Tele port cont She the 1 refre eighi univ acco M posil cipal teacr well anoti In teach have teach two -woul expei expei at thi a hal plete< was t i The Case Studies 71 L the whole ^hool is an e new pol-ore, mixed >ms. Unlike rd to travel )st the only ;e forced to ising estate ired square room with :k properly. ieir parents evening. In t, the home
d collegiate respects its 3W her staff L order that ly regarded ass-teacher ichers, one Normally, :xperienced ;he respon-iance of an ystem, they / can be as-he majority eachers are ;tween new
dy teachers g, teachers el is headed 'onsible for subject and , is the chair in schools

. tjie United Kingdom, or the head of the English Department in the United States school system). The other three teachers are members of the English panel. All four teachers entered teaching with no professional
training-
To understand the development of expertise in teaching, I focused on
Marina, whom I first met when she enrolled in the in-service teacher ed-ucation program at the University of Hong Kong, called the Postgraduate Certificate in Education program (PCEd). She was in her fourth year of teaching, and I was her tutor as well as her teaching practicum super¬visor throughout the two-year program. Her performance in the course was outstanding, both in theoretical courses and in the practicum, and she graduated from the program with a distinction. All her course tutors considered her a teacher of great potential. In the second year of PCEd training, she was appointed chair of the English panel in St. Peter's after an inspection by the Education Department (the equivalent of the Ministry of Education). Marina and I have kept in touch since she gradu¬ated from the program. I invited her school to join a computer network, TeleNex, which I set up in the early nineties to provide professional sup¬port to ESL teachers in schools. She responded very positively and actively contributed ideas and materials to help other teachers on the network. She also shared her own problems and asked for advice with them. In the latter half of her sixth year of teaching, Marina attended a six-month refresher-training course organized by the Education Department. In her eighth year, she enrolled in a Master's program in ESL teaching at the university, and I was her course tutor again. (See Chapter 6 for a detailed account.)
Marina was identified as an expert teacher on the basis of the very positive comments on her as a teacher from her course tutors, her prin¬cipal, her colleagues, and her students, as well as the reactions of fellow teachers on TeleNex. Having known Marina for five years and being well aware of the progress that she had been making professionally was another reason why she was selected as an expert teacher.
In order to understand the differences between an expert teacher and teachers who are in different phases of professional development and have attained different levels of teaching competence, I invited three teachers in Marina's school to join the study. When the study started, two of them, Ching and Eva, had five years' teaching experience and would be considered either proficient or competent teachers in the novice-expert literature. The fourth teacher, Genie, had only one year of teaching experience and was still very much a novice in the field. As mentioned at the beginning of this book, the data collection spanned a year and a half (see 1.3). Therefore, by the time the data collection was com-pleted, Genie was already in the middle of her third year of teaching. I was therefore able to get her to talk about her professional development

72 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
not only in the first two years but also the beginning of the third yeat as well. In the cross-case analyses, not only were they compared with Marina, but they were also compared with one another. This kind 0f comparison is very useful in furthering our understanding of what ex. pertise in teaching means and its developmental processes.
5.4 Data Collection
A commonly used methodology in most expert-novice studies is to give novice and expert teachers vignettes of classroom events - either pre. sented in writing, on slides, or on videotapes - and ask them to describe and comment on those situations and in some cases the corresponding actions that they would take. This method has the advantage of compa¬rability because teachers are given the same stimuli that could be absent in data collected from real-life classroom teaching since each classroom is unique. However, a disadvantage is that teachers are either respond¬ing to fabricated classroom events (no matter how much they try to approximate real classrooms), or to other teachers' classroom events. Their analyses and solutions could be quite different if the events took place in their own classrooms when they had access to all the background information that is missing in these vignettes. Their knowledge of and relationship with the students would also be an important factor in their decision-making. (See also Copeland et al., 1994.)
Another commonly used methodology is to compare the cognitive processes of novice and expert teachers. The comparison is based on interviews conducted about their lesson planning and their reflections in postlesson observation interviews. Very often, "stimulated recall" (Bloom,' 1954), in which teachers are asked to recall their thinking at specific points in the lesson, with the help of replaying the recordings of the lesson soon after is used. (See Clark and Peterson, 1986, for a brief summary of modes of inquiry in teacher thinking; and Calderhead, 1984, for the use of stimulated recalls for research on teacher think¬ing and their possible disadvantages.) Questions have been raised about teachers' verbal reports. Some point out that teachers' words may not accurately represent their thinking and understanding; others observe that teachers' reports may be post hoc rationalization of their behavior (see Yinger, 1986; Calderhead, 1996).
In this study data are collected by what Wolcott (1992) refers to as "watching," "asking," and "examining," that is, lesson observation, interviews, and curriculum materials including teaching plans, teach¬ing materials, and students' work. Nonparticipant observations of real classroom teaching were conducted of these four teachers, following them through their teaching of one specific class. For the expert teacher,

third year pared with bis kind of if what ex-
:s is to give either pre-to describe responding of compa-d be absent . classroom ;r respond-they try to om events. events took iackground dge of and tor in their
e cognitive s based on
reflections ted recall" thinking at
recordings .986, for a ^alderheadj cher think-lised about is may not srs observe ir behavior
refers to as bservation, ans, teach-.ons of real , following ert teacher,

The Case Studies 73
uarina, the observation period spanned a period of three months during which every ESL lesson that she taught in S2 (grade 8) was observed and recorded. This enabled me to familiarize myself with the school en-vironment and the students. It also allowed me follow her through two complete units of teaching, as well as to focus on specific areas of teaching jnat I am particularly interested in. For the other three teachers, Genie, Eva, and Ching, the observation period of their teaching spanned one complete unit, which lasted about a month. The rationale for conduct¬ing observation in this manner is twofold. First, a unit in their scheme of work includes all four language skills, grammar, and vocabulary teach¬ing. It also includes any other aspects of ESL teaching that they consider important, for example, newspaper reading and reporting, and extensive reading. Following these teachers through at least one complete unit enabled me to gain a comprehensive picture of how they dealt with the ESL curriculum, the routines that they had established, and their reper¬toire of teaching strategies. Second, following these teachers through one specific class enabled me to see the extent to which they established con¬tinuity and integration among the various components in the curriculum, and the rapport that they established with their students.
The observations were video- and audio-recorded, supplemented by field notes, taken as I was observing the lessons, on aspects of the class¬room that were likely to have been missed by the recorder. Because of the busy schedules of the teachers, it was impossible to interview them before and after their teaching for every single lesson. Therefore, the methodology adopted was a mixture of interviews and "conversations" as expounded in Woods (1985). Lengthy semistructured interviews last¬ing from forty-five minutes to one-and-a-half hours were conducted at regular intervals, about once a week. In between, whenever the teachers had a less busy day, I would grab ten minutes before class to ask them about their plans for teaching, and fifteen minutes after class to ask them questions about what was observed in the classroom. Occasionally, I made use of opportunities like giving them a ride home, having a soda with them during recess, eating our lunches, or walking them to another class and chatting with them while they were waiting for another teacher to wind up his or her lesson. After I got home, I recalled and recorded what we talked about and put it down in writing. In Marina's case, one of the interviews took the form of a recorded conversation in my home over Chinese New Year followed by lunch. Another took place in a restaurant.
The interviews adopted a progressive focusing approach (Woods, 1985). The first interview provided a general overview of the family background, life history of the teachers, and an overview of their teach¬ing practices. The follow-up interviews zeroed in on issues and themes that emerged from the conversations. Issues that emerged from classroom observations were also brought up.

74 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
In addition to classroom observations and interviews, teachers' lesson plans, teaching materials, and student work were also collected and ex¬amined. I also had the privilege of attending and recording an ESL panel meeting at the end of the school year to review the implementation of process writing in the past year.
For Marina, semistructured interviews were conducted with her stu-dents to investigate the impact of her teaching on students' learning. Altogether there were six students in S5 (grade 11) who had been taught by her for 3 years. Five students in S2 (grade 8) were interviewed to in¬vestigate their reactions to her teaching, and their perceptions of good teaching. Marina readily agreed to these interviews because of the very comfortable and trusting relationship that we had established. Ideally data should have been collected from the students of the other three teachers. However, I was aware that asking the students to talk about their teacher and their teaching, which inevitably involves evaluation of some sort, would be too threatening for these three teachers who I knew less well. Therefore, only informal conversations were conducted with students before and after the class to get a feel for the class as well as to establish rapport with them.
It has been pointed out that it is impossible for the researcher to obtain genuine data in research of this nature because the questions asked by the researcher are likely to cause the teachers to reflect and reorganize their thinking, hence "contaminating" the data. As Sabar (1994, p. 119) points out "obtaining teachers' knowledge from their stories entails some kind of intervention." This happened in my data collection process. For example, I asked Marina whether she thought of the class as a whole group or as individual students when she prepared a lesson. She replied that it was the former. In a subsequent interview she referred to the same question again and said that she had begun to think about specific students when planning lessons. While I accept that this is an inevitable limitation, this kind of "intervention" did not change the thrust of the data fundamentally as far as the present study is concerned.
5.5 Data Analysis
All interviews with teachers and students were conducted in Cantonese in order to eliminate any barrier created by a second language. The data were all transcribed and translated into English by research assistants and checked by me at least once to ensure that there was no distortion in the translation. In order to retain the flavor of what the teacher said, I tried to strike a balance between literal and semantic translation. It was only when literal translation affected the meaning of the utterance that the translation was modified syntactically and semantically.




;hers' lesson ;ted and ex* n ESL panel lentation of
dth her stu-:s' learning, been taught .ewed to in->ns of good
of the very led. Ideally other three
talk about raluation of who I knew lucted with s well as to
sr to obtain is asked by reorganize 94, p. 119) ntails some rocess. For as a whole She replied :red to the 3ut specific i inevitable rust of the
Cantonese :. The data . assistants distortion acher said, ion. It was xance that

The Case Studies 75
Classroom recordings were transcribed verbatim and supplemented Ky field notes taken during observation which provided a wealth of in-formation that could not be captured by even a video-recorder.
fhe analysis of the data was an ongoing process that was carried out in tandem with data collection. As soon as an interview was con-ducted or a lesson was observed, a rough preliminary analysis of the interview or the lesson was done and this often generated further unanti-cipated questions that were asked in subsequent interviews, or alerted me to certain phenomenon in the classroom to which I paid more at¬tention in subsequent observations. Sometimes, further questions were generated even during an interview or a lesson observation. The whole process of data analysis was an emerging understanding of what I was learning about these teachers (see Rossman and Rallis, 1998). For each teacher, the interview data was analyzed initially to formulate a skeleton of their professional development, the key features in their classroom practices observed, and the knowledge embedded in these practices. The interpretive framework outlined in Chapter 4 (4.4) was used as the ba¬sis for making sense of the data. Salient features and themes describing their phases of professional development, conceptions of teaching and learning, sources of influences, and classroom practices were identified through repeated readings. An information tree outlining the phases of development and classroom practices were drawn and the transcribed texts were analyzed with the help of NUD*IST. A similar process was applied to the follow-up interviews, some of them without the help of NUD*IST. However, instead of letting the categories dictate the interpre-tation of data, I adopted a grounded approach and allowed the data to inform me with regard to whether the categories indeed captured what the data was telling me or whether any new themes and features emerged after each reading. Within-case comparisons were conducted to identify changes in teachers' perception of their work, and cross-case analyses were conducted to identify emerging common patterns. The analysis of data collected from one teacher often triggered a reanalysis of data from another teacher. In other words, the interpretation of the data was an iterative process in which interpretations were checked against a number of readings and "hearings" in the case of audio-recorded data and "watchings" in the case of video-recorded lessons. This often re¬sulted in a new or a more enriched understanding of the data (see also Miles and Huberman, 1994).
The analyses, especially their stories about their own professional development, were given to the teachers for their verification of the ac¬curacy of the information provided as well as the interpretation. Any gaps in information were filled in by the teachers themselves. The teachers were also asked to correct any misinterpretation of what they said in the interviews or misinterpretation of their work.

76 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
5.6 Ethical Issues
5.6.1 Being obtrusive
There were two phases in my data collection. The first phase, which focused on collecting data on Marina, involved being in the school every day for three consecutive months. The second phase of collecting data on the other three teachers involved being in the school every day f0r one month. I was fully aware of the obtrusive nature of being resident in a school for such a long time, especially when the school has a small campus and the staff room is already very crowded.
In order to be as unobtrusive as possible, I told Marina not to make any effort to give me space or to entertain me while I was visiting her. In the first phase I was not provided with a desk in the staff room nor did I request one. When I was not observing lessons, I stayed in the playground and sat on benches with my laptop to write up my field notes and to formulate questions for follow-up interviews. During recess, I would chat with the students. In order not to disturb other teachers, interviews were conducted either in special rooms or on the playground. In the second phase, as I got to know a number of teachers in the school better, they made room for a small desk next to the computers for me to place my tape recorder and my laptop. I was able to stay in the staff room, and this gave me a feel for the atmosphere in the staff room and for the busy life teachers had in this school.
5.6.2 Teacher-researcher relationship
When collecting data, I was very much aware of treating teachers not as "subjects," but as "people" who have feelings, values, and needs (Elbaz, 1983). I was also mindful that the study, which requires teachers to make close self-evaluation, is very threatening, as Stenhouse (1975) points out, and that building up a relaxed, comfortable, and trusting relationship that can "transcend the roles and dissolve fronts" is crucial (Woods, 1985, p. 14). In the case of Marina, this did not pose a problem because we had known each other for a long time. For the other three teachers, however, I had to work on the relationships. In soliciting their consent to join the study, I had an initial conversation with each of them to explain the objective and the value of the study. Some researchers maintain that in order to minimize the effect of bias on the teachers, only part of the real objectives of the research should be revealed (see Sabar, 1994). However, I felt that it was literally impossible and even unethical to follow a teacher so closely and yet not disclose the aim of my research. I also felt that in order to understand teachers' thinking, their problems, and anxieties, as well as their developmental path, it was necessary to develop an equal

The Case Studies 77

lase, which ichool every lecting data ■ery day f0r ing resident has a small
lot to make visiting her. staff roonij
I stayed in up my field iring recess, er teachers, playground. i the school iters for me
in the staff :f room and
chers not as seds (Elbaz, .ers to make i points out, relationship ial (Woods, .em because ee teachers, r consent to i to explain aintain that :t of the real ). However, >w a teacher i felt that in tnxieties, as )p an equal

1 tionship with them, to develop mutual trust and understanding with
, Therefore, after the teachers shared their life stories, the ups and
A wns in their career development, I reciprocated by sharing with them
family background, my learning experience as a student, and my
ixieties as a schoolteacher in the past and as a university teacher at
resent. Sometimes, my own life accounts served as a "catalyst" which
helped teachers to recall their past experience (see Woods, 1985, p. 16).
As the research progressed, we became friends and they were willing to
share private sides of their lives with me.
5.63 Reciprocity
Besides getting teachers to identify with the value of the research and establishing a trusting relationship with them, I was also aware of the need for the teachers to be able to benefit from their participation in this study. I gave them comments on their teaching and shared ideas and materials with them. In order not to contaminate the data, I made sure that the sharing would be confined to areas in which I had already com¬pleted the interviews and observations. This sometimes created prob¬lems. Genuine questions soliciting information were sometimes taken by the teacher interviewed as suggestions. For example, when I asked Marina, "Why didn't you give them the questions before you asked them to read the passage?" she responded, "Yes, maybe I should do that." This happened with the other three teachers as well. Whenever this happened, I immediately clarified the intention of my question as purely to obtain information. I also offered to pair up with a student when somebody was absent in class. When doing this, I tried to be as unobtrusive as possible and took the opportunity to get to know the student.
In short, the tools of my research were, in Elbaz's words, "shaped by the effort to regard the teacher as a person, to become aware of the reality of her work situation as she encountered it, and to give an account that was consistent with (though not identical to) her view of her work" (1983:51).
5.6.4 Anonymity and interpretation
A study of this nature reveals a very private side of the lives of teachers, especially when trusting relationships develop between the researcher and each of the teachers. In each of the four cases, the teacher took me into her confidence and shared her problems with me. In some cases they specified that they did not want me to include the data in my analyses. To protect the teachers, I gave the teachers the analyses to read, particularly those pertaining to their life history and professional development, and asked for their consent in order to ensure that the study did not in any way

78 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
compromise them or jeopardize their relationship with their colleag^. even with their family members, as well as their future prospects in thej' school. Since full credit could not be given to these teachers, I tried tQ make sure that at least the story is theirs rather than mine by asking them to indicate whether they agreed with my interpretation of their stories When there were discrepancies between my interpretation and theirs I always adopted the latter.
I preserved the anonymity of the teachers, the students, and the school by using fictitious names. In Hong Kong, English first names are com. monly used. In order to preserve the cultural flavor of Hong Kong as; place where the east meets the west, when giving teachers and students pseudonyms, I used a Chinese pseudonym if they used their own Chinese names, and I gave them an English pseudonym if they used English names,

«5
In this cl
teacher,
novice t(
teaching
developi
professif
of Hube
Huberrr
teachers
allowed
that the
delineat

6.1 T< Studies phases, their c? Chiiste: go thro own su prepare phase a ing cla< student ofkno\ 1975;/ of "dis. a teach often g to this Posi "stabil r colleague^ pects in their rs, I tried to asking them their stories. L and theirs Ld the school les are com-ig Kong as a and students Dwn Chinese tglish names. / The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers In this chapter I shall examine the professional development of the expert teacher, Marina, the two experienced teachers, Eva and Ching, and the novice teacher, Genie. In particular, Marina's development of expertise in teaching will be discussed in detail. In trying to capture the professional development of these four ESL teachers, I drew on studies of the teachers' professional and career development and in particular upon the findings of Huberman's (1993a) study of 160 Swiss teachers. When drawing on Huberman's as well as other researchers' delineation of the phases in teachers' professional life cycle, I adopted an open-minded approach and allowed the rich data to inform me of possible variations of the phases that they outlined. In the following section, I shall outline briefly their delineations before reporting on the four case study teachers. 6.1 Teachers' Professional Life Cycle Studies of teachers' professional and career development have identified phases, sequences, or stages that teachers go through in the course of their careers (see for example Field, 1979; Burden, 1990; Fessler and Christensen, 1992; Huberman, 1993a). Typically, beginning teachers go through a "survival" phase where they are preoccupied with their own survival in the classroom. They feel diffident, inadequate, and ill-prepared. Some of the well-documented problems and concerns in this phase are those of reconciling educational ideals and realities, maintain¬ing classroom discipline, establishing an appropriate relationship with students, playing the role of a teacher, and having an adequate mastery of knowledge as well as instructional methods (see also Fuller and Brown, 1975; Adams, 1982). Huberman (1993a) observes that it is also a phase of "discovery" where teachers are excited by the fact that they are now a teacher with their own students. The survival and discovery elements often go together, with one or the other being more dominant. He refers to this phase as "exploration" (p. 5). Positive experience in the first phase usually leads to a phase. of "stabilization," where teachers consolidate their experience from the first 79 80 Understanding Expertise in Teaching phase, gain confidence in teaching, and master teaching skills. They ar. more flexible in their classroom management and better able to handle unpredictable situations. This phase is marked by a move away froi. concerns about self to concerns about instruction and the impact of their instruction on students. In other words, teachers' focus changes from self to students (see also Field, 1979; Lightfoot, 1983). It is also in this phase that, typically, teachers become committed to teaching. Negative experience in this phase, however, could lead to a phase of self-doubt. Following the stabilization phase, Huberman (ibid.) observes that some teachers go through a phase of "experimentation" and "diversi-fication." Motivated by the wish to increase their impact in the class-room and to seek new challenges, they conduct personal experiments using different instructional methods and materials as well as a variety of classroom management skills (see Feiman-Nemser, 1983). Sikes, Measor and Woods (1985) point out that teachers going through this phase are highly motivated, enthusiastic, ready to confront issues that they took for granted before, and to take on new challenges. This phase corresponds to what some teacher-development studies have referred to as a "renewal stage" where teachers look for innovation (Katz, 1972). As Sikes et al. (1985) observe, the desire to increase one's impact in the classroom of¬ten leads to a heightened awareness of problems with the system and the desire to go beyond their own schools to bring about change. For some teachers, disappointment with the outcome of reforms, particularly structural reforms, in which they have participated energetically, could lead to a phase of self-doubt and uncertainty with regard to one's com¬mitment to teaching. For other teachers, this phase of self-doubt could follow the "stabilization" phase, which can be caused by factors like the monotony of classroom teaching and unpleasant working conditions. Huberman (ibid.) refers to this phase as "reassessment." A phase of uncertainty or even a crisis can lead to another phase, or rather a state of mind, where teachers come to terms with themselves and hence have more peace of mind. They are less vulnerable to others' per¬ceptions of them. This is a phase of "serenity" in which teachers speak of "being able to accept myself as I am and not as others would have me be." (Huberman, ibid., p. 10). It is marked by a decline in professional in¬vestment and enthusiasm, but also greater confidence, more tolerance, and spontaneity in the classroom. It is also a phase where teachers' re¬lationship with students become more distanced, largely caused by the widening gap between themselves and their students (see also Lightfoot, 1983; Prick, 1986). Some studies observe that a phase of "serenity" is followed by a ten¬dency towards conservatism, which is characterized by resistance to and skepticism about innovation and change, increased complaints about students and colleagues, and a craving for the past (see Prick, 1986). fn The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 81 Us. They art le to handlt away from pact of their langes from ; also in this lg. Negative self-doubt. bserves that nd "diversi-in the class- experiments i a variety of tees, Measor, tis phase are hey took for corresponds s a "renewal 9 Sikes et al, assroom of- system and change. For particularly ically, could ) one's corn-doubt could ;tors like the conditions. .er phase, or imselves and others' per-lers speak of mvemebe." fessional in-:e tolerance, teachers' re-msed by the o Lightfoot, red by a ten-tance to and laints about k, 1986). In ther cases conservatism follows a phase of self-doubt and results from actions against failed attempts at structural reforms (see Huberman, 1993a)- Though conservatism is closely related to age in most cases, the Swiss data m Hibernian's study show that this is not necessarily the case; rhe most conservative teachers in his study were actually the youngest teachers. Studies in human life cycles observe that near the end of a career, e0ple disengage themselves from professional commitments and allow more time for their own personal engagements. Similarly, a phase of "disengagement" has been identified in teachers' career cycles. However, the disengagement can take the form of withdrawing and investing their time and effort elsewhere, as a result of disappointment with the sys¬tem, or reconciling the discrepancy between what they had set out to achieve and what they have actually achieved. In Huberman's words, the disengagement can be "bitter" or "serene" (1993b, p. 110). The phases of development outlined above, however, are not linear. As Huberman (1993b) points out, attempts to delineate teacher develop-ment as a discernible sequence of phases is problematic because they tend to ignore the factors such as personal experiences, social environment as well as organizational influences which shape teachers' development. Indeed, researchers have found that teachers move in and out of the vari¬ous phases (see for example Fuller, 1969; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Sprint-hall, 1996; Field, 1979). For example, Fessler and Christensen (1992) found that involvement in professional development and assuming new roles such as being a mentor teacher can result in teachers moving back into a phase of enthusiasm and commitment. Similarly, new problems can make a teacher lose self-confidence while success can have the reverse effect (see Field, 1979). The question is: what are the factors that contribute to teachers' moving in and out of a certain phase of professional development, how can their professional enthusiasm be sustained, and why do some of them become expert teachers while others remain experienced nonexperts? In studying the factors predictive of career satisfaction, Huberman (1993b) found that teachers who engaged in classroom-level experi-mentation were more likely to be satisfied with their career later on than those who were heavily involved in structural reforms. He iden¬tified three other factors predictive of career satisfaction. First, teachers who sought diversity in classroom teaching or a shift in roles usually attain a higher level of satisfaction. The diversity can be in the form of teaching higher grade students or teaching a different subject. Huberman observes, ".. .without recurring episodes in which the demands of the situation are slightly beyond one's existing repertoire, be it for children or adults, there is no development" (1993b, p. 112). Second, when teach¬ers were asked to describe their "best years," they typically mentioned 82 Understanding Expertise in Teaching specific classes which they enjoyed teaching, where apathetic student became enthusiastic about learning, and where the class was constant}* engaged in purposeful activities. He observes that career satisfaction \va, high "... when teachers felt 'pushed' or 'stretched5 beyond their custom, ary activity formats or materials and met this challenge through sys, tematic revisions of their instruction repertoire" (1993b, p. 113). Third significant improvement in students' learning because of one's efforts also contributes to teachers' job satisfaction. Huberman's observations \vere made from the perspective of career satisfaction. However, they strongly echo Bereiter and Scardamalia's (1993) theory of the development of ex. pertise in teaching, which is central to teacher development. It is when teachers work at the edge of their competence that they develop their expertise. It is when they refuse to get into a rut and seek new chal¬lenges going beyond the "customary" that their performance becomes exemplary. In the rest of this chapter I shall examine the professional develop. ment of the four ESL teachers in the light of Huberman's delineation of teachers' professional life cycle and Bereiter and Scardamalia's theory of expertise, and discuss the factors and sources of influence that have shaped their development. 6.2 Marina Marina was in her early thirties and in her eighth year of teaching when the study started. She comes from a working-class family. Her father is a construction worker, and her mother is a housewife. She studied in a primary school in a housing estate where the students were all from working-class families. Her academic results were outstanding in the public examination for secondary school entrance. She placed first in all three key subjects in the primary curriculum in Hong Kong: Chinese, English, and Mathematics. She was the only one in her school who was able to get such good results and was awarded a government scholarship. She recalled having a teacher who was very kind to her and gave her a great deal of additional help. "I had a teacher who was very nice to me. She was not a good teacher; she used mixed code,1 but she helped me. She gave me additional exercises to work on to help me. My primary school teachers liked me a lot and were very nice to me." Because of her 1 "Mixed code" refers to using English and Cantonese in teaching, which is a common practice in many schools in Hong Kong because of students' limited ability in understanding instructions in English. The use of "mixed code" in teaching was frowned upon by the Department of Education (the equivalent of the Ministry of Education elsewhere) and it has made repeated attempts to stamp it out with little success. The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 83 mc students ■s constant'v sfaction wa$ lieir custom :hrough sy$s 113). Third, s efforts also nations we^ hey strongly ^ment of ex. t. It is when evelop their k new dial-ice becomes ial develop. delineation alia's theory :e that have iching when ler father is e studied in ere all from iding in the ;d first in all lg: Chinese, iol who was scholarship. 1 gave her a ■ nice to me. helped me. vly primary cause of her is a common lity in ling was [inistry of with little I results, she entered a very prestigious secondary school where the B jority of the students came from middle-class families and the medium /instruction and communication was English, even in school assemblies. rT-iie nrst two years in this school were "very tough" for Marina. She /{escribed an "unforgettable" incident: i ^member an incident when I first entered St. John's [fictitious name]. It was I the assembly, I couldn't understand a single word that the principal was vine-1 couldn't even understand her instructions to turn the book to a certain e jvly classmate sitting next to me had to help me. That was unforgettable. This experience was unsettling for her because all of a sudden, Marina, yj\io used to be top of the class, had to be helped by her peers. She had to do something about it. I felt that my English was inadequate. The school gave us a book list and T climbed to the fifth floor where the library was to look for books. The children's books were very nice; they weren't graded readers like what we have now but books by Enid Blyton, C. S. Lewis. They are very thick. I often couldn't finish them because they were difficult to read. I didn't know about extensive reading, and I looked up every word that I couldn't understand. So I got through very few pages in two weeks' time and I had to return the books because the loan period was two weeks. Sometimes I renewed them and sometimes I returned them. She started off by following the list of books recommended by the teacher and gradually she branched out and read a great deal, mostly fiction. Reflecting on her secondary-school experience, she observed that al-though it took her several months to get used to English medium in-struction, it took her several years to build up her self-confidence. It was only in Secondary Three (grade 9) that she began to feel a bit more comfortable with English, and it was not until her preuniversity years that she felt confident about her English. What is interesting is that in-stead of congratulating herself on her own success, she remarked, "Now looking back, I think if I had read other types of books (apart from fiction), I don't know if it might have been better because my scope would be broader." Marina did not have an English environment at home; her parents do not speak English. So in addition to reading voraciously, she tried to maximize the opportunities for learning English. She paid attention to the English around her, including the media, posters, labels, signage, and so on. She said, "To survive in St. John's, I have to work on my English." Marina's struggle for survival at St. John's had a strong influence on her conception of learning English and the strategies that she developed for teaching English, as we shall see in Chapters 7 and 8. After St. John's, Marina entered Hong Kong University and took trans¬lation as her major discipline. Teaching had always been her aspiration 84 Understanding Expertise in Teaching since she was a child. Her image of teachers was that they should k kind to students and have authority. She remarked, as she puzzled oVe why she had always wanted to be a teacher: ,.. teaching has been my aspiration since I was a primary pupil. I don't know- why. I wasn't like one who would become a teacher, I was a fierce child Maybe apart from my family, the school and teachers were people I had contact with most. Upon graduation, she did not go into teaching immediately because she felt that she needed more work experience before entering the profession Her first job was working in a government department. She did not like the job and left after a year. She explained why: I didn't like it. It was very boring. It's all desk-work.... That year, they managed to double their staff size. There was not enough work to go round. So I had plenty of free time. There were only three days when I had to work. For the rest of the days, I just read newspapers and magazines. It was a very secure job but there was no job satisfaction. So I left. She left the civil service and took on a fund-raising job in a hospital, out of interest rather than for its prospects. She had to contact a lot people and she found the experience enriching. However, there were a lot of office politics. So she left the job after a year and went into teaching at St. Peter's. I saw in the papers that a Christian Hospital was looking for somebody to raise funds. In June I took on this new job.... There were no prospects in this job, but it was a very good experience. I had to contact people, and I learned a lot. But the personnel relationship was very complicated, [meaning "there was lot of office politics"]. I didn't like it. So my third job was St. Peter's. Her experience of working in nonschool settings and dealing with people from different walks of life enabled her to handle problems better. She said: I remember once I had a chat with my principal and we were talking about new teachers having problems adapting to the environment. She made a remark that when I first joined the school, she felt that I was better able to deal with "things," incidents, and students. This could be because of my past experience. When Marina decided to go into teaching, her mother advised her against it because she felt that it was very tough going and that the longer she stayed in the profession, the harder she would have to work. When Marina applied for a teaching post in the school, she had no idea what it was like. Being a Protestant, she believes in having a religious element in teaching, and so she decided to join St. Peter's, which is a Protestant school. The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 85 ey should fce puzzled ov£r 6.2J Learning teaching E don't know s child e I had T because she ie profession, s did not like '> they o go round, ad to work, was a very
hospital, out : a lot people vere a lot of o teaching at
ebody to raise i in this job, learned a lot, zhere was lot
I with people is better. She
:ing about aade a remark o deal with ist experience,
d her against ie longer she work. When 10 idea what ious element a Protestant

IRVIVING IN THE CLASSROOM AND RELATING TO STUDENTS
I the first two years of teaching, classroom management and her rela-nnship with students were two recurring concerns for Marina. She said, "I felt that what was difficult was not dealing with the daily business of reaching, but dealing with students; how to help students tactfully and how to manage them in class." She elaborated on this:
in my first year of teaching, I had problems dealing with students. Students Ho not respect new teachers (in general). I was OK with most of them, but
me 0f them said I was unfair behind my back Some thought that I was
lenient, but I was also sometimes very strict, particularly in handling
disciplinary problems. They couldn't accept that For example, they told me
that I tended to pick on a certain group of students when they talked in class, and did not pick on others who were also talking. As a teacher, I found it very difficult because it was impossible to keep an eye on the whole class all the time. But I might have done that unconsciously.
Like all new teachers, she found it difficult to handle the multiple di-mensions of classroom teaching, the large number of students, and to exercise her judgment on when to be lenient and when to be strict. She simply followed the advice given to her when she first joined the school.
In the summer of the year that I joined the school, we had a retreat camp and the principal chatted with the new teachers. I remember her telling us that you must be strict first and then lenient later. So in the first year, I tended to be strict, but I am not a strict person, I didn't know how to do it. That's why I had this feeling of not being able to handle students and not being consistent.
After the first year, Marina did not feel that her classroom management had improved; there were still disciplinary problems. She decided that she ought to be "more firm," "more serious" so that the class would not "get out of control."
In the second year, I was really strict. My colleagues noticed that too. I was lenient in the first year, in fact the second and third year, possibly the fourth year as well, but definitely the second and third year were the two years in my eight years of teaching that I was strictest. I scolded students. I would gave
them dirty looks, I seldom smiled in class In the recent two to three years,
it became better. It was part of my development, but it was also because students had disciplinary problems, I felt that I had to be more strict with them.
For Marina, being very strict with students was effective in terms of classroom management. Her S3 (grade 9) students were very noisy in all lessons except hers. The successful experience was a positive reinforce-ment for her. She said, "Maybe that's why I continued to be strict -because it worked." On reflection she felt that she was too strict and

86 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
unable to see things from the students' perspectives. She cited the folio*. ing two incidents which she described as "regrettable."
There was an S3 [grade 9] student, and I taught him English. He copied his homework and I found out. I penalized him by giving him a demerit. He pleaded with me to let him off once and give him an opportunity to rectify hj. mistake. I refused. Looking back now, I felt I was wrong. If I had given him \k opportunity, I might have helped him to mature, to forgive and to see things from other people's perspective. When I refused, he looked very upset. I think I was too strict. There was another case. It was also a male student. His writim was terrible; it was illegible. I made him do it again. But he was the kind who wouldn't succumb to pressure. He disliked me, and the dislike was there even when I wasn't his teacher any more. I think it affected his attitude towards English as well. These are regrettable things.
The problem of classroom management and handling her relationship with students persisted in her second year of teaching. She described her¬self as "having double standards." She was more lenient with S6 students (preuniversity year) because she had been teaching them for two years and she knew them well. However, she was still very strict with S3 students,
MAKING LEARNING FUN AND INTERESTING
Contrary to managing students, in teaching methods, Marina was able to see things from her students' perspective even in her first year of teaching, In the first two years she was engaged in exploring ways to improve her teaching: how to make her teaching fun and interesting to the students. Going into teaching without professional preparation, Marina relied heavily on the way she was taught, that is, what Lortie (1975) refers to as the "apprenticeship of observation." Marina said:
I think it has to do with my previous learning experience and the school
culture In my secondary school some of my teachers, not all of them,
some of them, were very boring, just reading aloud from the readers, but some were very lively. In S2 we had public speaking, in S3 we had debates, we had a lot of group discussions. So I thought that learning English didn't mean that the teacher had to do all the talking. Students should be involved.
Marina also picked up from her colleagues the concept of working OD tasks. "I feel that students need to produce things. We must give them the opportunity to work together, to produce."
Another source of influence was her German teacher at the Goethi Institute when she was an undergraduate.
In my final year I went to Goethe [Institute] and I had a very good German teacher. He was German. His methods were very communicative. There was a lot of talking, pair work, group work, discussion, and he was very funny. If students spoke very softly, he would open a [Chinese] paper fan, which meant "speak louder." For teaching intonation, he brought a musical

instrument 1 borrowed j actually 1* make adap
Apart fro gram mat-secondary just picke. taught gr teaching (
When he t; them on a me, easy tc
From her one can le mother tc to speak ;
I learned C yet I could Cantonese Chinese fo it was nec( never used
In additii anything no matte Departnn ucational Universit vocabula always b simply di to becaus use. She ' seminars seminars, teaching. in her scl to adapt , by the sc !

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 87

:d the follow
copied his erit. He
to rectify hjs [ given him the o see things apset. I think nt. His writing :he kind who as there even e towards
: relationship iescribed her-h S6 students ;wo years and i S3 students.
ta was able to x of teaching, i improve her the students. vlarina relied ?75) refers to
: school >f them, lers, but some ates, we had a t mean that
f working on ist give them
it the Goethe
>d German . There was 'ery funny. n, which sical

iiment. He had a lot of influence on me. When I started teaching, TK rrowed a lot of his methods. For example, information gap activities. ! mally learned information gap activities from him. Of course I had to * ke adaptations, but I learned the method from him.
Anart fronl communicative activities, Marina specifically mentioned rarnrnar teaching as the area that she is most comfortable with. In her econdary education, grammar was never consciously taught. Students
iust picked it up when using the language. However, the German teacher
taught grammar systematically and she modeled her own grammar
teaching on his.
When he taught grammar, he would select sentences with similar patterns, put them on a transparency and get you to deduce the rules. It was very clear to me easy to follow. I use this method, too, when I teach.
From her own experience of learning German, she is convinced that one can learn another language through that language without using the mother tongue. Therefore, in her classroom, students are not allowed to speak a word of Cantonese. They will be penalized if they do so.
I learned German from scratch, and this teacher used very little English, and yet I could follow what he was saying. So in my lessons, I seldom used Cantonese. It was only in the last year or two that I allowed them to use Chinese for certain words. It was because in my experience I didn't feel that it was necessary to use the mother tongue. Also, when I was a student, we never used mother tongue.
In addition to relying on her past experiences, she paid attention to anything that was related to teaching. She went to seminars frequently, no matter whether they were organized by the government Education Department (equivalent to a Ministry of Education), publishers, or ed¬ucational bodies. She also attended extramural courses offered by the University on specific teaching skills like reading, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Although the seminars conducted by the government have always been criticized by teachers as a waste of time, Marina did not simply dismiss them. She found some of them useful and worth going to because there would be some useful ideas or materials that she could use. She would keep the teachers on the English panel informed of new seminars so that they would not miss good ones. Apart from going to seminars, she bought a lot of reference books and resource books on teaching. She felt that "there was a need to do that" because the teachers in her school were very positive about changes and always felt the need to adapt new things to their own teaching. She was very much influenced by the school culture and the attitude of her colleagues.

88 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
I find that there is a need to do that. Our school advocates an activity approach. In our pilot scheme [a scheme where the school got rid of textboot and used materials produced by their own teachers], we used a lot of activity In my first year of teaching, I also followed an experienced colleague who used a lot of group work. I experienced difficulties in conducting group work Putting students in groups does not mean that they will use the materials actively. I still face the question of how to get students interested and how to get them to participate. I felt in the first few months [of my teaching], I didn't learn anything in this aspect, and I didn't know how to do it. So I started looking for reference materials. I remember the first book I bought was Teaching English through English [Jane Willis, 1980]. It was for beginning teachers, and I found that the things covered in the book were things that I j^ no knowledge of, so I started buying more and more books.
Marina loves reading and she can read for hours and hours. Apart from reading up references and resource books, she would put them in tin resource library in the staff room. Her experimentation with different activities and different ways of designing activities gave her immenst satisfaction, especially when she saw students enjoying the lessons and improving.
6.2.2 Self-doubt and reassessment
Although being very strict with students helped Marina to maintain dis¬cipline in class, she was not happy with the effect this had on her rela¬tionship with her students. She said:
Actually, I didn't feel good about being so strict. The students were scared of me. They would listen to you, and would do what you asked them to, but thai doesn't mean they were willing to learn. Because they were scared of you, the atmosphere was not very pleasant in class.
At the end of the third year, Marina was frustrated by the fact that despite her efforts, she was still unable to exterminate disciplinary problems.
After the third year, I told my principal that I didn't want to teach any more. It was very difficult. I think the difficulty was mainly with handling relationships with students. I found that although I was strict with them, there were still disciplinary problems. I remember I still found several students copying each other's homework. I found it very frustrating and told the principal that I wanted to quit and study librarianship.
When I asked her what made her change her mind, she said there wert a host of factors. The first one had to do with her family. Her brother who had completed a master's degree in the U. K., decided to stay on, and she felt that if she went overseas, there would be nobody to take car* of her parents.2 The second one was that she applied for the in-servi« Post-graduate Certification in Education (PCEd) program at the Honj
2 At that time, there were no librarianship programs offered in Hong Kong.

Kong Uni was the si
My prmcil was very ii if I change from teacr she cared ;
Apart frc ture and ■ lished wa (i.e., class
New teacr
experience
an experie
explicitly,
sometimes
teacher.
In the fir principal her, parti good frie a pleasan on. This teaching the work
62.3 V
Deciding In descri fourth yt
But it is ft the studei it interest I really de from theij and woul I started t
The "tw the peric year thai universit she said:

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 89

ivity
. of textbook activity gue who group work, laterials and how to ing], I didn't [ started it was beginning ings that I had
.. Apart from them in the /ith different her immense t lessons and
maintain dis-i on her rela-
re scared of m to, but that i of you, the
:t that despite problems.
h any handling :h them, there jtudents )ld the
id there were Her brother d to stay on, y to take care the in-service at the Hong

jr ng University and was accepted. The third and most important factor vVas the support from her principal.
\/iv principal [who was then vice principal] gave me a lot of support. That
s very important. I couldn't remember her exact wording, but she said even 'f I changed jobs, would I be able to get more job satisfaction from it than from teaching? She didn't actually help me directly in handling students, but «he cared about me. She knew what happened and she cared.
Apart from the care and concern from the principal, the school cul¬ture and the support system for new teachers that the school has estab¬lished was an important factor. The school has a double form-mistress {i.e. class teacher) system as well as pastoral care for new teachers.
New teachers become form-mistresses from the very beginning. The experienced teacher acts as a helper.... In addition to the form-mistress system, an experienced teacher is responsible for a new teacher. This is not done explicitly, but there is an understanding of who is look after whom, and sometimes we also arrange for an experienced teacher to sit next to a new teacher.
In the first year she teamed up with her principal (who was the vice-principal then) as form-mistresses. She received a great deal of help from her, particularly in settling disputes with students, and they became very good friends. The moral support from her colleagues, her principal, and a pleasant working environment helped her to make the decision to stay on. This phase of self-doubt and uncertainty about her commitment to teaching did not last very long. She told herself, "This is not the end of the world," and she moved on.
623 Understanding and mastering teaching
Deciding to stay on marked a turning point in Marina's professional life. In describing her own development, Marina repeatedly referred to the fourth year as the turning point.
But it is funny though, in terms of teaching methods, I started to see it from the students' perspective even in the first year of my teaching - how to make it interesting and fun for students. But it was not until the fourth year that I really dealt with their disciplinary problems, how to see school regulations from their point of view, what are the things that I didn't have to be so strict
and would help them. These are two different stages In the fourth year,
I started to see things from students' perspective.
The "two different stages" refers to the first three years as a stage and the period after the fourth year as a different stage. It was in the fourth year that she applied to do a two-year in-service PCEd program at the university. When I asked her why she wanted to enroll in the program, she said;

90 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
Because I believed that if I were to stay in teaching, I needed to study PCEd Moreover, I started to assist my panel head [Head of the English panel]. I thought it was about time I did it. I could afford the time because I was in m fourth year of teaching already, I would not be so busy. I considered teaching my career.
The PCEd program confirmed a lot of her own practices and provide.] the rationale for them. "In the PCEd program, a lot of the ideas were interesting. I was already using these ideas but I didn't know why thev were good before."
An example that she cited was using information gap activities that she had borrowed from her German teacher and had been using since her first year of teaching. It was not until she attended the PCEd program that she understood the rationale behind these activities.
When I first taught, I borrowed a lot of his methods [referring to her German teacher]. For example, information gap activities. I actually learned information gap activities from him. Of course I had to make adaptations, but
I learnt the method from him It was not until in the PCEd lectures, I think
it was one of your lectures, when you explained what was good about these activities, I remember you used an activity from Penny Ur, there was a diagram of the zoo, that I knew why they were good. But I had already been using them in my teaching.
Another example was the teaching of reading comprehension. A very common routine observed in Hong Kong classrooms is that the teacher goes over the reading passage in class, explains the meanings of words, and asks students to answer the questions on the passage without giving them guidance on how to answer the question or on the reading skills involved. In the teaching of reading comprehension in the PCEd program, attention was drawn to the difference between "teaching" and "testing," and this confirmed Marina's belief about the need to distinguish the two.
As for reading comprehension, the difference between testing and teaching was emphasized in PCEd. This confirmed what I believed in. So now when I teach a reading passage, I look at the questions first and see if they are appropriate and if students know the purpose of those questions. These are confirmed in the PCEd program.
The PCEd program also introduced instructional practices, such as the teaching of writing and text analysis, of which Marina was not aware.
There were also new ideas that I wasn't aware of. For example, writing, Peter [a course tutor] talked about text organization, situation, problem, solution; it was then that I realized that I needed to teach the framework [structure of text]. Before that, I just taught compo [composition] in the way that everybody teaches. At that time, the books that I bought were more on grammar [teaching of grammar]. Discourse, I find discourse very interesting; the lectures that you gave on discourse. I took out some of the exercises in your handouts and gave

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 91

udy PCEd. panel], se I was in m> :ed teaching
nd provide e ideas were >w why tlxy
ctivities that 1 using since :Ed program
her German ;d
ptations, bu: ures, I think bout these fas a diagram en using them
sion. A very t the teacher gs of words, thout giving eading skills Ed program, id "testing," lish the two,
teaching was vhen I teach ippropriate infirmed in
>, such as the not aware.
riting, Peter l, solution; it icture of lat everybody mar [teaching ires that you uts and gave

to students. For example, the newspaper editorial that you used in the prFd lectures, I gave it to my students to work on.
The use of group work is another example. She was made aware of the need for a purpose in group work.
r mm work. The need for a purpose in group work. In the PCEd program, s made aware of this. Previously, when I asked students to do group work,
I e purpose was to get them to talk in English. This is still one of the purposes , J5Ut pd ask myself something more - what is the aim of this group work?
I know that I should tell students what the aim is.
Apart from instructional practices in the classroom, the PCEd program |s(, helped her to understand wider educational issues. She mentioned specifically that the program had helped her to understand why streaming could have a negative effect on students.
Teacher as a gatekeeper, schooling and society, and streaming are things which I came across in the PCEd program. Even before I joined the program, I had been wondering about streaming [putting students in different classes according to academic abilities]. Streaming was originally intended to help students, but I had been doubtful about its effectiveness; it made students feel that they were no good. It was only after I had studied Schooling and Society* that I realized that it had a labeling effect. I began to realize that we really need to think carefully about streaming.
Another aspect that she mentioned was how the course on psychology of learning had helped her to think positively and to see things from students' perspective.
I think positive thinking is important. And that has something to do with the PCEd program. It talked about students' psychology of learning and the factors that contributed to their sense of failure. Then I felt that I needed to see things from students' perspective. You need to empathize. There is a need to think positively.
Thinking positively is something that she often refers to when she talks about teaching and about her colleagues as an important element. What she learned from the program not only helped her in her relationship with students, but also in coping with stress and depression.
Teaching is a very heavy responsibility, but there are also other aspects of teaching that make you very happy.... When you look at the huge pile of compositions that you have to mark, you feel depressed. So I start to think of more positive things, like the students are lovely, even the naughtiest student is in fact lovely.
Her colleagues' positive attitude to work also helped her to think positively.
3 Schooling and society is a module offered in the educational theory component of the PCEd course.

92 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
When I look at the new colleagues, they are like that as well. They find the work load very heavy, sometimes the students are very naughty, but when th see the positive side of their work, they put effort into it. If you are talking * about making money, then there are other jobs where you can make more money.
This phase, which consists of the fourth and fifth year of teaching, \v. a period when Marina, having had three years of teaching behind he£ had built up a repertoire of instructional practices. She was able to draw on this repertoire for her teaching, thus allowing her the time to expi0r, new ideas, to "tinker" with her existing practices (Huberman, 1993b p. 112), and to think about wider educational issues. Reflecting on he! own development, she said,
... if we are talking about being able to draw on my existing ideas, I think it was about the fourth year that I was able to come up with ideas for teaching fairly quickly. This is because there are certain things that I have mastered already. It was about the year when I started doing my PCEd.
6.2.4 Taking on a new role
In the fifth year, when Marina was still doing the second year of the PCEd course, she was appointed Head of the English panel (referred to as Pane] Chair in Hong Kong) because the incumbent emigrated to Australia. She accepted the appointment on the basis that she had already been an assistant to the English Panel Chair for two years, and the principal thought that she had been doing very well. She said, "I only thought thai somebody had to do it, and I took on the job." However, she had no idea of what was involved. She said:
When I became the panel chair [of English], I actually did not have a clue what was involved. Although I was an assistant to the previous panel chair, there were not many extra duties for me. I thought I was the most suitable one within the English panel and so I agreed [to take on the job] but I have no idea that being a panel chair was in fact quite complicated [meaning not easy], there're a lot of administrative duties and other chores. When I was an assistant [panel chair], my partner did all these, so I didn't realize he had done so much. I just thought that somebody had to take up the position, it's just a matter of who. I was an assistant at that time, and the principal thought my performance was good and my teaching was good too. So she thought I was the suitable person, and asked me [to take up the position].
Her understanding of the responsibilities of a panel chair at the time was to carry out routine duties such as holding meetings, dealing with cir¬culars, checking students' exercise books and examination papers, and paying class visits to new colleagues. Gradually she realized that there were a lot of responsibilities and that the role of the panel chair was

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 93

find the .t when they : talking :e more
iching, was behind her ble to draw t to explore lan, 1993b, ting on her
, I think it r teaching lastered
sfthePCEd [ to as Panel istralia. She dy been an le principal hought that had no idea
; a clue what air, there >le one have no idea 't easy], s an
le had done , it's just a ought my lght I was
he time was ag with cir-papers, and i that there ;1 chair was

<.-j very important. She also realized that she had to "deal with human re-lationships," which was "very complicated" to her. She did not like the iob because she found administrative duties such as taking stock of the headsets and machines in the loop room [a room with loops for listening] very time-consuming. Had she known that a panel chair had to take on such administrative chores, she would have been more cautious about taking on the job. She said, "I prefer spending the time on teaching rather than on administration." In her sixth year Marina completed her professional training. She had one year behind her as English panel chair. She began to move from just handling "administrative chores" to introducing changes in teach¬ing in small ways. In her capacity as panel chair, she went beyond her own teaching and started to involve the whole English panel to make changes to their teaching. She started with small changes. One was the specification of teaching objectives in the scheme of work. She recalled, "The need for clear objectives and lesson plans was much stressed in the (PCEd) program, and I felt the panel needed to set objectives too." Previously, in the scheme of work, there were no teaching objectives. She suggested that teachers teaching the same level should discuss and arrive at a list of teaching objectives. However, she was unhappy with what she had achieved. She felt that some of the objectives were still very general and needed some work. The other change was to introduce the teaching of phonetics in oral English lessons. Phonetics was not widely taught nor systematically taught in schools at the time. She found that many of the students were tongue-tied in class - not because they did not know the words, but because they did not know how to pronounce them. In other words, instead of making a host of drastic changes, she focused on change that was manageable and "within control" as well as much needed. She is, in Huberman's words, "tinkering with" her own teach-ing as well as the teaching of other English teachers, and experimenting with ways to improve English teaching in the school. It was after the introduction of phonetics teaching that she realized a panel chair could do more than merely deal with administrative chores. She felt that she could bring about change not only in her own teaching but also in other teachers'. However, she could not theorize about her role until she at-tended a refresher course for panel chairs in the following year. In this same school year, she was visited by the Advisory Inspectorate of the government Education Department. This is a formal inspection proce¬dure which all teachers had to go through before they could be promoted to Senior Graduate Mistress, a rank above the Graduate Mistress.4 4 Graduate Mistress and Graduate Master are ranks given to teachers who are University Graduates by the Education Department of the Hong Kong government when they join the profession. The former is for female teachers and the latter for male teachers. 94 Understanding Expertise in Teaching 6.2,5 Opportunities for reflection In the second half of Marina's sixth year, in order to perform better th role of a panel chair, she requested leave for half a year to participate in, refresher course for panel chairpersons. This was a course funded by tL government, and teachers were released on full pay to attend the course Her request was approved by her principal, who was very supportive of any measures to enhance the quality of teaching. In this course she was introduced to the concept of the panel chair as "an agent of change." She said: It was then that I learned that I play a key role in the professional development of my panel. I still remember the exact wording "an agent of change" now [This] shows how impressed I was when I first heard the phrase. The reason was that I identified with it. At that time, I had already had the actual experience of introducing changes, however, small a scale they were, in my own panel. So I saw [and still see] myself as the agent of change. In the first reflective journal that she wrote, she specified three goals for attending the course were "to streamline the work of the panel so everyone has breathing space to reflect on their teaching," "to think of a more schematic program for staff development," and "to explore means to promote independent learning." She also had the opportunity to read up on references on educational change and teacher development. Among them is Pamela Grossman's book The Making of a Teacher. Marina also had the opportunity to reflect on her own development. In the reflective journal that she wrote during the refresher course, she said: This [Pamela Grossman's book] reminds me of my first few years of teaching. I didn't do the PCEd until the fourth year of my teaching profession. The reliance on past experiences was predominantly heavy, particularly in the first few months of teaching. Luckily, I came from a background where drama, role-play, and discussions were the norm. The greatest influence on my style and approaches of teaching was the school culture. It was a time when St. Peter's was still having the pilot scheme and everyone was expected to select, adapt and evaluate teaching materials. When I did the PCEd course, I found that the methods recommended were in line with the approaches I adopted. In retrospect, wasn't that staff development? One of the objectives that I set in attending this course was to think of a more systematic program to help staff development. I began to see that one way of achieving this goal is to engage my colleagues in school-based materials development. Marina's reflection on her own professional development helped her to decide on getting teachers involved in school-based materials development as a milieu for professional development. She zeroed in on the teaching of writing and grading students' writing as an area to start. She continued: This involves greater changes and has to be initiated by the panel chair, with the support of panel members.... I've narrowed down my objective next year to trying develop writing examine teachers She i anEng other t( Tho I ems ir panel. : But on : I thougl to man; know h She als to give them. 1 teachei I don't owners again. I do thin to be tl respond [for tea agree t! respon; with Hi Ma teache that sc The qu of own them s Spe course opmei resoui teachi impor and bi chang The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 95 tn better the rticipateina inded by the 1 the course. apportive of anel chair as development tge" now.., The reason tual re, in my [ three goals the panel so to think of a plore means inity to read lent. Among Marina also ;he reflective of teaching, Dn. The y in the first e drama, n my style when scted to d course, roaches e objectives ic program g this goal is .elped her to development e teaching of e continued: chair, with ve next year ving out "process writing" in SI and involving basically SI teachers in . [oping materials. The tryout will throw more light on approaches to Wring adopted in other forms. I'm going to talk to SI teachers, enlist support, ■inline Si's scheme of work and work out a tentative plan so that all SI ichers can work on it and make modifications. She read several books on writing and she sent messages to TeleNex, n |.'nglish-teacher support network, to discuss her ideas and to consult other teachers. Though Marina was absorbing new input like a sponge, she had prob-lem* in relating theory to practice, especially in the management of a panel. She said: But on management, it was very theoretical. After listening to the lectures, I thought, How on earth could we put that into practice? They told you how to manage the colleagues, we must have autonomy and the like. But we didn't know how to apply this. She also learned that for teachers to be committed, it was important to give them a "sense of ownership" by allocating responsibilities to them. However, she had difficulties reconciling that with overburdening teachers with responsibilities. She expressed her concern as follows: I don't know, asking them to be a coordinator might foster a sense of ownership, but it might also make them feel that they are given jobs to do again. It's a kind of duty.... I am in a dilemma when I have to ask teachers to do things on top of their teaching. For example, I paired up with a colleague to be the panel chair. We have form coordinators. So everybody has some responsibilities. For some teachers, if I ask them to work on resources [for teaching] together, I feel that it would be a burden to them. But I would agree that, for example, Genie is now S3 coordinator, she's taken on this responsibility, and she does have a sense of ownership, and it's the same with Eva; their attitude is very positive. Marina felt that apart from assigning duties, she needed to give her teachers something more, though she was not very clear exactly what that something was, and she had not been able to do that. The question is, do I have something additional to give them to foster a sense of ownership? I haven't done that, I just threw them into the water and let them struggle, and they learned how to swim. Spending half a year away from the classroom to attend the refresher course was considered by Marina as essential to her professional devel-opment. It gave her the opportunity to read journals, references, and resource materials in the library; to think of ways to improve her own teaching as well as the teaching of the whole English panel; and most important, to reflect on her work in a wider context. It gave her the time and breathing space to read up on education policy issues like curriculum change, which took her beyond her school and her classrooms. 96 Understanding Expertise in Teaching 6.2.6 Reinvesting resources SEEKING MORE PROFESSIONAL INPUT Attending the refresher course provided Marina with fresh input, par, ticularly on current theories of English language teaching. At the samp time, it made her crave for more. A year after she resumed teaching she enrolled on a two year part-time master's program on Teaching 0f English as Foreign Language (TEFL). If I really want to learn how to teach, it [the PCEd program] is not enough. The PCEd is very practical.... When I am doing the MEd [Master of Education] this year, there are lots of names that I have never come across. I know nothing about the writers who are famous in particular fields. I don't need to learn about them [in the PCEd program]. So I enrolled on the MEd program because I want to know more about teaching. I've completed the first year now and it's very good. I have more knowledge about the theoretical basis of my work and I have learnt to read critically. One of the examples that she gave was the critique of textbooks. In the past she intuitively felt that some activities were not very good, but she did not know why. After studying more about pedagogic grammar, she knew more about the nature of the activities. For example, some of them require students to notice certain patterns and regularities. She also learned how to proceduralize her knowledge of grammar. So when she looked at the exercises provided in the textbooks now, she could see more clearly what the problems were. Things that she found boring when she did her PCEd program, such as classroom language, she now found very interesting. Group work was another example. She had formerly thought that group work would get students to participate in conversations, but now she knew that doing group work would provide students with the opportunity to engage in the negotiation of meaning with their peers, Doing a masters' program was very tough for Marina, though. She often had to stay up very late to do her assignments and thus had only one or two hours of sleep. Her students knew about this and called her "superwoman." So did her colleagues such as Genie and Eva. Marina did extremely well on the course, often getting the top grade for her assign¬ments. She chose topics that were related to her teaching tasks at school and addressed issues about which she had always wanted to know more. For example, she studied the learning strategies of good learners in her S5 class, and critiqued the textbooks. In other words, the master's program was a way of helping her to gain more theoretical input for her work as a teacher, rather than a way of gaining another paper qualification. EXPLORING THE ROLE OF A PANEL CHAIR In her fifth year, when Marina took on the role of a panel chair, she treated it more as taking on administrative chores on top of her teaching- Howev year, M die mo.1 directio professi and the those tv changet have br pve beer about e> change,
In ste keep up easy bet thought to insist gave up an exan She said kept up
Inhei
the diler
then\ SI
the hear
any fon
was moi
individn
advice a
as Mari
and disc
new ide;
meeting:
try out t
Anotl
surance.
teachers
not thin
able to s
of just r
pointed
teacher c
she encc
lessons t

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 97

i input, par.
At the same
.ed teaching
Teaching 0f
t enough. The education] know
on't need to sd program Erst year now, jasis of my
)ooks. In the i, but she did tar, she knew them require also learned ihe looked at more clearly /•hen she did r found very terly thought rsations, but ;nts with the heir peers.
though. She IUS had only id called her .. Marina did ir her assign-sks at school
know more. lers in her S5 er's program
her work as fixation.
iel chair, she her teaching.

u wever, after she came back from the refresher course in the seventh
Marina had a different understanding of her role. She said, "I think
I r most important role of a panel chair is to decide the English panel's
rlircctions and aims of teaching and to help the colleagues to develop
rofessionally. This is more [important] than dealing with administration
nd the loop room." At one point, she thought that she could achieve
those two things even if she were not the panel chair. However, her views
.|iaI1ged after trying out process writing; she realized that she could not
have brought that about if she were not the panel chair. She said:
I've been thinking, I don't know, if I'm not panel chair, how much I can do about exploring process writing. I'm now in a position that I can introduce change, so I must grab the chance to try.
In steering the direction of the English panel, Marina worked hard to keep up the tradition of modifying and adapting textbooks. This was not easy because this practice had been questioned by some colleagues who thought that it would be simpler just to follow the textbook. Marina had to insist on being critical about textbooks and improving them. If they gave up this practice, the English panel would stagnate, she felt. To set an example, she adapted the materials and shared them with colleagues. She said, "It is very tough going to require myself to do that. But we have kept up the spirit."
In helping colleagues to develop professionally, Marina was faced with the dilemma of setting targets and goals for them and not over-burdening them. She said, "My colleagues are already exhausted, I just do not have the heart to push anything more down their throats." She did not have any formal plans for staff development. Her management of the panel was more on "a personal basis." By this, she meant talking to colleagues individually to find out if they have any problems and to give them advice and assistance. For colleagues who were teaching the same level as Marina, she felt that she could do a lot more by sharing materials and discussing their teaching with them. For example, she would try out new ideas herself and then share her teaching with the panel members in meetings. She would also approach them individually and invite them to try out these ideas.
Another important aspect of the work of a panel chair is quality as-surance. The school has in place the practice of panel chairs observing teachers in their first and second years of teaching. At first, Marina did not think there was much use in doing this because she would not be able to see what the teacher was really like behind closed doors. Instead of just rejecting the practice, she consulted the history panel chair. He pointed out to her that the class visit would enable her to see what a teacher could achieve, and she agreed. After conducting some class visits, she encountered the problem of what she could do when she observed lessons that did not go well. She believed that teachers knew when their

98 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
lessons did not go well and that it would be much better for them t see good teaching in action than just to tell them their shortcoming Therefore, she invited them to observe her teach, and she also acted a the middleman by referring them to observe other colleagues who \ver good. For example, when she heard that Genie wanted to find out more about group work, she suggested that she observe another colleague wno used group competition a lot. Marina's willingness to open her classroom to anybody at any time changed the nature of the class visits. It \Vas no longer a quality assurance mechanism but rather an opportunity f0t learning. It also enhanced the culture of collegiality and collaborative learning.
Another quality-assurance measure was the checking of the grading of homework and compositions by the panel chair. At first she focused on whether teachers made any mistakes in marking and whether they were able to pick out students' mistakes. However, as she learned more about genres and genre structure, she turned her attention to the students1 writing - whether the style and genre were appropriate to the writing task. When she spotted problems in students' writing, she would discuss with teachers how they could help the students. For example, she read Genie's students' writing and found that some students produced unnatural in¬terview reports, which used indirect speech throughout. Marina shared with Genie an assignment that she had just completed on indirect speech in the MEd program on pedagogic grammar to help Genie understand the misconceptions that textbooks proliferate regarding the use of in¬direct speech. She also lent her a journal article on indirect speech, In fact, Marina shared with her colleagues a number of her MEd as¬signments, which she thought would be relevant to their teaching. She said, "When I decide whether I'll show them [an assignment], I think of whether it is useful to them, relevant to their teaching, and whether they'll find it difficult to understand." In other words, in the process of exploring her role as panel chair, she reinterpreted her role from one of watching over her colleagues to one of helping them to develop professionally.
Handling relationships with colleagues when she received complaints from students was problematic. She recalled an unhappy incident in her sixth year of teaching when students in S6 and S7 complained about a certain teacher and told her that his teaching style was straight lecturing and that they were not learning anything. Marina, being very close to the principal, told her about this. Subsequently, the principal talked to the students and followed up on their complaints with this teacher. He reacted very strongly to this and told Marina that she should have talked to him directly rather than going straight to the principal. He was so upset that he suffered from insomnia. At the time, Marina did not realize that there was a difference between the teacher getting negative feedback from the principal and getting it from her. Marina found out subsequently

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 99

for them i0 ortcomings, ilso acted ;K is who were ad out more Ueague who ir classroom. isits. It was •ortunity for ollaborative
Le grading of she focused whether they ;arned more :he students' writing task. discuss with read Genie's nnatural in-irina shared lirect speech
understand .e use of in-rect speech, ier MEd as-caching. She snt], I think tnd whether e process of le from one
to develop
I complaints
rident in her
ned about a
ait lecturing
ery close to
>al talked to
teacher. He
have talked
He was so
d not realize
;ve feedback
ubsequently

t m talking to him that this was not the first time that this had happened
him. There was a previous incident when the students complained
bout him to the form master who related this to the principal. He was
v upset that the students did not talk to him directly and instead
vent around him and related their complaints to a third party. Both the
nrincipal and Marina spent some time to assure him that Marina had
no ill intention and that she was merely trying to help. This was a good
learning experience for Marina. When a similar problem recurred two
vears later, she handled it differently. She discussed the problem with the
form master, and they agreed that the form master should first ask the
students to discuss among themselves what they would like this teacher
to do to improve his teaching and also what they would do themselves to
help the teacher to conduct his teaching more effectively, such as coming
to class fully prepared. The students took the advice, and the problem
was resolved satisfactorily. The teacher's style improved, and the students
reported that they were getting more out of his lessons. Marina feels that
she has learned a great deal in performing her role as the panel chair, but
there is still a long way to go. She feels that she is not good at handling
"complicated" matters, such as human relationships, and she has yet to
explore better ways of enhancing staff development.
Evaluating her work as a panel chair, what she deplored was that the administrative chores of writing reports and program plans for the Education Department, as well as the many meetings, were taking her away from her work with the students. However, when she looked at what her panel had achieved, she felt that it was all worthwhile. She said, "The English teachers in my school are forward-looking and receptive to innovations. We have a very good relationship and have good morale, despite the heavy workload. Inspectors from the Education Department applaud our work, and I think we have excellent records. I am very proud of my panel."
6.2 J Taking on the challenge: adopting the process approach to writing
The six-month refresher course gave Marina time to step back from her teaching and ask questions about existing practices. In Bereiter and Scardamalia's (1993) words, she "problematized routines" and asked questions about practices which had been taken for granted. In particular, it provided her with the opportunity to seek answers in an area that had been troubling her - the teaching of writing. She read a lot about this and wrote about it in her reflective journals.
What induced her to think about this topic was her own experience in teaching writing. A very common practice among teachers in Hong Kong is to give students a composition topic, sometimes provide them with some vocabulary items related to the topic, mark the composition

100 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
in great detail, and ask students to do corrections. She was very rnucL aware of the enormous amount of time that teachers spent on marki^ compositions, which she described as Very painful,' considering that I had so little impact on the students. She commented:
... marking compositions is very painful. After all the marking, you find that the students are still the same, the content is very limited and uninteresting. This made me feel that students need to go one step further to improve their writing, and that is, if they took one step further, it would help their thinking and how to assess other people's writing.
She also observed that her colleagues had the same problem. She said;
... I looked at my colleagues, they were all suffering from marking compos [compositions]; marking is no fun. The students produced the ideas. These ideas ought to be very interesting, especially when students are in their teens, and they should be very creative. But why did they have to do it merely as a piece of homework? The third thing is students ought to be able to do it better. The question is whether we are giving them the opportunity to do so. Their understanding of composition is that they have produced a piece of writing. The teacher's responsibility is to correct the mistakes, and then their job is to do the corrections and hand it in. But this is not what writing is about.
She read up on references on the teaching of writing, for example, Harris (1994) Introducing Writing, and White and Arnt (1991) on Process Writing. She found the ideas useful because they corroborated her own experience in writing. She said, "even in my own writing, I don't have just one draft. I think if you want to produce good writing, it is not possible to accomplish it at one go."
Although there were many research articles on process writing, there were not many resource books on the teaching of writing. This did not deter Marina from experimenting with it. On the contrary, she found it challenging. She said, "It's precisely because there aren't many [teaching resource] books on writing that I wanted to work on it. I wonder why there aren't many [teaching resource] books on writing. Is it because it is an aspect that has seldom been touched on?"
After a year's incubation, and in her eighth year, Marina embarked on a major experiment with the process approach to writing. Typically, she did not ask her panel members to try it out at all levels, but started with junior forms. The experiment took place throughout the whole school year, where all colleagues teaching SI to S3 (grades 7 to 9) were involved-some to a fuller extent than others. (See Chapter 9 for a detailed account.) In a panel meeting in which I participated, when the teachers reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation, it was clear that there was marked improvement in students' writing. The meeting ended with the teachers in high spirits agreeing that the tryout was a success and a move in the right direction.

Looki: she was I introduci of time. strongly as the no factors a
ship-1tr like shar hard wo feel that
She a.' said, "11 a lighter-junior fc one juni-ing, she' marking Because of the st students a top-dc them or them in of ideas
Refle broad si
The first on. I ju;>; already < I used a teaching followin [English own tea< divide it stage bei about te with my in the ps 5 In Hor many t the flo they w an insf is very much t on marking deringthatit ;>
fou find tint nteresting. lprove their leir thinking
n. She said:
tig compos sas. These 1 their teens, merely as a to do it bei ter. o so. Their of writing. leir job is is about.
imple, Hairis ) on Protest ated her own on't have just i not possible
writing, there This did not , she found it any [teaching wonder why ; it because it
embarked on Typically, she t started with whole scho(| *re involved! tied accountl) ; reviewed thj was markep t the teacher^ i move in th

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 101
Looking back at the changes that she introduced, Marina felt that he was lucky to have colleagues who would support her whenever she •ntroduced changes. Few colleagues would see these changes as a waste £ fjjne. Marina attributed this to the school culture - that the school strong^ advocated making changes and this was accepted by colleagues «s the norm. Apart from the school culture, she felt that there were other factors as well. She said, "My colleagues and I have a very good relation¬ship. I tryt0 De supportive and give my colleagues as much help as I can, like sharing good resources and ideas. I also show appreciation for their hard work. I try not to be bossy, and I don't put on airs. My colleagues feel that I'll stand up for them and fight for them when necessary."
She also tried to be reasonable in her assignment of workload. She said, "1 try to make sure, though not always possible, that everyone has a lighter teaching and marking load once in a while, like teaching two junior form classes and one senior class instead of two senior classes and one junior class once every few years." When she initiated process writ-ing, she was very much aware of the extra work that needed to go into the marking. She persuaded the school authority to accept process writing. Because teachers had to spend more time going over the various drafts of the students' composition, it was reasonable that they could require students to write fewer compositions a year.5 She consciously avoided a top-down approach when introducing innovative practices. She tried them out first and invited colleagues to observe how she implemented them in her own classrooms. There was a great deal of informal sharing of ideas, and she felt that was very useful in changing beliefs.
Reflecting on her own professional development, Marina saw three broad stages. She said:
The fii st year is a stage when I was very green. [I] didn't know what was going on. I ju^t observed and followed others. The second to the fourth year, I was alrcad) developing my own style of teaching. From the second year onwards, I used a lot more group work in teaching, which was [a] more active [style of teaching]. It was a period when I learned how to handle students. The years following up to now,... because I am a panel chair and I have to run the [English] panel, I have entered a stage in which I am not just responsible for my own teaching, but I also have to give advice to other colleagues. I think I will divide it [my professional development] into these three broad stages. The last stage began in my fifth year [of teaching]. I had already established something about teaching, and I just built on that. And the other thing is how to get along with my students. I know how to handle it skillfully and tactfully. My new role in the panel is the thing I need to develop.
5 In Hong Kong, the Education Department gives schools a rough guideline of how ni.iny compositions they should expect a teacher to give to students. Schools have the flexibility to decide on the number of compositions that they give to students, but thry will be asked to justify the number when the Education Department conducts •in inspection.

102 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
6.2.8 Synopsis
Marina entered teaching with a personal conception of teaching .. f learning. Her primary school experience contributed to her image < ■ * teacher: she should have authority and yet should be kind and carin- t-students. She should also have experience working in settings other t a school. This served as a reference for her as she explored her role , teacher (see Bullough et al., 1992). The development of her relation: « with the students is one where the seemingly conflicting qualities of '. teacher as having authority versus being kind and caring were reconciled" She is no longer a figure of authority who has control over her studenis She is seen by students as a friend who they feel free to ask questions and can turn to when they have personal problems. An expression often used by her students to describe her is that she is "totally integrated with the students." Yet at the same time she is someone they respect and from whom they can learn a lot. In the past two years, Marina has become the "agony aunt" for her students. They wrote her letters to tell her how miserable they were, their dating problems, and which teachers were noi good, and so on. Marina said, "I can feel my own development through my relationship with my students." Her own learning experiences had a strong influence on her conception of what language learning involved. They were the basis on which she for¬mulated her own practical theories of teaching. Her experience of going from a housing estate school to a very prestigious middle-class school and having to struggle very hard to survive in the school had a strong influence on her personal beliefs about learning in general and English language learning in particular. Reading and maximizing the available resources for learning English figured importantly in her teaching (see Chapter 6). Moreover, it influenced her personal belief in the importance of maximiz¬ing time for learning. This was reflected in her insistence on punctuality in attending classes, both for herself and her students. She felt that as a thirty-five minute lesson is already very short, if class started late, there would be very little time left for teaching and learning. Her own learning experiences together with the professional input that she obtained from reading, from attending the PCEd program, as well as from attending seminars, helped her to understand and to master teaching. The master's program that she was attending when the study was conducted gave her theoretical input that helped her to probe deeper into questions relating to students' learning, the curriculum, and language policy. While her learning experience helped her to develop techniques and strategies for learning, the professional and theoretical input that she obtained helped her to theorize her practices. The school context in which she worked and the way in which she responded to it played a crucial part in her professional development. The M-IU jblr«,,u iU|wn.it( llud Jtt'U- 3 mil Si U making out way student] over stu class in to devel thcywei to make "integra over the Intb pcrsiste: was con it bette: do her that she still are pie, car dents t< long-te' feedbac was a ] ago an» ing for is askir past. In p role ch tor thr approa words, classro suppoi meetin teache. The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 103 eaching anJ r image of a .nd caring t0 ;s other than her role as a relationship alities of the e reconciled, ler students. sk questions ression often egrated with set and from has become tell her how ers were not lent through r conception "hich she for-nce of going s school and mg influence sh language »le resources i Chapter 6). of maximiz- punctuality ;elt that as a d late, there sional input program, as id to master in the study irobe deeper nd language ) techniques iput that she 1 which she svelopment. The school culture was supportive, and she was able to benefit from I principal's guidance and emotional support, which helped her to lercome her doubts about her commitment to teaching. She was also hie to integrate her own learning experience with the teaching approach Advocated in the school. This led to strong student involvement in her teaching. The development of teaching expertise in Marina was a process where she was continuously working at the edge of her competence (Bereiter -md Scardamalia, 1993). She was constantly reflecting on her teaching, making further improvements by seeking professional input and trying out ways to improve her own classroom practices. In handling teacher-student relationships, she was unhappy about merely maintaining control over students; she was not content with her class being the best behaved class in the school. She wanted something more than that: she wanted to develop a relationship in which students were disciplined not because they were scared of her, but because they wanted to learn. She also wanted to make learning enjoyable for them. The achievement of being able to "integrate with the students entirely" was the result of Marina's effort over the years. In the development of expertise in classroom teaching, we can see a persistent search for renewal of teaching in small and big ways. There was constant questioning of what she was doing and how she could make it better, and an awareness of what she needed to know in order to do her job well. Reflecting on her professional development, she felt that she was expanding her repertoire of teaching skills, but there were still areas of teaching that she needed to think about more. For exam-ple, can reading skills such as skimming and scanning really help stu¬dents to read better and read faster? Does vocabulary learning involve long-term and short-term memory? Her oral lessons received very good feedback from students, but she was not satisfied. She felt that there was a need to reexamine the materials that she developed three years ago and see what needed to be changed. Do students benefit from be¬ing forced to hand in their homework? These are questions that she is asking herself now. Questions that she would not have asked in the past. In playing her role as a panel chair, Marina's understanding of her role changed from being a caretaker to an agent of change and a men¬tor through the experience of leading her teachers to implement a new approach to the teaching of writing, as we shall see in Chapter 9. In other words, she is extending her impact from her own classroom to other classrooms in her school, and even to teachers in schools on the teacher support network, TeleNex. It is through this process of constant renewal, meeting as well as looking for challenges, that Marina became the expert teacher that she is now. 104 Understanding Expertise in Teaching 63 Eva Eva, a university graduate in Sociology, was 27 and in her fifth year of teaching when the study started. Eva comes from a working-class family of three children. Her father died when she was in primary six. He. mother became the sole breadwinner, working over the years as a factory worker, a clerk in a restaurant, and a saleslady in an electrical appliance shop. Eva learned to be very independent because her mother was unable to spend much time with her and her siblings. After her father's death Eva was determined to work very hard to get a university degree for the sake of her mother so that they could have a better life. Eva and her siblings all like jobs that provide them with opportunities to meet and interact with people. They find it easy to build good relationships with people, and they all enjoy teamwork. Eva loves her job as a teacher, but initially, teaching was only her second choice. Social work was her first. Yet, she chose sociology instead of social work as her major discipline at The Chinese University of Hong Kong because it was less demanding in terms of assignments, and this gave her the "space" to think and to ask questions. The year she graduated there was a big cut in the employment of social workers in the government Social Welfare Department, but a great shortage of English teachers. After waiting in vain for one and a half months for a position in social work, she accepted a late offer in July from a school, St. Peter's, where she stayed on for six years. She enjoyed her work at St. Peter's despite the fact that it was very hard work, and she was perpetually exhausted. Eva went to an English medium secondary school where the teaching method was described by her as "very old fashioned." By that, she meant that the teacher was talking all the time, there were no activities, and little student involvement. All she could remember about English lessons was the recitation of new words, dictation, and reading aloud. She liked English because she had good results and was praised by her English teacher. The strongest influence on her, however, was not her secondary but university education. 6.3.1 Conceptions of teaching THE "SPACE" OF TEACHING Eva's academic background in sociology and her religious background have had strong influences on her personal beliefs and values as well as her personal conceptions of teaching. She felt that sociology made her think and discover problems: "It [Sociology] always says that things are not as simple as they appear to be." Central to her beliefs about teach: alwa> apprc she ta devek teachi
Up to dcvelo when i introd
Eva \\ topics piinar woulc signin doing to do and tl-
STUDJ
Eva C2 This r dividu teachi like tfc indivk first yi not go fart th
Feeling the fac within teach in be som Each st year, m the rest this to
She fel technit import
6 This i
valuer

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 105

fifth year of ' •class family iry six. Her as a factory ai appliance • was unable :her's death :gree for the IVSL and her :o meet and ■nships with
as only her logy instead niversity of iments, and 'he year she )rkers in the e of English r a position I, St. Peter's, t St. Peter's perpetually
:he teaching t, she meant tivities, and $lish lessons d. She liked her English r secondary
background .ues as well Dlogy made ; that things diefs about

teaching are the concepts of "creativity" and "being humanistic." She always reminds herself to maximize the space for creative and humanistic approaches to teaching. The metaphor of space was used frequently when she talked about teaching. She referred to having space for curriculum development and space for reflecting on her teaching. She liked English teaching because it provided her with space for creativity. She explained:
Tin to now, I still find teaching English fun because there's a lot of space for
development. There are not a lot of restrictions in the curriculum Even
when teaching reading comprehension, when you set questions,... you could introduce different perspectives.
£va would compose her own texts for reading comprehension and the topics could be about religious beliefs, moral values, and even the disci¬plinary problems in school that she felt unhappy about. Sometimes she would use students' names and write descriptions about them when de-signing cloze passages or grammar activities. She particularly enjoyed doing that because, according to her, "this is creative writing, which has to do with people." She felt that students would find them interesting and that was her top priority in teaching.
STUDENTS AS INDIVIDUALS
Eva came across Marx's theory of alienation when she studied sociology. This made her more aware of the importance of seeing students as in-dividuals and as people rather than as groups. This is why, even though teaching was not her first choice as a career, she knew that she would like the job because she could "explore the talent and nature of every individual." She related an incident when she heard, indirectly, in her first year of teaching, that her students thought that her teaching was not good enough. "What upset her was not her students' criticism, but the fact that she might never be able to make it up to them. She said:
Feeling that my teaching is not good enough is not the source of pressure, but the fact that there is no time to improve, that there is no way I can improve within a short period of time. By the time I have improved, I will not be teaching the same group. The ones who will benefit from my improvement will be some other students. This makes me feel uncomfortable and pressured. Each student is not a group; they are individuals. If I can't teach them well this year, maybe after this year I will never have the chance to teach them again for the rest of my life, especially teaching them "how to be a human being."6 I take this to heart.
She felt that she may not be a good teacher with a lot of good teaching techniques, but she cares about her students, and for her, this is most important.
6 This is a common expression in Chinese that refers to the moral conduct and the values that a human being should have.

106 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
Her conception of students as individuals played an important part in her emphasis on developing a close relationship with students as an important aspect of teaching. To do that, she tried to find out more about each student. When teaching, she would pick up the remarks that her students made and develop a dialog with them: "I like to develop a conversation with them and to respond to them. I like to ask ho\v
they feel about things and ask questions about themselves When y0l]
teach, you should develop a relationship with them... you should find out more about them." Eva's classroom discourse was characterized by the interpolation of a one-to-one dialog between herself and a student. She said, "I pay attention to the human side, human relationship, and I think this is my personality. Studying sociology brought out this element in me." This kind of dialog, however, could be distracting at times and could make it difficult for the rest of class to follow the lesson.
SOCIAL AWARENESS IN TEACHING
Another strong influence that she came under was her social and political involvement in her university days. In her days, student bodies in univer¬sities were politically active and very vocal. She was an executive member of the students' union and participated actively in social and political dis¬cussions in the Chinese Literary Study Club. She read a lot of Chinese literature and novels written about people who have experienced the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution. She came under the influence of her peers whom she described as "very mature people who were going to do big things." She joined the demonstrations and rallies after the Tianman incident. She felt that it was important to make students aware of things happening around them. In her teaching she tried to relate the teach¬ing content to things that were close to the students, especially social events. She said, "English is already an alien and unfamiliar language and culture. If we talk about things which are unrelated to them, then the teaching is meaningless." For her, students had to be able to relate to the content that the language was used to express. The social dimension of her teaching was realized by the way she built social, political, and moral issues in her materials. She would give the senior form students newspaper articles to read and ask them to discuss these articles or to conduct role-plays. She would also use political figures and government officials as her characters in the teaching materials. The examples that she used in class were often related to current affairs.
MORAL VALUES IN EDUCATION
Her evaluation of whether she was successful as a teacher and whether she had achieved her educational aim was based on the moral values that she wanted to inculcate rather than the language skills that she

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 107

iortant part dents as an d out more smarks that to develop to ask how . When you should find icterized by d a student, nshipj and I this element it times and
)n.

panted her students to master. She cited an example of teaching a unit 0n a native African who acted as a guard to prevent people from poach¬ing elephants' trunks. She asked the students to discuss his personality and what insights they gained from the story. She also asked them to vvrite down their thoughts on this story afterwards. She said, "I think jn terms of education, I have achieved my ideal. Education is not just about learning the language. From the point of view of moral education, 1 have achieved the aim." She felt a greater sense of achievement when the text that she gave to the students was related to their daily lives and would thus make students reflect. Another example she gave was a writing task, "the secret door," where students were shown the picture of a door and they were asked to imagine where the secret door would lead to. Eva was happy with the task because her students could express their ideals in life. She said, "according to my criterion, I am successful, and it [the writing task] is meaningful."



md political es in univer-;ive member political dis-: of Chinese ;rienced the aence of her going to do he Tianman ire of things e the teach-cially social ar language • them, then : to relate to .1 dimension olitical, and rm students rticles or to government ;amples that
ind whether loral values ills that she

IMAGE OF A TEACHER
For Eva, the teacher is not and should not be a figure of authority. She does not mind students pointing out her mistakes. In fact, she feels that it is quite important for teachers to be able to accept having their mis-takes pointed out by students. She remarked, "Teachers nowadays are no longer the authority. Teachers who are authoritarian are no longer accepted by students." Not only does she hold such an attitude, she also thinks that it is important for students to have this attitude. She recalled an incident when she mispronounced the word "kindred" and one student pointed out her mistake. She gladly accepted the correction and thanked the student. However, the students' facial expressions showed that they were a bit surprised that even the teacher would make mistakes. She found this worrying. She said, "How come this class believes every¬thing the teacher says? I think this is not right. They are very nice and very good students but this is worrying because if students grow up to be like this, then it will be problematic." So she encouraged her students to correct her when they found her making mistakes. She feels that in fact it helped her to build up her self-image and confidence by being not authoritarian.
63,2 Beginning teaching: disintegrated, chaotic and torturous
In her first year of teaching, Eva was overwhelmed by the new working environment. She described the first year as basically trying to catch up with other colleagues and getting through the teaching materials, In that year the school started a pilot scheme in which they discarded textbooks

108 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
and produced their own materials. She was given a list of topics to be Co, ered and a set of materials. However, she could not relate to them and the materials as an integrated whole. She was preoccupied with keepin order and discipline in the classroom, learning how to run class busijw and getting used to the school environment. She was bogged down h' things such as getting students to stick the hand-outs onto their exercj/ books so that they would not lose them and checking whether they h-j done that. To Eva, this was not helped by being given the "worst" class commonly referred to as a "remedial class," where students were weal! and the classroom discipline was poor.
To maintain order in the classroom, Eva was very strict with her sty. dents. If students forgot to bring their homework, they would be put on the snake list (lazy bones list; snake is a metaphor in Chinese for laziness) Sometimes, when students forgot to bring their homework, she would penalize them in the same way that she would for not doing their home. work. If the offense was repeated more than seven times, she would give them a black mark for misconduct, which, according to her understand¬ing, was the received practice in the school. She remembered an incident when she gave a black mark to a student and the whole class got very angry and complained to their form mistress. Eva reflected on it and came to the conclusion that "that's not the way to teach." Later, she-talked to the student about his behavior, and in the end she decided to delete the black mark. She felt that it would be more helpful to the student to state what she expected of them more clearly, rather than giving them a black mark. She later found out that her colleagues did not actually follow the rules as strictly as she did. She said, "I was new. I didn't know the whole picture. I thought that other colleagues followed the rules. If I had asked them, I would have found out that I should not have done that." We can see that in her first year of teaching, Eva, like all new teachers, was going by the school rules rather than her own conception of how disciplinary problems should be handled. Her deletion of the black mark was more a realization that there was a difference between what the rules said and actual practice and that she should have exercised her own judgement rather than just going by the books. She summed up her first year of teach¬ing as "disintegrated" and "chaotic."
Not having been trained professionally, Eva had nothing to fall back on except her past learning experience. She came from an "old-fashioned" school that was teacher-centered, with the teacher lecturing at the class all the time. All Eva could remember about the English lessons were recita¬tions (memorization), dictation, and reading aloud. In grammar lessons the teacher merely wrote sentences on the board and asked the class to copy them into their notebooks and make sentences. For vocabulary learning, students had to write down the meanings of the new words in English and produce a sentence. The vocabulary items had to be

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 109

;s to be coy. lem and see ith keeping ss business :d down by ieir exercise er they had -orst" class, were weak
'ith her stu-d be put on 3r laziness), she would their home-would give mderstand-an incident LSS got very it and came ie..talked to 3 delete the .ent to state tern a black r follow the v the whole [ had asked it." We can , was going disciplinary c was more es said and judgement arof teach-
fallbackon fashioned" the class all vere recita-nar lessons the class to vocabulary new words had to be

norized by heart, and students would be tested on those items. There s very little she could draw upon from her learning experience. 'ftva herself found that her teaching was very boring, and what was vorse, her students could not understand her because her teaching was ot systematic. They did not pay attention to her. She was most both-red by grammar teaching. She felt that her students were not learning en though she spent a lot of time on it. She felt "lost" and that she was ineffective as a teacher. She remembered that none of the "remedial class" students could stay on after S3, a point at which further screening takes place, and she attributed that to her own ineffective teaching. The words disintegrated and chaotic cropped up every now and again in Eva's accounts. She did not want to "torture" herself and her students, and so she formulated a motto for her own improvement, "It [My teaching] must jiot be boring. I should be able to teach students something. The students should be self-motivated to learn and to take their learning seriously."
6.33 Gaining a sense of ownership and trying out things
In her second year Eva was assigned to teach S2 and S3 again. Eva was a bit more confident because she had already taught the course once, and she was given the "best" class, in terms of academic ability, and that helped. She was able to pay more attention to detail. For example, when she taught reading comprehension, she asked herself questions like "should I go through the questions first, or should I cover the vocabulary items first?"
She also began to have a sense of ownership, both about the school and the students. Coupled with this sense of ownership was a sense of responsibility. She began to think seriously about how she could improve her relationship with her students. She said, "I began to think of my interaction with the students after I got used to the school environment. I felt that this was an area I could develop. This is my place... I am responsible for the students' achievement. The students are mine." She began to take responsibility for her own actions rather than just rely on the received practices of the school. She felt that there was space for her as a teacher in how she managed the classroom for teaching. There was also potential and space for development for the teacher despite the heavy workload. She felt that S2 students were malleable and within that year she could try things out. She exploited the space opened up by the freedom to produce her own materials for trying out new things. She said:
Pd write a story which is educational. I have written a piece for S3 where I put in religious beliefs which talked about the difference between Satan and God. It was very short. I have also put down something about counseling and discipline problems.

110 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
6.3 A Exploring teaching
In her third year Eva was appointed coordinator for S2. Instead of jUst using materials prepared by other colleagues, she became involved in ma¬terials design and preparation. She basically followed her predecessor's very detailed plan and the objectives that she had laid down. Though she was the coordinator, she had very little idea of "how much could be taught and how students could learn." Therefore, she asked Ching, wh0 was the SI coordinator, for the course outline for SI to see what was cov¬ered in the previous year, and she also looked at what was covered in S3. Eva noticed that there was little continuity between the different levels. She began to formulate her own conception of the need for continuity in the curriculum. She considers S2 and S3 as comprising a unit and $4 and S5 as comprising another unit. She also developed her own theory of "integration." She would use a reading text as input for writing. She explained, "I always think of integrating things. I have tried integrating listening, writing, and comprehension as one unit. The feedback from col¬leagues was good. They felt that it saved time and was more practica!," This was a principle that she worked on when she decided on the scheme of work as a coordinator. To obtain input for her teaching, she at-tended refresher courses organized by the Education Department. She also sought advice from her colleagues and invited them to comment on the teaching materials that she had designed.
For Eva, S2 is the best time for trying out new things: "SI is an in¬duction to a new environment. Students need a lot of help to adapt to switching from Chinese to English medium instruction.7 In S3, things are 'getting serious.' Therefore, S2 is a transitional stage, where she could try out a lot of new things. She disagreed with her school's view that if teachers wanted to try anything, they should do it in SI. So in that year, with two years of experience under her belt, Eva started to think about what she could work on. Grammar teaching was an area that she dreaded, and she decided to work on it, making it more lively, effective, and fun. She looked at the materials that Marina produced and observed her teach. She recalled,
She [Marina] helped me a lot. Vocab, grammar, how to teach. She would take me through how she actually taught a lesson, and also told me her students' reactions, and she shared the teaching materials and the posters that students produced. The games she also shared. Anything you could take away, she'd let you take away. For a new teacher, you can really learn a lot. Yes, she's willing to coach you. This is very important. As somebody new to the job, you are scared.
7 Secondary schools in Hong Kong either use Chinese or English as the medium of instruction. Before 1997 the majority of the schools were English medium. After 1997 about one-third of the schools used English as the medium and two-thirds used Chinese as the medium of instruction.

tead of jUst jived in ma-
redecessor's m. Though ch could be Ching, who .at was cov-ered in S3. irent levels, • continuity anit and S4 Dwn theory vriting. She integrating :k from col-practical." the scheme ng, she at-tment. She Dmment on
SI is an in¬to adapt to >, things are 3 she could s view that So in that ed to think :ea that she y, effective, id observed
would take students' it students ay, she'd let s's willing to a are scared.
:dium of
n. After 1997
Is used

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 111
Ap:irt from being very generous with her time, Marina also gave Eva a reut deal of encouragement. Eva recalled Marina telling her from time fo time that she had improved. This kind of moral support made life less difficult for her. Eva also consulted Ching when she had questions about grammar. She wanted to read up on grammar teaching, but often found herself running out of time when preparing lessons and then later on other things took over.
In her fourth year Eva was promoted to be the coordinator for S3. This promotion was a source of pressure, and she became very tense and often fell ill. Fortunately, she had the guidance of the former S3 coordinator, who was very thorough and helpful. In describing her, Eva used the Cantonese term si fu, which means that Eva took herself to be Marina's apprentice from whom she learned teaching skills. In these two years, she was better able to relate to students, and her teaching improved. She introduced more game elements in her teaching. "They bad games, they worked in groups, they needed to produce something and they learned something."
At the end of her fourth year, Eva still felt that she had not come to grips with teaching junior forms. She was still getting feedback from her students that indicated that they could not understand her when she was teaching. She said, "I feel that for S2 and S3, it [teaching] can be very free, but it can also be very confusing. I felt that I was creating chaos." However, she had difficulties explaining how and why she created chaos and confusion. She remarked, "This is just a feeling. Things that I have taught are forgotten easily like vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. May be they did not have much practice, and they forgot." Not being systematic enough when she taught was another possible reason that she gave. Eva hastened to add that she was not putting all the blame on herself, but she felt that she could improve.
6.3.S Looking for challenges and asking questions: "I have to try; otherwise I know so little."
At the end of her fourth year, Eva was asked to be the coordinator for S2 again in the coming school year. While Eva gladly took on the assignment, she wanted some new challenges. She asked the principal to "promote " her to teach S4. She planned to follow the same class of students to S5 so that she could find out what the requirements were for the Hong Kong Certificate in Education Examination, a public examination for graduates at S5. This would enable her to better prepare the junior form students for the public examination. Normally, teachers with no relevant disciplinary training would not be given senior forms. However, the principal, who was always supportive of new ideas and initiatives, agreed and assured her that she could do the job.

112 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
When she took on a senior form in her fifth year, Eva felt that she ha(j a lot to learn. She said:
This year, there are things that I want to come to grips with, and there are a |ot of areas that I am not clear about. For example, syllabus design, what is the main emphasis? We set objectives each year and the objectives are more or ]ess the same every year, but how do we achieve these objectives? This is important
She was unhappy with the objectives that were put in the scheme of work year after year. She felt that it seemed as though the objectives were put down for the record and for other people's eyes but not f0r the students. She said, "When you face the students, you really want to be able to teach them things which are useful, and you want to be effective."
She felt ill-prepared. "I had to teach before I could finish going over the
textbook myself. I hadn't finished analyzing the themes and the relation¬
ship between the themes and yet I had to teach. It was a mad rush It's
really terrible to be teaching such senior classses and public examina¬tion classes." Her teaching was still "not systematic enough." She said, "I feel that I didn't really teach them much. Maybe in the end they would have to rely on themselves for the Hong Kong Certificate in Education Examination."
Teaching S4 was a big challenge to Eva because the students were more mature, and they were more vocal in expressing their complaints, She heard indirectly through her friend at church that her students com¬plained about her teaching - that she was not a good teacher. She was demoralized. She planned to follow S4 to $5, in line with her view about continuity. However, the negative feedback from students affected her badly. In view of that, she thought that it might be best not to follow this group of students to S5; she felt that her students were not learn¬ing much from her. Her confidence was undermined. She said, "I don't
have confidence I feel that I am inadequate in everything." Eva faced
this challenge with mental strength. She said that it was a new job, and therefore she was not afraid of not being up to scratch. She wanted time to reflect on her teaching. She made use of long vacations to think about her teaching. "Every time after a long vacation, I will revise something, both my expectations for my students and myself, and the teaching focus, I will make some changes. But I have to wait for long vacations."
In that year, she applied to enroll on a professional training course. She was hoping to obtain input not only from the course but also from the course members. She felt the need for professional training because her teaching was ineffective. She said, "There are far too many areas where I need input. For example, phonetics I am learning. Teaching oral, how do I teach intonation, I have to learn. How to teach vocabulary. These are areas I am weak in." Unfortunately, she was unsuccessful because

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 113

that she had
there are a l0t ivhat is the i more or le$s »is important,
le scheme of le objectives ; but not for really want i want to be
oing over the the relation-1 rush. ...It's lie examina-h." She said, d they would in Education
:udents were ' complaints, ;udents com-her. She was r view about affected her Lot to follow re not learn-aid, "I don't ;." Eva faced lew job, and wanted time i think about e something, iching focus, ions." g course. She lso from the because her areas where ig oral, how tulary. These isful because

I ere were a large number of applicants and priority was given to English aior graduates. At the same time, she talked to her colleagues a lot and hared her teaching experience and teaching notes with them in order to improve herself.
n.3.6 Coming to grips with teaching junior forms
\lthough on the one hand Eva felt that she was a bit stretched and that „i:c was not coping well with teaching senior forms, on the other hand, Jic felt she had made progress in teaching junior forms. There was more i uegration in the materials. When she looked at the lesson plan, she was ihle to imagine what was going to happen in the lesson. She was more flexible in her teaching and was able to make interactive decisions to change her lesson plan in response to students' needs. For example, she changed class work to homework when there was not enough time to get through the activity. "It is more important to make sure that students have learned something. This is a consensus among all teachers. If we catch up next time, it would be OK. Sometimes we also cut down the materials. We do that all the time." What is interesting is that instead of finding the work of coordinating S2 easier the second time around, she found that it was more hard work. She explained:
There are certain things that I feel that I ought to do and there is no excuse not to because I am already more familiar with the job. I cannot bear not to improve on the overall direction [of the curriculum].
She reworked the old materials that were not very good. She also tried out process writing under Marina's leadership and put a great deal of effort into it.
She received positive feedback from students; her lessons were always lively, and students liked them. However, Eva was far from complacent. She was aware of her inadequacies in classroom teaching. There were certain areas in which she lacked confidence. Teaching phonetics, for example, was an area about which she did not know anything and was trying to learn. She was sensitive to students' reactions in class and she knew whether the class was well managed. She said, "You knew when students could not follow your teaching. They [the students] won't deceive you." In particular, she was aware of her lack of clarity in giving instructions. Her students could not follow her instructions. Sometimes she would give homework in the middle of the lesson and sometimes at the end. She kept referring to her teaching as not systematic and that she needed to improve on those aspects.
Reflecting on the past three years since she became a coordinator, Eva felt that "there was potential and space in those three years for [her own] development."

114 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

Eva summed up her current phase of professional development as f0i lows, "I am coming to grips with how to make use of the resources avail able and how to make use of them in the space that I have. When I hav this overall improvement, then I can make changes at the micro-level *
Reflecting on her professional development, she felt that she began to gain confidence in the second year. Teaching was no longer as chaotic a* the first year. Being the coordinator for S2 in the third year was a chal¬lenge. Taking on teaching S4 in the fourth year was yet another challenge because the students were more mature, more direct with their criticisms and she heard more complaints. This was something she was still trying to deal with. However, she was not put off by the problems. She said "i feel that this is something new to me. So I am not afraid of not being up
to scratch In the process [of dealing with the problems], I really want
to be able to stop and reflect on my teaching." In the past Rve years of teaching, Marina has been a constant source of help and encouragement and her comments have been the yardstick by which Eva judged her own performance. She said, "I remember Marina saying, 'You have improved again from last year.'... Very often, I rely on what my boss tells me. She said my writing is getting better. I am more organized, especially in terms of the curriculum and classroom management." Despite the difficulties that she encountered, she felt that on the whole she was making progress. She felt strongly that there were many areas that she needed to work on, She was also contemplating moving to another school in a year's time because she felt that working in a different school context and teaching students with different backgrounds would be a new stimulus for her/
63.7 Synoposis
Eva's professional development is marked by the heavy influence that her sociology background has on her conceptions of teaching and learn¬ing. She is acutely aware of the social and moral values that permeated her interaction and relationship with her students, which is very much part of teachers' professional thoughts and actions (Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik, 1990). She is a teacher who finds the inculcation of values, which has been referred to as the "pedagogical side" of teaching more impor¬tant than the "didactic" and "subject-matter side" of teaching (Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt, 2000, p. 752). Her understanding of students as individuals and not as a group has shaped the way she handles her relationship with her students. Teaching has been a process in which she explores how this conception can be realized in the classroom. Eva went from simply following the school rules in dealing with disciplinary
8 After the sixth year of teaching, Eva did move to another school where the students were of lower socio-economic background and much lower academic ability.

)

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 115

ment as fQ|. mrces avail. Vhen I hau icro-level,'" ■he began to .s chaotic as was a dial-er challenge x criticisms, s still trying She said, *| tot being up really want ive years of mragement, *ed her own re improved ells me. She illy in terms t difficulties rig progress. to work on. year's time nd teaching as for her.8
fluence that g and learn-t permeated ; very much , Soder, and dues, which nore impor-Lg (Beijaardj of students handles her ss in which ■sroom. Eva disciplinary
the students )ility.

)

roblems to developing her own style of handling misbehavior. She has
Iso developed a very special way of relating to her students through the
4 aestions that she asks, the remarks that she makes about the students,
the examples that she gives, as well as the tasks that she assigns to the
students.
Eva's professional development is characterized by her constant reflec¬tion on classroom events and her own practices in order to make sense of and assign meaning to them, and to formulate principles that can guide her future actions. Eva is aware of her own weaknesses and is also able to Ojnpoint the specific areas of weakness. She judges her own performance Ky looking at how effective she is. She said, "Judging from effectiveness, i jfeel that there is a need [to improve]. My ineffectiveness has affected niy confidence. It has not affected my will to strive [for improvement]."
Her will to strive for improvement is characteristic of her development. This is evidenced by her positive attitude in trying out new things, and trying to interpret and theorize new experiences in her own way. It is also evidenced by how she treated her work as a coordinator the second time around. Instead of reducing the demand of the task by simply recycling what she did before, she set a higher standard for herself and problema-tized what could have been treated as unproblematic, such as reworking the teaching materials and the teaching of writing (see Chapter 9). Her search for new challenges to extend her competence was evidenced by her request to teach senior forms that were not normally assigned to teachers with no relevant disciplinary training. In the face of difficulties, she was able to see her own strengths.
Eva shares many of the characteristics that Marina has. However, there are clear differences between them. As we shall see in Chapters 7 and 8, while Marina has developed clear principles about ESL teaching which are theorized practice, Eva's actions were very much guided by her knowledge in sociology, her learning and teaching experiences, as well as her intuition, rather than by theories of language, language teaching, and learning. We can say that Eva has developed expertise in some as¬pects of teaching. The "pedagogical side" in handling relationship with students is one example. But she still bears the characteristics of a novice teacher in other aspects, especially in the "didactic and subject-matter side," that is, in the enactment of the ESL curriculum, as we shall see in Chapters 7 and 8.
6.4 Ching
Ching comes from a working-class family and grew up in a very protected environment. Her father is a leather-factory worker and her mother is a cleaner in an airplane cleaning company. As blue-collar workers, they

116 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
were keen that their children did not follow in their footsteps. They try their best to provide for their children's education and to offer them the best they could. Ching has three siblings, but she was the only 0n who could get into university. Her elder sister was once a nursery-scWl teacher, but she quit teaching because of ill health. Her brother is a techni cian, and her young sister a secretary. For Ching, life has been smooth sail. ing. She entered an English medium secondary school where the students were of average ability and mainly from working-class families. Ching did very well in school and entered the same university as Marina, ma-joring in English linguistics. When the study started, Ching was 26 years old and was in her fifth year of teaching.
Ching became a teacher "by elimination," that is, by eliminating what was not suitable for her, like management and administrative jobs, rather than by choosing what she would like to do. Having spent two summers working in business offices, Ching decided that the business world was too competitive for her. Moreover, she had to socialize with people inside and outside the company. This was too much for her quiet personality, Unlike her university peers, she did not go for positions in the civil service because they were too "cushy." She said, "I didn't feel that I would like a job that you don't have to do very much and yet you get a good income," She had a group of close friends from secondary school days, all of whom chose teaching as their career. She said, "We weren't interested in the commercial sector and therefore preferred something 'simple' and 'easy,' This had much to do with our personalities - quiet, unsociable, and introverted."
Her parents were happy for Ching to join the teaching profession because it is stable and the pay is good. For them, school is a well-protected environment where there is no risk involved, unlike the business world; Ching herself felt that teaching was meaningful, but she was not sure if it was the right kind of job for her. She decided that until she had made up her mind about teaching, she would not enroll in a professional training course.
6A.1 Beginning teaching: a journey on an emotional roller coaster
Ching entered teaching with an image of a teacher being knowledgeable, "qualified," academically competent, and able to help students academ¬ically. This image did not change much over time. She felt that she was neither well-prepared nor well-equipped for teaching. She did not have any vision or a sense of mission because she was so concerned about being able to manage her job as a teacher that she did not have any spare capacity to think of other higher goals. She said, "I stressed so much that I had to be academically competent and be able to present what I had in

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 117

is. They tried D offer them the only 0ne irsery-school erisatechni-.smooth sail-: the students nilies. Ching Marina, ma-was 26 years
inating what e jobs, rather wo summers 3s world was people inside t personality. e civil service would like a )od income," , all of whom rested in the ie' and 'easy.' iociable, and
ig profession ^ >ol is a well-2 the business t she was not until she had . professional
al
owledgeable, ents academ-that she was did not have :erned about ave any spare so much that what I had in

mind in my lessons I was only trying to be a teacher, with teaching
the focus most of the time.... Any long-term or far-sighted goals were ut of my mind then." She saw teaching as first and foremost being able
present knowledge clearly to students.
The first month of teaching saw a very nervous Ching who found ;r daunting to speak in English in front of forty students. She said, *(j couldn't even begin to think of teaching methods. I had to overcome the problem of having to speak English in front of so many people." She was assigned to teach SI and S4. The latter was a class with low self-esteem and an inferiority complex. The students took an immediate dislike to Ching because she was seen as an inexperienced teacher for the academically poor. Her relationship with several students was par¬ticularly tense and unpleasant. Classroom management was a problem. Like all novice teachers, dealing with the multiple dimensions of class¬room teaching was a problem. She could not deal with misbehavior and keep the class going simultaneously. When one student misbehaved, all her attention would be focused on that student and the rest of the class would be neglected. She recalled an incident when a senior form male student misbehaved in class and she decided to talk to him during recess. However, instead of being repentant, the student walked away from her in the midst of their conversation. Ching felt very hurt and could not understand why he behaved in such a way. She wondered if she was not tactful enough or whether her words were too provocative, but she did not have a definite answer.
With no professional training, Ching had nothing to draw on except her own learning experience. She did not remember very much about her school learning experience apart from the impression that the teacher was the authority and the lessons were teacher-centered with little student involvement in activities. The students "sat and listened rather than engaged in using the language together." Individual work predominated. Similarly, Ching's lessons were teacher-centered, dominated by teacher talk with little student participation. There was also little variation in her teaching. She attributed this to her own personality. She said, "I am not a lively person, and I am not creative, and so my teaching reflects my personality." She found it very difficult to motivate low-ability students to learn a language and to communicate with them in a language that they had problems even understanding. She could not see obvious improvement in her students and she had little sense of satisfaction. She wanted to do something about this. She said, "On the one hand, I wanted to inject more fun elements to make my students enjoy the lessons. On the other hand, I was not that kind of person. I was in a dilemma."
In her students' eyes, she was "cold" because she seldom interacted with them outside of class. They found talking to her difficult. Ching felt that this was due to the policy of the English panel, which stipulated that

118 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
students should talk to their English teachers in English even outside th classroom. "There is a [language] barrier between the students and th teacher.... It is relatively difficult to build a close relationship with stu dents." Ching was unhappy about the situation but she did not know what she could do about this. The opportunity to observe Marina teach and to discuss her work with more experienced colleague were a panacea for Ching. They shared materials, and tried them out together, and di$. cussed how their lessons went. She would interact with colleagues whom she knew well, such as those sitting near her, but she found it difficult to talk to other colleagues. The opportunities for learning from other English panel members were mostly in panel meetings and form meet¬ings (that is, when teachers teaching the same level met).
The first two years of teaching was a journey on an emotional roller coaster for Ching. She cited what her colleague said as mirroring how she felt: "When a lesson went well, she would step out of the classroom saying 'teaching suits me'; but when she had a lousy lesson, then the minute she stepped out of the classroom, she would say 'no, teaching doesn't suit me.'" She often questioned her own competence and aptitude to be a teacher, and wondered whether she should quit teaching. However, she seldom shared her anxieties and problems with her friends or colleagues. She said, "I didn't think my friends who taught in other schools could understand my school and my situation. As for my colleagues, I did not know them well enough to share my feelings with them." Her discussions with colleagues on the English panel was confined to classroom teaching, In other words, despite the support system that was set up in her school, Ching was not able to take full advantage of it and obtain emotional support. When I asked her what made her stay on, she said, "There's no other field I could fit myself into! I also thought I could improve!"
6A.2 Gaining confidence and improving teaching
Having been assigned "remedial classes" for two years, Ching was given a brighter class as well in the third year. She welcomed the assignment and felt more "balanced": "When all my students were low-ability students, I was affected emotionally." With two years of teaching behind her, she became more confident and less inhibited in speaking English in front of the junior students, but not the senior students. She wanted to make her teaching more enjoyable and to relate better to her students, both for their sake and for her own sake. She started, in SI classes, to vary her teaching a bit more by introducing more activities such as class compe¬titions and the dramatization of stories, and she could see a difference in the students' reactions. Her relationship with her students improved. She was not sure, however, whether the improvement was because of the students or because of her. She said, "I don't know whether it was




outside the nts and thc ip with sty. 1 not know [arina teach e a panacea ler, and di$-.gues whom i it difficult from other form meet-
;ional roller
inghowshe ■oom saying
minute she doesn't suit ade to be a owever, she
colleagues. hools could is, I did not
discussions m teaching,
her school, i emotional "There's no rove!"
g was given gnment and ty students, ind her, she ish in front :ed to make its, both for to vary her lass compe-a difference 5 improved. because of >ther it was

*

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 119
hecause the students were different, or because I have changed; my rela-tionship with my students became closer. I could relax; the atmosphere is ore relaxed, and I have a stronger sense of humor. Students are willing chat with me in English." However, as I probed the reasons for the improvement, s^e saic*:
Vfell I think basically I didn't encounter major difficulties in managing the classes, except for the S5 class where there were a number of low achievers. The SI students were cooperative on the whole, and they participated quite actively- More class competitions also worked, which could arouse their interest in the lessons.
Jn other words, the improvement was due to factors external to herself. There was no reference to whether her understanding of her students or her work as a teacher had changed.
At end of the third year of teaching, she decided that she liked teaching. She said, "When I had completed three years of teaching, I was quite sure I liked teaching although I was exasperated by the students, and teaching was hard work." She was fond of her students, especially the younger students at SI. They are, in her words, "teachable" and "obedient." In addition, she felt that she had come to a different understanding of what teaching was about. She said, "Teaching is not just a job, a duty
to fulfill, but guiding and witnessing the growth of my students
I started to realize that being a teacher should be a matter of teaching,
learning, guiding, counseling That's to say, it's far more challenging
than I thought." She began to concern herself with the causes of students' problems, either academically or psychologically. She was also able to share her thoughts more with her colleagues and to learn from them.
6.43 Facing new challenges and struggling for a balance
TEACHING SENIOR CLASSES: "A MOUSE PULLING A TORTOISE"
In her fourth year of teaching, Ching was given a new and more demand¬ing task: to be the form mistress of preuniversity year students, S6, whom she would follow to S7 in the fifth year. Most of the students were new entrants from other schools who could not stay in their own schools be¬cause their public examination results were not good enough. Because of this, they were unfavorably disposed to the school, and they challenged thc school regulations. Though there were no explicit confrontations, the atmosphere was unfriendly. Ching felt that they were particularly hostile towards less-experienced teachers. When going through reading compre-hension questions, for example, the students often challenged her answers and demanded an explanation of why her answers, and not theirs, were correct. She found it difficult to respond to challenges like this: "I find

120 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
the explanation process or having to think of a way of explaining &
answers very difficult." Having grown up in a protected environment
where she never had to "face a lot of challenges," this was very tryinp
for her. g
Teaching the preuniversity curriculum for the first time, she was floun, dering. She described the situation as "the mouse pulling the tortoise * a Cantonese expression meaning one does not know where to start. She was very unsure of herself, especially when she disagreed with the guij, ance given in the Teacher's Notes that went with the textbook. She did not know whether she ought to present her own view to the students or to stick to the textbook. When the students put forward reasonable arguments to support their answers and to refute her answers, she was lost. She said, "When I feel that they [the students] have good reasons for their answers, do I insist that mine are correct? Or should I make some adjustments to my answers and then everything would be OK?" She had a feeling that the students did not see her as a competent teacher, and she lost confidence. She saw things in a negative light.
BALANCING TIME FOR FAMILY AND TIME FOR WORK
In the midst of trying to cope with defiant students, she got married. Trying to strike a balance between family life and school work posed another challenge. Before she got married, she used to work for long hours after school. This was no longer possible. She stayed back until five, but in the evening, she still had to get her marking and lesson preparation done. Though her husband was teaching in the same school, he did not have as much marking to do, and he was not happy that Ching should be spending so much time on schoolwork. They discussed this and there was a period of tolerance and conciliation. But conflicts reemerged. Her husband often reminded her thus, "You have only one husband, but you have many students." Though Ching agreed with her husband that family life was important, she tended to forget this once she got into her work. "When I get engrossed in my work, I tend to forget, and I won't stop and the alarm goes off."
Also in her fourth year, despite her unhappy experience with the S6 class and her unresolved conflict between family life and professional work, Ching decided that she wanted to stay in education, though she was by no means sure whether she wanted to stay at St. Peter's. She enrolled in an in-service PCEd program at The University of Hong Kong. She wanted to get input to improve her teaching rather than to just obtain a paper qualification. She said, "I feel that in these four years, I have been
producing a lot of output, but not enough input I feel inadequate. So
I thought I should get some insight from the course to help me teach more effectively."

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 121
plaining ^ ,,.uKiNG FOR PROFESSIONAL INPUT
nvironmen' n c input that she was looking for was mainly teaching methods and
very tryjn; -Jiniques. She was able to get new ideas, for example, in the teaching of
^■cabulary, reading, and grammar. However, when she tried them out, not
was floun everything worked. Yet, she had no time to reflect on what worked and
te tortoise,' tt|,at did not. Nor was there time to read up on references, though there
:o start. Sh rtfcje plenty in the school cabinet. She relied on her own intuition when
th the guid m sparing materials for teaching, rather than the theoretical input that
■ok. She dii [\x received in the program. She emphasized that whether the techniques
'he student forked or not depended on the students' cooperation. "If it is a coopera-
reasonabl (|;»class, it doesn't matter what method it is. I can try it out. If the method
?rs, she wa j-^iuires the class to cooperate and they are not cooperative,... then it
reasons fo- Vil uld be very difficult." She tried to move away from teacher-centred
make som u -.ching and involve students more by conducting group work. How-
C?" She haa eyer, it did not always work, and Ching attributed it to the students not
her, and she being well-disciplined or having difficulties following the instructions.
RELATING TO SENIOR STUDENTS: THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
Enrolling in a professional course competed against her time for fam-
;ot married, ily life an(i ner ^me f°r schoolwork. The tension with her husband was
work posed always lurking in the background. It would build up and break into con-
>rk for long frontation. The stress arising from course work and family life was not
~k until five, helped by Ching's following last year's S6 up to S7 and being their form
preparation mistress for the second year. The problem of managing senior form stu-
, he did not dents was still not solved. The students would miss school when there
hing should were lessons they did not want to attend. Treating them as mature and
is and there responsible students, Ching was not very strict with them. However, this
nerged. Her was taken by the students to mean the offense was acceptable. There was
isband, but disagreement among staff members about how matters like this should
asband that be handled. Ching was in favor of penalizing students for breaking school
got into her rules, no matter whether they were junior or senior students. However,
and I won't other colleagues disagreed and argued that being too strict would gener¬
ate resentment among students. She was very frustrated that she did not
with the S6 have the support of the school to discipline her students. This made her
professional job as form mistress of S7 even more difficult. Her students were less re-
though she spectful of her because she was less experienced. She observed, "In their
Peter's. She heart of hearts, they wondered if you have enough "substance" to be a
riong Kong. teacher of senior forms. I can feel that." The biggest problem she had was
) just obtain that she could not build a relationship with them. She could not reach out
I have been to the students, save a few, even when they went on a school picnic. Her
dequate. So students would not crowd around her and ask a lot of personal questions.
Ip me teach They were "strangers" to her. Ching dismissed this by saying, "Students
nowadays are very different from what we were like in the old days. They

122 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

like to get together with their own buddies and would not pay attention to anybody else." However, when she found that her own students boupfo a bunch of flowers for a subject teacher to celebrate her birthday, she fe|, very unhappy. She realized that she must work on her relationship with her students. She took her principal's advice and talked to her students in free lessons and tried to understand them and be supportive. But time was an important factor; she was not able to put in as much time as she wanted
Meanwhile, Ching continued to explore ways to improve her teaching in junior forms. She gave a questionnaire to her junior students to obtain feedback at the end of the school year. She asked them which lessons they liked best and why. She wanted to find out in which areas of teaching she needed to improve. What is interesting is that she chose to obtain feedback from the junior students, with whom she felt comfortable; but not from the senior form students, where there was an even greater need to find out what the students wanted.
At the end of her fifth year, Ching was still very diffident about han¬dling senior students even though she had taught them for two years already. She had not come to grips with the difference between teaching junior and senior forms. She felt that the experience was so bad that from then onward things would be better because "nothing could be worse."
There were several colleagues who had a good relationship with the senior students. They were very humorous in class, and the students were ready to listen to them. However, Ching never asked them for advice. She felt that she did not know them well enough to do so. Instead, she came up with her own explanation: it could be these colleagues were more expe rienced, or one of them was the head of the school discipline section, and so she could do a better job.
Looking back at her fourth and fifth years of teaching, Ching felt that she had gained more confidence in teaching junior forms and her relationship with the students had improved. She was more relaxed and her students were willing to chat to her in English. She was also better able to improvise. She did not have to put down in great detail what she was going to do, including what example to give. She was more flexible in coordinating SI and would make adjustments to the scheme of work according to the needs of the students. However, she still had not overcome her inhibitions when teaching senior forms. She said, "I'm
still exploring I have a lot to learn." What bothered Ching most was
the struggle between her personal life and professional life. She had been looking for a "balance" but could not find it. She said:
I felt that I've lost balance.... I felt that I should improve on my teaching, but when I thought about it further, I realized that I don't have much time, and I stopped going any further. This is the biggest struggle that I had in these two years.

Th
diffid*
nior s
work.
wante
such i-
operai
educa
palini
S6 stu-
a num
better
shega
6AA
Ching
qualifl
of a tes
to stud
ill-equi
all at tl
day an
studen
Her
ing thii
contrifc
well-di
the tear
a stron
teachin
involve
student
own te;
could n
barrier
speak ti
were en
she was
teriais a
andsha
and wei
Havi
forty ga

attention-. lents boug . iday, she fti.
'hip with her dents in free
time was an
she wanted.
her teaching
its to obtain
lessons they
of teaching
se to obtain
:ortabIe;bm
greater need
: about hnn-r two years itn teaching id that from I be worse." lip with the udents were ; advice. She she came up more expe-section, and
, Ching felt •ms and her relaxed and j also better detail what 5 was more the scheme ;he still had ie said, "I'm ig most was he had been
aching, but ime, and n these

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 123
fhe fifth year °f teaching ended with Ching feeling inadequate and . indent about herself as a teacher, because she wasn't able to relate to se-1 lur students and still desperately trying to balance family life and school 'ork. Yet she was convinced that education was the field in which she "inted to be involved. She tried to think of ways to solve the problems, uch as teaching in a bisessional primary school (that is, a school which nuerates either in the morning or in the afternoon only), and working in educational settings but not teaching. At this critical moment, the princi-pal intervened. In the following school year, Ching was assigned to teach
of help
terials I
were ai
than ju
fight fo
not rea
entirely
this wa

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 127

Genie had Sbe found class busi-with class oon as she
unlike be* ie students /hen I was
not listen, s." Unsure $edly what n order to J. She said, idn't cover ;>ver every-y gave her
This kind lelp her to t she spoke
taking the complaints Mice of her
. to be very ibject. Her d, and not
when she it thing she sed by her >agues told ;e lenient a it her wish, ion for not iiately. For /. To make
Genie hid »11 with the
adents.Shc the teacher

1

. nd students as sharing the same home, and thought that their relation-hip should be as close as members of a family. When there were visitors her class, she asked the students to welcome them in the same way that they would welcome visitors to their homes. Her conception of the te.icher-student relationship as family came from her belief that since the students and the teacher would be spending time together for at least one year, their relationship should be as close as members of a family. She believed that if the teacher and the students had a good relationship, the lessons would be more enjoyable, and the students' academic results would be better.
Genie saw her role as providing guidance to students rather than giving instructions and imparting knowledge. She also had a sense of mission of imparting her personal moral values and beliefs to her students. She would select articles on social and political issues and get students to read and discuss them. She was keen to get students to participate in class because she believed that it was through active participation that students learn. She said:
I believe that learning means my providing guidance for them to think and act, and they should think and produce. If they are passively taking things in, it is
meaningless When they enthusiastically participate in class, I can guide
them more smoothly, and the lesson would be livelier. (My emphasis)
For example, when teaching vocabulary, instead of telling students what the words meant, she would ask them to look up the meanings of words in the dictionary. She said, "I feel that things that they do on their own they will remember better."
However, her students were not responding to her, especially those in S4. These lessons were described by Genie as "the water is still and the river flies," which is a Chinese expression that means the place is very quiet and still. The students were reluctant to volunteer answers, and when she made specific nominations, what she often got was "I don't know" for an answer. She was badly affected. She asked herself, "Was it because they could not understand me? Was it my fault? Was my teaching so boring that they were not interested in participating?" She was bewildered, and there were a lot of "ups and downs in [her] heart." She asked for advice from colleagues and found them "a great source of help and reassurance." They gave her many practical ideas and ma¬terials for teaching. They consoled her and pointed out that S4 students were at an awkward age where they felt that they were more mature than junior students, and so they would not get all excited in class and fight for the floor to give answers. However, in many respects, they were not really very mature. This helped to ease Genie's mind a bit but not entirely, because according to a colleague who was their former teacher, this was a very lively and creative class, and yet they were not relating

128 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
and responding to her. She felt that her teaching needed to be improved She did not know "how to present the materials" to the students in a variety of ways. She knew that if this continued, both the students and she would "suffer." She tried to read more teaching resource books to get ideas for teaching, but she also accepted the fact that it would take time for her to grow and mature as a teacher.
6.5.3 A breakthrough
A breakthrough came after two months or so when she decided to talk to the students whom she knew well and trusted. She asked them what problems they found in her teaching. In order to see whether the students were serious or just wanted to have fun in class, she asked them to give her advice on how she could improve. They told her that their former teacher put them in groups and did group work. Genie took the suggestion on board and the atmosphere in the classroom turned around. She described what happened as follows.
It was not just me talking all the time. I would ask them questions, and they would look for answers from books and handouts and compete against each other. They also competed in looking things up in the dictionary... .they would
do [the exercises] together and discuss among themselves The distance
between the students and me became much closer. It was no longer a big class of thirty to forty people sitting there. The atmosphere was very different.
Genie did not feel that asking students for advice would compromise her authority as a teacher. She said, "I expected them to help me because they had been taught by different teachers. So I wanted to find out how they would like to be taught, and I also wanted to find out if there was anything they really liked from their past experience. If they told me, and if I could do it, I would try."
Once the atmosphere turned around, Genie felt that she could reach out more to students. She would play games with them after class and would participate as their peers rather than as their teacher. She was pleased when the students told her that she was "a big kid," and "one of them." She talked to her students (in Cantonese) whenever she had time. She did not just talk about learning English, but their lives, their religious beliefs, their family, friends, and school life.
In addition to talking to students, Genie often went to her colleagues for advice. She also observed Marina and other experienced colleagues teach. She was very open about her problems in teaching, and she received a lot of support from her colleagues. At the end of the first year, Genie had established a good relationship with the students. She asked them to evaluate her teaching in their diaries. She received very frank comments. For example, one student told her that the minute she opened her mouth,

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 129

improved. dents in a idents and i books to rould take
led to talk ;hem what le students to give her ler teacher gestion on t described
and they inst each they would stance a big class srent.
romise her tie because id out how : there was ild me, and
ould reach r class and r. She was ' and "one er she had lives, their
colleagues colleagues he received year, Genie :ed them to comments. her mouth,

they knew that she was a new teacher and inexperienced. They also felt that sometimes she was not in control of things and did not know what she wanted to do. Genie did not mind these comments at all because they vvere, in her words, "from the students' hearts."
]n the course of her first year of teaching, her image of a teacher changed. She found that many of her colleagues were enthusiastic about teaching. They were energetic and willing to try new things, and were a lot of fun. She realized that she did not have to put on a stern face all the time; she could be playful with them, and she realized that having a sense of humor is also very important. The first year ended with Genie feeling much more positive about herself, about the teaching profession in general, and able to relate to students much better than at the beginning. Her image of a teacher had changed, and she was able to achieve more congruence between the teacher that she aspired to be and the role that she actually played.
6.5.4 Second year: Making teaching interesting and getting students involved
In her second year, Genie followed the S4 class up to S5 but remained the form mistress of S3. From the very beginning of the school year, she put students in groups and asked each group to choose a name for the group. This was to give students a sense of belonging rather than a way of organizing learning. The group size was about six or seven instead of four or Rye because she thought that bigger groups would generate more ideas and would be more fun. However, as soon as the novelty of sitting in groups wore off, the problem of lack of student participation relapsed. Her colleagues told her not to put all the blame on herself and that interaction was a two-way process. Genie was not satisfied. She did not want students to be quiet: "Just me talking with no student participation is very boring. I am bored and the students are bored. I believe that learning means me providing guidance for them to think and act, and they should think and produce. If they are passively taking things in, it [teaching] is meaningless." (My emphasis) She tried to address this problem by spending more time looking for and designing teaching materials and asking for advice from colleagues.
As she gained experience, she began to move away from following the schedule as doggedly as she did in the previous year. She also heard from her colleagues that it was better to cut out things that she could not cover, and focus on those that were important for students to learn.
In her second year of teaching, she was beginning to develop a com-fortable relationship with her S5 students, having taught them for a year at S4. With S3 students, however, she was still having problems. She did not relate particularly well to the class as a whole, and the students were generally apathetic. She lost her temper with some of them when they

130 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
were not attentive, and they felt that she was "picking on them" all the time. This bothered her. She tried to open herself more to them and tried to see things from their perspective. At the end of the second year, she asked the S3 students to evaluate her teaching. They gave her very frank comments. Some of them said that she had improved and others said that her teaching was still very boring. They also told her that as they got to know her better, they found out that she was not that strict, and when she had games with the students, she was really into it. Genie enjoyed reading these comments. She said, "What they wrote was really from their hearts and that's what I like about them."
The second year saw Genie suffering a setback from the breakthrough that she achieved in the first year. She continued to make an effort to reach out to her colleagues as well the students and discuss her problems with them. The central question that she wanted to address but was not quite able to was how she could make her teaching interesting enough to engage the students' attention.
6.5.5 Third year: Dealing with a difficult class
In her third year of teaching, Genie was presented with a big challenge of teaching a very difficult S3 class. She described the beginning of school as "fighting a battle." She felt that she was not in control, especially when students were engaged in group work. She said, "In normal classes when they are sitting up straight (that is, in teacher-fronted classes) it is
easy to see them because everybody faces you But starting the lesson
[is always a problem because] some of them are not with you and you
have to repeat Group work is even worse." She found the boys in that
class particularly problematic. Except for a few who were described by Genie as "OK," the rest were "exasperating." They were either talking all the time, or daydreaming. She did not know whether they understood her. The phrase "I don't know what they are doing" kept recurring in the interviews. She said, "I have to be very long-winded and to keep them
under control. That's hard work I am exhausted." She did not know
how to tackle the problem except to "keep an eye on them all the time." If they went overboard, she said, "I would not give face." "To give face" is a Cantonese expression meaning "to save face" (Goffman, 1971). For Genie, it was very hard work, and it was frustrating to keep them "under control" and to have to repeat instructions all the time. They were not willing to speak up, and she felt that she "wasted" a lot of time getting them to speak loudly, especially the girls. She also became impatient because she was already behind schedule. She said, "I never thought that I would have had to deal with this [getting students to speak up in class] as well." She was badly affected by this class, and she felt that "things were not going as she wished."

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 131
sm" all thy There was a boy named Kenneth in this class who was particularly
n and tried difficult to manage and was seen as the rotten apple in the class. He
d year, she ' was disruptive in class and often tried to distract students sitting near
very frank him from their work. He had been sent to the disciplinary master who
rs said that made him sign contracts to behave himself. Genie would reprimand him
they got to jn front of the class and make him leave his group and sit on his own.
, and when Genie's relationship with him was clearly strained.
lie enjoyed Halfway through the first term, a critical incident occurred that
really from changed the relationship. I was observing Genie teach, as part of this
study. As usual, Genie started the lesson by collecting homework from
;akthrough the students. Genie found that some students had identical homework,
.n effort to and she was trying to find out who had copied from whom. Kenneth was
r problems among them. When Genie questioned him, his attitude was defiant and
tut was not rude. Genie was very upset and in the middle of questioning Kenneth,
ing enough she went quiet. She walked to the windows and stared outside. Tears
were rolling down her cheeks. There was stony silence in the classroom.
I went up to Genie, offered to take over the class for her, and walked
her to the staff room. When I went back to the classroom, a quarrel had
already broken out between Kenneth and several students, including the
g challenge class monitor. Before I could call the class to order, Kenneth and the class
ig of school monitor had broken into a fight. With the help of some strong students,
, especially I separated them and stopped the fight. I asked Kenneth to go and wash
mal classes his face, calm himself down, and come back for class when he was ready.
;lasses) it is Kenneth rushed out of the classroom and banged the door closed. It was
I the lesson a relief to me when he did come back after Rye minutes. After the inci-
)u and you dent, Genie and I discussed how to deal with Kenneth. We agreed that
DOVS in that Genie should have a serious talk with him. If Kenneth showed that he
ascribed by was repentant and promised to improve, then he should be given the op-
her talking portunity to improve rather than simply punishing him in public, though
understood he fully expected that already. In the course of the conversation, Genie
rring in the found out that Kenneth came from a troubled family and had a rough
keep them family life. He admitted that he behaved badly and was relieved to hear
I not know that he did not get a black mark on his conduct from Genie. Since then,
I the time." Genie tried to find time to interact with Kenneth at a personal level, and
> give face" he tried to improve not only his behavior in class but also his work. He
1971). For was enjoying school more than before, though academically he was still
lem "under struggling. This critical incident not only changed Genie's relationship
:y were not with Kenneth, but also helped her to realize the importance of trying to
ime getting understand her students. This guided her in the way she handled what
; impatient she might have considered "disciplinary problems" in the past. For ex-
lought that ample, she was absent one day and she asked her colleague to have them
up in class] work on some vocabulary exercises in the textbook. When she returned
hat "things after sick leave, she found that a number of students had not done the
exercise. In the past she would have reprimanded them for not doing

132 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

their work. However, this time she checked first with those who usua{}v completed their homework to see if they had done their work. She found that they had not done it either. So she concluded that there must have been some miscommunication between the teacher and the class, and per. haps even between herself and her colleague. She also tried to stop herself from getting frustrated when the students had not done their homework She made contingency plans for different scenarios. For example, if $he planned to go over the answers to homework, she would also have ready some other materials in case the students had not done their homework. She said, "To prepare more is better than less."
With a new understanding of how to build a relationship with her students, she also began to work on her relationship with her S4 students, Half of the class was her former students in S3 who did not have a particularly close relationship with her. She described a breakthrough occurring in the second term when she had a frank talk with the class and shared with them her feelings about them and her expectations. The conversation also helped her to understand that students expected her to be consistent in what she required of them. She said, "Because our relationship had improved, the lessons also went more smoothly, and I started to feel the satisfaction of teaching. The class atmosphere was more relaxing and enjoyable."
In terms of teaching, she was more critical of the materials provided. For example, for reading comprehension, instead of using the questions provided in the textbook, she provided a framework to guide the students when they read the text, She said:
If I listed the main aspects covered in the text so that they are like sub-headings, the students can find the relevant information according to these sub-headings to help them understand the passage. I feel that this helps them to understand the passage better than these (reading comprehension) exercises.
She was also able to start making interactive decisions about her teaching. When there was time left in a lesson, she would have something else that she could do with the students, such as going through newspaper articles. She was also able to make changes to her plan on the spot on the ba¬sis of students' reactions. She was more aware of the need to exercise her judgement on the amount of materials she should and could cover. Reading up on resource materials and trying out activities suggested by colleagues made her feel that ideas came more easily to her. She had a greater variety of teaching techniques, and her teaching was improving. However, she was still at a stage when she was not quite able to articulate the principles that guided her decisions, and even when she could, she was not sure of herself. She often cited Marina or her other colleagues as a source of authority when she was providing justifications for her actions and practices.

Th< their p referei motiv; needec about herseil [the st Loc learne< studen the mo student satisfac know I e values ; 6.5.6 Genie her ov\ influen own re of man she hid that sh family of teac emotio also tu and hu them. ' resolvii to surv and th( The first ye howevt second she tho sufferet up. She the stiu ' as a soi ho usually She found must have ;s, and per-top herself .omework, iple, if she have ready .omework. p with her 4 students. tot have a akthrough h the class itions. The pected her "cause our othly, and phere was provided. : questions le students r b-headings, 3 >headings
nderstand
r teaching, ig else that >er articles. on the ba-;o exercise mid cover. ggested by She had a mproving. > articulate could, she colleagues ins for her

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 133
Though she was much better at relating to students and understanding their problems, at times, she still used her own learning experience as her reference for judging her students. For example, having been a self-motivated student herself, Genie could not understand why her students needed such close guidance and monitoring. Similarly, when she talked about the trouble of getting students to speak up in class, she compared herself as a student with them and said, "I was not like that. I find them fthe students] very troublesome."
Looking back at her professional development, Genie felt that she had learned that "a teacher must be open-minded and sincere towards her students." She also felt that
the most important thing in teaching is to build up a good relationship with students. Once it is built up, the lessons can move on smoothly, and a teacher's satisfaction mainly comes from that as well. A teacher does not only impart knowledge to his students but also has to be a role model to influence students' values and beliefs.
6.5.6 Synopsis
Genie entered teaching with a negative image of what a teacher is and her own image of what a teacher should be. The former was very much influenced by her own learning experiences in school and the latter by her own religious background. However, when confronted with the reality of managing classroom discipline and keeping students "under control," she hid her true self behind a stern front. The conflict between the persona that she assumed for pragmatic reasons and the image of the teacher as a family member providing guidance preoccupied her in her first two years of teaching. Like many novice teachers, she turned to her colleagues for emotional support and advice. However, unlike most novice teachers, she also turned to the students for advice. Her sincerity, open-mindedness, and humility won the students over, and she was able to get closer to them. With the moral support of her colleagues and her own efforts in resolving the conflict between the two images of the teacher, she was able to survive the first year of teaching and feel more positive about herself and the profession.
The relationship that Genie managed to build with students in the first year did not involve fundamental changes in her understanding, however. The problem recurred every time she took on a new class in the second and third year. She went through periods of exhilaration when she thought she had achieved a breakthrough and depression when she suffered a setback. She was frustrated and exhausted, but she did not give up. She tried to sustain a frank dialog with her students. Paradoxically, the students were both a source of frustration and exasperation as well as a source of motivation for her to persevere.

«-l.

134 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
Coming from a middle-class family, having studied in a prestiem English medium school, and having been a highly motivated learner he self, she found it difficult to empathize with working-class children. HP' sense of frustration was often caused by comparing herself as a learn with her students and failing to understand why they could not be \{i her. She was very keen to improve her teaching, and she picked up jdea from colleagues and resource books and tried them out. However, the im provement of teaching was understood as gaining technical skills. There was little reference to her understanding of how students learn and how to structure their learning experience in such a way that would engage their attention. Students' participation in class was used as the criterion for success rather than the learning outcome. As Calderhead and Shorrock (1997) point out, there is a persistent belief among student teachers or beginning teachers that learning is unproblematic. If the teacher presents interesting activities and students are involved, then they will learn. .
The critical incident in the third year of teaching had a strong impact on Genie. She reflected on the incident and began to see the importance of being able to see things from her students' perspective and to empathize with them. She began to see that building a good relationship with students was very important for successful teaching. She has yet to un-derstand that effective teaching is also an important element in building a strong relationship with the students.

6.6 Summary
In this chapter I have given biographical accounts of the professional de¬velopment of the ESL teachers. The accounts show that there are certain similarities among their developmental paths. Like all beginning teachers, they were overwhelmed by the multifaceted nature of classroom teach¬ing. The initial years were particularly challenging for these four teachers because all of them went into teaching with no professional preparation. They all went through the process of negotiating their role as a teacher, and in this process their family background, their learning experience, their life experience, and their disciplinary background had a powerful influence on their conceptions of teaching, learning, and the image that they had formulated for themselves as teachers. The initial years were painful and unsettling for all of them. There were tears and joy, frus¬tration and satisfaction. Genie, having only completed slightly over two years of teaching, was going through this phase. The other three teachers all went through periods of "self-doubt." However, despite the fact that they were working in largely similar contexts, their paths diverged soon after the initial years. While Marina and Eva were able to move out of the phase of self-doubt and on to another phase, Ching did not seem to be

The Professional Development of the ESL Teachers 135

prestigio learner ht -dldren. H ■ is a learn r not be H.iv ed up ideas -ver,theim. kills. There
and how to :ngage their riterion for d Shorrock teachers or ler present* 1 learn. ong impaci portanceo: ) empathizt tnship witl s yet to un in buildinj
essional de-: are certain tig teachers, oom teach-

ing to get off the emotional roller coaster. It was clear from the biograph-' ,11 accounts that each teacher responded differently to their contexts of
u>rk. Marina and Eva were able to benefit from the supportive culture ' |he school and were able to see possibilities for teaching and learning uilhifl the contextual constraints, whereas Chinghad difficulties opening herself up for interaction with her peers and transcending the constraints. There was also a difference in the way they handled the problems that they were confronted with, and a difference in the problems that they chose to confront. When they encountered difficulties in teaching, Eva and Marina both engaged with exploration and experimentation. The satisfaction that they gained upon seeing positive learning outcomes sus¬tained their enthusiasm in and commitment to teaching. Ching engaged in relatively less experimentation because of her concern for keeping order and discipline. Both Eva and Marina problematized what appeared to be unproblematic, such as the way they handled disciplinary problems, and they were able to reframe their understanding of their work and their roles as teachers after reflection. However, while Marina's explo-rations and experimentation, as well as her problematization of her work as a teacher, involved an interaction between theoretical input and per¬sonal practical experience, Eva's were largely based on the latter. Both of them looked for challenges and tried to extend their level of competence. In the process of taking on challenges, Marina seemed to go from strength to strength whereas Eva suffered setbacks from time to time. This suggests that the kinds of challenges that one takes on and whether one is able to benefit from these challenges are important factors in the development of expertise. Later, in Chapter 10, we will focus on the differences out¬lined above and discuss in detail the ways in which they are critical to the development of expertise.




Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom for ESL Learning
In this chapter I shall examine the classroom practices of the four E$l teachers and the knowledge embedded in these practices. The investj. gation of classroom practices will be done under two broad areas: tfo management of the classroom for learning, and the enactment of ttif ESL curriculum. The latter refers to the way the ESL curriculum i being given meaning by the teacher and the students (see Synder, Bolin and Zumwait, 1992). As pointed out in Chapter 4, these two broad areas are intermeshed and often difficult to disentangle. Their division is more for the convenience of organizing the discussion than real. In chapter I shall focus on the management of the classroom for learning, 01 "the management of learning." The enactment of the English curriculum will be the concern of the next chapter.
7.1 ESL Teacher Knowledge
While there are a number of studies on the knowledge of LI English teachers (see, for example, Grossman, 1990; Hillocks, 1999), not much has been written about ESL teacher knowledge (see, however, Woods 1996; Tsui and Nicholson, 1999). In ESL teaching, the target language is both the medium and the object of learning. While there seems to be a consensus that the ESL teacher's ability in the target language is part of teacher knowledge, it is not evident that there is consensus re garding what constitutes the subject matter knowledge of ESL teachers and whether such knowledge should be explicitly taught. For example whether the grammar of the target language should be taught explicitly has been debated. It has been proposed that a second language, like a first language, can be "acquired" and not "learnted" (see, for example, Krashen, 1982). In the past two decades, however, the explicit teaching of grammar has been given more prominence in the ESL curriculum (see, for example, the collected papers in Bygate, Tonkyn, and Williams, 1994 and James and Garrett, 1991; Ellis 1998; Rutherford, 1987; Schimdt, 1994). Woods (1996) outlines the assumptions underlying language, language learning, and language teaching. He points out that language has been

perce of en Lang form' cours gies f skills
ingfr note-Tsi ESL 1 and c the la disco' langu agogi incluc biguit strate types, ent al resou ofleai merit. access
using the ki
7.2;
The t
term
aspec

136

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 137

ng
e four ESL he investi-
areas: the aent of the rriculum is
der, Bolin, two broad
division is eal. In this earning, or curriculum
LI English , not much er, Woods, ;t language e seems to anguage is nsensus re-?L teachers >r example, it explicitly lage, like a ir example, teaching of am (see, for 3,1994 and ndt, 1994). e, language it has been

perceived by some as a single unified entity and by others as a cluster 0f entities or genres, such as general English versus scientific English. Language has also been perceived as knowledge as well as abilities. The former consists of knowledge about phonology, syntax, lexis, and dis¬course as well as sociolinguistics, communication strategies, and strate-gies for the four language skills. The latter consists of the four language skiJIsj the microskiils in each of the four skills, such as guessing mean¬ing fro01 context when reading or listening; and composite skills such as note-taking (see p. 187).
Tsui and Nicholson (1999) represented the knowledge structure of ESL teachers according to Shulman's categories of teacher knowledge and conceptualized ESL subject matter knowledge as knowledge about the language system, which consists of phonology, lexis, grammar and discourse. They also subsumed the teaching of the four language skills, language learning strategies, and language teaching strategies under ped-agogic content knowledge. Knowledge of language learning strategies includes knowledge of strategies such as risk-taking, tolerance of am-biguity, and self-monitoring, whereas knowledge of language teaching strategies includes knowledge of strategies such as using different activity types, focusing on accuracy or fluency, and adapting materials for differ-ent ability levels. The management of learning and the management of resources are subsumed under pedagogic knowledge. The management of learning refers to aspects like student motivation and learner empower-ment. The management of resources includes aspects like the authenticity, accessibility, and appropriateness of the materials used. This delineation, as pointed out in Chapter 4, is more analytic than real. One could well argue that knowledge of second language learning strategies, which in-volves knowledge of theories of second language learning, should be part of the subject matter knowledge of ESL teachers. Similarly, the manage-ment of resources for learning involves knowledge of the language system in order to understand the advantages and the potential disadvantages of using authentic language materials for teaching. Therefore, in discussing the knowledge embodied in the management of learning and the en-actment of the ESL curriculum by the four ESL teachers and how their knowledge is developed, no attempt will be made to categorize them. Rather, teacher knowledge will be discussed as an integration of the var-ious aspects of knowledge involved in ESL teaching and learning.
7.2 Management of Learning
The term management of learning is used in a wider sense than the term classroom management. The latter is frequently used to refer to aspects of classroom organization, such as conducting individual, pair,

138 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
or group work; maintaining order; dealing with disruptive behavior- arij handling daily business, such as collecting assignments and taking roii calls. While these are important aspects of a teacher's work as a clas room manager, they are only part of it. As Calderhead (1984) p0jm out, classroom management is inextricably linked to instructional ok jectives. The teacher not only has to'maintain discipline in the class room, but he or she also must manage the classroom in a way that wjli best facilitate learning. Therefore, when examining the work of the foUr case-study teachers, I shall look at the way they manage the classroom for learning.
Studies of teachers who are effective and ineffective classroom man-agers have pointed out that the difference between the two lies not in the ways these teachers deal with disruptive behavior, but rather in how they prevent disruption. Well-established classroom norms and routines are important means of preventing disruption and managing learning jn the classroom (Kounin, 1970; Anderson, Evertson and Emmet; 1980 Calderhead, 1984). Norms are rules governing what constitutes accept¬able and unacceptable behaviors, and routines are procedures that have been established over time to control and coordinate specific sequences of behavior (Yinger, 1979), Norms and routines are necessary because of the very complex and relatively unpredictable nature of classroom teaching, The teacher has to deal with a large number of individuals with different social and possibly different cultural backgrounds. He or she also needs to respond to a multitude of events that happen simultaneously within a very short time. (See 3.2 for the discussion on the multidimensionality, simultaneity, immediacy, and unpredictability of classroom teaching). As pointed out in Chapter 3, by making the timing and sequencing of teacher and student behaviors predictable, and by making clear what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, teachers reduce their cognitive load as well as management load so that they will have the spare capacity to deal with the unpredictable. With established classroom routines for dealing with recurrent events in the classroom, such as collecting home¬work and handling students who have not done their homework, the teacher does not have to waste time in dealing with them individually. More time can then be devoted to teaching. The use of routines is a very important part of interactive decision-making and is considered an essen¬tial element in classroom survival: routines create and manage the learn¬ing environment (Calderhead, 1984; Doyle, 1986; see also Woods, 1996). Studies of expert and novice teachers have observed that the former have available a repertoire of routines that enable them to handle a variety of situations (see Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986). Similarly, expert teachers establish norms that are made known to students so that they know what is expected of them. Routines and norms are developed over time.

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 139

havior; and taking ro]| - as a class. 9S4) points ictional ob-n the class-ay that will ' of the four
classroom
;room man-) lies not in ther in how
nd routines ; learning in rmer, 1980; utes accept-2S that have equences oi cause of the m teaching. ith different 2 also need? sly within a tensionality, caching). As Lg of teacher ; constitutes ir cognitive are capacity routines for cting home-lework, the ndividually. les is a very ed an essen¬ce the learn->ods,1996). former have
a variety of ert teachers
they know i over time.

*>

Hence, it is hardly remarkable that expert teachers, when compared to novices, have more routines at their disposal. For as Olson (1992) points out, embedded in the routines and norms are complex ideas of how the classroom should be managed to facilitate learning. Therefore, the kinds 0f routines available and whether they facilitate the management of learning distinguish expert and nonexpert teachers.
Caiderhead (1984), citing the study of Anderson et al. (1980), ob¬served that effective classroom managers often outline classroom rules in detail on the first day of school and spend considerable time at the beginning of the school year explaining classroom procedures. In order to give the reader a flavor of these four teachers in their management of learning, I shall start reporting on each case study teacher with a description of the first two lessons that they conducted at the beginning of the school year when the study began. The features identified in these rvvo lessons will be elaborated on, and further features will be added in the subsequent discussion.
7.3 Marina
In Chapter 6 we have seen that when Marina first started teaching, she faced the same problem as all novice teachers of being overwhelmed by the complexity of classroom teaching. Over the years, however, she has been able to negotiate a set of classroom norms with her students and to establish routines that enabled her to conduct lessons smoothly. In the rest of this section, I shall characterize the ways in which Marina managed the classroom for learning, the conceptions of teaching, and learning and knowledge that are embedded these practices,
73 A Management of learning in action: Marina's first two lessons
Marina and Eva were teaching the same level, S2 (grade 9), and they agreed that the instructional objectives of these two lessons were twofold: to get the students to use adjectives to describe themselves, and to get to know each other by describing themselves to their classmates. Marina and Eva also exchanged ideas on how the lessons should be conducted. Marina started the lesson by using three adjectives to describe her¬self: hard working, punctual, talkative. She told the students that she worked fourteen hours a day. She then asked if they knew the meaning of punctual. When explaining the word punctual, she established the first house rule: Be punctual when you come to class.

140 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
M: What is punctual} "When does school start every morning? When does
school start every morning? Ss: Eight o'clock. M: Eight. Right. Yes. Eight. And I am punctual. I am always here at eight. Ar
you punctual? Are you punctual? [pointing at a student^ S: [very softly] Yes. M: Sorry? Yes. Anybody knows you? Which class do you come from? 1A.
Right. Who's punctual in 1A? OK. Is he punctual? Yes or no? Ss: Yes. M: Yes. So he is punctual, and I am punctual too. So I am always punctual f0r
lesson. Now everybody, if, after the recess time, you come in late, I won't
let you in because I am punctual.
After punctual, Marina pointed at the word talkative on the board and asked about the student who was most talkative in class and whether girls were more talkative than boys. She noticed a student speaking jn Cantonese, and she established the second house rule: No Cantonese in English lessons.
After introducing herself, Marina asked the students to use three ad¬jectives to describe themselves. She asked them to take out their dictio¬naries and exercise books, and in the meantime she counted up to five indicating that by the time she finished counting, the students should have carried out her instructions. This is a routine that she employed whenever she asked her students to carry out an action, for example, getting into groups, going back to their seats, or taking out books. The aim was to let students know that they should complete the action within a time limit and that they should not waste time.
When the students had their dictionaries and exercise books ready, Marina asked the students to write down their names and three adjectives to describe themselves in the vocabulary book, but they should not let their neighbors see what the three adjectives were. This was because later she was going to ask them to tell each other about themselves and she wanted to make sure that there was an information gap between them. Two minutes were given for the task. She moved on to another task and gave instructions. Before she did that, she told the students to listen to her instructions carefully, and she would ask them to repeat the instructions. At this point, she established another routine: after listening to her instructions, they would be asked to repeat her instructions. And she did ask them to repeat her instructions.
Marina instructed students to work in pairs and to tell their neighbors their names, the adjectives they had put down to describe themselves, and why they used those adjectives. Three minutes were given. Marina set the alarm clock for three minutes. When the alarm clock went off, Marina asked them to write down their neighbor's name and the three adjectives they used in their vocabulary book. She reinforced the rule of speaking in English in the lesson.

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 141

n does
t eight. Arc
aa? 1A.
unctual for e, I won't
board and d whether peaking jn ntonese in
2 three ad-leir dictio-up to five, nts should employed : example, >ooks. The ion within
oks ready, adjectives aid not let is because selves and p between :o another tudents to repeat the :r listening dons. And
neighbors lemselves, n. Marina went off, I the three die rule of

if. Now 1 would like you to write down your neighbor's name and the three 1 ' adjectives in your book. Open it [the vocabulary book] now. If you can't remember, ask your neighbor, in English.
The first lesson ended after the students completed this activity. In the second lesson, on the following day, before she started teaching, Marina ,ent over the answers to the exercise that she asked them to do the night before. She spent a lot of time going over the pronunciation and the meanings of the adjectives. In the course of doing so, she heard Cantonese being nsed several times, and she reminded the students that they would be punished if she heard Cantonese again. For homework, she asked fhem to learn the pronunciation and the meaning of the words by heart, and to choose three adjectives from the list that she went over with them to describe themselves and give reasons. After giving the instructions for homework, she called on a student to repeat the instructions. This reinforced the routine that she established in the first lesson. Near the end of the lesson, Marina invited volunteers to help her set up a routine for collecting homework and handling students who had not done their homework.
From the above description of Marina's first two lessons, we can see a number of striking features in her management of learning. First, while most teachers would spend the first lesson in the school year going over rules and regulations and day-to-day management matters, Marina max-imized time for teaching and learning by integrating the establishment of norms and routines with teaching. Norms and routines were spelled out explicitly when the teaching situation lent itself to their formulation. This shows that in Marina's conception of teaching, context is very much part of the teaching act. As we shall see in Chapter 8, being able to see the various aspects of the teaching act as an integrated and coherent whole is an outstanding feature of Marina's teaching in both the management of learning as well as the enactment of the curriculum. Second, the choice of using adjectives to describe oneself as the instructional objective of the first two lessons was very much integrated with the communicative need for the students to get to know the teacher as well as their fellow students at the beginning of the school year (recall that some of them came from different SI classes). Third, Marina was able to establish a number of important routines and norms very early on in the school year, all of which were consistently reinforced throughout the school year. In the following sections, we shall deal with each of these one by one.
7.3.2 Handling classroom discipline
Marina's lessons were characterized by a high level of student involve-ment in doing things with and in English. Therefore, her classrooms were often very noisy, but the students were enjoying themselves, and


142 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
they were learning. However, there were also times when she wanted absolute silence and attention. She articulated her guiding principle i keeping discipline in the classroom as follows:
If I'm talking about something that I need the attention of the whole class f0r and that everybody must follow what I am saying before I can carry on [with the lesson], then I want them to be quiet and to pay attention. But if I give them tasks to work on and they are talking noisily, then I don't mind that at all. But once I think [the topic] is important, then I need them to be quiet. And I will also ask them to repeat what I just said to make sure that they understood what I said.
Underlying the norm that Marina established for acceptable and un-acceptable noise is her knowledge of English learning as a process in which students "should be involved" and must be given the opportunity "to work together, to produce." As we have seen in Chapter 6, this con¬ception came partly from her own learning experience in school and partly from the professional course she attended.
She discriminated between on-task noise, which was tolerated and even encouraged, and off-task noise, which was not tolerated. It also embodied her knowledge of the importance of giving clear instructions which she explained as follows: "Once they started working on the task, it would be disruptive to ask them to stop and explain [the instruc¬tions] once again if I found that some students did not get them. And if they did not understand the instructions, it would be impossible for them to carry out the task." Therefore, when she was giving instruc¬tions, no matter whether the instructions were for homework or class¬room tasks, no noise would be tolerated. As we have seen in her first two lessons, in order to make sure that the students did understand the instructions, she built in a routine of asking them to repeat what they were supposed to do, especially when the instructions were complicated or when she noticed that some students were not paying attention.
Asking students to repeat what has been said, either by the teacher or by fellow students, became a routine for ensuring that students were listening, either out of necessity or courtesy. She said, "If I notice that the students did not pay attention, I would ask them questions so they know they need to pay attention. This is respect [for others], this is courtesy."
Marina's expertise in handling classroom discipline is realized not only in establishing routines but also in her ability to judge when the noises made foreshadowed disciplinary problems and must be curbed, and when they could be usefully exploited to achieve instructional objectives. As Tripp (1994) points out, having routines does not make a good teacher; it is the judgement that he or she exercises in the use of the routines, For example, it was common to see in Marina's classroom students shouting out answers in a joking manner or students making a funny remark - but instead of ignoring or reprimanding them, she would turn

the
ing
rob
M:
S: M=
$h M: Ss:
M= SI: M: SI: M:
S2: M:
S3: M: S3: M:
From ately and wan tec Neve peara them eye a on tr on. gettin Beir to be knowl he a excerp
Mari probl home and th library

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 143

he wanted )rinciple jn
le class for y on [with if I give id that at : quiet. And
y
le and un-process in •pportunity 6, this con-school and
erated and ted. It also istructions, 3n the task. he instruo them. And )ossible for ng instruc-rk or class-in her first erstand the what they omplicated ntion. the teacher i dents were ;ice that the ■ they know ; courtesy." :ed not only 1 the noises 1, and when jectives. As od teacher; le routines. m students ng a funny would turn

the remark into a teaching point. The following is an excerpt from a writ-■flg lesson in which Marina was helping them to enrich an account of a robbery.
Marina asked the students to elaborate on the description of the robber. u- .. • Imagine, what sort of person will that robber look like? Give me some adjectives.
* Wy-
Vi: Ugly> OK. Ugly. Yeah. How ugly? How ugly?
ty Three eyes.
Vj: Three eyes?
Ss: [laugh]
\j. Where is the other eye? Where is the third eye then?
$1: Forehead.
\4: Here in the forehead?
SI: Yes.
\1J Wow, that's... that's not a man, it's a monster. It's an E. T. OK, so, maybe
this person has got three eyes, one more eye, a special person with an eye
on the... on the forehead. Any anything else you can you can use?
^2: Vf:
^3: M: "3: Mi
Four... four ears.
Wow, with four ears! OK. Four ears. And where are the other two ears
then? Where are the other two ears?
On the face.
Sorry?
On his face.
On... on his face!
From the above excerpt, we can see that some students were deliber¬ately trying to be funny by suggesting that the robber had "three eyes" and "four ears." These suggestions were not in line with what Marina wanted them to do, that is, to give a more vivid description of the robber. Nevertheless, they served the purpose of adding more details to the ap-pearance. Therefore, instead of ruling them out of order, Marina took them on board and asked the students to elaborate on where the extra eye and ears were. Soon after these exchanges, the students were back on track and suggested that the robber was tall, wore a T-shirt, and so on. Marina therefore successfully achieved her instructional objective of getting students to provide more details to enrich their descriptions.
Being able to make judgement on whether the students were trying to be disruptive or whether they were offering a serious answer requires knowledge of the students and their background. Otherwise, what would be a serious answer could be taken as a cheeky answer. The following excerpt is an example.
Marina was checking the replies that the students wrote to a letter on the problem page. The letter was from a student who had had problems doing his homework because he shared a room with his younger brother and baby sister, and they were very noisy. One of the students suggested that he go to the library.

144 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

M: How many of you have suggested this thing, going to the library?
Ss: [several students put up their hands]
M: OK. What other suggestions have you got?
S; Go to the toilet.
M: Go to the toilet.
Ss: [laugh]
M: Or bathroom and shut the door and stay there the whole day.
Ss: [laugh]
The suggestion of doing his homework in the toilet was by no means a cheeky answer. Apartments are very small in Hong Kong, and it is very rare for working class children to have a room to themselves. Studying j^ the toilet is not unheard of. As we can see, Marina accepted the answer as appropriate, though she half-jokingly added that he could stay in the toilet for the whole day.
Marina was also clear about what remarks to sanction, which indi* cated that the students had gone too far, for if not curbed they could go wild. For example, when students used acronyms that stood for foul words in Cantonese, like P.K., or if they used SM. (which stood for "sexual maniac"), Marina immediately sanctioned them. The following is an excerpt from a grammar lesson in which Marina drew a face on the board and asked the students to write a sentence to describe the face and give a reason. Some students said that he was yawning because he has breathed in some poisonous gas.
M: ... "He has breathed in special poisonous gases." I am still looking for
Albert's sentence. Mr. S. M. - Who is Mr. S. M.? Albert: Superwoman! [The class roared and became very noisy.] M: Oh no, class, I know the meaning of S. M. [The boys roared.] No,
no. Sorry, hush! Don't - don't use it. It's not good - sorry, hush, hush!
It's not a good - it's not a good - a good thing to say, OK? Albert: Mr. P. K. [The class roared again.] M: All right. So now - hush! No, no, no. For the last time, please.
No more, no more S. M. or P. K.1 or what. OK, now -Albert: Sentence Making ah! M: Um Mr. - Mr. Sentence Making, OK? (The class laughed again.)
Mr, Sentence Making is what? What's the word?
Ss: Moaning.
M: Is moaning? Moaning is m-o-a-n-i-n-g. (M spelled out the word.) Albert: M-o-a-n-i-n-g. M: OK. 'Is M-o-a-n-i-n-g'. (M wrote moaning on the blackboard.)
Is moaning.
Albert was the rowdiest and most vocal student in the class. He often came up with cheeky answers, but many times they were appropriate. As we can see from the above excerpt, Marina detected the potential disorder
1 "S. M." stands for "sexual maniac" and "P. K." stands for the Cantonese words poke kai, which is a swear word equivalent to telling people to go to hell. The former is a taboo topic in schools and the latter is a taboo phrase that is considered vulgar.

that sente she fi fishy. they M dents, points izes room
di
stud When scold to sta But sh but we Wh class n studen she hac with di observi
She |MJ homewf When s. have a I hand in cares fo
This w forms. maxim i Man frustrat vant, ar enough of learn and the
7.3.3 ■
Marina lively ai Group ■

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 145


ry:
no means a id it is ven Studying in the answer I stay in the
which indi they coult' >od for fou1 i stood for e followinj-v a face or. ibe the face because he
1 looking for
;dj No, hush, hush!
:ase.
•hat could set in if she did not put a stop to Albert's attempt to produce sentences using the acronyms. After class Marina told me that when •he first near<^ these acronyms from the students, she smelled something fishy- She asked around and found out from her male colleagues what they referred to. Jvlarina's judgement was made on the basis of her knowledge of the stu-Jcflts, their culture and what the shared jokes were. Calderhead (1984) points out that it is the prevention of disruptive behavior that character¬izes experienced teachers. For Marina, her expertise in handling class¬room discipline lies in her ability to prevent disruptive behavior and to differentiate disruptive and nondisruptive behavior. An S5 (grade 11) indent, Fanny, observed: "There was no need [for Marina to be strict]. When she stopped talking, we knew what to do. She did not have to •cold us; all of us knew: 'Oh no, Miss Tarn is not speaking now. We need ■:o start our lesson.'... She was not strict to us and she didn't scold us. But she could still control the class. We talked a lot during the lesson, hut we still paid attention to her when she was teaching." When disciplinary problems got really serious, such as half of the Jass not having done their homework, Marina would deal with these students after class or after school instead of using up class time. When she had to deal with them in class, she would draw a line between dealing with disciplinary problems and teaching. One of the S2 students, Wendy, observed: She [Marina] could get very upset when many students did not hand in their hnmework. But she would not let her emotions rub off to the rest of the lesson. When she was teaching she would quickly switch to the teaching mood and have a lot of fun with students. She would not pick on students who did not hand in their homework. She gives [equal] opportunities to everyone and she cares for everyone. gain.) word.) ard.) s. He often ropnate. As ;ial disorder ;e words poke : Marina's teaching was described by both senior and junior students as former is a lively and characterized by a lot of activities and student participation. /ulgar. Group work and pair work was a feature mentioned by many students. This was echoed by several other students, both in senior and junior forms. Underlying this practice is her belief about the importance of maximizing time for teaching and that learning should be fun. 7.3.3 Organization of learning Many disciplinary problems in the classroom are due to boredom and frustration. When students feel that the materials are uninteresting, irrele¬vant, and lack variation, or that the task is too difficult or not challenging enough, they become fidgety and their attention fades. The management of learning encompasses two major aspects, the organization of learning and the management of resources. 146 Understanding Expertise in Teaching Initially, Marina's perception of group work and pair work was simD| a means of getting students to talk to each other in English (see 6.2 3? As she gained experience and received input from professional traininp" Marina began to see pair work and group work as a vehicle for collar rative learning. Moreover, there should be a purpose for students to w0rL together, and students should be working on a task with an outcome that they could share with the rest of the class. A commonly observed routine in her classroom is that when students were asked to work on tasks, they would go out and get a poster fr0m her, a set of felt pens and some blue tack. The students would write on the back of the poster, and when they finished they would put their "product" on the board using the blue tack. To give them a sense of ownership of the product, she asked students to sign the product with their own names or a name that they invented for their group. Marina would then go over the production from each group with the whole class For example, in a grammar lesson on the passive voice, each group 0f students was required to produce a riddle using some passive structures. Their riddles were then posted on the board, and Marina went over the riddles, pointing out grammatical mistakes, and then got the rest of the class to guess the answer. Embodied in this routine is Marina's knowledge of managing the class¬room and time for learning. Many teachers ask the students to either write their productions on the board or to read them out orally. The former is very time consuming and the latter often results in students not being able to hear what was reported verbally. Marina's routine saves time and ensures that all students can see what each group has produced. It allows Marina to go over the productions very efficiently and provides another opportunity for her to consolidate what was taught in the lesson. In organizing group work, Marina sometimes assigned different tasks to different groups. For example, when getting students to find out the meanings of words in the dictionary and their pronunciation, she would assign different words to different groups. When one group had com¬pleted their task, Marina would put their answers on the board and would go over all answers with the whole class. This not only shortens the time needed to go through the entire list of words, but also allows students to work at a different pace. Her students liked this routine and remarked, "If it's the whole class who has to look up the same words, some may do it faster [than others] if they are used to looking up words in the dictionary - and they will shout out the answers or write them on the blackboard. And those who haven't will stop looking up their dictionaries [because the answer has already been given]. So it's good to divide into groups." Decisions on whether different groups should be assigned different tasks or the same task requires the teacher to exercise his or her judgement was simply (see 6.2.3). lal training for collab0! mts to work iitcome that Len students poster from vould write Id put their i a sense of roduct with up. Marina whole class. :h group of 2 structures. snt over the e rest of the tig the class-either write The former ts not being 'es time and zd. It allows des another sson. :"ferent tasks find out the L, she would p had corn-board and ily shortens also allows routine and ame words, ig up words write them ng up their it's good to ed different r judgement Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 147 on the nature of the tasks and whether the whole class will be able to make C[ise of the outcome of different tasks. Otherwise, when one group is resenting the product, the other groups would be at a loss. For example, Lhen Marina was teaching "giving advice," she gave the students five letters on the problems page in a magazine and went over all of them with the class. Then she asked each group to write a reply to one of the letters. At the end, each group presented their reply to the letter. Since farina had gone over all five letters with them, they had the contexts for making sense of the replies produced by each group. 7,3.4 Management of resources for ESL learning MAXIMIZING RESOURCES Marina's management of resources for teaching was typified by their variety, authenticity, and relevance. She was able to exploit materials for teaching in a creative way. Influenced by her own language learning ex¬perience in which she had to maximize her opportunities for learning English in order to survive at St. John's, she made use of junk mail, pamphlets, and brochures for teaching (see 6.2). She would collect them and put them in a box. She would collect materials even when she was traveling. For example, when she went to the United Kingdom as part of the refresher training for panel heads, one of things that she collected for teaching materials was a pamphlet from Sainsbury supermarket. Her se-lection of materials is guided by her knowledge of the difference between authentic language, which is found in real life situations, and language, which is artificially produced for teaching purposes. Marina's selection of materials is also influenced by her belief that students are more likely to see the relevance of this kind of material to their everyday lives. Apart from providing students with realia, she would also ask students to collect samples of realia. She explained as follows: Yes, I like using that because they are authentic. This is the main reason. Texts, which are fabricated, are not as good. Another thing is, if I use realia, students would feel that [the realia] is closer to their lives, then they would pay more attention to the things [language] around them because these realia are taken from things around them. For example, the patients' charter, I am sure every student has a copy. I kept my copy. She paid a lot of attention to junk mail, letters, school circulars, and newspapers, collecting them and filing them. This she did for both junior and senior forms. When she ran out of ideas for teaching, she would go through these materials. When she taught instructions in S2, she asked the students to go to the supermarket and look at instructions on the packaging and bring some back to the school. The students brought back a lot of things, such as instant 148 Understanding Expertise in Teaching noodles packages, tin labels, recipes, and so on. She then helped \\. students to identify the common structures in these instructions. \tyt teaching vocabulary on stationery, she gave them some Chinese \vor(| for example, stapler and hole puncher, and asked them to find out & English equivalent in stationery shops. This kind of activity provided experiential dimension to language learning and enhanced the student sensitivity to the English around them. Lillian, an S2 student, said, "I became more interested in the lan guage... I paid more attention to English. When I spotted an Engljsi sentence, I would take another look, just out of curiosity. I would alSo memorize interesting sentences that I came across." Fanny, an $5 studem paid attention to the advertisements in the MTR stations, and when she watched advertisements on the English television channel, she would compare them with the Chinese version. She also watched English serial and documentaries. Wendy, another S5 student, also said that she paicja lot more attention to the English around her. She said: Sometimes on the streets, say in Tsim Sha Tsui, when foreigners ask the way,{ will volunteer to help them. I always take those opportunities [to practice my English]. When I cross the harbor, some writings are in English only and not bilingual. I will try to guess their meanings, though I am not sure. If I can remember the words, I'll look them up in a dictionary when I'm home. Whenl eat out in a restaurant and the menus are in English only, I'll pick up new words like cappuccino, words that I didn't know before, but now I know. For her Master's assignment, Marina studied a good and a poor lan¬guage learner in her own S5 class. She found that the good language learner, among other traits, paid a lot of attention to the English around her. The student reported to her thus: "When I go out, I often look at the street signs, billboards. Sometimes there are very big Chinese characters, with tiny English words below. I still crane my neck to read the English words and check them against the Chinese characters." She also found that this student felt positively about herself and her own English ability, The poor language learner, on the other hand, found language learning "painful" and had little sense of success. She said, "I feel that no matter how hard I try, I still can't learn languages well." This study confirmed her practical knowledge about how and what resources she could exploit for teaching. The research literature on learner variables and learning strate¬gies, such as the work of O'Malley and Chamot (1990), provided Marina with a theoretical basis for her future teaching actions. Using students' work as a resource for learning is another characteris tic of Marina's teaching. The bulletin board at the back of the classroom is often full of students' work. For example, after teaching the use of pas¬sives to write riddles, she posted on the board the riddles that her students wrote for the rest of the class to guess. After teaching the use of the past pai ho Th» Go enc I the Sch gra per to 1 tere rew her yea ava bor thai S star add put in e ove the aids can iou< sorr pap aroi 1 helPed the tions. When inese words find out the provided an :he students' I in the Ian. 1 an English [ would also i S5 student, ad when she , she would lglish serials at she paid a ik the way, I practice m> dy and not If I can ome. When 1 up new I know.
a poor Ian-3d language ^lish around i look at the i characters, . the English i also found glish ability. age learning at no matter mfirmed her d exploit for rning stratc-ided Marina
characteris-e classroom euseofpas-her students 2 of the past

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 149
wCjp|e form as adjectives, such as annoyed, scared, excited, she put fees expressing such feelings drawn by students on the bulletin board. These posters served as a way of consolidating what had been taught. food work was put on the school bulletin board both as a form of couragement and a resource for learning for students in other classes. Marina is very alert to resources that are made available to schools by the government Education Department. When the Extensive Reading Scheme was first introduced to schools by the government, Marina grabbed the opportunity and joined the scheme. She set aside two lessons tar week for students to read the books in class. Instead of getting them to write book reports, which to her is a recipe for killing students' in¬terest in reading, she asked them to tell her about the book. She would reward them with a sticker if they gave a good summary. Some of her students had read more than eighty books by the end of the school year. Because there was no such scheme for senior forms, Marina made available to senior students her personal library. A number of S5 students borrowed books from her because they found her books more interesting than those they could find in the library.
St. Peter's is not a particularly well-resourced school. Apart from the .standard subsidy that it receives from the government, it does not get additional funding from donors. The school does not require parents to put in additional resources because of their low income. The equipment in each classroom is the basic board and chalk. While there are several overhead projectors for common use, there is no overhead projector in the classroom. The teachers have very little funding for buying teaching aids such as overhead transparencies. Given the poor resources, Marina came up with her own teaching aids, which consisted of felt pens of var¬ious colors, any big pieces of paper that she could lay her hands on, and some blue tack for sticking the papers on the board. The big pieces of paper are package wrappings of photocopying papers that she saw lying around in the general office, large monthly calendars, and advertising posters that had been taken down from school bulletin boards. She said that it would be much more economical and environmentally friendly to make use of "waste papers" than to buy big poster papers from sta-tionery shops. These big posters are for students to put down their group work productions so that Marina can go over them with the whole class efficiently and effectively (see 7.3.3).
MAXIMIZING TIME
For Marina, time is an important resource for learning. She was never late for class because she felt that thirty-five minutes for a lesson was already very short. If the lesson started late, she would not be able to cover very much. One of her S5 students, Howard, observed, "Every time when the bell rang, within almost one minute she would turn up

150 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

start
for class. She is different from other teachers She said, 'If we
[the lesson] on time, I can teach you more.'"
In the first few years of teaching, Marina got very upset when th students came to class late. Howard recalled an incident when he \Va still an S2 student. His class was five or ten minutes late going to the "lo0 room" (the listening laboratory). Marina was very upset and cried as sK scolded them for not taking their lessons seriously. Since then, Howar(i said, the students knew that they must be punctual. Marina reflected on this and realized that although she was able to get the students to be punctual, her emotional reactions had had adverse effects on the learning atmosphere (see 6.2.2). To tackle this, she laid down a rule for punctuality at the beginning of the school year and reinforced it throughout the school year, as we have already seen (see 7.3.1).
To ensure that no time is wasted, she always brings an alarm clock to class, and when she gives a time limit for working on tasks, individually in pairs or in groups, she sets the clock to remind herself. She seldom allows more time after the alarm has gone off, unless it is absolutely necessary. According to Marina, this routine was set up because she knew that it would be very easy for a teacher to forget the time. If the teacher did not keep to the time limit given, students would be spending more time than was needed on a task. They were also more likely to be off-task if they felt that they did not have to finish the task on time. The time that she allocated to activities was often accurate, and she seldom ran over or finished much earlier than the bell. Wendy (S5), observed, "... her timing was excellent. Really. When she has said everything, then I would count, 'ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.' Then the bell rang. She kept it so accurately that you wouldn't think time was wasted."
Getting students into groups can be rather time-consuming, especially if it is not well planned. In Marina's lessons, whenever students have to do group work, she will count up to ten, at the end of which all students will be in their own groups. This is because at the beginning of each school year, Marina asks her students to form groups and stay with the group for the rest of the year. She also trains the students to get into groups within the shortest possible time. This results in a brisk pace in her teaching.
MAXIMIZING THE CLASSROOM FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
Marina's classroom is typified by the prevalent use of English once the lesson has started, no matter whether the students are bantering with one another or engaging in serious discussion. There is an understanding in her English panel that students should be encouraged to use English in all English lessons. However, some teachers are more successful in implementing this than others.

be a
of in
be
al
did
1
her
wh
use


'If
we
start
et when the /hen he was to the "loop 1 cried as she .en, Howard ina reflected udents to he the learning c punctuality ut the school
arm clock to individually, She seldom is absolutely use she knew f the teacher ending more :ly to be off->n time. The i she seldom >), observed, rything, then e, two, one,' l't think time
lg, especially lents have to 1 all students ning of each stay with the s to get into brisk pace in
lish once the mtering with nderstanding ;> use English successful in

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 151
To implement this policy, apart from making it clear right from the beginning of the school year, as we have seen in 7.3.1, Marina developed
jjjnple system for rewarding the use of English and penalizing the use f Cantonese in the classroom. If a student was found using Cantonese in class> no matter whether it was whole-class teaching or group or pair work, his or her name would be written on the board and one mark would be deducted from their oral English mark. If however, they used English all the way through group or pair work, two bonus marks would be given. A crying face next to the name on the board denoted mark deduction, and a smiling face denoted mark addition. In addition, she ilso asked the students to monitor each other's use of Cantonese. Seldom did she ignore any instance of violation.
[n addition, she encouraged teachers to provide opportunities for stu-dents to use English in extra-curricular activities. For example, some of her colleagues set up a story-telling corner at lunchtime in which the ju¬nior form students have to tell stories in English to senior forms students, who would give them a grade for their performance. For the school Open l)ay, Marina set up an English room where all students on duty had to use English to introduce their school activities to the guests.
Besides creating a language-rich environment in the classroom, she also tried to make use of extracurricular activities as opportunities for students to use English. For example, she set aside certain rooms in the school Open Day where the students had to use English to introduce their work to visitors. She also asked students to write English riddles as games for visitors.
Her insistence that students use English in the classroom is guided by her knowledge of English language learning that was formulated as a result of partly her own learning experience (particularly her secondary school learning experience) and partly of her German learn¬ing experience, as we have seen in Chapter 6. This knowledge was sup-ported by the theoretical input that she received in her PCEd course and especially in the Master's course. In a document that she submitted to the school administration on measures for improving students' language proficiency, she argued strongly against the use of mixed code (English and Cantonese) in the teaching of English and other content subjects. She wrote, "This [an English-rich environment] can only materialize when English, not mixed code, is used as the teaching medium."
73.S Motivating students and establishing rapport
Marina's students described her lessons as "fun" and "lively." Many of them said that they became more interested in English after they had been taught by Marina. Two of the S2 students interviewed said that they were not interested in English when they were in SI because it was

152 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
boring and difficult. But in S2, they found that "it [learning Engirt, was fun." Winnie, a student of average ability, said that she found th lessons enjoyable particularly when there were games and she could lea a lot through games. The $5 students interviewed unanimously said th Marina's teaching was different from other teachers - that it was m0 fun, with lots of games and activities, and very enjoyable. An S5 studem Jerry, said, "She doesn't just teach. It's lively. She cracks jokes with th' students." Fiona, an S5 student, said, "I am motivated to learn English because the lessons are fun. At least because the lessons are fun, I am now taking the initiative to read storybooks." When she was in SI, she did not like English at all. She would say, "English? I don't really give a damn " Apart from making the lessons fun by using a lot of activities and games, the comfortable relationship that she established with her stu¬dents and her commitment to teaching had an important part to play jn motivating them to learn English. Wendy, an S5 student, said that she was "inspired" by Marina. She said:
I think she's lively by nature, so her lessons are so enjoyable. [When I was] in Form Two, perhaps because we were young then, she gave us posters and asked us to write sentences on them and put them up [on the board]. I think apart from learning the structures... this encouraged us to be imaginative. So I felt very happy. And she loved to laugh. This gave us a feeling that she really appreciated our work, no matter whether it was good or bad, right or wrong. So as a student you would feel happy and you wouldn't feel inferior in front of her.... Also when a teacher seems to appreciate you, you'll think to yourself, I have to work harder! So you'll try your best to improve yourself.
Wendy recalled that when she was taught by Marina in S2, learn¬ing English was really "learning through games" and they were given stickers2 when they won a game. As they moved to higher forms, Marina stopped giving them stickers and there were no more games, but she could still maintain the students' interest in English. Wendy explained why:
It's her attitude What's important is her attitude, not whether she gave me
stickers... While she was teaching, she seemed to be learning with us She
became one of us; she was totally involved in the whole lesson. She wouldn't separate herself [from us] like, *I am the teacher and you are the students.
1 teach you and you listen to me.' It's not like that. She would join us when we
played. She would redress our faults through playing with us. That I think is
marvelous. I don't know how to put it into words. I mean I felt she was
whole-heartedly engaged in it. Even when it was a double-lesson, I wouldn't
feel [bored].
Wendy observed that because the students liked Marina, they wanted to make her happy and so they worked harder. She said, "If you want to
2 Stickers were very popular among younger students in Hong Kong schools. Students
were given stickers of cartoon animals, people, or patterns as a kind of encouragement
for good performance.

mak and by < help Ifyo expl poin whei annc gesti thin! shou Fan i teac pro! teasi She me.. Like her I they to hi A senst and the s in th aboi lowi tests prov were ingf, be ei She; My a I'vef impr< their This not i prov [ng English) ; found that i could learn sly said that it was more i S5 student ces with the :arn English n, I am now , she did not /e a damn." :tivities and 'ith her stu-rt to play in aid that she :n I was] in ers and d]. I think ginative. So at she really t or wrong. or in front of o yourself, i S2, learn-were given •ms, Marina ut she could ned why: he gave me us.... She e wouldn't udents. us when we 11 think is e was [ wouldn't y wanted to ^ou want to ols. Students encouragement Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 153 make a teacher happy and you like her, surely you will participate more iiid get more involved in her lessons." Wendy's remarks were echoed L Gwen, an S2 student, who was touched by Marina's persistence in uc|ping students understand. She said: if you couldn't understand [something], even if it was abstract and difficult to xp]ain, she would still spend so much time on it, even thought it was a small ooint. She'd tried her utmost to clarify it for you. She did not mind. Sometimes when I got her point already and she was still going on about it, I'd even feel annoyed. She would still be explaining from different perspectives, using gestures. That's so enjoyable because you could feel her enthusiasm. You'd think, if the one who teaches (us) is not bored, we, who are being taught, should not be. Fanny, another S5 student, saw Marina more as a friend than a teacher. She would go to her if she had personal problems and family problems. Marina would listen to her patiently and would help her to tease out the problem, but she would not impose any solution on Fanny. She said, "While she understands, she will also make a full analysis for me.. • • She will say, 'it's going to be like this, and I leave you to judge.' Like this." While not all students interviewed said that they would go to her for personal problems, most of them said that if they had questions, they knew that they could go to her and that she would be very willing to help them. Another important way to motivate students to learn is to give them a sense of achievement and to let them know that they are making progress and improving. In her eighth year of teaching, at the very beginning of the school year, Marina's S2 class ranked last among the five classes of S2 in the first test. This was very demoralizing to the students. She thought about how she could encourage her class, and she came up with the fol-lowing solution. She gave each student a record of his or her own scores in tests and examinations, and showed them how much their scores had im-proved or declined from one score to another. Those who had improved were given a smiling face and those with declining scores received a cry¬ing face. She hoped that by doing this, students who had improved would be encouraged and those who did not would have to think about why. She said: My aim is I don't want them to think 'oh dear, I've only got forty-something, I've failed again.' And that's it. I want them to know whether they have improved or not. If they have improved, then that's already quite good [even if their marks are low]. This kind of record was particularly encouraging for students who did not get high marks but had made some improvement, even if the im-provement was very slight. 154 Understanding Expertise in Teaching 7.3.6 Developing knowledge of management of learning In this section we have seen how Marina managed the classroom f0 learning. By establishing norms that made clear what was acceptable and unacceptable behavior as well as what was expected of students, she was able to minimize disruptive behavior. By establishing management as well as teaching routines, she made some of the classroom events predictable, hence allowing more room for the students and herself t0 deal with the unpredictable. Drawing on her knowledge of the students and their family backgrounds, she was able to differentiate disruptive from nondisruptive behavior and preempt the former. The apparent ease with which she handled the disciplinary problems and the excellent rapport that she established did not come automati¬cally with experience, however. In Chapter 6 we saw how Marina strug. gled with disciplinary problems, particularly in her first three years of teaching. She found it difficult to cope with the multiple dimensions of classroom teaching: she was unable "to keep an eye on the whole class all the time," and to exercise her judgement on what was permissible and what was not. She tried to be "firm," "serious," to keep students under "control," and she was highly successful in maintaining order. However this was in conflict with her image of a teacher as being kind and caring to students and being able to inspire students to learn (see 6.2). Her mastery of classroom discipline and rapport with students was a process of trying to resolve the conflict between her image and her practices by constant re¬flection on experience, as a result of which she reframed her understand¬ing of how her image of a teacher should be played out. For example, her reflections on critical classroom incidents - like the "regrettable" events of being unforgiving and inflexible in dealing with disciplinary problems-helped her to come to a new understanding of not only how she should handle these problems, but more importantly the impact that a teacher could make on more profound aspects of student learning such as learn¬ing attitudes and moral values. Governing the strategies that Marina has developed over the years is her belief that it is important to maximize time, opportunities, and resources for learning. This belief is formulated as a result of her own learning experience as a student from a working-class family and her knowledge of the students as working-class children. It shaped the way she formulated the norms and routines, such as punctuality, finishing tasks on time, dealing with disciplinary problems after class, organizing group work, and so forth; and it guided her creative ways of providing opportunities for learning. Embodied in each of the strategies that she used in the management of learning is a rich integrated knowledge of students, context, sub¬ject matter, pedagogy, and curricula. For example, her use of realia for teachi; vvas b in one lcnowl in a cil tions t points used ii enviro: obtain progra of this knowk using i in text awarer pay att feature own in make e practia This was dc finding ited res have to she dev so that and so lesson.'. tant asp In thi went th manage lematize or acce] tions of gained r develop. a proce; work b) find anc ideas, b; practice: ning .ssroom f0r acceptable :udents, she lanagement 30m events d herself t0 he students ; disruptive y problem; 3 automati-arina strug, "ee years oj nensions of whole clasj nissibleand lents undei r. However id caring tc ler mastery :ss of trying zonstant re-mderstand-cample, her ble" events problems-she should it a teacher ch as learn- r the years mities, and of her own ily and her ed the way y, finishing organizing f providing .anagement ntext, sub->f realia for

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 155
reaching started as a creative exploitation of materials for teaching that tt-.is based very much on her own experience of having to "survive" ■'n one of the most prestigious English-medium schools (see 6.1). This knowledge is oriented to the specific context of working-class children In a cltY wnere English is hardly used at home or in daily social interac-tions but, paradoxically, can be found everywhere. As Leinhardt (1988) noints out, it is "contextually developed knowledge that is accessed and used in a way that tends to make use of characteristic features of the -nvironment as the solution tools" (p. 146). Subsequently, as Marina obtained input from the professional education course and the master's program, she was able to formulate and articulate the theoretical bases of this contextually developed knowledge. For example, acquiring knowledge about text analysis enabled her to theorize her preference for ising realia containing authentic texts over fabricated texts provided ■n textbooks. Theories of second language acquisition and language iwareness provided the theoretical motivation for asking her students to «>ay attention to the English around them and to "notice" the linguistic features and patterns. Theories of language learning strategies and her >wn investigation into strategies used by her students helped her to ■nake explicit the tacit knowledge embedded in many of her classroom practices.
This body of knowledge, which is practically oriented and situated, was developed as Marina responded to her specific context of work by finding ways to maximize what is realistically achievable, given the lim-ited resources available to teachers and the tight schedule that teachers have to meet. A very good example is the very simple teaching aids that she developed for getting students to produce language on big posters so that she could provide corrective feedback efficiently and effectively, and so that the productions could be used for consolidation after the lesson. Providing corrective feedback and consolidation are both impor¬tant aspects of language teaching.
In the context of the phases of professional development that Marina went through, we can see that the "state" that Marina has reached in her management of learning is the result of a "process" in which she prob-lematizes what might have been considered by other teachers as routine or acceptable, and tried to find solutions congruent with her concep-tions of teaching and learning. As she reflected on her experience, she gained new insights and understanding of her work as a teacher. Marina's development of knowledge in managing the classroom for learning is a process of responding to the constraints imposed by the context of work by opening up whatever possibilities for learning that she could find and continuously searching for improvement by trying out new ideas, by learning from experience, and by theroizing her actions and practices.

156 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

7.4 Eva
7.4.1 Management for learning in action: Eva's first two lessons
Like Marina, Eva started the lesson (S2, Grade 8) by introducing herself and using two adjectives to describe herself: optimistic and happy, $L gave each student a piece of yellow paper for writing their English name and a piece of white paper for putting down two adjectives to describe their classmates. When the students had finished, she asked them to pass the papers to the front. As she was collecting the papers, she counted up to ten. By doing this, she established the house rule: complete the action before the teacher finishes counting.
After collecting the papers, Eva put the yellow papers in one bag and the white papers in another bag. She then pulled out a name from one bag, invited a student to come to the front and asked him or her to pu]| out a piece of white paper and read out the two adjectives written on it. The class was asked to indicate whether they agreed that the adjec¬tives appropriately described this student. For homework, she asked the students to write down three adjectives to describe themselves and give reasons in the grammar exercise book.
In the second lesson on the following day, she began by asking students to name adjectives to describe God. She asked the students to form eight groups of five and give their own group a name. She set up a reward system to encourage participation in class. For each correct answer from a group member, the group would get one mark. The marks would be totaled every two weeks, and the group with the highest score would get a prize. After explaining the reward system and setting a time limit for forming groups, she went over the list of adjectives that was given on the previous day and asked students to classify them as positive or negative adjectives.
As mentioned before, because Eva and Marina were teaching the same level, they used the same materials and often discussed the lesson plans. This is why there were a number of similarities between their lessons. Like Marina, Eva started teaching right away by introducing herself with some adjectives. The students were also immediately involved in activities. The house rules were established as the teaching progressed. Eva organized the students and introduced the reward system very early on. One can see a strong influence of Marina on Eva through the routines and norms established.
What is interesting is that Eva's lessons may appear to be quite sim¬ilar to Marina's, but in fact the activities that Eva introduced did not quite achieve the objective of getting to know each other, which Eva and Marina agreed on. In Marina's lessons, students were asked to write three

adje
thre The othe
sequ the t servt
B; frorr.
appr did r
disa§
appr each from get t. peop sectk estab
7.4.;
Like
Stude
when
when
puttir
to exj
her. \
if the;
who \
penali
As
iems i
studei
to see
Chine
This v
Asloi
that st
If the j
did no
Insteai
the sti:

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 157

cing herself happy. She glish name, to describe lem to pass he counted >mplete the
>ne bag and e from one her to pull written on t the adjec-e asked the es and give
ng students > form eight p a reward nswer from s would be 2 would get ne limit for ;iven on the or negative
ig the same sson plans. issons. Like f with some ivities. The i organized n. One can and norms
: quite sim-:ed did not ch Eva and write three

. Jjectives to describe themselves and then to tell their partners what those inree adjectives were and why they would describe themselves as such. The activity served the purpose of helping students to get to know each other by telling each other about themselves using adjectives. The sub-sequent activity of asking them to write down their partner's name and {he three adjectives that their partners had used to describe themselves served the function of consolidating their knowledge of their partners.
By contrast, Eva's activity of asking students to pull out two adjectives from the bag and indicate if they agreed with the description was not appropriate as the first activity in the school year because some students did not know each other and were therefore not in a position to agree or disagree with the description. The activity would have been much more appropriate for consolidation after the students had been introduced to each other. The activity of using adjectives to describe God departed from the objective of the lesson because it did not help the students to get to know each other. Practicing the use of adjectives for describing people became the end rather than a means to an end. In the following section, we shall discuss in greater detail the routines and norms that Eva established to manage the classroom for learning.
7.4.2 Handling classroom discipline
Like Marina, Eva's classroom was relaxed, full of noise and laughter. Students were happy to see her, and they often greeted her effusively when she turned up at the door. Eva seldom talked to the students harshly when they forgot to bring their books or their homework. She felt that putting on a stern face did not help. Rather, she believed that if she tried to explain to the students what they needed to do, they would listen to her. When she checked homework, she would ask students to redo it if they had not done it properly. She would differentiate between those who were willing to redo their work and those who were not and only penalize the latter.
A striking feature was Eva's jocular way of handling disciplinary prob-lems if they were not too serious. She would draw a tortoise on the student's hand and not allow them to wash it away until they had come to see her after class. The word tortoise has a negative connotation in Chinese, and Eva used it as a means of indicating negative evaluation. This was an effective way of making students aware of their mistakes. As I observed Eva drawing the tortoise on students' hands, I often found that students responded to it with a mixture of fun and embarrassment. If the problem was really serious, such as when more than half the class did not complete their homework, she would not use the jocular penalty. Instead, she would give the whole class a serious talk. To make sure that the students got the message, she would switch to Cantonese. However,

158 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

if there were only one or two students who committed the offense, $k would deal with these students individually after school in order not t waste class time. What comes through clearly in Eva's handling of disci plinary problems is her conception of students as individual human be ings who are reasonable and should be respected. Her knowledge of her students also enabled her to exercise her judgement on the gravity of thP disciplinary problems and the appropriate measures to deal with them
7A3 Group work and seating arrangement
Like Marina, Eva used group work frequently. Eva's personal approach to teaching came through strongly in the way she exploited the additional physical space in oral lessons when the class size was reduced to half to allow more opportunities for students to speak in class. She would put students in five groups and rotate their locations in the classroom so that there would not be some groups sitting at the back all the time and con¬sequently not getting as much attention as those sitting in the front. Eva's actions were guided by her conception of students as individuals and the importance that she attached to maintaining a personal relationship with the students. She wanted to be able to establish eye contact with her stu¬dents and not let any student feel neglected. When she could not see the students sitting at the back, she would ask them to show their faces.
Her sensitivity to students as individuals was manifested in the way she arranged the seating in oral lessons when they were not doing group work. For example, in an oral lesson in which consonants were taught, Eva asked the students to arrange the desks in a semicircle. She explained why:
I think they will find it difficult to pronounce consonants. So I want them to see how others pronounce them so that they won't just sit there not knowing what to do and feeling afraid. I want them to be able to watch their peers. Like when you do tai chi, or learn to dance, you follow other people when you don't know how to do it.
When the students looked tired and their face muscles were a bit tense af¬ter practicing the consonants for a long time, she made up some sentences on the spot using the students' names, such as "Sam is very thin. Wallace is not thin. Wallace wants to be thin. So Wallace eats less ice-cream." This woke the class up immediately. Eva explained that she loved doing this because this was her way of relating to them: "to develop a conversation with them and to respond to them."
Underlying Eva's seating arrangement was her knowledge that conso¬nants were difficult for the students and her awareness of the students' anxiety when they found the task daunting. Allowing students to see what their peers were doing was a kind of emotional as well as learning

suppoj
the ph
seating best to
7AA
USING
In Eva \ Marina
joking i ducted i of dedu she ded First, dc and offe be grou| handing each oth used Cai the class heard an
BENFFIT
A norm i answerin dents ths taking UJ loudly sc from it. Ii responded the stude to Eva, w always n\ not alway ways posi needed thi felt a bit f
"TEACHir
To ensure i her studen She cited tl

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 159

iffense, si rder not \, ng of disc -human bi -
edgeofhir avityoftf vith them
1 approach additional i to half to would put torn so that te and con-front. Eva's als and the mship with ith her stu-not see the r faces. in the way oing group ere taught, i explained
t them to : knowing ; peers. Like ;n you don't
)it tense af-e sentences in. Wallace earn." This doing this inversation
rhat conso-e students' ents to see as learning

. ipport. The smaller size of the split class, therefore, gave Eva not only Hi? physical space but also the metaphorical space to try out different ;i iting arrangements, which were guided by her understanding of how Kst to manage the classroom to facilitate learning.
"A A Maximizing the classroom for learning
..^ING ENGLISH IN THE CLASSROOM
In Eva's classroom one could hear English used nearly all the time. Like j^Jarina's classroom, her students used English even when they were joking with each other. She did not allow the use of Cantonese and de-ducted marks if students were caught using Cantonese. However, instead of deducting marks from individual students for speaking Cantonese, she deducted the marks from the group. She did this for two reasons. First, deducting marks from individual students would be too personal and offensive. Second, if the marks were group marks, then there would be group pressure to speak English. Eva explained, "By doing this, I am handing back the responsibility to the students, and they will monitor each other." This was quite effective because very often when one student used Cantonese, the whole group would censor him or her. Consequently, the classroom became an English-rich environment where English was heard and used by students.
BENEFITING FROM EACH OTHER'S CONTRIBUTIONS
A norm that Eva established is that everybody must speak loudly when answering questions or making presentations in class. She told the stu¬dents that because class time was limited, anybody speaking would be taking up other people's time and space. Therefore, they must speak loudly so that everybody could hear what was said and could benefit from it. In addition, when a student had answered a question, Eva seldom responded by saying whether the answer was correct. She would direct the students' answers to other students for evaluation. This, according to Eva, was to inculcate in students the concept that the teacher was not always right. Students should be responsible for their own learning and not always look to the teacher for the answer. However, this was not al-ways positively responded to by the students because they felt that they needed the final word from her and when that was not forthcoming, they felt a bit frustrated.
"TEACHING-LEARNING"
To ensure that time was effectively spent on learning, whenever Eva asked her students to work on tasks, she would demonstrate how to do it first. She cited the Chinese word for "teaching," which is literally translated as

160 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
"teaching-learning," and said, "You must teach the students first befor you can expect them to learn." For her, it would be a waste of tim and would not be fair if students were just left floundering without th teacher teaching them how to do it.
This routine was developed in response to students' criticism that her instructions were unclear. In order to make sure that they knew what they were supposed to do, she demonstrated how to do it. Despite this routine, her instructions were still unclear at times. She felt that she was too impulsive and spontaneous, and she tended to digress. As a result her students found it difficult to follow her. For example, she would give homework orally in the middle of the lesson. Her students requested that she put the homework instructions on the board. She was receptive to their suggestions, and she said, "My students are training me up."
ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION
Eva tried to encourage student participation by setting up a system to reward participation in class in junior forms. At the beginning of each lesson, a student would be assigned to draw a chart on the board for recording marks for each group. For each student who volunteered to speak in class, one mark would be awarded to the group to which the student belonged. In order to encourage more students to volunteer, she allocated an extra mark to new volunteers. At the end of the lesson, the marks would be added up and the group with the highest mark would get two stickers and the second highest would get one. There was a chart on the bulletin board where the students put the stickers. At the end of the term, the group that collected the highest number of stickers would get a prize. The students responded very well to this scheme and competed hard to get the highest number of stickers.
Eva started introducing this system in her third year of teaching. In the subsequent three years, the reward system underwent some modi-fications. For example, initially only one prize was given to the group with the highest score at the end of term. She found that she needed to give more immediate incentives and so she gave them the stickers at the end of each class and allowed more than one group to get the stickers. In order to foster team spirit, she made the students stay in one group throughout the term so that they would work together to get the prize.
From the above account, we can see that a great deal of thinking had gone into the formulation of the routines, norms, and strategies for maximizing the classroom for learning. Embedded in Eva's practices is her personal conception of "teaching" as encompassing "learning" and the presupposition of learning in teaching. Also embedded in her practices is her belief that she should maximize the opportunities for learning for all students, help them to take responsibility for their own learning, and not to be subservient to the teacher.




irst before te of timc ithout the
m that her new what espite this at she was .s a result, vould give tested that iceptive to up."
system to ig of each board for nteered to which the jnteer, she he lesson, hest mark There was ers. At the of stickers ;heme and
aching. In ime modi-the group needed to kers at the .e stickers. one group the prize. f thinking ategies for tractices is ning" and r practices arning for rning, and

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 161
ft4.5 Creating a positive and supportive culture
jn managing the classroom for learning, Eva attached a great deal of importance to building a positive and trusting culture in which students vvere mutually supportive. She frequently made positive statements about ftcr students when she gave examples to illustrate a grammar point or explained a vocabulary item. When designing test items, she would write about students and their good behavior. For example, in a writing lesson, she used the revisions made by a student on his first draft as an example for teaching. The writing was about a robbery and on the top of the page, Eva wrote, "'A Robbery,5 by a hard working, careful, attentive, and cheerful student in 2A." This was a conscious attempt on her part. Eva explained that it is important for a teacher to be encouraging and positive about their students. Moreover, students would remember the examples better if they contained positive statements about them or their peers.
When students had worked hard in a lesson, she would praise them for being very attentive, and if the tasks were difficult, she would tell them not to give up. When students gave a wrong response or could not answer the question, Eva would try to put the student at ease by explaining to the rest of the class why he or she could not give an answer or why he or she gave the wrong answer. For example, in an oral lesson when Eva was going over vowels and consonants, one of the students, Charlotte, did iot know how to pronounce the vowel fed and was embarrassed. Eva knew that this was because some dictionaries used the phonetic symbol '3:/ instead. She came to Charlotte's rescue by explaining to the rest of the class why the student had a problem with this sound.
Besides being positive about students, Eva would censor any negative remarks that students made of one another. For example, in an oral lesson one of the students, Peter, called another student, Sam, a stupid boy. Eva stopped him immediately and asked him to see her immediately after class. Fostering mutual trust among the students was also something that Eva strove for. For example, in one lesson, the students were totaling the marks for each group, and some groups got more marks than they should have. They broke into an argument, and there was an implicit accusation that some groups were cheating. Instead of trying to witch-hunt, Eva said, "I know you all are honest, but you might make mistakes sometimes. So can you please check once again to see if you have made any mistakes?" This calmed down the students and the mistake was sorted out very quickly.
7.4.6 Developing knowledge of management of learning
The most outstanding feature of Eva's classroom is the positive atmo-sphere. In the first two lessons, the two adjectives that Eva introduced

162 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

to describe herself were "happy" and "optimistic." While they reflected Eva's personality, they also encapsulated the ethos that she wished \ promote in her classroom. Eva's classroom was one where anxiety Wa low and students were ready to ask questions and contribute ideas However, as we have seen in Chapter 6, Eva went through difficult times' especially in her first year of teaching, when she was unable to exercise her judgment on handling disciplinary problems. Eva's reaction to her students' complaint about the way she handled misbehavior was not to put the blame on her students, but rather to reflect on the situation. It js interesting that the conclusion that she drew from the negative experi¬ence was "that's not the way to teach" rather than "that's not the way to handle misbehaved students" Eva was thinking of her relationship with the students in the larger context of teaching. The remedial action that she took, however, was motivated by bringing her own practices in line with other colleague's practices. It was not until her second and third year of teaching that she began to feel confident enough to take re¬sponsibility for her own practices. We have seen the personal approach that she adopted in managing the classroom for learning, which is geared towards to the specific context of teaching. For example, Eva's strategies for organizing the seating arrangements in oral lessons were oriented to the physical space that was available only in oral lessons because of split-class teaching. In other lessons when she had a full class, she had to adopt a different set of strategies for establishing contact with students and giving them individual attention.
Embedded in Eva's management of the classroom for learning is an integrated knowledge of students and context, and, to a lesser extent, subject matter knowledge. The way this knowledge was held and real-ized in classroom practices was strongly guided by her conception of students as individual human beings who should be respected and given equal attention and equal opportunities for learning; by her image of the teacher not as a figure of authority, but rather as somebody who is will¬ing to take advice from students and to stand to be corrected by them; by her understanding of the inherent relationship between teaching and learning; by her perception of the primary role of the teacher as imparting moral and social values; and by her belief in the fostering mutual trust and support among students. These conceptions, however, were by no means fully and explicitly formulated. It is in the process of putting them into practice over the years of her teaching experience that she theorized them as she reflected on her classroom practices.
There were times, however, when she was faced with the dilemma of living up to her personal beliefs and the realities of teaching. For example, the system for rewarding participation in class conflicted with one of her educational goals of helping students to become self-motivated to learn. Yet the reality that she had to face is that her students were mainly

working and wh vvere nc to be se and the unachie As Lam to peda that eve
7.5 c:
7.5J . Ching
Ching's Most o roughly the collt in the si holiday then inl
G .../,
Ss: C:
S: C:
beca lessc [Chi .../ som thes or h hep dow No. Som und< try it Qui-Ofc stud OK The fin are cen lead to ties for Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 163 ^y ^fleeted wished to nxiety Was bute ideas, icult times to exercise tion to her was not to lation. It is :ive experi-.ot the way elationship :dial action n practices second and to take re-1 approach ;h is geared 's strategies re oriented because of , she had to th students rning is an >ser extent, d and real-lception of 1 and given nage of the vho is will-d by them; aching and s imparting lutual trust were by no itting them e theorized
dilemma of )r example, L one of her sd to learn. ere mainly

viorking-ciass children who had very little support from their families liid whose living environments were so noisy and crowded that they iure not conducive to studying at home. She said, "If the students were r,i be self-motivated, then I would need cooperation from their parents ind the teacher-student ratio should be lowered. But I know that these are unachievable." Eva admitted that the reward system was a compromise. \s Lampert (1985) points out, there is often no neat and simple solution [ii pedagogical problems. Eva tried to manage the dilemma in the hope ih it eventually she could do away with the reward system altogether.
7.5 Ching
7.5.1 Management of learning in action: Ching's first two lessons
thing's students were all new entrants from different primary schools. Most of them did riot know each other. Her first two lessons can be roughly divided into five segments. In the first segment Ching dealt with the collection of homework that she had given them when they registered in the summer. She asked students who had forgotten to bring the summer holiday homework to write their names down on a piece of paper. She then introduced some house rules.
(: ... If you forgot to bring your textbook today, you will not be punished because I will tell you something about what you have to do in English lessons.
[Ching then asked them to hand in their summer holiday homework.] ,.. And if you [referring to the student sitting in the first row] find that someone has not brought their summer holiday homework, please pass out these pieces of paper to that one and then he or she should write down his or her name on this piece of paper. OK? I do not tell you whether you will be punished, but if you fail to hand in your homework today, please write down your name first. Do you understand?
k: No.
(.: Some of you don't understand. Raise your hand now. If you really don't understand, please raise your hand. OK? I will try to repeat it. When I am trying to tell you what to do, I want you to keep noisy or quiet?
S: Quiet.
C: Of course quiet. For you know it. OK? I will give pieces of paper to the
students sitting in the front Don't ask questions until I have finished,
OK? Don't ask questions until I have finished.
The first segment set the general tone for Ching's classroom - that there are certain rules that must be observed, and violation of these rules will lead to punishment. The first house rule is that there will be penal-ties for not bringing their textbook and not handing in homework. The

164 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

second house rule is that students are expected to be quiet when th teacher is talking, and they should not interrupt the teacher until sh has finished.
In the second segment Ching moved on to give students the timetable for the nine English lessons in a six-day cycle-week. She then went into great lengths about what they would do for each lesson, and what book they should bring for which lessons. She also discussed the handbook usage book, and dictionary that they should have ready for all lessons' In order to remember students' names quickly, Ching asked the students to give themselves English names and to bring their photographs for her to put on the seating plan.
The third segment was taken up with getting to know the students Ching gave the students a piece of paper on which the students were required to answer some questions that she asked them verbally. She posed four questions. First, which primary school they came from; sec¬ond, whether their English teacher spoke English [in class] most of the time; third, whether they liked English and why. At this point, she asked a student to repeat the two parts to the third question. Here she introduced another routine: when she gives instructions, she may from time to time ask them to repeat the instructions. The fourth question was what they hoped to learn in English lessons this year. When the students had handed in their answers, she told them that she would keep them and give them back at the end of the school year so that they could see whether they had achieved what they hoped.
In the fourth segment Ching spoke at length about the importance of the second house rule; that is, paying attention when she is talking.
C: ... I would like to remind all of you, usually if you started talking when I am talking, I will stop.... If I tell you, "I am serious" that means I am now very grave, I am talking about something very important. [She repeated this in Cantonese.] When I am serious, I need your attention. Do you understand?
The last segment, segment Rye, of the lesson was taken up with asking students where they lived and how they came to school. This was fol¬lowed by giving them instructions on what students should do if they had not finished their book reports and setting a deadline for late sub¬mission. Before she gave the instructions, she enacted the second house rule by saying, "I am serious now. Can you hear? I am serious now," to get the students' attention. She warned them that if they could not meet the deadline, then she would not treat it lightly.
Like Marina and Eva, Ching took care to lay down rules and norms at the very beginning of the school year. However, instead of going right into teaching and integrating the rules into her teaching, she spent most of the time on establishing classroom norms and rules, and specifying the

detaile not m; and th the firs studen can set studen know What . expect:
7.5.2
Ching' talk, t€ ally ve the fig teachei a ques studen quietly to the There' rooms, Like classro and ge-more < While that th manag impose the enc ten to i of pen; instruc sure th room i are "te by Chi guidan felt tha means, homev\ t when the ^ until She ie timetable i went into ^hat books handbook, all lessons, he students iphs for her te students. .dents weic irbally. She : from; sec-no st of the she asked a introduced ime to time > what they lad handed d give them hether they
portance of alking.
ng when I is I am now 'epeated o you
vith asking lis was fol-, do if they )r late sub-:ond house is now," to Id not meet
and norms going right spent most reifying the

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 165
Jetailed requirements for each lesson. Therefore, time for learning was not maximized. There was also a strong emphasis on order, discipline, irid the punitive consequences of not observing house rules. Usually, in the first tw0 ^essons f°r SI students, opportunities would be provided for students to get to know each other. In the third and fifth segments, we cjn see tnat Ching basically took the time to get information about the students from her own perspective; that is, what the teacher wanted to know rather than what the students wanted to know about each other. \Vhat came through strongly was that Ching is a serious teacher who expects compliance from her students.
7,5.2 Norms and routines
Ching's classroom was characterized by the predominance of teacher talk, teacher-centeredness, order, and control. The students were gener¬ally very well-behaved. One gets a strong sense that the teacher was the figure of authority and that the students were respectful to the teacher. Students raised their hands when they wanted to ask or answer a question, and they waited to be called upon before speaking. When students were asked to get into groups, they did it very quickly and quietly. Unlike Marina and Eva's classrooms, students seldom responded to the teacher spontaneously or shouted out the answers in their seats. There was not as much laughter as there was in Marina's and Eva's class-rooms, and the reactions from students were more restrained.
Like Marina and Eva, Ching set up routines for managing general classroom business such as cleaning the board, collecting homework, and getting into groups. However, the routines that she established were more often based on punitive principles than positive reinforcement. While imposing penalties on students for misbehaving was something that the majority of teachers practiced, what was striking about Ching's management of learning was the pervasiveness of the penalties that she imposed on students. For example, she usually collected homework near the end of the lesson, and students who reported that they had forgot¬ten to do their homework would be asked to remain standing as a kind of penalty. Another example is that when students did not follow her instructions, she would appoint them to be "on duty;" that is, to make sure that the blackboard is cleaned after every lesson and that the class-room is tidy. Ching explained that she felt that most of her students are "teachable." "Teachable" is a Chinese expression commonly used by Chinese teachers to mean that a student is receptive to the teacher's guidance and is willing to change undesirable behavior. However, she felt that there were some students with whom she had to "use negative means, like detention, to get them to follow instructions and do their homework."

166 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

7.5.3 Handling classroom discipline
Despite the fact that teaching seemed to proceed in an orderly fashion there did not seem to be a large variety of routines that Ching called upon to deal with different aspects of classroom life in order to keep the students "under control," as it were. Classroom discipline seemed to be managed by her authority over her students. She was very conscious of getting all her students' attention. When some students were not paying attention, she would stop talking and look at them until they became quiet. According to her, this was a very effective means because whenever she did that, the rest of the class would notice and they would inevitably turn their eyes to these students. This put pressure on these students to stop talking or to stop fooling around. Ching attached a great deal of importance to having all students pay attention to her and do their work in an orderly fashion. She said:
I am easily disturbed emotionally, and I am seriously affected if they do not pay attention or when they mess around with their pen or correction fluid. When I noticed them, I got very impatient and I wanted to bring them back to what we were doing in class. My anxiety was quite strong.
Besides the authoritative stance that Ching assumed, she was also able to maintain order in the classroom because of the effective way of giving instructions, which she had developed over time. She usually broke down her instructions into manageable chunks instead of giving them all at once. She would also check students' comprehension of these instruc¬tions by asking them to repeat them, as we have seen in the first two lessons.
Ching set up rules and expected the students to stick to them. If her rules were not adhered to, she saw it as a disciplinary problem. For example, when the students made a great deal of noise in class, she did not or could not distinguish between whether the students were testing her limit or whether they were just talking very excitedly about the task. Unlike Marina, she did not distinguish between on-task noise and off-task noise. When students made a lot of noise in group work and came up with ideas which were funny, she felt that the students were "too relaxed." She said, "I would accept interesting ideas, even though sometimes some ideas surprised me. But perhaps because of my own character, I thought it [the lesson] was rather disorderly."
When a task did not work as well in one class as in another class, Ching would attribute it to the characteristics of these classes. In explaining why the task worked better in another class, she said "to a great extent, it is characteristic of that class - most of the students pay attention, they have relatively longer attention span, and their learning attitude is really positive." In other words, instead of asking herself whether the

same ta: should 1 attentive
7.5-4 < Individ Like Ev lowed t< "Supers enjoyed the clas; in class groups i correct Whei work fc confidei she was hearts, with he class. Ir used th< conside work ai class "r outcom using g It depen that the; if you lc goal. Ti¬the gam In othei keeping discipli There c being c to see ' are not disrupt attentit sions. ' T Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 167 •*ly fashion, ning called to keep the emed to be Dnscious of not paying iey became e whenever 1 inevitably students to eat deal of their work T do not pay Lid. When I : to what is also able ,y of giving roke down hem all at :se instruc-e first two lem. If her )biem. For .ss, she did -ere testing it the task. ad off-task Tie up with » relaxed." :imes some , I thought 'ass, Ching explaining eat extent, attention, attitude is hether the s-irne tas^ should have been given to two different classes, and how it should be modified, Ching attributed the success or failure to students' attentiveness and learning attitudes. 7,5 A Organization of learning: Group work vs. Individual work Like Eva, Ching put the students into groups of six. Students were al-lowed to give their own group a name, and they came up with names like •'Supersonic," "Speed," "Adidas," "Winner," and so forth. The students enjoyed the freedom of naming their own group. The organization of the class into groups was more of an incentive for students to participate in class rather than to get them to engage in collaborative learning. The groups competed to answer questions and marks were awarded for each correct answer. When Ching started teaching, she was very reluctant to use group work for fear that the class would get out of control. As she gained more confidence in herself, particularly after she enrolled in the PCEd course, she was willing to use more group and pair work. However, in her heart of hearts, Ching still preferred individual and pair work. This is consistent with her conception of teaching as the teacher taking control of the class. In comparing the two SI classes that she was teaching, she often used the words "well-disciplined" and "obedient" to describe what she considered to be the better class. She had two worries about using group work and games in teaching. First, she was not sure if she could keep the class "under control" and second, she was concerned about the learning outcome. When I asked her whether she found that she had any success using group work and games for teaching, she said: It depends on how you see it. If you look at the students1 responses, you know that they really liked it. They were very lively and they liked moving about. But if you look at its effectiveness, it [the game] may not have achieved the teaching goal. Thestudents might not have learned what I wanted to teach by playing the game. In other words, for Ching, fun and learning outcome, and group work and keeping discipline in class were each a dichotomy. She could not see that disciplinary problems are often related to the organization of learning. There could be a number of reasons for students not paying attention or being disruptive. When they cannot follow instructions, when they fail to see the purpose of an activity, or when they find that the materials are not challenging, their attention will wander, and they are likely to be disruptive. For example, it is commonly found that students,do not pay attention when other groups are reporting the outcome of their discus-sions. This is because they have not been given a purpose for listening. 168 Understanding Expertise in Teaching The students are simply reporting to the teacher instead of to their peers This is why Marina's use of big posters for students to present their lan! guage productions was so effective. The big posters with big characters allowed everybody in the class to see what had been produced by each group and to respond to them as well. Ching, having observed Marina using large posters for group work production, tried to use that in her classroom. However, she did not quite understand the purpose of doing this. When she could not find large poster papers, she just used A4~size papers. She said, "I thought the difference between a larger poster and a sheet of paper was just the size of the words. There's not a big difference. So in the end I used A4-size worksheets instead." At the end of group work, students just presented their work orally. It was difficult for the students to follow the presentations, and Ching was not able to go over their productions. Consequently, the opportunity for reinforcement was lost. 7.5.5 Using English in the classroom While Ching was strict about keeping order and control, she was more relaxed about getting her students to use English for communication in the classroom, especially after the first two years of teaching when she felt that English was a barrier to building a close relationship with students, She encouraged her students to use English in group work and pair work and she would remind her students from time to time that they should not use Cantonese. However, she was not as persistent as Marina and Eva. She did not impose any penalty on students when she found them speak¬ing in Cantonese. Ching's rationale was that her main task in dealing with SI (grade 7) students was to acculturate them into secondary education. Helping them to change over from Chinese to English medium instruction was first and foremost. She was aware of the difficulty that the students might have in switching over from Chinese to English immediately. Therefore, she was more tolerant of the use of Cantonese than Marina and Eva. 7.5.6 Developing knowledge of management of learning The most striking feature of Ching's classroom was its orderliness and discipline. The teacher was the figure of authority and the students were, or at least were expected to be, respectful of the teacher. Most lessons were teacher-fronted. Students paid attention to her when she was giving instructions, and her instructions were clear and systematic. From time to time, there would be group or pair work. Students were also very much aware of what was permissible and what was not. For example, too much noise in group work and when playing games would mean a sanctic result i The room < acaden cusing clearly attache tions a fession learnin well-di thing tl nature front o Chir English policy i a souni flexibili student gone tl to exen with he crimina noise ft i levels o Her concept ing inte more, t of thosi derly ar Group was stil was aftt ment fr using g] to take Ching t tiori of Over edge ini cal aspe Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 169 tea- peers their lan. haracters 1 by eacl >up worl*
2 did not
not find
[ thought was just tid I used ients just to follow ductions.
vas more cation in in she felt students. >air work lould not and Eva. m speak-ling with lucation. struction students lediately. i Marina
ness and nts were, t lessons as giving *om time dso very example, I mean a

w fiction. Students knew that violation of these rules and norms would result in penalty.
The rules and routines that Ching established for managing the class-room corresponded to her image of the teacher as well-qualified and icademically competent, and her conception of a teacher's role as fo-,. ising on "teaching," which was understood as presenting knowledge clearly to students. This conception governed the importance that Ching attached to organizing her lessons systematically and making her instruc-tions clear and accessible to students. Going into teaching with no pro-fessional training, Ching had nothing on which to rely except her own learning experience in school as models of teaching. The orderly and well-disciplined manner in which her lessons were conducted was some-thing that she achieved after two years of struggling with the multifaceted nature of classroom teaching and overcoming the anxiety of standing in front of a class of forty and speaking in English.
Ching was able to exercise her own judgement with regard to using English in the classroom after the first two years and did not stick to the policy recommended by the English panel. She was also able to provide a sound rationale for not enforcing it in SI classes. Embedded in this flexibility is her knowledge of the difficulty and anxiety experienced by students switching from Chinese to English medium education, having gone through the same experience herself. However, she was not able to exercise flexibility in aspects such as noise tolerance, which conflicted with her image of teaching. Unlike Marina, she was not yet able to dis-criminate between on-task noise and off-task noise and to judge when noise foreshadowed disciplinary problems and when it indicated high levels of involvement.
Her attitude towards group work was perhaps an epitome of Ching's conception of teaching. On the one hand, she wanted to make her teach-ing interesting and enjoyable to the students, to get students to participate more, to build in more variety. Group work is a means of achieving all of those. On the other hand, she wanted teaching to proceed in an or¬derly and disciplined fashion, and to produce effective learning outcomes. Group work cannot guarantee both. In the first two years, when Ching was still very much in the survival phase, she seldom used group work. It was after her reassuring experience in the third year, and with encourage¬ment from the professional course in the fourth year, that Ching started using group work. Ching's use of group work indicated her willingness to take risks, albeit in a small way. As we shall see in Chapter 8, the way Ching tried to use group work represented an interesting dichotomiza-tion of fun and learning.
Over fivt or six years of teaching, the development of Ching's knowl-edge in managing the classroom for learning pertained more to the techni-cal aspects of classroom management than to her knowledge of students

170 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

and student understanding. For example, when talking about the jm provement of her relationship with students, Ching attributed it morp to improvement in her teaching techniques than to her understanding of them. She seldom referred to changes in her knowledge of students Her frequent reference to the difficulties she had in handling both SI and S6 students who were so different was a case in point (see 6.4). While she shared some common classroom practices with Marina and Eva, she seldom theorized about her actions.
7.6 Genie
7.6.1 Management of learning in action: Genie's first two lessons
Genie's first two lessons can be divided into four segments. In the first segment she laid down some general rules and routines. They included what students should bring for the English lessons, including the kinds of exercise books, files, pens, dictionary and so forth. She also laid down the routine of handing in newspaper work on every Monday. In the course of doing this, Genie tried to put the students at ease by telling them not to be shy and encouraging them to ask questions if there was anything they did not understand. She assured them that she would give them help and guidance. She also tried to establish the house rule that they should speak English in class by repeating the instructions.
In the second segment she collected homework and book reports, Again, she reminded the students not to speak in Cantonese. Several students did not have the book report with them. Genie spent some time dealing with each of them individually and negotiating a time for handing in the report. As she was doing this, the rest of the class got very noisy. The following extract gives a flavor of how she dealt with the problem.
G: Next, it's the time I collect something from you, right? Your homework,
please So please write down your name and pass it up to the front
Don't speak in Cantonese. And please erase the blackboard Pass it up
to the front, right. Don't just always turn your bead around. Have you all handed in your homework? Who hasn't? Yes? What's wrong? Sorry?
S: Book report.
G: You haven't done the book report? Did your teacher ask you to do it last year? [Students nodded their heads.}
G: So ivhy didn't you do it then?... You forgot it. So when can I have it? When can I have your book report? Tell me a date. Don't tell me next year, next summer holiday. Yes?
S: Next Monday.
G: Next Monday? No. A week! So do you think it is fair now? Hmm?
S: I forgot -

G: Vo
Bu Cc yo do
In the
classr
classn
inate
dealt'
behai
to brij
In i which gave t thesti them J gotten into g; and tr She lai penalt andsp for pai the en to buy to be v Canto be cha system
Ha\ startec would leave £ gressec talking that ar
The some s tance c rules. I for the alleviai much c

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 171

t the im, i it more standing students. thSUnd 4). While I Eva, she
i the first included 3 kinds of down the tie course them not anything hem help iy should
: reports. i. Several ome time c handing *ry noisy. problem.
ework,
ront
ass it up e you all
xy?
o it last
eit? next year,
\t

Q. You forgot to bring [your] storybook report? Have you done it? Really? But when will you bring it then? OK. Tomorrow. Before eight o'clock. Come to the staff room and see me and give me the homework. How about you? ... Now I hope all of you are honest, right? Tell me really why, and don't just think of the reason to deceive me.
[n the above excerpt, we can see that Genie was trying hard to manage classroom discipline as well as to get on with the class business. Her classroom management style was typically reactive. She did not discrim-inate between what demanded immediate attention and what could be dealt with later or what demanded individual attention and what could be handled alltogether, such as when a number of students had forgotten to bring their book reports.
In the third segment Genie asked the students to form groups, for which she had specified group size and a mixture of boys and girls. She gave them three minutes to do so and to find a group representative. As the students were looking for their group members, Genie kept reminding them not to speak in Cantonese and to be quiet. After the students had gotten into their groups, Genie explained the rationale for putting them into groups: that they would feel more comfortable sitting with friends, and they would have a chance to discuss questions among themselves. She laid down the a number of house rules for group work. They included penalty in the form of deducting conduct marks for improper behavior and speaking in Cantonese, and incentives in the form of awarding marks for participating in discussions and answering the teacher's questions. At the end of the school year, the group with the lowest mark would have to buy a present for the winning group. She also encouraged the groups to be vigilant of each other. The group that reported another group using Cantonese would get marks. She built in a caveat that these rules could be changed if she found other unforeseen problems with the marking system. And indeed, she subsequently did.
Having laid down some house rules and organized the class, Genie started teaching. She told them that there were other house rules, but she would leave them to a later stage when need arose. This allowed her to leave a good part of the second lesson for teaching. As the lesson pro-gressed, Genie implemented the house rules that she laid down. Groups talking in Cantonese were warned and marks were deducted. Groups that answered questions were given positive marks.
The above account of Genie's first two lessons shows that there are some similarities between Ching and Genie. Both emphasized the impor-tance of proper behavior in the classroom and the penalty for breaking rules. However, in contrast to Ching, Genie also provided the rationale for the practices that she introduced to the students. And it is clear that alleviating students' anxiety and making the lessons enjoyable were very much on Genie's mind. Asking students to be vigilant of each other in the

172 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
use of Cantonese is an interesting one. Although it was intended as a wav of encouraging students to use English, it had a tendency of encourage students to find fault with other groups in order to get ahead. This stood in stark contrast to Eva's strategy of encouraging collective responsibly ity to achieve the same goal: a group member speaking in Cantonese would have marks deducted from the whole group. By doing this, a$ Eva pointed out, she handed the responsibility back to the students The two different approaches reflect a different orientation to classroom management, Eva's orientation being more positive and Genie's orien¬tation being more negative and punitive. More important, it reflects a dif. ference in the extent to which they were aware of how their moral values shaped and were shaped by their everyday classroom practices. Also un¬like Ching, Genie started teaching early on in the second lesson and left the introduction of other rules until later. However, compared to Ching Genie was much less "in control." She was busy dealing with individual student's problems while desperately trying to keep the rest of the class in order.
7.6.2 Handling disciplinary problems
Genie's classroom was typified by noise and laughter as well as frequent interpolations of "Shhh" from Genie to stop students talking. There were also calls for students to pay attention and to stay on task. In Genie's words, she was "fighting a battle." She described the way she dealt with classroom discipline as follows: "I keep an eye on them all the time and for those who are getting too much, I would not 'give face'" (See 6.5.5), By not "giving face," Genie meant that she would reprimand and penalize students publicly for disruptive behavior. When the discipline got really bad, she would switch to Cantonese and crack down on them. The penal¬ties that she had used were asking the misbehaving student to leave his group and sit in a corner, and deducting marks from groups that took too long to get into groups. She also called on students who were not paying attention to answer questions, and if they could not, she would ask them to remain standing.
What Genie was trying to do was to deal with every single instance of what she perceived to be unacceptable behavior. This is why she said that she felt "exhausted." She had not yet developed the ability to discriminate between disciplinary problems that were obstructive to the achievement of instructional objectives, and those that were not and hence could be either ignored or dealt with later. Being able to maintain classroom dis¬cipline was one of Genie's major concerns. In the interviews, the concern to keep students "under control" came up several times. She was afraid that she might be looked upon as professionally incompetent if she could not even keep order in her own classroom.

\

7.6.3 1
As we h portano
dealing consiste classroo she wan dents se Her owi dents sh confron teaching when si drop th( the pen; was tha and she student; on studf in Engli with do lating tl each otl student! engagin this pen Apar cation c bonus r first grc tionale: on whe bonus r As Cak present; tent in i renegot
7.6.4 • of grot
When ( (grade '

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 173

d as a way .couraging This stood ^sponsibil-
Cantonese *g this, as : students. classroom ie's orien-lects a dif->ral values ». Also un->n and left to Ching, individual he class in
s frequent 'here were In Genie's dealt with ; time and See 6.5.5), d penalize got really The penal-) leave his that took were not she would
nstance of e said that jcriminate tiievement i could be room dis-te concern vas afraid she could

7,6.3 Norms and routines
As we have seen in Genie's first two lessons, she was aware of the im-portance of laying down rules and norms, and setting up routines for dealing wa~h class business. However, she was not able to stick to them consistently. This could be due to two reasons. First, in managing the classroom to facilitate learning, Genie faced a dilemma. On the one hand, she wanted to make the classroom a place like "home," where the stu-dents see themselves and the teacher as members of the same family. Her own religious background led to her belief that the teacher and stu-dents should love and care for each other. On the other hand, she was confronted with the reality of having to manage the classroom so that teaching and learning could take place effectively. Therefore, sometimes when she felt that she might be a bit harsh on the students, she would drop the rules or norms established. One example was not implementing the penalties that she laid down for violation of rules. Another reason was that some of the rules that she laid down proved to be impractical, and she had to drop them. For example, she established the rule that students must speak English in English lessons. She imposed a penalty on students who broke the rule by requiring them to go and speak to her in English for five minutes. She soon found that she was not able to cope with doing that for three classes. There were far too many students vio-l,i ting the rule. So she changed the rule and asked the students to talk to each other in English for five minutes. However, she soon found that the students were simply saying things in English for the sake of it instead of engaging in a meaningful conversation. Eventually, she had to abandon this penalty.
Apart from the above two reasons, in other practices such as the allo-cation of marks to groups, there were inconsistencies as well. Sometimes bonus marks were given for a good sentence provided or for being the first group to answer the question. The students had no idea of the ra-tionale for the allocation, and they simply cheered or moaned depending O:L whether the marks allocated were high or low. Sometimes random bonus marks did not help her in managing the classroom for learning. As Calderhead (1984) observes, "establishing classroom norms often presents difficulties for beginning teachers." If the teacher was inconsis-tent in enforcing the norms, it becomes very difficult for the teacher to rv negotiate.
7.6.4 Organization of learning: The interpretation i»f group work
When Genie first joined the school, Eva was the coordinator for S3 (grade 10) and she shared her experience and practices with Genie. One

174 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

idea that Eva passed on was to organize the class into groups and pjv. each group a name. Genie allowed the students to form their own groim of five to seven and to give each a name. For double lessons, students would sit with their group members, whereas for a single period, thev would remain in their own seats. The groups would compete against each other in answering questions in class and working on tasks. Very often the students sat in groups even though the task given was individual work or when it could be done in pairs. In other words, whether stu¬dents worked in groups was determined not by instructional objectives but by the duration of the lesson.
In one sense, Genie's conception of grouping was similar to Eva's. It was more a way of organizing the class and a seating arrangement rather than a way of organizing learning. However, Genie hoped to achieve more than just a way of organizing the class. She explained that first she wanted to give the students a sense of belonging. So she modeled it on the "house system," which is commonly adopted by schools in Hong Kong, and by her own alma mater as well, in which the whole school was organized into several houses, and each house was made up of students from different academic classes and levels. She wanted the students to stay with the same group throughout the year so that they could get to know each other better. Second, she wanted to use grouping as a means of making students feel safe because they would be sitting with friends and would have the chance to discuss problems with them. Third, by introducing group competition, she could make her lessons more interesting and motivating.
Because group work was understood more as a way of organizing the class than as a way of organizing learning, Genie never considered the question of how to design the tasks in a way that would make it necessary for the students to collaborate for task completion. Nor had she pondered the question of the optimal group size for carrying out the tasks. She explained, "I feel that bigger groups will be more fun. If you have only three or four in a group, there are too few people. There are not enough ideas." She also asked the students whether they liked bigger or smaller groups, and they confirmed her preference for bigger groups because with more people there would be more ideas. However, when she conducted group work, she experienced difficulties: some of them did all the work and others sat there and did nothing. This, however, was interpreted by Genie as some members being too dominating and other being unable to collaborate with others. In fact, the mere physical distance between the group members sitting around four or five desks in a row made it difficult for everybody to participate in the discussion. When I raised this point with her, she said, "I was only thinking that too few people is no good. I didn't see it [group size] from the point of view of division of labor [in group work]."

Like
discipli fortabl
vvas ab The cla listenec found i there v> a long t tally by of chaii to the | lastgro deducti student
7.6.5 .
In this s ing. We of her t taining difficult and hac der to r. Doyle,
Genii student: learning work," of supp sense of teaching the mon the proc formula also her them, w like Chi group v the re as risks an yet to cc designec




»s and give
wn groU]ls h students mod, they gainst each /erY often, individual ^ther stu-objectives,
■o Eva's. It lent rather to achieve
that first, e modeled schools in the whole s made up ranted the > that they ; grouping
be sitting vith them. ler lesson*
Drganizing ;onsidered d make it . Nor had ng out the :'un. If you There are ked bigger I&T groups :ver, when e of them , however, lating and 'e physical five desks liscussion. Lg that too nt of view

Teacher Knowledge and Managing the Classroom 175
Like Ching, Genie found it particularly difficult to maintain classroom discipline when students were conducting group work. She felt more com-fortable and at ease when she was doing whole-class teaching because she tv.is able to see everybody's face and she could keep an eye on all of them. Tjie classroom was also less noisy. In order to make sure that all students listened to her instructions, Genie had to be very "long-winded" and she found this "hard work." When Genie asked them to get into groups, •here was a major reshuffling of desks and chairs, and the students took a long time to settle down. Instead of addressing the problem fundamen¬tally by reducing the size of the group and hence minimizing the moving of chairs and desks, Genie introduced a system of awarding Rye marks to the group that settled down first and deducting ten marks from the last group to settle down. There were so many criteria for rewarding and deducting marks that the system soon became fairly meaningless to the indents.
1.6.S Developing knowledge of management of learning
In this section we have seen how Genie managed the classroom for learn-■ng. We have seen that Genie, who was in the survival and discovery phase if her professional development, was still very preoccupied with main-Mining order and discipline in the classroom. She was still experiencing difficulties in coping with the multiple dimensions of classroom teaching, .■nd had not yet gained enough knowledge about classroom events in or-.'cr to be selective in dealing with them (see Clark and Peterson, 1986; :)oyle, 1977; Sabers et al., 1991).
Genie's conception of the classroom as "home," with the teacher and students as family members, permeated her management of the classroom learning. This was best reflected in her own interpretation of "group W( irk," which should be more appropriately called "grouping," as a kind of support system that would make students feel safe and cultivate a M-itse of belonging. When Genie first used group work in her first year of te.iching at the suggestion of the students, she saw it as a way of breaking thi: monotony of her teaching and getting more students to participate. In the process of implementing it, she theorized her actions and was able to formulate the reasons explicitly. Embodied in the use of group work was also her understanding of what students wanted and what would best suit them, which she strove very hard to achieve. What is interesting is that, like Ching, she found it difficult to maintain discipline when conducting group work; yet on the other hand, she used group work regularly for the reasons outlined above. Here we can see Genie's willingness to take risks and to explore ways of improving her teaching. What Genie had yet to come to grips with was how group work should be organized and designed in order to facilitate language learning.

176 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

Genie was still at the stage of experimenting with rules and routin and, like many novice teachers, was not always consistent when Irani menting them. As we have seen in the previous sections, such incnn sistencies reflected the dilemma she faced in playing out her role as guide to her students rather than as an authoritarian figure and in maintaining order and discipline so that learning can take place. SK was not always aware of the practicalities of implementing the mea sures that she had introduced, nor of the moral implications of getting students to monitor each other. The practices that she had introduced are still in flux, unlike Marina, whose routines are fairly well-established Therefore, much of Genie's attention and energy was still focused on dealing reactively - rather than proactively - with unruly behavior and stopping it from occurring (see Reynolds, 1992; Westerman, 1991). This took her away from the more important task of achieving instruction objectives (see Berliner, 1994).

8

id routine* hen imple. uch incon-r role as a ire and jn place. She I the mea-■ of getting oduced arc stablished. :ocused on liavior and 991). This instruction

0 Teacher Knowledge and the
Enactment of the ESL Curriculum
In Chapter 7 we investigated how the four ESL teachers managed their classrooms for learning. We have seen that Marina has built up a rich repertoire of routines to handle the multifaceted nature of classroom teaching. We have also seen that embedded in what appears to be a mun¬dane routine is Marina's situated knowledge about teaching, learning, and her students. Such knowledge, as Elbaz (1983) points out, shapes teachers' world of practice and classroom life. Compared to Marina, the other three teachers have a much less-rich repertoire of routines and norms, with Genie still trying to establish routines and norms that would reconcile her own beliefs and the realities of the classroom.
In this chapter we shall be looking at the knowledge embedded in these four teachers' interpretation and implementation of the ESL curriculum and how their knowledge developed over the years. In the review of novice-expert studies in Chapter 3, we have examined studies conducted on the preactive and interactive decision making of novice and expert teachers. While curriculum or lesson planning and the actual teaching constitute two different phases of teaching, the decisions made in the preactive phase of teaching are often intertwined with the way learning is managed in the lesson. Therefore, in this chapter, I shall simply organize the discussion according to the planning and the enactment of the ESL curriculum.

8.1 Planning the ESL Curriculum: Scheme of Work
At St. Peter's, the English language curriculum does not encompass literature. Although there is a set of textbooks prescribed for each level, teachers have a great deal of flexibility and autonomy when making deci¬sions about the curriculum. At the beginning of the school year, those teaching the same level will agree on a common scheme of work for the whole year. A scheme of work specifies the number of units that will be covered, the duration of each unit, its components, and the number of lessons required for each component. Teachers teaching the same level de¬cide on which units and which components of those units they wish to use
177

178 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
from the textbook and what kind of supplementary materials they \VjSK to add.
Curriculum planning is an interactive process that involves top-do^ goal-directed procedures in which activities are generated and bottom-^ procedures in which activities and resources are picked up and matched against the goals (see Woods, 1996). In this process, teachers draw on their knowledge from a number of domains. Knowledge about students and student understanding as well as previous experience of what worked best in their classrooms and the school contexts - what materials are available, and what can be achieved realistically - all play an important part in teachers' instructional planning. As Calderhead (1993) points out, it is a pragmatic as well as a creative and interactive problem-solving process.
8.1.1 Marina
Marina believes that in order to help students learn, they should be given the opportunity to work together and to produce things using language. Hence, to help students to learn English, they should be engaged in tasks that require them to produce the target language. She also believes that language must be learned in meaningful and communicative contexts, (See 6.2.1) For her, grammar and vocabulary are the building blocks of a language, and therefore, grammar teaching is a very important part of the curriculum as is, to a lesser extent, vocabulary. These beliefs figure prominently in her planning of the scheme of work.
For Marina, a unit in her scheme of work is a coherent whole in which the various language skills are embedded in the language tasks that stu¬dents are required to complete. She does not see the four language skills as discrete skills to which specific time-slots in the timetable should be allocated. For example, when planning a unit on traveling, she started with a reading passage on the traveling itinerary of two tourists. The pas¬sage served as the context for teaching grammar, which was the present perfect tense, as well as for teaching vocabulary. The topic, vocabulary, and target structures covered in the reading passage served as input for the writing task at the end of the unit. She talked about her planning for a unit after I observed the first lesson in this unit:
The topic of Unit eleven is about traveling, and the grammar focus is present perfect. Today,... I asked them to extract from the reading passage some points like "they (the tourists) have done X", "they haven't yet done Y." There are two purposes here. They [the students] have to find the main points [in the reading passage]; second, these sentences are in present perfect, which we will cover soon. I think the itinerary given here [in the passage] is very inadequate. So I have asked them to come up with their own itinerary.... A lot of them have chosen Ocean Park, Lamma Island, and some talked about going to the

Teach
Science
match i fcnowle
travel.. to be u plan to I will g will pu an artic write a want u encour; used th how to it in a c think a Associa today g more a: and pre There a perfect
We cai langua guage discret the ser For ex with A the spt tourist ous ye; involve "explo the exf posed with la and m; is a goc Kong i It is teachir and vc tions. 5 to help exercis




s they wish
S tOp-do\vn
bottom-up id matched rs draw on iut students hat worked aterials are 1 important ^93) points lem-solving
ild be given g language. ^ed in tasks elieves that re contexts, g blocks of tant part of eliefs figure
>le in which ks that stu-guage skills i should he she started ts. The pas-the present vocabulary, is input for ianning for
is present some points There are s [in the ich we will nadequate. of them >ing to the

feacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 179
Science Museum. And then Activity nine is a small activity which asks them to match the names of places [to what they are famous for] so as to broaden their knowledge [of local places]. I want them to write a composition related to
tfaVel Last year, they were asked to write a letter to a friend and it seemed
t0 be unrelated [to this unit]. I think it can be a larger scale activity this year. I plan to ask them to go to the Tourist Association and look for some pamphlets. T will give them a [writing] topic like this: the Hong Kong Tourist Association wjjl publish a newsletter for young visitors, and the students will need to write an article to introduce something [about Hong Kong]. They can choose to wxite about special foods, places to visit, interesting games or activities. I also want to teach them to write in a special tone, positive and persuasive, to encourage visitors to come to Hong Kong. I have this idea because when we used the product writing approach, students had little opportunity to explore how to write. Now that we have used the process writing approach, we can do it in a different way. I discussed this with Eva this morning, and we agreed to think about it a bit more. I'm planning to go to the Hong Kong Tourist Association myself to look for some information. So the [activity on] itinerary today gave them the opportunity to think about it first. I hope they'll learn more as they go to the Hong Kong Tourist Association to collect information and prepare for writing. I will concentrate on vocabulary in the next lesson, There are some vocabulary activities for them to do. Then I'll cover the present perfect tense—
We can see from Marina's planning thoughts that the teaching of the language skills, grammar, and vocabulary was organized around the lan¬guage tasks that students had to perform. She did not attempt to teach discrete skills for their own sake. There was coherence among the tasks in the sense that each one prepared the students for the final writing task. For example, the activity on drawing up their own itinerary together with Activity nine, which required them to match the tourist spots with the special features of these spots, helped students to get to know more tourist attractions in English. Marina drew on her experience in the previ¬ous year and improved on the writing task. The new writing task, which involved the production of several drafts, was described by Marina as "exploring] how to write." This view is congruent with her belief in the experiential dimension of language learning. Students need to be ex¬posed to a language-rich environment in which they need to do things with language. Going to the Tourist Association to look for information and making decisions about what would be useful for their writing task is a good example. Noting down the names of tourist attractions in Hong Kong is another.
It is interesting that the reading passage was used not so much for
teaching reading skills per se, but rather for the teaching of grammar
and vocabulary. She in fact omitted the reading comprehension ques¬
tions. She said, "I don't think it's necessary to go through the questions
to help them understand the passage. I want them to do the vocabulary
exercises first I think the main points in the reading passage have

180 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
already been covered today.... I feel that I need to spend more tim with them on vocabulary." This is characteristic of the way Marina han died the reading comprehension passages in the whole scheme of work Although she also dealt with reading skills in some units, the reading passages primarily served as the contexts for teaching grammar and vn cabulary. This shows the importance that Marina attached to grammar and vocabulary. Closely related to this is her stronger emphasis on the productive skills, writing and speaking, especially the former.
An important part of curriculum and lesson planning is the selection of teaching materials. As Marina talked about how she made decisions regarding which sets of textbooks to adopt for the school and what ma¬terials to use for each unit, three criteria emerged. First, whether the activities are contextualized and communicative. She explained why she selected one set of textbooks over other sets as follows, "... the activi¬ties have clearer contexts, and they are more communicative." Second whether the textbook is well organized in terms of levels of difficulty and whether the materials are of interest to students. She said:
We think that [name of textbook] is a bit difficult and there are problems with
its organization Sometimes they have very difficult units coming before easy
units, and sometimes the materials are very boring.... So we tend to skip these
units We didn't follow the book that much, and we made a lot of changes.
For books four and five, we mainly used the reading passages and seldom touched other sections.
The third criteria is whether the explanations of grammar points pro¬vided are valid. For example, in a critique that she wrote on the teaching of reported speech in textbooks, she pointed out that the explanations provided often centered on the formal aspect of the structure, whereas reasons for back shifting of tense and time or reference changes were seldom given. The examples and the exercises given were all transforma¬tions of decontextualized sentences from direct to indirect speech or vice versa. Marina pointed out that this kind of contrived form-focused exer¬cise does not help students understand how language is used in real-life situations. In her concluding statement, Marina wrote,
Knowledge cannot be proceduralized without a conscious awareness of the language function and meaning and considerable practice in language use. Neither of these requirements can the textbook grammar fulfill. It is then clear that textbook grammar and exercises have to be supplemented and adapted to create real needs for grammar use in context.
We can see from the above account that Marina's planning of the scheme of work and the selection of materials were guided by an integra¬tion of her knowledge of the subject matter, which includes linguistics, communicative language teaching, the teaching of writing, and language learning as well as her knowledge of the students and the context(s) in

Teach
which also re \je ma?
8J-2
Eva's a]
could v
their le;
two pri
she feel
SI and
and S4;
scheme
S3. She
explaim
listening
her prin
motivat
of the la
and alsc
felt that
her pred
I think it to me, clt to having on my de
Eva's co: Unit 5. 1 textbook hension j some bai and the s the staff. reading a vision, si gave ther which pr group wi it out for give studi to highlig broadcast

nore time arina han-* of work, ie reading ir and vo-
grammar sis on the
i selection ■ decisions what ma-lether the d why she the activi-" Second, difficulty,
>lems with before easy skip these f changes. :ldom
oints pro-e teaching planations ;, whereas nges were ansforma->ch or vice used exer-in real-life
3 of the ie use. then clear adapted to
ing of the m integra-inguistics, 1 language ntext(s) in

Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 181
yjjjch they operate. Marina's planning scheme and selection of materials |s0 realize her conception of how resources for language learning can be maximized.
11.2 Eva
Eva's approach to planning the scheme of work is close to Marina's. This could well be because they taught the same level and they often shared their lesson plans and materials. Underlying her curriculum planning are rtvo principles: continuity and integration. As mentioned in Chapter 6, she feels that the S2 curriculum should not be taken as independent of the SI and S3 curricula. She conceptualized the S2 and S3 curricula as a unit, and S4 and $5 curricula as another unit. Therefore, when drawing up the scheme of work for S2, she referred to the schemes of work for SI and S3. She also tried to integrate the language skills whenever she could. She explained, "I always think of integrating things, I have tried integrating Istening, writing, and [reading] comprehension as one unit." However, |-,er principle of integration was pragmatically rather than theoretically motivated. She explained her thinking behind this principle: "It's because
of the lack of time I don't know, I just felt that it was easier that way
,md also less fragmented. The feedback from colleagues was good. They felt that it saved time and it was more practical." It also has to do with her predilection for simplicity. She explained:
I think it has to do with my personality and my way of thinking. For example,
to me, clear and simple is good I like organizing materials. I am not used
to having a lot of materials piling up. When I write papers, I spread everything on my desk and then deal with them slowly. I enjoy the process.
Eva's conception of integration can be seen from the way she planned Unit 5. Like all units in her scheme of work, Unit 5 was based on the textbook, but Eva made a number of modifications. The reading compre-hension passage in this unit is about a local television station. It provides some background information, such as the number of channels it has and the size of its audience. It also tells stories that are passed on among the staff. Before going into the reading passage, Eva designed some pre-reading activities to familiarize students with vocabulary related to tele-vision, such as the names of television programs and their channels. She gave them a television schedule and asked them to discuss who watched which program. This was followed by a guessing game in which each group was given at random the name of a program and asked to act it out for the rest of the class to guess. The aim of this activity was to give students an opportunity to practice their speaking skills as well as to highlight vocabulary items like television stations, channels, audience, broadcast, and producer. After this, she moved on to the reading passage.

182 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
She gave the students the main topic of each paragraph and focused n helping students identify the key words. For homework, students \Ver asked to use the questionnaire provided in the textbook on televi$j0 watching habits, interview one classmate, and report to the class. Thj was followed by a debate on the motion "It is bad to watch too muck television."
The above account shows the interrelationship between some compo nents of the unit. Some activities prepared the ground for the next activity. For example, the prereading activities familiarized students wto the names of television programs and channels and ensured that thev had the necessary background knowledge and vocabulary to conduct the questionnaire activity on television watching habits. The question-naire findings in turn provided input for the debate. For each activity Eva emphasized the different language skills involved. For example, for the questionnaire, she emphasized the importance of understanding the questions and the vocabulary. She also required the students to report the findings orally. She gave the following instructions to the students:
Find one classmate and ask him or her the questions. But before you do that, you must make sure that you understand everything in this questionnaire. And then you must make sure that you understand the meaning of the words. OK? So, try to ask one classmate and then tomorrow, I will ask some of you to stand up and report [the results] in the next lesson.
While Eva was able to achieve integration of language skills in the per-formance of language tasks and some coherence between some activities, she was not able to achieve coherence with regard to the unit as a whole. For example, in Unit 5, as well as for some other units, the grammar focus was not related to the reading text. She just followed the grammar focus suggested in the textbook, which was the present perfect tense. Yet, in the reading passage, the present perfect tense was seldom used. Instead, the simple present tense was used to describe the television station and the simple past tense was used to relate the stories. For teaching the present perfect tense, she used a completely different set of materials that was not related to the unit even in terms of topic. Neither the grammar tasks nor the reading tasks were related to the final writing task, which was a piece of narrative writing describing a robbery involving the use of the past and past perfect tenses.
When making decisions about the teaching materials, Eva mostly re¬lied on her past experience of how things went in the classroom as well as her own intuition of what worked and what did not. For example, for the above unit, Eva did not find the reading passage useful. However, she was unable to say why. She was aware of her lack of a theoretical basis for making judgements about curriculum planning, and she voiced her concern in the interviews. She said:

Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 183

ocused on ients were television :lass. This too mud,
^e compo-
■ the next
dents with
that they o conduct
question-:h activity, ample, for mding the
■ to report
students:
i do that, naire. And ords. OK?
'OU to
in the per-: activities, s a whole. Lmar focus .mar focus se. Yet, in i. Instead, on and the he present > that was tmar tasks lich was a use of the
mostly re-)m as well ample, for wever, she tical basis voiced her

• his year> there are things that I want to master, and there are a lot of areas mitt I arn not c^ear a^out regarding syllabus design. What is the main
nlphasis? We set objectives, and the objectives are more or less the same every ar gut how do we achieve these objectives? This is important. Sometimes the ' biectives that we wrote are a bit like just for the record, for other people's
ves. When you face the students, you really want to be able to teach things i^hich are useful and effective.
Embedded in Eva's curriculum planning is her conception of the impor-i mce of integration and continuity, which was very much formulated jS a result of her own practical experience of what worked best, and rurther reinforced by the positive responses that she received from col-il3gues. Eva's curriculum planning also had to do with her own personal injoyment of the process of organizing things. The integration that she partially achieved in a unit was guided by her practical knowledge of lan-i.iage skills and her knowledge of the kind of preparation that students i.^eded in order to carry out a task. However, she was unable to achieve n overall coherence of a unit because, unlike Marina, she does not have .ii adequate knowledge of English linguistics (as we shall see in 8.3.3) ,i id a coherent framework with which to relate the different components " a unit.
v 1.3 Ching
^ hi rig followed the textbook very closely when drawing up the scheme of work, and nearly all the activities provided in the textbook were used. For some units, there would be supplementary exercises taken from another giammar exercise book. Only very occasionally would Ching design her own activities. For some units, the reading passage served as meaning-ful contextualization for grammar. Ching was happy with that and used the reading passage as input for the writing task. There were, however, some units that lacked coherence. The activities were unrelated and dealt with discrete language skills for their own sake. Ching was aware of the problem. She observed, "It is difficult to link up the activities smoothly so that they are not unrelated and independent." However, unlike Marina and Eva, who tried to achieve coherence and integration by adding ac¬tivities of their own, Ching found it difficult to do so and largely allowed the textbook to determine the curriculum. Ching's planning was therefore done at the micro rather than the macro level.
When making decisions at the micro level, we can see an interesting interplay between her knowledge of linguistics and her knowledge of the Mudents. In a unit in which the grammar focus was the use of will and going to (future fulfillment of present intention), her decision on whether to focus on one or both was initially based on linguistic considerations. She found that the difference between will and going to is very subtle

184 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
and there is no hard-and-fast rule regarding when to use which. Sh. explained, "Very often, when we use them [that is, will and going t0) it seems that the line [that is, the boundary] is not very clear. In som situations, both of them could be used." In light of this, she wondered if it would be less confusing for student to focus on one form. She said;
Shall we just teach them will and tell them that there is more than one way to use will} I mean it [will] can have two different functions, one to predict and the other to tell people about your intention. It may be better [to focus on the same form with two different functions] than tell the students that there are two forms [for the same function].
However, what concerned her most was not which alternative would be easier for students to understand the language system, but rather whether she could find any interesting activities for the two functions Finding interesting activities has been one of her major concerns since she started teaching. She herself found learning easy and enjoyable but had difficulties making students feel the same way. Finally, she decided to focus on the expression of intention with two linguistic forms, will and going to. This was because firstly she could think of activities that she felt would interest her students and second, because in the scheme of work they were supposed to teach both will and going to. In other words, how to represent grammatical knowledge to students in an interesting way, and following what was laid down in the scheme of work were important criteria for Ching.
The following is another example in which we see Ching letting her concern for student interest take priority over the linguistic objective of the lesson when selecting materials for teaching. The grammar focus of this unit was comparatives. To make grammar teaching more interesting to her students, Ching decided to use a game called Top of the World. She put the students into groups and asked them to send one representative from each group to join a series of competitions. For each competition, after the representatives had come to the front of the class, Ching would tell them what they were competing for, for example, who was the tallest, who had the longest hair, and so on. During the competitions, many superlatives were used, but not comparatives. When planning for the lesson, Ching was well aware of the mismatch between the game and the linguistic objective, but she selected the game nevertheless for two reasons. The first one has to do with motivation. She said:
Before [playing the game] I was well aware of that [the mismatch]. But I thought that the game could motivate the students and get them involved [in activities]. After the game, I would draw their attention to comparatives. I didn't think that that would be too much of a problem.
To make up for the mismatch, she asked the students to take the same adjectives used in the game to write comparative sentences, for example:

Tcacbi
Samuel the end they w( Fron cisions student Icnowle sometir Ching c ests eve parativt classroc the teac of learn
8.1A (
As coon of work was Iar£ how she
First of a number c English t< have diet-grammar. gram ma ti responsib reading a different < they have From framewo making < teaching sequence grammar to a unit. tenses w< explainec end of tr Therefon She furth messy. Sc whiaratives.
e the samr ir example:

feacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 185
Samuel Wong is shorter than Fred Tang. The second reason was that in die end-of-the-year evaluation of her teaching, the students told her that they would like to have more activities during grammar lessons.
prom the above examples, we can see that while Eva's planning de¬cisions were largely based on past experience and her knowledge of the students, Ching's planning decisions were informed by both linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the students' interests. Students' interests sometimes took priority over the linguistic objective of the lesson. When thing could not integrate the two, she tended to cater for students' inter¬ns even at the expense of the linguistic objective. In the lesson on com-paratives, the competition game was used as a means of livening up the classroom atmosphere, rather than as a meaningful context for achieving the teaching objective. This resulted in the unnecessary dichotomization of learning and fun.
8.1 A Genie
As coordinator for S3, Genie was responsible for drawing up the scheme of work. She largely followed that drawn up by her predecessor, which was largely based on the prescribed textbook. She gave an account of h>w she planned the scheme of work:
1-irst of all, I based it on [name of the prescribed textbook]. We selected a number of units [from the textbook]. For each unit, I will cover all aspects of
l-'nglish teaching We'll try to cover reading comprehension, and... we'll
ji.ive dictation We'll have writing on different topics There's also
p immar. There are about five to seven lessons for teaching different j;r.immatical items. For oral, there are different topics. The colleague responsible for a specific unit will have to look for materials. Oral will include raiding aloud the reading comprehension passage. For listening, there are different skills that they can learn. There is newspaper work. For S3 students; they have to read the South China Morning Post [a local English newspaper].
From Genie's account, we can see that she did not have a conceptual framework, in either linguistics or language teaching, to guide her when making decisions about the curriculum. She saw language teaching as teaching the four language skills and grammar; and a scheme of work as a sequence of activities. When I asked her on what basis she determined the grammar focus of each unit, she said, "I never thought of that." I referred to a unit in which the passive voice as well as the past and present perfect tenses were the grammar focuses and asked her for the rationale. She explained that in the previous year, the passive voice was taught at the end of the school year and so there was very little time for practice. Therefore, her colleagues suggested that it should be taught earlier on. She further added, "From my experience last year, the passive voice is messy. So I want to, from the very beginning, refresh their memory of

186 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
how the passive voice is used and review the use of the passive voice wL they read newspapers." As for the two tenses, Genie explained thattL decision was based on the number of periods available. She said, "Tv" are five periods altogether [for grammar] and I want to cover somethjr,, light. So I thought of these two tenses. The students have already bee! taught the simple past tense. Now they have to learn the present perk and in what way it is different from the simple past. So I thought th« they should be able to learn these two tenses in two periods."
The same rationale of time was used when I asked her about a unitjn which the grammar focuses were reported questions and the past and past perfect tenses. The two tenses were put in that particular unit because they could be covered in two lessons. When I asked if she could have been thinking of relating the two tenses to the backshifting of tenses in reported speech, she said:
No. The composition is related to what they covered in the text and the
grammar items. When I planned, I was thinking along the direction of getting
them to use the grammar items and the content of the reading text in their
composition. So I chose news report [as the writing topic]
The fact that students often confused the use of the past tense with the use of the past perfect tense was also a reason for putting the two tenses together.
Genie's explication shows that she was aware of students' problems and past experiences, and she did take them into consideration when making decisions on the scheme of work. However, Genie could not see the linguistic or language learning motivation for determining the gram¬mar focuses of each unit and its sequencing. Consequently, she used the number of lessons as the criterion. Woods (1996) observes that there are two types of concurrent course structures: chronological and conceptual. The former, determined by the calendar and the clock, is not part of teach¬ers' decisions but plays a crucial role. It could also be constraining. The latter is made up of conceptual units or elements at different levels of abstraction; they can be content, goals or methods. In Genie's case, it seemed that the chronological structure was part of Genie's decisions about the curriculum.
Genie was aware of the need to integrate the various components of a unit. For example, she tried to relate the reading passage and the grammar focus(es) to the writing task. She was able to do that more successfully for some units than others. There were some units where the activities for the various language skills were tenuously related or unrelated. For example, in a unit on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the grammar focus was the passive voice. Yet, the passive voice was used only scantily in the reading text. The writing task,, which was writing an advertisement urging people to adopt pets, was related to the

Teachi
topic o above, gramm the rea did noi used gJ Wh< follow' She ha' integra integra ence ai which plans a was us when s whetru league date tfc Hence selecti] ing pri the im compc 8.2 I Studie that e: they r. and tl quirec their 1 ning t Novic tives, tospe which to tak obser fact tl they r where Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 187 roice\yhen :d that the id, "There something eady been -nt perfect =»ught that tt a unit in st and past it because ould have f tenses in the of getting a their e with the :wo tenses problems ion when lid not see the grain-e used the t there arc mceptual. t of tea di¬ning. The t levels of :'s case, it decisions nents of a grammar iccessfully activities lated. For Cruelty to sive voice fhich was ted to the ♦npic of the reading text but not to the grammar focus. In a unit discussed above, reported questions and the past and past perfect tenses were the grammar focuses, and there were instances of such target structures in rfie reading text, which was an interview of a pop singer. However, Genie Jjd not exploit the text for the teaching of these structures. Instead, she used grammar exercises taken from other textbooks. When she took over as coordinator of S3 in the second year, she simply followed what was laid down in the scheme of work and past practices. She had some partially formed conceptions of the need for coherence and integration of skills in a unit. However, she was not always clear how jntcg-ation and coherence could be achieved. Her own classroom experi-ence .ind consultation with her colleagues were the two main sources on whicl t she drew to make sense of the curriculum. When accounting for her plans and the materials that she had chosen, she often used reasons like "it was i sed last year" or "my colleagues taught me." For example, initially, when she selected articles from the newspaper, her sole consideration was whether it would be interesting for the students. Subsequently, her col-leagues pointed out to her that the articles could be exploited to consoli-date the grammar focus of a unit, and she took their suggestion on board. Henceforth, students' interest and grammar focus became her criteria for select ing newspaper articles. Genie had not yet formulated her own guid¬ing p inciples for curriculum planning. As Westerman (1991) observes, the inability to see the overall coherence of the curriculum and how the components in curriculum interrelate is typical of novice teachers. 8.2 Lesson Planning Studies of teachers' planning processes and planning thoughts observe that experienced teachers seldom start with aims and objectives when they >lan a lesson. Rather, they will start with materials or content, and think about students' interests and the activities that may be re-quired. They are more efficient in lesson planning and they often plan their lessons mentally with only brief notes as reminders. Their plan¬ning i hbughts are much richer and more elaborate than novice teachers. Novice teachers, on the other hand, tend to start with aims and objec-tives, and to stick closely to the prescribed curriculum guide. They tend to spend a long time preparing for lessons and have detailed lesson plans, which may include what they are going to say, what action they intend to take, and even what they will put on the blackboard. The differences observed between expert and novice teachers have been attributed to the fact that expert teachers have rich past experience on which to rely, and they have mastered a repertoire of routines from which they can draw, whereas novice teachers have not (see for example Calderhead, 1984;

188 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
Borko and Livingston, 1989). In the rest of this section, we shall see 't such differences were also found between the four ESL teachers.
8.2.1 Marina
Marina never goes to class without preparation and a lesson plan nn matter how busy she is. "I would not be confident that the lesson would go well if I did not do that," she said. Much of Marina's planning decision is conscious rather than routine, especially if the lessons cover a new topic (cf. Calderhead, 1984). She said, "For certain ideas, they come to me very easily. For others, I had to think for several evenings, especially if I have never taught them before." Her planning could take place anywhere and she often engaged in a mental dialog in her planning thoughts. She said-
I would think about it when I am on a bus. Sometimes I would shake my head as I was thinking about it. I think the person sitting next to me must have been wondering if I'm crazy. Sometimes, in the middle of a meal, my mother would say, 'Are you thinking about your teaching again?' and I wasn't even aware of it. Maybe I was shaking my head.
In her lesson plans she would jot down an outline of what she would do with a brief description of the steps and examples as well as the drawings she would put on the board. In her planning thoughts, she would think about what her students would be interested in, and she would go over the steps mentally. She said:
I would think about what students would be interested in. I would rehearse the steps in my mind. "What I would do for this step and what I would do for the next step and then modify them. So when I plan the lesson, I break it down into very small chunks. I would even think about what instructions to give and
how they should be given.
i
She would also plan what questions she would ask, and even whom she would call on to answer the questions, and jot them down. When plan¬ning the questions and examples, she would draw on her knowledge oi her students, including their family backgrounds, their interests, and so on. For example, when she planned the introduction of negative sentenced using the present perfect tense, she initially jotted down a question ask¬ing whether they have stopped kissing their parents goodnight. However. she felt that this was too westernized for Chinese working-class children. Therefore, she changed it to whether they have stopped saying good morning and good night to their parents. She explained that saying good night and good morning to parents was not alien to them but was prob¬ably something that they did only when they were very young. Hence, it was very likely that she would be able to elicit a negative sentence.
Marina files her lesson plans and modifies them every year. Therefore, they contain notes that she has jotted down over the years. In these notes

Tead
there looks befort wante move steps, sruoot mistal exam] dents ageyc alread letter, tone n Howe discus about of the plain ' [•nd. S funny, the sti This e cause bv he£ 'Ma down for ea never respor withoi L'sson n visic to it ii tulties inter at (i I" the
1 had ti think a them u tense] ; to revii perfect focuse< see if shall ers. ,n Plan, no sson would ng decision a new topic : to me very Uy if I have 'where and s. She said: ke my hr,id it have been ther would n aware of would do, e drawings ould think dd go over rehearse llic do for tra¬it down to give and whom she if hen pl.in )wledge o' sts, and .*■*• 2 sentences sstion ask . However. s children. ying good lying good was prob . Hence, il ence. Therefore, hese note- Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 189 there were questions, illustrations, even names of students. She usually looks at the lesson plan again the night before as well as immediately before the lesson. She explained that she did this habitually because she panted to make sure that she knew the steps by heart so that she could move from one step to another smoothly. "If I'm not familiar with the Steps/' she said, "I may get lost suddenly." When a lesson did not go smoothly because she was stuck at some point or she had made some mistakes, she would blame herself for being ill-prepared or "slow." An example that she gave was a writing lesson in which she took the stu¬dents through a writing task. The task was to write a letter to encour-age young visitors to come to Hong Kong. In her lesson plan, she had already put down "discuss the 'tone' of the letter" at the beginning of letter writing. Thinking that she would have no problem explaining what tone meant, she did not prepare ways of presenting tone to the students. However, when going over the various parts of a letter, she forgot to discuss the tone of the letter at the very beginning until she was talking ab3ut the second paragraph of the letter. As she carried on with the rest of the writing task, she kept thinking of when and how she should ex¬plain what tone meant. Finally, she decided to go back to it at the very end. She put down several adjectives on the board, friendly, unfriendly, funny, and interesting, to illustrate what was meant by tone and asked the students to choose the appropriate adjective for the tone of the letter. This episode was cited by Marina as an example of "being stuck" be¬cause she did not prepare thoroughly enough and did not know the steps by heart. Marina was largely able to follow her lesson plan. She would put down the time allocated to each activity on her lesson plan. Her timing foi each activity was remarkably accurate, even for activities she had never used before. However, she was also very sensitive to the students' responses and was able to make spontaneous adjustments to her plan without disrupting the flow of the lesson. For example, in a grammar 1 sson on present perfect and the adverbs yet and already, she put down division for present perfect tense and allocated fifteen to twenty minutes io it in her lesson plan. However, as soon as the students showed diffi-i ikies understanding the use of the present perfect tense, she made an i iteractive decision to spend more time on it and postponed the teaching ••f the adverbs yet and already to the next lesson. She said: I had to act according to my students' reactions immediately. I also had to : ink about whether I should still teach yet and already, whether I should leave ■ lem until later, whether I should spend time to go over it [the present prefect i nse] again or whether I should just remind them of its usage and ask them '• i revise it themselves. I decided that understanding the usage of the present i :rfect is more important than understanding yet and already. Therefore, I just ■ cused on the present perfect [for that lesson], 190 Understanding Expertise in Teaching lead *JL < < She emphasized that it is very important to be sensitive to students' re, sponses. If there were any gaps between the students' responses and hP expectations, she would slow down. From Marina's account, we can see that like other expert teachers in the novice-expert literature, Marina's planning thoughts were very r'u\ and elaborate. She engaged in "mental dialogs" in which she rehearsed the whole lesson in small chunks. Also, like other expert teachers, she was able to respond to students' needs and problems and to adjust her plans very quickly (Brown and Mclntyre, 1992). However, unlike the reports about expert teachers in the research literature, Marina's planning often required conscious decisions, and she had to spend a lot of time preparing for topics which she had never before taught (cf. Calderhead 1984). She had both mental and written plans. Her written plans, though in note form, contained information such as the names of students that she would call on, the pictures that she would put on the board, and the examples that she would give (cf. McCutcheon, 1980). Moreover, despite the years of experience that she had, she would go over the lesson plan the night before as well as right before the lesson to ensure that her lessons would be conducted smoothly. Knowing the procedures and the content of the lesson by heart allowed Marina to free up her mental resources to deal with the unpredictable in the classroom, to respond to students* questions and problems. It is interesting that even with eight years' teaching experience and with the rich repertoire of teaching strategies that she had built up, Marina still spent a lot of time preparing for her lessons, especially when they cov-ered topics that she had never before taught. Marina's approach to lesson preparation would be what Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) referred to as "progressive problem solving" (p. 156). Instead of trying to fit the new task into her existing repertoire of teaching strategies, and reducing the problems of planning to a minimal by recalling routines that she had already established, she problematized it and tackled it at a higher level. Underlying the apparent efficiency and automaticity with which Marina was able to conduct her lessons was the high standard that Marina set for herself and the hours of preparation that had gone into these lessons. 8.2.2 Eva, Ching, and Genie Compared to Marina, the planning thoughts of Eva, Ching, and Genie were not as rich or elaborate. All three of them used the materials and the activities available as the starting point of their planning. Although Eva said that she started with objectives, her description of the objec-tives of a lesson actually revealed a mixture of objectives and activities. For e; them words struct wrote wante putdc ulary for he plain: Eva v day o ntcess Ch textbe more "third woulc follov lesson "free, she w In studei amon son w could were . the le< tant t becan teach< the sy cues f her in quest; lessor Ch as thii much cordii under somet feacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 191 adents* re-es and her :eacher,s in 5 very rich rehearsed •chers, she adjust her unlike the s planning ot of time alderhead, as, though dents that d, and the 'er, despite >n plan the ter lessons le content
resources > students'
e and with larina still
they o:v-ito lesson eferred to
to fit the 1 reduci lg at she had ^her lev-il. ;h Mari-ia it Mari la into these
ind Genie erials and Although the obj(.c-Ys.



por example, she described the objectives of a lesson as getting across the main idea of a passage to students, helping students to identify key words, to understand some vocabulary items, and to note some sentence structures that the students could use in their writing. All three teachers wrote outlines for their own lessons. Eva would jot down everything she panted to do in the lesson first and then reorganize it. She would also put down the questions that she would pose to the students, the vocab-ulary items that she would cover and the exercises that she would give for homework. Sometimes she would also jot down how she would ex¬plain some new words to her students, including cartoons. Like Marina, Eva would go over her lesson plan the night before as well as on the day of teaching. She would make adjustments to her lesson plan if necessary.
Ching's lesson plans followed closely the sequence of activities in the textbook and were systematic. When she had time, she would put down more detailed lesson plans. However, if she was busy, she would just "think on her feet." Genie wrote lesson plans according to what she would ask her students to do. Similar to Ching, Genie's lesson plans followed the textbook closely. For Genie, the purpose of writing the lesson plan was to get the plan into her head so that she could be more "free," "more flexible," and not have to refer to the written plan when she was teaching.
In terms of how well they could anticipate student questions and student problems when planning the lessons, there were clear differences among them. Eva felt that she had no problem envisaging how the les-son would proceed and what was likely to happen in the classroom. She could also anticipate responses from students and the questions that they were likely to ask. She had no qualms about not being able to stick to the lesson plan or the schedule in the scheme of work. "It is more impor-tant that students have learned something," she said. In fact, once she became the form coordinator, she held a number of meetings with her teachers, and they reached a consensus that they should not rush through the syllabus. Eva was ready to modify her lesson plans in response to cues from students. However, as we have seen in Chapter 6, sometimes, her indiscriminate responses to students' questions, comments and re-quests, led to digressions that took students away from the focus of the lesson.
Ching, on the other hand, appeared to be the opposite of Eva as far as this aspect of teaching was concerned. Ching's lesson plans were very much drawn up from her own perspective. She planned the lesson ac-cording to her own assumptions about student knowledge and student understanding, and what she would like the students to do. This is why sometimes the lesson did not turn out as she expected. When one task

192 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
worked well in one class but not another, she attributed it to the student* She said:
I think to a great extent it is the characteristic of the other class. Most of the students [in that class] pay attention. They have longer concentration spans and their learning attitudes are positive. They can also perform and behave well in class.
Alternatively, she attributed it to herself as not being suited to teaching. Unlike Eva, once Ching had laid down her lesson plan, she was un¬willing to change it during the lesson even when she found that her assumptions were wrong. For example, in a lesson on the use of will and going to to indicate intention, she anticipated that students had already covered shall in their primary curriculum and that they had been taught to use shall for futurity, but not will and going to. When she started the lesson, contrary to her expectation, the students were able to produce all three forms indicating futurity. However, instead of drawing out what students already knew about these three forms, Ching stuck to her own lesson plan and explained the form and function of will and going to nevertheless. In the postlesson interview, she said:
If I started to think about what I should do, now that I had anticipated wrongly, it might be even more confusing [to the students]. So I'd rather continue and ask for their feedback when the lesson is finished, like, were these forms taught in their primary schools, was this lesson just a repetition of what they had learned in the past. I might not have taught according to their needs. But at that moment, I couldn't change the plan too drastically because I had not prepared beforehand.
Genie had problems anticipating students' reactions in class. When she prepared for a lesson, she would try to get materials that she thought would be interesting to her students, and she got very excited about it. However, very often, the lesson did not turn out to be what she expected, and she was deflated. When I asked her whether she made any plans for dealing with possible student questions, she said, "That's impossible. I wouldn't know what they would ask. Also, I am not sure of their [ability] level." Though she put down time limits for the activities, she either did not observe them or did not make the time limit known to the students. Sometimes, halfway through the activity, Genie would an¬nounce the amount of time left for the students to complete the activity. This invariably led to groans and moans from students and resulted in tasks only partially completed.
We can see from the above account that although Eva's planning thoughts were not as rich and elaborate as Marina's, they bore some similarities. They both spent a great deal of time preparing for their lessons. Their knowledge of the students enabled them to conjure up a rich picture of teaching in action. Eva's rehearsal of the lesson by drafting

m

Teach
the pk siiniiaj They i Unlike questk the stu concer. viduah a quesl ing. It and cc objecti room < the sar Living; charaa Asf; spondi: Genie i studem that th( novice from tf. culties ( 1987). fact tha above 5 ing thir her plai needs b ducting made t< that ma 8.3 Ei In8.lv, work ar of them organizi cess tha use whe clearly i Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 193 e students, 'St of the n spans, behave 1 teaching, e was un-1 that her >f wtf/and id already :en taught tarted the roduce all out what ) her own I going to
;ed :her
were thi sc n of wh it eir needs. se I had
ss. Wh'-n e thought about it. expected, plans f >r lpossible. : of their dties, sli' mown !<■ /ould an-i activit) ;sulted in planning 3re sorm for then jure up i ' drafting the plan, going over it twice, and making modifications to it is somewhat similar to Marina's "mental dialog," only to a less sophisticated extent. They were both keen to make sure that they knew the lesson by heart. Unlike Marina, however, Eva was not able to both respond to students' questions and firmly steer the lesson so that it would not be "derailed" by the students (Allwright and Bailey, 1991). This is partly because of Eva's conception of teaching as establishing relationships with students as indi-viduals in which engaging in a dialog with a student when he or she raised a question or made a remark was considered an important part of teach¬ing. It is also due to Eva's indiscriminate attention to students' questions and comments whether or not they are related to the instructional objectives. As pointed out in Chapter 3, selectivity in attending to class-room events enables a teacher to be responsive to students and yet at the same time keep the lesson on track (see Berliner, 1994; Borko and Livingston, 1989; Reynolds, 1992; Sabers et al., 1991). This is one of the characteristics of expertise in teaching that is still wanting in Eva. As far as being able to see things from students' perspectives and re-sponding to students' needs are concerned, it appears that Ching and Genie are similar. Genie was unable to put herself in the position of the students, to anticipate students' questions and to preempt the problems that they might have. Studies of teacher knowledge have pointed out that novice teachers often have problems understanding the subject matter from the students' perspective and anticipating their problems and diffi-culties (see Grossman and Richert, 1988, Wilson, Shulman, and Richert, 1987). Why was Ching unable to respond to students' needs despite the fact that she was more experienced than Genie? The interview data cited above showed that this might have been due to her emphasis on keep-ing things under control in the classroom. Her fear that any change in hi'i plari would cause confusion prevented her from addressing students' needs by taking risks. In other words, her conception of teaching as con-ducting lessons in an orderly manner prevailed. The choice that Ching made to stick to her own lesson plan was a conscious decision whereas tli.it made by Genie could well have been unconscious. 8.3 Enactment of the ESL Curriculum In N.l we have seen how the four ESL teachers approached the scheme of ■u «ck and their conceptualization of English language teaching. While all ol them recognize that coherence and integration of skills are important organizing principles, some were able to achieve them with greater suc¬cess than others. We have also seen the criteria that these four teachers ise when they plan the curriculum or a specific lesson. While Marina has 1 learly formulated principles that are supported by theories of language 194 Understanding Expertise in Teaching teach teaching and learning, Eva and Ching rely more on past teaching e\n riences as well as their own learning experiences. Although Ching h.j," linguistics background, she has problems in effectively representing \\\ knowledge to students. Genie is still at the stage where she is tryin,, t make sense of the curriculum, and trying to apply the principle of jnt„ gration to it. She has had to draw on her experience in the past yea r well as advice from her colleagues. To explore further the pedagogical content knowledge held by nVv four teachers, in the rest of this chapter I shall examine their classrumi instructions. Since it will not be possible to discuss their instructions jn all areas of ESL teaching because of the limitations of space, I shall fc. us on specific areas for each of them. In the interviews I asked each of tlu-m which area of ESL teaching they thought was most important, which i hey felt most comfortable with, and which they found most difficult. All tour teachers attached a great deal of importance to grammar and writing, Both Marina and Eva said that vocabulary is the other important au-a, Marina felt most comfortable teaching grammar. There was not an area that she found particularly difficult, but she paid least attention to listen¬ing skills. This is congruent with her emphasis on the productive skills rather than receptive skills. Both Eva and Genie felt most comfortable teaching reading but found grammar teaching most difficult. Ching did not feel that there was any area that she was confident in teaching but if she had to select an area, she would say grammar teaching is more manageable. She was most diffident about the teaching of reading. In the interviews, they tended to talk more about areas that they were mos*. or least confident about, and their reflections revealed more about their conceptions and their knowledge. In the rest of this chapter I shall examine the classroom instructions of all four teachers in grammar teaching since it is an area that all of them see as very important in the curriculum. For Marina, I shall exam¬ine her vocabulary teaching because this is another area that she feels is very important. For Eva, Ching, and Genie, I shall examine their teach¬ing of reading, an area which Eva and Genie find easier to handle, but Ching finds difficult. I shall look at the knowledge and conceptions that shape their classroom instructions and practices. The teaching of writ¬ing, which is also another important area, will be dealt with in detail in Chapter 9 in the context of how process writing was implemented in junior forms. 83.1 Marina: grammar teaching As mentioned in Chapter 7, Marina believes that grammar is central to language learning. For her, if a student has mastered the usage of a gram¬mar item or structure, he or she will be able to use it correctly in the appr°: orient. taken tivcly lar#u£ a prof teache ruU's ^ also c< lan^us and th course en ID] When gave t I uy tc wheth< wheth< ireatm the pa; indepe I usual taught they ai I"l stai rules o rules o -ome j uxamp them t ask wl a:iswe: master. them t big po |mdivi Somet 1 can c at hav to teac have a 1*11 try in a gr Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 195 ning expe, :hinghasa -ntingthat s trying to Me of inte. ast year as d by these classroom ■actions in shall focus -h of them vhich they It. All four d writing. tant area. ot an area i to listen-:tive skills mfortablc Ching did .ching but g is moic wading. In A^ere most bout their structions hat all of Lall exam-he feels is eir teach-indle, but tions th.it 5 of writ-in detail nented in :entral to ■f a gram-tly in the appropriate context. She also believes that learning should be outcome oriented and that there should be evidence to show that learning has taken place. Grammar teaching is an area where she believes it is rela-tively easy to see the outcome of learning as compared to teaching other language skills. In Chapter 6 we learned that as a student in school, she was never taught grammar, but her experience of learning German had a profound influence on her. The inductive approach that her German teacher used to help students to identify sentence patterns and formulate rules was one characteristic of her grammar teaching. Her own learning experience in school of being exposed to English in meaningful contexts also contributed to her conceptualization of the importance of teaching language in context. These atheoretical conceptions were later confirmed and theorized as she received professional and theoretical input from the courses that she attended. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR GRAMMAR TEACHING When I asked Marina how she approached the teaching of grammar, she gave the following account: 1 ti > to integrate reading and grammar. The first thing I have to do is to see whether the grammar item [to be taught] has anything to do with the passage, whither the grammar item is based on the passage or not, because the treatment would be different. If it is based on the passage, then after going over
the passage, I'll draw attention to the grammar items If not - if it is
independent of the passage, then I'll use other materials to introduce the item. I usually start with something they are familiar with. For example, when I taught the use of may and can in writing rules, I started with regulations that they are familiar with such as school rules.
I'll start off with presentation, to present the item. I'll try not to tell them the rules or the patterns. I give them more examples so that they can tell me what rules or patterns they can deduce from these examples. Then I'll give them some practice. The practice often draws on their personal experience.... For example, when I taught the present perfect, have you ever something, I asked them to write a short note to their neighbor and their best friend in class and ask whether they have ever done something. Their partners had to give an •mswer. This is some form of practice. After the practice, if I feel that they have mastered - no, not mastered - but have gained some understanding, I'll ask thim to produce, in groups or in pairs. Very often, I ask them to produce on bin posters, and then I'll go over [their productions] with them. As for Individual] exercises, it depends on what items or structures have been taught. Sometimes I ask them to produce at home after practicing in class. Sometimes, 1 tan do all three in a double period. These are the steps. But every time I aim Jt having a focus. So I often select one, or at the most, two [items/structures] to teach. This is easier to do in junior forms. But in senior forms, because they h ive already covered most grammar items, I'll deal with more than two, but I'll try not to overload them. Even in S4 and S5, I'll ask them to do things, like m i group, to produce something. It depends on the item, how I can do it.

196 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

Teach



From the account above, we can see the following guiding principles,
• First, grammar items are always presented in meaningful contexts. This is often in the form of integrating reading with grammar teaching, 0r exploiting other materials for teaching grammar.
• Second, an inductive approach is used to raise the students' awareness of language patterns and rules.
• Third, students are taken from the familiar to the unfamiliar.
• Fourth, presentations are always followed by practice before students are asked to produce.
• Fifth, students are asked to produce in pairs and groups before they are asked to produce individually.
• Finally, one or two grammar items are focused on at a time to avoid overloading the students.
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF GRAMMAR ACTIVITIES
When selecting or designing activities for teaching grammar, Marina ha-* certain criteria: they must be good, and there has to be variation. Shi defined good as follows:
To me, good means that it must be clear. The task must be clear, and it really requires them to use the grammar item. Another thing is fun. It must be
interesting for them. These are important Things must be in context.
Meaningful use. Sometimes if you make them produce an item for its own sake, it's not much use. Interest is very important. If it is not interesting, my students will say 'Boring!' to me.
We can see that Marina was very clear in her mind what she was looking for when she selected or designed grammar activities. The first criterion is that the task must be clearly outlined. She further elaborated that sometimes an activity might look appealing at first glance, but when she went through the instructions, she found that the instructions were not clear, and there were missing gaps. This kind of activity will not work well in class, she said. The second criterion is that the task must lend itself to the production of the grammar item(s) being taught. The third criterion, which is closely related to the second, is that the use of the target item must be meaningful. The last criterion is that it must be fun from the students' perspective.
The criteria that Marina spelled out are all very important. The second criterion is particularly difficult to satisfy. In many grammar activities de¬signed by teachers themselves or textbook writers, contrived situations are given to elicit the production of the target language. This often leads to either the students producing language that sounds unnatural or com¬pleting the task successfully without having to use the target item at all. The third criterion captures the essence of communicative language

*■

tcachi
own s
portar
attend
talk OJ
when i
to wrii
and af
write a
advice
The
well an
this pai
to them
Fnr exa
"They J
of Engh
(Longm
tilings t
inhnitiv
were. A
alien th
Hieir chi
u ere noi
were afr
' hinking
feel that
lo if I we
Ii»if they
■hey woul
:u: oppor
■ "l order p peals t( I i-ople wl
*IRUCTU
I einhardt periences of instruc of exampi mation efi for any or nents of ti


fearer Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 197


inciples.
texts. lhis aching, or
awareness
r.
e students
efore they e to avoid
larina lias ation. She
it realh
:be ext. 5 own ing, my
is looking ; criterion ated that when slit1 were not not work nust lend The third ise of the ist be fun
le second ivities dc-.ituations
[ten leads 1 or com-t item at language

■ teaching. People use language for communication purposes, not for its 0wn sake. Therefore, to create a need for communication is very im-portant. In the activities that Marina designed, she paid a great deal of attention to the creation of an information gap so that students need to talk or wr*te to each other in order to complete the task. For example, when she taught the modals should and ought to, she asked each group to write down a problem about which they would like to seek advice; and after they had finished, she asked them to select one problem and write a response using the modals. The students were keen to read the advice that they received from another group.
The last criterion requires that the teacher knows the students very well and is able to see things from their perspective. Marina is able to do this particularly well. Her knowledge of the students and what appeals to them comes through clearly in the grammar activities that she designs. For example, when teaching bare infinitives, she used an old song called "'Ihey Made Me," taken from Sunday Afternoons - Songs for Students of English as a Foreign Language by Roy Kingsbury and Patrick O'Shea (Longman). This song is about parents making their children do many things that they do not like. She took away all the verbs after the bare infinitives made and let and asked the students to guess what the verbs were. After that she asked the students to imagine what they would do when they became parents and teachers; what they would make or let their children or students do. Many of them put down things that they were not allowed to do. Her students enjoyed the activity very much and were able to use the bare infinitives very well. Marina articulated her thinking behind this activity as follows:
I fi-cl that students want to be adults. Sometimes, I'll think about what I would do if I were in their shoes. I think they would like to imagine what they would do if they were in my shoes. I try to see things from their perspective. I guess tht y would be interested to see how they could boss you around, if they had the opportunity.
In order to understand what young people are interested in and what appeals to them, Marina pays attention to books for children and young people whenever she goes to bookshops or travels.
•STRUCTURING GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Leinhardt et al. (1991) observe that the systematic arrangement of ex-periences to facilitate understanding is a crucial element in the process of instruction and learning. This includes being able to use a variety of examples, analogies, and illustrations to represent the target infor-mation effectively to learners (Shulman, 1986). It is often not possible for any one representation to capture all the salient features or compo-nents of the concept, procedure, or meaning being taught. Therefore,


t»

198 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
whether the teacher is able to use multiple representations and to se quence them appropriately may be essential to students' comprehension The arrangement of experiences also includes being able to organize th instruction in such a way that there is a progression in the complexity Q; tasks.
In grammar teaching it is important that the teacher structures th instruction in such a way that will help students to become aware of th. grammatical items and be able to use the target structures appropriate!. in meaningful contexts. The ways in which the target structures are pre sented to students, the language tasks that they are required to complete. and the linguistic complexity of the tasks are important elements.
Ellis (1998) points out that there are four theoretically motivated op tions in grammar instruction. The first option is the presentation of thi target structure in written or oral texts to help learners to identify it salient features, referred to as "structured input." The psycholinguist^ rationale is that getting learners to attend to rather than to produce th< target structure facilitates acquisition. The second option is the direct an( explicit explanation of rules, referred to as direct "explicit instruction,' or the indirect consciousness-raising, which involves learners workinr out the rules for themselves. The third option is the elicitation of thi production of the target structures, usually going from sentence ieve. to text level creation, referred to as "production practice" (see als( Schmidt, 1994; Spada and Lightbown, 1993). The fourth option is to pro vide feedback to learners when they have made errors, referred to a; "negative feedback." The argument is that this serves as a way of draw ing learners' attention to the gap between their own production anc. grammatically correct productions (see, for example, Lightbown anc" Spada, 1990). Research evidence suggests that the use of more than oru option is often more effective. For example, structured input used to gether with explicit instruction was found to be most effective in helping learners understand as well as produce the target structure (see, for ex ample, Tanaka, 1996, cited in Ellis, 1998; cf Van Patten and Oikkenon 1996). Marina adopts an eclectic approach, and her grammar lessons ofter contain all four options. To illustrate how they are realized in the class room, let us take, for example, her lesson on the passive voice. Prior to this lesson, Marina asked her students to bring their sciena textbooks to class. She started the lesson by saying to the students tha1 they knew more about science than she did and that she wanted them to tell her about photosynthesis, a topic that they had finished in th( science lessons a few days earlier. She invited the students to tell he; things that were needed by a plant, such as water, sunlight, carboi dioxide, and oxygen. As the students were providing the four elements. she drew on the board a picture with the sun, a tree with leaves, soil anc Teac \vate: follow Carb Wate Light Oxyg *fter .denti lion c ippro in wh * enter 'ollovi -ive V' i ;ippe I'irth. Aft. i u: sei ' u get ik'scrij he be i H' pa : nces »ked 1 ■ i wr ■.. liene i I'StU Afte * .».' sej •■ .ve tr. il'ustra ■ indfc »■' eigh i rran Mar ■, istic ■" idem '■ : tar£ • :ds tc I :lowe 1 ingu 1 itenc and to Se. rehensioni 'gani?c the iplexity Q( ictures the ^areofthe >ropriately es are pre-
complete, mts.
ivated op¬tion of the dentify its olinguistic roducc the direct and itruction," s working ion of the ;ence level (see also n is to pro-rred to as y of dr.iw-iction and bown and 2 than one t used to-rn helping ee, for ex-3ikkenon,
sons often the cl.iss-
sir science dents that nted tluin led in the ;o tell her it, carbon elements, s, soil and



Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 199
#ater. She asked the question "What happened to X?" and elicited the following sentences:
Carbon dioxide is absorbed by the leaves.
Water is absorbed by the roots.
Light energy is absorbed by the leaves.
Oxygen is given out by the air holes in the leaves.
After putting these sentences on the board, Marina asked the students to identify the common features that they shared, and focused their atten¬tion on the verb form. In this segment, she used the "structured input," approach. Typically, her structured input consists of several examples in which she keeps the target form constant and varies the rest of the sentence in order to help students to "notice" it. Structured input was followed by "explicit instruction," in which she explained why the pas-sive voice was used - because they were interested in finding out what happened to the carbon dioxide, what happened to the water, and so forth.
After providing "explicit instruction," she asked the students to copy the sentences down in their sentence-making books. Marina recycled the target sentences by getting as many students as possible to repeat the description of photosynthesis with and without the help of clues on the board. She did this by rubbing off from the sample sentences first the past participle, then the verb to be. Finally, she rubbed off all sen-tences on the board and asked the students to reproduce all of them. She askt d them to describe photosynthesis to each other in pairs before telling the whole class. "Negative feedback" was given throughout the lesson whenever she found serious errors in the target structures produced by the students.
After production practice, she asked students to identify all the pas¬sive sentences in the science unit on photosynthesis. For homework, she gavt: them short excerpts of newspaper reports and asked them to draw illustrations for passive sentences like "Five people were tied up and blindfolded for almost seven hours at a Kwun Tong company by a gang of t-ight" and "A driver was killed and two passengers injured when their car rammed into roadside railings in Sai Kung early yesterday morning."
Marina's grammar lessons show a progression in the cognitive and lin-guistic complexity of the tasks that she gives. She usually starts by asking students to identify the target structure in a piece of text or by eliciting thi' target form or structure at the sentence level, or both. She then pro¬ceeds to ask students to produce a short piece of text in pairs or groups followed by individual production. The identification of target structures is linguistically less demanding than producing them. Production at the M-I itence level is linguistically less demanding than at the text level. In

200 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

Teacher



the lesson on the passive voice, the production of the passive sentences moved from production with clues to without clues, from pair work aid group work, which are cognitively less demanding, to individual work When presenting the target structure, Marina uses a variety of con¬texts. For example, in the grammar lessons discussed above, the passive voice was presented in scientific texts as well as in news reports. Both contexts were familiar to the students, the scientific text being more fa¬miliar than newspaper reports. The students thoroughly enjoyed beii i* more knowledgeable than their teacher and were keen to correct Marira when she made an inaccurate statement. For example, when Marina said "Sunlight is absorbed by the leaves," the students all said it should be "heat and/or light energy is absorbed by the leaves."
8.3.2 Marina: Developing knowledge in grammar teaching
Embedded in Marina's teaching of grammar is rich and integrated knowl¬edge. The aspects of grammar teaching discussed includes her guidirj; principles, selection of materials, and design of activities, to the way she structures the learning experience and represents the target structures. This knowledge covers a number of dimensions. The first dimension is her knowledge of the English language, language teaching, and language learning. This encompasses her knowledge of grammar as meaning and not as form, and hence grammar items are always presented in meaning¬ful contexts. She finds it important to raise students' awareness of tl e grammatical patterns and help them to formulate rules based on their own observations. As Ellis (1998) points out, it is more motivating lo get learners to discover the rules for themselves than to give them tl c rules. It also'encompasses her understanding of communicative language teaching, in which language is produced for communicative purposes and not for its own sake. This can be seen from the way she organized the activities for using modals to give advice. They gave students a purpose and a real audience for giving the advice.
The second dimension is her knowledge of how learning should be organized. This includes what constitutes linguistically and cognitive])' more-demanding tasks; the need to have a clear purpose and an outcome when designing pair and group work; the distinction between "teaching" and "testing" and the importance of giving guidance; going over student production in an efficient and effective manner; providing opportuni¬ties for consolidation of what has been taught; and providing positive reinforcement by displaying students' work.
The third dimension is her knowledge of other curricula, which en ■ abled her to relate the English curriculum with the science curriculum as well as with her students' daily lives, hence making their learning relevant.

The h
kinds of
In Ch
just base
Institut.
the metr
what sht
to what
tight wo
that she
room pr
principle
for her f
put in th
formulat
ysis of tl
using aut
provided
language
Despit
is very g< been sug a repertc Mo we vet she seldo She expk It is often ri ferences narrow th al'cady us \\ ill not fe (N [y empr. In other explains teachers i X.3.3 M \dcabula tauce bee 1 or each i students t Marina si - sentences ' worl and ual work, -ty of con. :he passive •orts. Both g mote fa, )yed being ;ct Marina arina said, should be ching ted knowl-er guiding le way she structmes. xiension is i language waning and t meaning-less ot the d on their tivatiug to : them the slanguage eposes ai'.I anized tli a purpo should l\ :ognitivcl". i outconr teaching er studei r jpportui tg posiuV which e i riculum -grelevai i Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 201 The last dimension is her knowledge of the students' interests and the tjnds of activities that are likely to engage their attention. In Chapter 6 we saw that Marina's grammar teaching was initially just based on her own learning experience in school and in the Goethe [nstitut. She modeled her teaching on her German teacher and tried out the methods he used. She was not able to articulate the theory behind nrhat she was doing, but she developed practical knowledge in response to what was realistically achievable, given the limited resources and the tight working schedule. It was only when she attended the PCEd course that she began to understand the theoretical rationale behind her class-room practices and to reflect on her teaching in a more systematic and principled way. The theorization of her own practices became the basis for her future pedagogical decisions. The more profound theoretical in¬put in the Master's course in English language teaching enabled her to formulate her own theories of grammar teaching. For example, her anal-ysis of the problems with textbooks confirmed her own conviction of using authentic materials for teaching, and her study of learner strategies provided the theoretical basis for enriching the experiential dimension of language learning. Despite the fact that Marina enjoys grammar teaching very much and is very good at it, she does not feel that she can sit back and relax. It has been suggested in the expert-novice literature that expert teachers have a repertoire of teaching strategies and activities that they can draw on. However, this does not seem to be the case for Marina. She reported that she seldom has a number of activities at her fingertips that she can use. She explained: It is often very difficult to have a number [of activities]. When you look at rrfi'iences, they may suggest a number of activities, but very quickly you iai i ow them down to just a few. I have to select what is good. Also, if I have ."In .idy used a similar activity before, I have to modify it so that students will not feel that it is the same activity. I try to give them some variation. M^ emphasis) In other words, it is Marina's motivation to strive for excellence that .x plains why she does not seem to share the characteristics of expert l.'.ichers reported in the novice-expert studies. v.-1.3 Marina: Vocabulary teaching Vocabulary is an area to which Marina attaches a great deal of impor-I nice because she feels that it is one of the building blocks of language. I or each unit she selects a number of vocabulary items that she wants the ■udents to learn. For example, in Unit 11 on traveling described in 8.2.1, Marina selected for teaching the following vocabulary items: souvenir, 202 Understanding Expertise in Teaching recommend, decorated, itinerary, attraction, and terminus. When I asked her on what basis she selected those items, she said that the words were all related to traveling. She believes that asking students to learn vocab¬ulary items that belong to the same semantic field will help students to recall as well as to use them when writing. The concept of semantic field was introduced to her in the PCEd course. Before that, Marina said she intuitively selected vocabulary items for teaching. She also tries to integrate vocabulary teaching with listening skills. In the same unit on traveling, she tried to introduce other sets of vocabulary in the context of shopping for clothing, such as cardigan, scarf, shirt, and blouse. To help students understand these items, she took to class some sou¬venirs that she had bought when she was traveling, as well as pamphlets and brochures that she had collected from the Tourist Association for illustration. When she taught the word itinerary, she asked them to write down the places that they would like to recommend to tourists and to take note of special local shops that would be of interest to tourists over the weekend. Some students jotted down the names of shops in Chinese, and she helped to translate them into English - for example, Chinese herbal tea shop, and dai pai dong, which is a kind of open-air hawker food stall. On the basis of the names suggested by the studenh, she designed a worksheet on itinerary for them to complete. She helped students to understand the meaning of itinerary by actually making them go through the experience of drawing up an itinerary. This is congruent with Marina's belief in the experiential dimension of language learnisig and the importance of raising students' awareness of the language around them. As I observed Marina's vocabulary lessons, I noticed a recurring rou¬tine. After having introduced new vocabulary items, Marina asked them to revise the items at home. On the following day, she started the lessen by asking the students to close their books. She asked for volunteers to explain each item. After going through all of the items, she asked them i» open their textbooks and gave them two minutes to study the items agah. She set the alarm clock for timing. When the alarm went off, she aski d students to close their textbooks and nominated individual students to answer her questions. The vocabulary consolidation routine is something that Marina h.is developed subconsciously over the years. I asked her the rationale for the routine and she explained as follows. Most of her students are working class children. They will not be able to revise their school work at home because the television will be switched on all night when their parents come home from work. Moreover, they are usually unable to get help from their parents. If she was to ask them questions individually from the very beginning, many of them would not be able to give an answer and they would be embarrassed. By initially directing the questions to the Tcache whole c voluntei do not I To cons< them an This hel has givei their cla; be able I likely tfi£ to provic After students. her inten that. I thi want to < explain tJ the items routine ei tlicir feeli; Embed hackgroui psycholog tion in lea she said: 'Iraching d( It'isons. I hi I don't thin! Si I think it I use lesson 'I his routh process." S learning aft of teachin" was taught lary, and they At first, s to learn the this and learning, vocabulary Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 203 en I asked ords were rn vocab-:udenis to antic field rina said, so tries to ie unit on le context Duse. iome s(-u-pamphlets iation for n to write sts and to o toulists : shops in example, f open-iir : StudlTtS, »he helped king 1 hem congi uent e learn ng ge around rring rnu-skedlhem the lesson unteei1- lo ;d them to *ms again. she asked tudents to Larina has ale for the e working k at home :ir parents o get help lally from an answer ions to the vyhoie class, and asking for volunteers, she can be sure that those who volunteer know the answer. As they are giving the answer, those who Jo not know the words will have a chance to hear the explanation first. To consolidate the verbal explanation given by the students, Marina gives them another opportunity to read the explanations of the words in print. This helps them to remember the words better. She feels that after she has given them opportunities to listen to the verbal explanations given by their classmates and to read the written explanations, the students should be able to retain the meanings of the words longer. It is therefore less likely that they will be embarrassed when she calls on them individually to provide the explanations. After a lesson where Marina used this routine, I interviewed the Students. Their perception of what Marina did in class corroborated her intentions. Winnie, an S2 student, said, "Yes, Miss Tarn always does that. I think she knows that we don't revise our work, but she does not want to embarrass us because she knows most of us won't be able to explain the words." The students welcomed the opportunity to revise the items before they were nominated to answer questions and found the routine effective. They were also appreciative of Marina's sensitivity to their feelings. Embedded in this routine is Marina's knowledge of the students' family background and their life pattern. It also involves sensitivity to students' psychological well being and an understanding of the need for consolida¬te n in learning. Reflecting on her practice in vocabulary consolidation, she said: Teaching doesn't mean the students will learn what you have taught in the lessons. I have to think of ways to help them to consolidate their learning I dc >n't think it's useful to ask the students to study at home because they won't. xi> f think it is worth spending more time to practice them in class. Thp.t's why I use lesson time to do vocabulary consolidation.
This routine emerged through what Marina described as a "gradual I rocess." She realized the importance of recycling and consolidation in 1 ■ J rning after her unsuccessful experiences in the first two or three years '■f teaching when she found that the students did not remember what v-as taught in class, did very poorly in tests, had very limited vocabu-I iry, and constantly made the same grammatical mistakes, even though they enjoyed the lessons thoroughly and were interested in learning. At first, she addressed the problem by making them stay after school '■) learn the words. However, she did not feel good about punishing the students and the punishment was not effective. She reflected on Mis and came to the understanding that teaching is not equivalent to ■* nrning. She said, "You need to recycle [the materials]. Grammar and ■ocabulary need to be revised some time later. You cannot expect that

204 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

fectchei



they will remember." Having the right expectation helped her to accent students' forgetting what was taught without getting upset. She look^ for alternative ways to help her students. She came across Gairns a id Redman's (1986) book on vocabulary teaching, and that was the first time she was introduced to the idea of guessing meanings of words in context. She began to wonder if students would remember the words bet¬ter in context. Attending the PCEd course helped her to think about the various teaching skills and reexamine her own vocabulary teaching. She started to incorporate the ideas about teaching vocabulary in context vocabulary recycling and consolidation into her teaching, and a routine for vocabulary consolidation began to emerge. When she first started the routine, it was simply allowing time in class for consolidation. Pansy one of the S5 students interviewed, recalled what Marina did with them when she was in S2. She said, "She (Marina) usually says, 'I allow you two minutes to read them and recite them.' Then she will ask us to turn it [the textbook or worksheet] over and question us on the meaning or pronunciation." Subsequently, the routine was refined and elaborated. When the students were able to recall the meanings of words that slit had taught them before, even those that were taught several years back, she was heartened and knew that she was moving in the right direction. This approach to vocabulary consolidation routine became her personal strategy.
8.3 A Eva: Grammar teaching
As mentioned in 8.3, Eva felt that grammar has an important place in the English curriculum. She said, "Grammar is something very system-atic. It also affects a lot of things. It affects students' composition. It permeates everything. You can't ignore it" We can see that Eva had a vague conception of grammar being on the one hand rule-governed and yet on the other hand being closely tied to meaning. This was why ii "affects students' composition" because she found that in students' writ¬ing, grammatical inaccuracies often hindered the proper expression ot meaning.
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF GRAMMAR ACTIVITIES
Eva is critical of the exercises in the textbook that consist of merely manipulation of forms. To replace them, she tries to find from othei resource books activities that provide meaningful contexts for the use or the target structures. She is also able to make interesting adaptations. For example, when teaching the question form of the present perfect tense. she started with an activity that required students to make statements hi the present perfect tense. The activity was about a family preparing to go away on vacation and there were four pictures showing what they

d

have an
at the p down tl students Sbt ask( grandpa the jobs the situa sail ie wa problem
Tor ai gctiier v> of whon Republic officials. they had students
In the teaching
Usually Ii (MI dents'" When we uiii'd expj su^essful guinmar t
Ki'ttdes n political 1 liu s by u
1 tin this fr .iKmt then letter.... E and to thei
Whenever
live about From t see that m and releva mar teach eating moj a supporti 7.4.5).

rto accept jhe looked bairns and is the first f words in words bet-: about the ching. She n context, 1 a routine started the on. Pansy, with tl em allow you us to turn cleaning or daborarcd. Is thai she rears back, : direction. ;r personal
at place in ry system->osition. ft Eva had .1 rerned and yas why it tents' writ >ression o
of mercb rom othfi ■ the use oi ations. Foi :fect tense. tements ii" eparing t" what the-

Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 205
have and have not done to the house. The students were asked to look at the pictures for two minutes and then try to remember and write down the jobs that the family had to do before it went away. After the Students had finished this activity, Eva gave them an extended activity. 5he asked the students to imagine that the family was visited by their grandparents who asked a lot of questions to check if they had done the jobs before they went away. The students were able to identify with the situation immediately and said that their own grandparents acted the same way. They were able to turn the statements into questions with little problem.
For another follow-up activity on the present perfect tense used to-gether with the adverb ever, she gave them a list of personalities, all of whom were political figures, including dissidents from the People's Republic of China, local political commentators, and top government officials. She asked them to write down some questions to find out what they had done in the past. Eva took the opportunity to explain to the students who these personalities were.
In the context of evaluating her own teaching, Eva brought up the teaching of grammar in the following way:
Usually I feel a greater sense of achievement when the text is related to (students'] daily lives, about character, or even when it makes them reflect. When we work on the "secret door" [a writing task], I think about how they tould express their ideals in life. Then according to my criterion, I am successful and it's meaningful. So Pm still thinking about how I can relate ijrai nmar to their daily lives.
Resides relating the grammar tasks to current events, and to social and political figures, Eva also tries to relate her teaching to students' daily lives by using examples that are about the students. She said:
1 do this frequently, and the examples I use are normally related to them or ,hout their classmates. They will be happier, and they will remember ■letter.... Even when I design test papers, I write about things related to them *nd to their good behaviors. I sometimes use their names.
Whenever she writes about her students, she always says something posi¬tive about them.
From the grammar activities that Eva selected or designed, we can *ce that meaningful contextualization of target items, students' interests »nd relevance to students' daily lives are important criteria. Her gram-mar teaching is also influenced by her conception of teaching as incul-cating moral values and social awareness, and her objective of fostering • supportive and positive culture in the classroom, (see 6.3.1; see also -.4.5).

206 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
STRUCTURING GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Unlike Marina, Eva has not developed a clearly identifiable structure fo grammar instruction. Sometimes "explicit instruction" takes place at th very beginning by explaining or by asking students to explain when target item is used. Other times, she explains the structural pattern afte "production practice." She seldom uses "structured input" to raise the students' language awareness. For illustration, let us take the grammar lesson on the present perfect tense described in the previous section which is typical of Eva's grammar teaching.
Eva started the lesson with "explicit instruction" by asking the stu-dents to explain three situations under which the present perfect tense would be used. She moved to "production practice" by giving them an ac¬tivity about a family going away for a holiday (see the previous section), For this activity, students were required to produce statements using the present perfect tense. Key words were provided. She asked the students to work in groups and provided feedback. Group work was followed by an extended activity in which she asked them to take on the persoiue of either the grandmother or the grandfather and change the statemnts into questions. Eva then gave "explicit instruction" again by drawini; students* attention to subject-verb inversion and the insertion of the pro¬noun between the verb to have and the past participle, as in Have you watered the plants?
So far, the activities were controlled practice. Eva then moved to free production practice by introducing a game in which two students were asked to leave the room while the rest of the class made some changes to the classroom setting. These two students were to guess what changes had been made by asking questions using the present perfect tense. In the final part of the lesson, she introduced the use of the adverb ever to ask if people have ever done something in the past. This was followed by-two "production practice" activities. One was to think of questions th.it they would like to ask some political figures that Eva listed on the board, using the adverb ever (see the preceding section). The second production activity was to use the same question form to ask their partners thinp that they had ever done. For each of the activities, Eva provided corrective feedback.
The above description shows that Eva also used a combination of options, except for "structured input," which she seldom uses. The over¬all approach that she used was intended to be deductive. She started with an explanation of three situations under which the present per¬fect tense would be used. The activities that followed should have bei n an application of the rules to use in the production practice activiti( -*■ However, Eva did not explain which of the three situations the activities illustrated. The students simply completed the activities. Moreover, the

Teat hi
explicit did. Fo under i planati has dor to cxpl explan;
S:
She
beer that
The stu Eva did
nieanin to look uwy of tin: exp the pre; now... the stuc the use up to tr past bul discussi the usaj;
(n ter tions us to get si st.itemei coutroll p.itethe them by IILI of ac pi-1 feet t Hnweve 'I lu: last cx.imple \\ nile th activities
leva's baJcgro ing. Thi; as her a!

Teacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 207

ucturefor ^ce at the in when a ttern after > raise the grammar is section,
ig the s-.ii-iect tense lem an ac-s section). i using the e stude us llowed by = personae statements Y drawing )f the pi o-Have you
red to fi ce lents were ie chaises it champs t tense. Jn rb evn to .llowed by ►tions that rhebo.ird, roduction ers things corret. i ivc
[nation of The over-he started esent pcr-have been activit ies. i activities eover, the

eXpl^ explanation of rules was not done as systematically as Marina did. For example, when Eva asked the students to explain the situations under which the present perfect would be used, they came up with ex-planations like, "A state of something we do up to now" and "Someone lias done something before and then continue[s]." Eva asked the students to explain what state meant. One student came up with the following explanation:
5: She has been ill for months, meaning, hm, last month, ill.... Someone has been ill for months, meaning, hm, meaning, the man has just, just meaning that someone has has ill...
TIIL student gave the right example but he was unable to explain state. £va did not take the student's example on board and introduce the stative meaning of the verb be in the example. Instead, she asked the students to look up the meaning of state in the dictionary. One student offered ivay of being. This was not taken on board either. She stuck closely to the explanation given in the textbook and paraphrased it as, "You use the present perfect tense when we're talking about a condition up to now..." No reference was made to the example or the explanations that the students gave. In her explanation Eva did not distinguish between the use of the present perfect to denote a state of being that continued up to the present and its use to indicate an event that happened in the past but is extending into the present. She took them to be the same. The dist ussion in the "explicit instruction" left students quite confused about the usage of the present perfect tense.
In terms of task complexity, Eva broke down the task of asking ques¬tions using the present perfect tense into two subtasks. The first one was to *;et students to produce statements, and the second was to use these statements as a basis for forming the questions. She also moved from controlled practice to free practice. In other words, she was able to antici-pat c the possible problems that her student might have and try to preempt them by guiding students systematically. Like Marina, Eva used a num-hei of activities in different contexts to represent the usage of the present pei Feet tense. All of these activities tried to relate to students' daily lives. However, some activities did not seem to have a communicative purpose. The last activity, in which students were to ask each other questions, is an example where the focus is on form rather than communicative function. Wlnle there is a place for activities focused on form, they should lead to activities that use form in communicative situations.
I va's grammar teaching is apparently handicapped by her inadequate bat kground knowledge in English linguistics and English language teach¬ing. This affected the quality of her grammatical explanations, as well ns her ability to distinguish between communicative and form-focused

208 Understanding Expertise in Teaching
activities, and to judge the difficulty levels of the tasks in terms of ];n guistic complexity.
83.S Eva: Developing knowledge in grammar teaching
In Chapter 6 we learned that grammar teaching has always troubled Ev,i especially in her first year of teaching. She said,
In the first year, I was most bothered by grammar teaching. I finished teaching an item very quickly, but students did not seem to have learned it after the lessons. Even if I spent a few more lessons on it, the students still did not seun to have learned it. This made me feel very lost. So I often thought about how to make grammar teaching effective.
Eva looked at Marina's materials and observed her teaching. Marun gave her very close guidance by going over the materials with her a nd sharing her students' work with her (see 6.3.4). This kind of apprentice-like guidance gave Eva many good ideas for teaching.
Eva is very much aware of her lack of linguistic knowledge, and she wants to read up on grammar. However, she finds it difficult to put aside time for it because there are so many other areas of teaching for which she needs input, and very often other duties take over. She tries to tackle this by asking for help from Marina and colleagues teaching the same level. Sometimes she consults Ching, even though they are teaching different levels. (See also 6.3.4)
In the meantime, she tries to cope with grammar teaching with the limited linguistic knowledge that she has. When going over reading pas¬sages, Eva selects some sentence structures that she feels will be useful for students and asks them to do substitution. For example, she took the sentence, The veggy lion is one of the funniest animals in the world. and asked the students to substitute the underlined parts with their own words. They produced sentences like, The topic sentence is one of the most important things in a paragraph, Miss Lee [Eva] is one of the kinder teachers in St, Peter's Secondary School.
When I asked Eva how she decided which parts of a sentence should hi substituted, she said, "Take away those that can be changed. For exam¬ple, adjectives can be taken away. So the main skeleton is still there." Eva was making use of whatever linguistic knowledge that she had to design these exercises in order to help her students learn the sentence structure It is also interesting to see how Eva talked about the syntactic struc¬tures of the sentences, with minimal meta-language. For example, S!K-described the red plastic as a "noun with adjectives included," instead of a noun phrase with a color adjective. When she asked students to use participial adjectives as classifiers, Eva said, "I asked them to wriu1 sentences with -ing serving as adjectives. They wrote something like

Teache
a barki stand tt kind of ennchei Over activitie student; difficult makes a guage tt tcuhing able difl as a syst
8.16 1
Eva is m it i** easi reading that stuc cept of i writing, a paragr ideas by teaching ing skills prcdictiv her readi in teachii miderstai words, ct ot the wi the objec kcome h
Eva w; Mudents i tions at tl I'xperienc her own < Cohere I-va often textbook. from a pt writer. Th feacher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 209 cms of lin. ng ubledKva ;d teaching :ter the d not se nn bout hew tg. Mai ina th her and ipprenricc- ;e, and she 0 put aside : which she tackle this same level. g different g with lhe sading pas- 1 be useful :, she look the wot Id. i their own one of the the kindest z should he For exa in-here, "hva d to design ; structure. ictic struc-ample, she i," instead students to m to write sthing like a barking dog, a sleeping beauty, et cetera. Then they begin to under-stand that something can be included within the noun." Eva felt that this jcind of exercise helped students to understand how meaning could be enriched by making changes to certain basic sentence structures. Over the years Eva has built up a repertoire of interesting games and activities from which she can draw. She seems to be able to get into Students' minds and anticipate what they are thinking about and what difficulties that they are likely to have. However, the decisions that she makes about whether the activities are good from the perspective of lan-guage teaching are largely based on experience rather than on language teaching theories. Her lack of linguistic knowledge also creates consider¬able difficulty for her when trying to help students understand grammar as a. system of meaning. 8J.6 Eva: Teaching of reading J Eva is more confident in teaching reading than other skills. She feels that it is easier to handle. As pointed out previously, she tried to integrate reading with writing by using some reading texts as models of writing that students could follow. For example, when she introduced the con¬cept of a topic sentence, she reminded the students that in their own writing, they could use the topic sentence to introduce the main idea of a paragraph. She also demonstrated how they could elaborate on their ideas by adding supporting details. However, Eva's understanding of the teaching of reading comprehension is fragmented. She is aware of read-ing skills such as identifying the topic sentence and supporting details, piedictive reading, inferencing skills, and so forth, and she taught them in j her reading lessons. However, when I asked her what her objectives were in teaching reading and what the important skills were, she mentioned understanding the content of the reading passage, the meanings of new words, certain sentence structures, as well as the standpoint and attitude of the writer. This suggests that Eva does not have a coherent view of the objectives of teaching reading and how learners can be helped to become better readers. Eva was taught in the traditional way, in which the teacher had the j students read aloud and then answer the reading comprehension ques-tions at the end. However, instead of simply relying on her past learning e\perience, she tried to make sense of the teaching of reading by setting hei own objectives and assigning a new meaning to it. Coherent with the metaphor of exploring the "space" in teaching, Eva often sets her own questions instead of using those provided in the U'xtbook. By doing this, she hopes to get the students to read a passage from a perspective that is different from that offered by the textbook filter. This is the space that she feels that teaching can offer her. 210 Understanding Expertise in Teaching Another way of creating space in teaching is to write her own text and set comprehension questions when she has time. She said: I love doing it. I have tried composing a text based on what was taught in oul and reading comprehension lessons, and then I wrote a story, which is educational. I once wrote a piece of text for S3, and I put in religious beliefs that talked about the difference between Satan and God. It was very short. I have also written texts where I include something about counseling and discipline problems, or something that I am unhappy about, to give vent fto my feelings] in these texts. She sees this as creative writing on her part in which she can express her own beliefs and feelings. She enjoys creating these texts because they are about people (see also 63.1), In addition to making space for herself in teaching, her text creation is also motivated by students' interests. She said, "I feel that students would find it more interesting. This is top priority. This is my personal concern. I feel that I may not be able to become a good teacher who is good at teaching. My concern for students is greater than my concern that students can learn something." In other words, Eva perceives her concern for the students and their learning as a dichotomy and that being a good teacher does not entail being good at teaching. When the reading texts provided in the textbook concerns moral values, she will ask the students to reflect on the message conveyed and to write down the insights that they have gained after reading it. She considers herself successful in achieving the aim of education when the students are receptive to these moral values (see 6.3.1). Newspapers are another source of materials that she exploits for the teaching of reading. Sometimes she asks students to use the themes of the news article on social issues to conduct role-plays. Some students take on the role of a certain government official and others the roles of the people. She also asks them to respond to these articles and express their own views. Eva's personal approach to the teaching of reading is something that has evolved over her five years of teaching. Embedded in this personal approach is her partial understanding of reading comprehension, which is handicapped by the lack of a coherent theoretical framework for un¬derstanding reading and the teaching of reading. Permeating the way she handles the reading text and the objectives for teaching of reading are her beliefs in the importance of creativity in teaching, and in being able to allow space for creativity and critical thinking. The powerful in¬fluence of her conceptions of teaching as inculcating moral values and social awareness, as well as being able to relate to students as individ¬ual human beings also came through strongly. This approach is coherent with her approach to the teaching of grammar and, as we shall see in Chapter 9, the teaching of writing as well. Ttache InC Eva w£ some ai a srronj aware < teiichinj Student: and goc affirm h as a con 8.M ( Like Mi giiage is iniportai Having i it is imp When pj tlu: targt adequate inrerestir teaching. "!I LECTK (ilung's r m.itical c In 8.1.3i tt. .iching, Top of th aw are tha lesson, sh csting gar students'. In fact, h that perm section, tt as well. Whenc them relev or relevan< nativities n teaching a themselves Tertcher Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 211 ntext and ?ht in oral is s beliefs short. ;and vent Kpress her se they are t creation t students 7 personal ler who is ncern that :r concern ng a good :ns moral conveyed eadin^ it. ;ion whm jwspajvrs aching of the news ike on the ie people. their own thing that > personal on, which rk for un-y the way )f reading i in being werful m-alues md s indnid-s coherent lall set- in

In Chapter 6 we have seen that at the end of her fifth year of teaching, £va was going through a stage in which she feels that she has made some achievements in certain areas of teaching, particularly in building a strong relationship with her students. Yet at the same time, she is well avvare of her inadequacies, particularly in her knowledge of language teaching and teaching effectiveness. Her dichotomization of concern for Students and students' learning as well as that of being a good teacher and good at teaching could well be an attempt on Eva's part to try to affirm her own worth as a teacher and counter her doubts about herself 35 a competent English teacher.
83.7 Ching: Grammar teaching
tike Marina and Eva, Ching feels that learning the grammar of a lan-guage is crucial to learning the language. She attaches a great deal of jnportance to accuracy. She monitors her own speech and self-corrects. Having majored in English linguistics at university, Ching believes that it is important to have a clear understanding of grammatical concepts. When preparing for lessons, she will check her own understanding of tl v target grammar items with reference grammars. Although she has adequate linguistic knowledge, she finds it difficult to make grammar interesting. She spends more time preparing for it than other areas of teaching.
■JKTECTION AND DESIGN OF GRAMMAR ACTIVITIES
Ching's major concern in grammar teaching is how to represent gram-matical concepts and grammar usage to students in an interesting way. In 8.1.3 we have seen how Ching tried to introduce games in grammar teaching, specifically, in the teaching of comparatives, by using the game Top of the World. I have pointed out that even though Ching was fully aware that the game did not help to achieve the linguistic objective of the Icssqn, she still went with it because she could not find any other inter-esting game in which to contextualize the comparatives. In other words, students' interest took priority over the linguistic objective of the lesson. In fact, how to make learning interesting to her students is a concern that permeates all areas of her teaching. As we shall see in the ensuing section, this concern affects the way she structures grammar instruction as well.
When designing her own grammar activities, Ching also tries to make thrin relevant to the students. However, she has a narrow interpretation of i elevance to students. She feels that in order to be relevant to students, act i vities must be set within the context of the school. For example, when te.khing a lesson on the use of the simple present tense to talk about tin mselves and their family, she gave the students the situation of an

212 Understanding Expertise in Teaching

Teach*



interview for admission to the school. Another example is when teachjn "giving directions," she used a map of the school building. When I askeH whether she had thought of using materials like the plan of a shopnjn center, or the map of a park, she said that she thought that the school building would be more familiar to students.
STRUCTURING GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Like Marina, Ching often starts her lesson with "structured input" rathi-r than "explicit explanation." She also gives students plenty of opportuni¬ties for "production practice" and provides feedback. In this section we shall take a typical grammar lesson and examine the way Ching struc¬tures the instruction.
This is a lesson on conditionals. Ching wanted to introduce two types of conditionals, one using the simple present tense in both the conditional clause and the main clause, the other using the future tense in the main clause. Ching started the lesson by putting some advertising posters on the board containing the first part of the conditional sentences. She took the students through each poster, but instead of eliciting the main clauses from them, she provided the main clause with an imperative structure in each case.
If you want to be a top runner, wear Reebok sports shoes.
If you want to lose weight, come to our fitness centre.
If your dog needs the best food, buy Polo.
If your hair needs more protection, use Vidal Sassoon.
If you want to save money, open a savings account at our bank.
After this she asked the students to work in pairs and produce condi-tional sentences which would appear in advertising or similar contexts. However, Ching did not model the task prior to this activity. Conse-quently, while some students produced sentences like If you want to see dolphins, go to Ocean Park, If you want to get good marks, go to St. Peter's, others produced irrelevant sentences that showed a lack ol understanding of the task. After providing feedback Ching changed the main clauses in the five conditional sentences from imperative to declara¬tive as an alternative way of writing advertisements. For example, If you want to lose weight, our fitness center suits you. Again, students were asked to follow the same pattern and change the conditional sentences that they produced accordingly. Some students produced sentences like If you want to keep fit, TCBY2 is the best! Ching collected the work that they produced and moved to another stage of the lesson. Up to this point, there was no awareness raising of the structural pattern of these sentences.
2 TCBY is the brand name of a yogurt ice-cream that was getting very popular in Hon$: Kong.

Chii studen some c parts, i
If you 1 in co If you i If you] If you i
This is modal'
If you c If Dad;
Citing c the mai is ccrta when w it is hig worksh ,uid one
We c combin; instead she high usage of flections by prese slmctur contexts iiwead < frlr that iit-r self. Ching related t ;is Chinj 1 1 he moi ( )llins i ihe "fut '1 Insofar; I'iesent i vi mse c; ( 'ammi feticber Knowledge and the Enactment of the ESL Curriculum 213 n teaching ten I asked shopping the school >ut" rather :>pportuni-section we ling sti uc-
; two types onditional a the main posters on s. She took ain clauses tructure in
nk.
uce condi-r contexts ity. Conse m want U arks, go U i a lack oi hanged thi to declara iple, If you dents wer-.1 sentence itences lik d the wor-. Up to thi-:rn of the*
mlar in Hon

Ching referred to the experiments in their science class and gave the Students a pile of cards, some containing the conditional clauses and lOire containing the main clauses, and asked them to match the two parts. Some examples are:
jf you light a Bunsen burner with the airhole closed, the flame is yellow
in color. If you put your finger into ice water, it feels cold. jf you put the same finger into tap water, it feels warm. Jf you add salt into water, it dissolves.
This is followed by presenting another type of conditional using the modal will.3
If you don't leave my home, I'll call the police.
If Dad is free, he will visit his friends with me in August.
I hing drew the students' attention to the use of two different tenses in the main clause and explained that the present tense is used when one i* certain that the event will happen and that the future tense is used A hoi we are not absolutely certain that it will happen but we think that it is highly likely.4 This was followed by asking students to complete a v orksheet which has fill-in-the blanks exercises, two for advertisements liid one for expressing possible future occurrences.
We can see from the above account that like Marina, Ching used a . >mbination of all four options. When she provided "structured input," instead of getting students to identify the common structure exhibited, wi1 highlighted it for them and gave explicit instruction on the forms and .i jaj;e of the conditionals. During the interview and in her own written re-'■ *crions, she said her original intention was to use the inductive approach i v presenting more examples and asking students to identify the common tructure exhibited in those examples. She also wanted to "use different «. Mitexts to let students discover the functions of conditional sentences nstead of just telling them all the structures and tenses." However, she ■• It that this method would not work and decided to provide the answers !i Tself.
C hing used different contexts to present the conditionals, one of which '.l.ued to a science topic that the students had just covered. However, ■^ ()hing observed herself, the sequencing of the presentation was not
4 I he modal will is often described as the "future tense" in Hong Kong textbooks. The < "llins Cobuild Grammar of English refers to the use of will to indicate the future tlu "future tense" (see p. 255, 5.53) ' Insofar as one cannot talk about future events with as much certainty as one can with present events, Ching is correct. Strictly speaking, however, the use of will in the main -i -use can also be an expression of what you intend to happen (see Collins Cobuild vi! immar of English, p. 255, 5.52). 214 Understanding Expertise in Teaching "systematic enough." This was evidenced by the students not being able to complete the final task very well. Unlike Eva, this was not because of her lack of linguistic knowledge. In the interview after the lesson, ChbiP demonstrated some linguistic awareness of the usage of the two typcs of conditionals. Commenting on the sentence If you light the Buns(>n burner with the airhole closed, the flame is yellow, she said, "becaus* it is [a] natural [phenomenon], we are sure that that is the consequence or the result. Therefore, I use present tense to indicate that the conse¬quence is definite, as a result of [the fulfillment] of a condition." For the conditionals using the modal will, she explained that the main clause conveyed possible consequence, but not absolute certainty. She qualified her comments by saying that "it is not a 'must' to use future or present tense. There is no hard-and-fast rule." In other words, she was able to highlight the difference between using the present tense to indicate ha¬bitual occurrences or general truths, and using the future tense (that is the modal will) to indicate the writers' judgment of the possibility of occurrence,5 The qualification that she made showed that she was aware of the lack of one-to-one correspondence between form and function. She was also aware that conditionals are used in advertisements to achieve a persuasive effect. She said, "because advertisers want to make the adver¬tisements more powerful, to appeal to the audience, they use the present tense or the imperative to make their products sell better." If the modal will is used, the advertisement will be less powerful. Ching's problem with sequencing in her presentation can be attributed to two reasons. The first reason has to do with her dilemma between whether she should use students' interest or linguistic demand or complexity as the criterion for sequencing. In the interview, she confessed that when she planned the lesson, she struggled over the sequence of presentation. She wanted to start with one that was easier for students. She thought of starting with conditionals with the future tense (i.e., the modal will) in the main clause because she had seen her students producing this kind of conditional before. However, she finally decided to present conditionals in advertise¬ments as a way to start the lesson because advertisements would grab the students' attention. This is another example of the predominance of Ching's concern for students' interest over linguistic concerns.
The second reason has to do with her lack of awareness of the lin-guistic demands made on the students. Ching started with the use of the conditional for advertisements and moved onto its use in stating scientific truths. However, she did not explain to the students the difference be¬tween the two. The onus was on the students to figure out whether they
5 The future tense can also be used to indicate general truths, as in the case of When peace is available, people will go for it. (See Collins Cobuild English Grammar, p. 255, 5.54.) However, there is always the question of how much detail the teacher wants to go into.

Tcache
were th
ing if si
with wl
exploit;
variatic
where t
further
until sh
when 11
had so i
they wo
fhefc
that Chi
her judg
nation o
of the ne
students,
always f
ing the u
in achie\
of prope
demand.
8.3.8 C



Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 1)
Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 2)

(ตอนที่ 2)