研究論文
Dilemmas Student Teachers Experience Conducting Language Learning Activities at Elementary Schools
2024 年 2024 巻 1 号 p. 134-149
詳細
2024 年 2024 巻 1 号 p. 134-149
James M HALL (Iwate University)
Keywords: pedagogical dilemmas, teacher development, critical incidents
This study examines dilemmas that student teachers experience when teaching English communicatively at elementary school. As part of a two-year English teaching methodologies course, student teachers conducted English lessons at elementary schools. They then wrote critical incident reports about their experience. A critical incident is an unexpected event occurring in a lesson that causes some kind of pedagogical quandary. In this study, 297 critical incident reports written by 191 pre-service teachers between 2015 and 2022 were analyzed. Through thematic coding, the critical incidents were grouped into themes. An examination of critical incidents within a theme and across themes revealed dilemmas student teachers were likely to experience when conducting language learning activities. Among these dilemmas were how to mix fun and learning, how to encourage students to use the target words and phrases in an activity, the role of practice, and the challenge of teachers using English. The fact that there was no easy resolution for each dilemma shows the complexity of teaching. This paper suggests that presenting student teachers with contradictory case studies can help them develop the ability to teach appropriately depending on the pedagogical content, characteristics of the learners, and teaching environment.
Teaching can be considered a problem-solving endeavor. Trying to enact a national curriculum in the classroom is a case in point. The basic policy of foreign language education in Japanese elementary schools is that students have a lot of exposure to English through a proficient speaker (MEXT, 2019, “Syllabus planning and delivery”). Furthermore, any introductory text of second language acquisition will explain the crucial role that input plays in language learning. However, teachers in English as a foreign language (EFL) context like Japan will invariably encounter situations where learners are anxious about not understanding the teacher’s English and reticent to use the target language. Widdowson (1990) cautioned against the indiscriminate application of theory arguing that, “language teaching can be seen as a principled problem-solving activity: a kind of operational research which works out solutions to its own local problems” (p.7).
Although the previous quote was written over 30 years ago, it is still relevant today. In the core curriculum for teacher education on the foreign language subject in elementary school (Tokyo Gakugei University, 2017), student teachers (STs) are supposed to learn how to facilitate student language learning through communication. This is arguably a form of communicative language teaching (CLT). CLT can be considered an umbrella term for various types of teaching sequences whose ultimate aim is to improve students’ ability to communicate (Littlewood, 2011). Research has found that it is common for STs to struggle to apply the principles of CLT when they begin to teach (Asaoka, 2019; Hall, 2017).
Given that teaching is a problem-solving endeavor, experiencing difficulties in using an approach such as CLT can be an opportunity for ST growth. Van Manen (1991) argues that contradiction in education is “probably the foremost factor that prompts us to continually reflect on questions of how we should act with children and students” (p.61). This study, thus, aims to identify prevalent dilemmas that STs face when teaching a communicative English class at elementary schools in Japan. A dilemma can be considered a quandary that teachers will encounter in which the solution depends on the context. It does this by analyzing 297 critical incident reports written by STs about their experiences teaching an English lesson at elementary schools over the span of 6 years. It is hoped that identifying the dilemmas that STs are likely to experience will help teacher education programs prepare prospective teachers for the quandaries they are likely to face when teaching English at elementary schools.
Elementary school STs in Japan face issues relevant to their stage of professional development and issues relevant to teachers at all career stages when they are teaching English for the first time. According to Richards (2015), a novice teacher is initially concerned with acquiring the basic classroom skills necessary to carry out lessons. Across subjects, novice teachers arguably struggle to put the skills and techniques that they learned into practice. In an oft-cited paper, Berliner (1988) describes five stages of development of expertise in pedagogy. They are: Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert. In the Novice stage, aspiring teachers learn important terms and concepts, e.g., student-centered learning, as well as teaching procedures, e.g., the structure of a listening lesson. However, these rules are usually decontextualized. In the Advanced Beginner stage, experience becomes blended with some of the concepts they have learned, and some episodic knowledge is constructed. In the next stage, Competent, teachers have control of the knowledge and skills they have acquired and make conscious choices about how to use them. In the last two stages, Proficient and Expert, teachers have developed a tact for teaching, or an intuition, which they can rely on to teach classes and handle most issues smoothly. This can also be considered as pedagogical content knowledge, that is, knowing how to deliver and encourage the learning of subject matter
content (Shulman, 1986). By the end of their teaching practicums, most STs at Japanese universities are likely in the Advanced Beginner to Competent stages. They have learned pedagogical concepts and had teaching experiences. Thus, they should be starting to formulate episodic knowledge of the pedagogical concepts they have learned and developing some confidence in using them.
Communicative reforms of foreign language education and English teacher language proficiency can be considered issues relevant to both novice and experienced language teachers in Japan. According to Tsui (2020), Japan has made learning English a national mission. This has led to national reforms in foreign language education policy. Nakashima (2021) explains some of the recent reforms, which include: making speaking (interaction) its own area of the curriculum, encouraging improvisational oral interaction and grammar learning through language activities, changing from a structural syllabus to communicative syllabus, and making English a subject in elementary school. Research in English-as-a-foreign-language contexts other than Japan shows that English teachers are often not prepared for communicative reforms (Copland et al., 2014; Hall & Gaynor, 2020). Another issue that makes enactment of communicative reforms difficult is teachers’ lack of language proficiency (Nguyen, 2017; Todd & Darasawang, 2020). In the case of Japan, as of 2021, the percentage of JHS English teachers with a B2 level or higher level of English proficiency was estimated to be at 40% (MEXT, 2022).
As can be seen from above, STs who teach at elementary school will likely be encouraged to teach communicative lessons in which they will be expected to develop children’s abilities in English through language activities. CLT, though, is not something that comes naturally to STs (Asaoka, 2019). Through a process of trial and error in their teaching practice, STs at elementary schools will be developing episodic knowledge of ways to teach communicatively. The writing of critical incidents is one way to capture how STs formulate their episodic knowledge.
In the field of Teaching English as a Second Language, Richards and Farrell (2005) describe a critical incident (CI) as an unanticipated event that occurs during a lesson and serves to trigger insights about some aspect of teaching and learning. CI writing has been used to facilitate the reflection of pre-service and in-service teachers (Brandenburg, 2021; Yu, 2018). They have also been used to identify the challenges that teachers experience in a particular area or in a particular endeavor. This study focuses on the latter. According to Tripp (1993), a CI can be seen as an example of a category in a wider context. Thus, CIs that are written by teachers can provide insights about a specific issue. For example, Atai and Nejadghanbar (2017) examined the subject-related CIs experienced by English-for-Academic-Purposes teachers to identify the nature of challenges that they face. Hall and Townsend (2017) analyzed the CI writing of pre-service teachers in Japan to investigate the kind of teaching concepts that they developed and utilized in a teaching practicum.
This study collected the CIs of STs to understand the dilemmas they encounter when teaching communicative English in elementary schools and posed the following research questions:
What are the most prevalent CIs that student-teachers write about?
What kind of dilemmas does a qualitative analysis of these CIs show?
The STs in this study were enrolled in a Faculty of Education at a national university between 2015 and 2022 and taking the English teaching methodology (eigokakyouikuhou) courses to obtain a secondary school English teacher’s license. There were 191 STs who were in their second to fourth years at university when taking the courses. It can be estimated that their level of English approached B2 on the CEFR scale, as they had the requisite English ability to listen to lectures, participate in discussions, and do academic readings and writings in their English teaching methodology courses at university. All participants in this study consented to have their data used for this research and approval was granted by the university’s research ethics committee.
The English teaching methodology (ETM) program consists of four courses which are shown in Figure 1. These courses are required for STs to obtain their English teaching license. STs begin taking ETM 1 in the first semester of their second year. In the ETM classes, STs teach one lesson at a school to try out the skills and knowledge they have learned in an ETM course (It should be noted that some years it is not be possible to visit a school for a specific ETM class). In ETM 1 and ETM 2, STs teach at an elementary school and in ETM 3, a junior high school. After ETM 3, the STs have a four-week teaching practicum in the summer and then reflect on their teaching practicum in ETM
English Teaching Methodology Program and Critical Incident Report Writing
The CI report is based on the format recommended by Farrell (2013). First, STs write an orientation or their plan for the lesson. Next, they write their CI, i.e., something that happened in the class that went against their expectations. Lastly, they write an interpretation of the incident. After STs submit their reports, the instructor provides feedback on the content and language. The STs then revise their CI reports and put them into their ePortfolios for other ETM members to read.
The process of creating and using ePortfolios is explained in Hall (2022).
A total of 297 CI reports written by STs between 2015 and 2022 were analyzed. All these reports described teaching an English lesson at elementary school. The method for coding interviews was informed by Guest, MacQueen, and Namey’s (2012) applied thematic analysis, the primary goal of which is to “understand how people feel, think, and behave, within a particular context relative to a particular research question” (Guest et al., 2012, p. 13). Applied thematic analysis takes a phenomenological approach: there are no preconceived categories the researcher applies to the data, and the researcher codes from the perspective of the writer. The analysis consisted of the following procedures: segmenting text, writing codes for the segments, grouping these codes into categories, and, finally, expanding on these categories and codes through the development of themes.
The coding process was as follows. Using NVivo 11, I first assigned a phrase to the incidents that STs wrote employing “descriptive coding” (Saldaña, 2013). These descriptive codes were then grouped into a hierarchy of themes. Figure 2 shows a descriptive code and the hierarchy of themes it fell under. Referencing the constant comparative method in Charmaz (2006), I continuously recoded CIs and constantly changed or merged themes as my understanding of the data changed.
Coding Example
Given that I had witnessed many of the STs’ lessons and understood the circumstances of their teaching practicum, I was in a unique position to understand the STs’ writing even when the meaning could have been unclear to other readers. Atai and Nejadghanbar (2016) write that grouping CIs into precise categories is difficult because the CIs are inferential and can carry multiple meanings. For this reason, replicability of the codes for this data with other researchers was not feasible. Thus, my overall strategy was to establish what Lincoln and Guba (1985) call trustworthiness. That is, I tried to be transparent about 1) the type of data collected; 2) how and when the data were collected;
3) how the data were archived and organized; and 4) how the data were analyzed.
Once CIs were grouped into themes, I tried to identify pedagogical dilemmas that STs might experience when conducting communicative lessons. These dilemmas were created out of contradicting CIs. For example, one CI might serve as a case of an ST effectively teaching English mostly in English, while another CI with a different ST teaching similar content might serve as an ineffective case. Thus, the simple act of an ST using mostly English did not guarantee a successful lesson. There were various obstacles to overcome.
In the Results, I first provide an overview of the primary CI themes. Then, I discuss some dilemmas related to these themes using extracts from STs’ CI reports. It should be noted that I edited the extracts for clarity. There was a substantial number of CI themes and accompanying dilemmas, which were too numerous to include in this paper. Therefore, I limit discussion to the themes and dilemmas most relevant to teaching communicatively at elementary schools.
Seven-hundred-fifty-seven critical incidents were extracted from 297 CI reports. Table 1 shows the primary CI themes related to STs’ in-class teaching. Two-hundred-forty or 80% of the reports, described a CI related to conducting a language learning activity. Thus, it can be thought that most STs in this study were preoccupied with carrying out language learning activities over teaching language and skills. This section explores the three themes most relevant to CLT: Language learning activities, Teaching and learning language or skills, and Using English.
Primary CI Themes Related to ST’s In-class Teaching and Number of Reports Per Theme
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Table 2 shows, the 2nd level themes for Language learning activities were How students performed an activity, Managing students, and Instruction for encouraging activity participation. Each 2nd level theme had child, or 3rd level themes. In Table 2, the child themes for How students
performed an activity are shown. CIs within Attitude or behavior consisted of many cases of elementary school students becoming too excited during games. From this, I identified the dilemma, “Can fun and learning mix?”
CI Themes Related to Language Learning Activities and One Associated Dilemma
Primary Theme/ 2nd Level Theme/ 3rd Level Theme CI Reports Dilemma Language learning activities 240
How students performed in an activity 194 Can fun and learning
Attitude or behavior 109
Did not understand what to do 27
Performance by ability 45
Performance by activity type 32
Managing students 54
Instruction for activity participation 39
mix?
Note. Because one report could contain multiple CIs, the sum of CI Reports coded in the child themes were slightly larger than the number of reports given in their parent theme.
The new National Curriculum Standards in Japan emphasizes that students learn language through communication in language learning activities (MEXT, 2019). In elementary schools, language learning activities often constitute games, which are supposed to encourage student language use. One of the primary dilemmas STs had in this study was that students often enjoyed the language learning activities, but they did not appear to be learning any of the target language. CI 1, below, is about how students reacted to a game in a foreign language activity lesson. At the end of extract, the year the CI was written, and the grade of the class taught by the ST are given.
The students got so excited, and they didn’t follow the instructions. It happened when we did the Crash Game. I wanted to make a lot of opportunities to practice the pronunciation of words for stationery, so I prepared three lines to do the game for the students. However, the students were too excited, because they wanted to win the game. They also did not pay attention to the correct pronunciation. (CI 1, 2022, Grade 4)
According to CI 1, the students enjoyed the game but did not learn the language or practice the skills targeted in the lesson. In this case, the game itself caused students to lose focus. CI 2, however, describes a different scenario; students did not understand what to do.
When we taught, children were too noisy. While we explained about the game, children talked freely… I noticed when we could not do clear instructions, children began to make noise. (CI 2, 2016, Grade 3)
On the contrary, an ST in CI 3 discusses having success with games.
… the games we prepared for the activities were very exciting. I expected that the students would look forward to our classes and their attitude toward learning would be very positive… it was a great learning experience for me to see how the students were so motivated to learn through the games. (CI 3, 2022, Grade 5)
In the above CIs, games were not effective when the students prioritized winning, the rules were not clear, and the connection between the game and the learning goal was not clear. On the other hand, the games seemed to be more effective when the rationale was clear, STs could do classroom management, i.e., react to unanticipated problems, and the STs were well prepared.
Table 3 shows a hierarchy of CI themes related to Teaching and learning language or skills.
CI Themes Related to Teaching and Learning Language Skills and Their Associated Dilemmas
Students are not using the target expressions in an activity.
This section focusses on the themes: How students used language and Teacher language instruction. CIs under Students’ learning and understanding of language, the most frequent 2nd- level theme, were primarily remarks on what students could understand or learn. The other two themes were more relevant to carrying out language learning activities. How students used language covers the STs’ observations of student language use during language activities, and Teacher language instruction covers ways in which the STs tried to encourage student language learning.
Two dilemmas related to these themes are discussed below. The first is related students not using the target structure or vocabulary in an activity and the second is about the role of practice in facilitating language use in language activities.
CIs related to how elementary school students used language during an activity tended to be negative. The child themes indicate that STs observed that students were not using the target language, not using the target structure correcting, or doing an activity in Japanese. These CIs represented the dilemma: “Students are not using the target expressions in an activity.” The CIs that follow show that students can often communicate what they want to without minimal use of the target expressions. CI 4 is an example of this. In this CI, a student in grade 4 refuses to use any school subject name other than PE (Physical Education), in a communicative activity.
… when students showed their timetables, a student said “PE! PE! PE! PE! PE!” Like this, he didn’t develop an ability to use various English subjects. This was because we didn’t set up any rule… For example, “You must choose more than three different subjects. (CI 4, 2017, Grade 5)
In CI 4, the student was likely communicating his own thoughts and feelings, which is a primary goal of the National Curriculum Standards for foreign language education (MEXT, 2019). However, by doing this, he was not showing that he could say the other subjects in English. The ST, in this case, proposed a potential compromise.
In CI 5, the ST observes that students are communicating what they want to by using an abbreviated version of the target expression. He accepts this and provides a rationale for it.
The students practiced the expressions “I get up at 6” and “I go to bed at 10.” But in their self-introductions, they said expressions like “get up 6” or “go to bed 10.” I think that it cannot be helped. The Course of Study [National Curriculum Standards] says that the overall objective of foreign language activities is to form the foundation of pupils’ communication abilities through foreign languages… In foreign language activities, communication is very important. It is not important to write and speak perfect English. Nobody cares when you say incorrect English. (CI 5, 2016, Grade 4)
CI 5 was written in 2016 but the quandary it describes still exists: should teachers of foreign language activities encourage students to use an expression correctly or should they be satisfied with students’ effort? One of the purposes of foreign language lessons in elementary school is for students to actively communicate (MEXT, 2019). This can arguably be done without correct use of English.
In their CI reports, it was common for STs to write that students could not use the target language because there was not sufficient practice. CI 6 is an example of this.
Some children couldn’t talk with their partner because they couldn’t pronounce the words or phrases well. I walked around the class and answered the questions about how to pronounce from children and checked how they were doing… Children can’t understand just by listening one time so I should say the new words and expressions and make practice time for children. (CI 6, 2019, Grade 6)
CI 7 represents a successful case of using practice; in this case the ST felt that drilling had helped the students learn to use the phrases.
The children could not use the important expressions in the speaking activities well… I considered why they could not use the expressions, and I increased the drill activities in the next class. Then, almost all the children could do the conversations by using the expressions which had been drilled. I found children can all talk in English if they practice again and again. (CI 7, 2022, Grade 6)
It is important to note here that the ST conducted drilling in the lesson after the students had tried a speaking activity and had not been able to use the target expressions. It is not clear if her conclusion that “children can all talk in English if they practice again and again” would have been valid in a different circumstance, such as doing practice at a difference stage in the lesson.
CI 8 is an example of language practice before an activity not being effective.
I had a critical incident in the “Aisatu Basket.” First, we taught nine words (hungry, tired, cold, sad, happy, great, good, ok, fine) and said each word five times using power- point slides. And when we taught those words, students pronounced them in loud voices, so we thought that they could internalize them. Also, we had students practice saying each word three times. However, in the “Aisatu Basket,” students said, “I don’t know how to say this.” As a result, the game ended in failure. (CI 8, 2017, Grade 4)
CI 7 concludes that getting students to say the words repeatedly will compel them to use the vocabulary in a communicative activity. This principle, however, did not work in CI 8. This contradiction suggests that the effectiveness of practice can depend on when it is done. In CI 7, it was done reactively. That is, the ST had students practice the target language after she noticed they were struggling to use it in communication. In CI 8, conversely, practice was done proactively.
The contradiction also indicates that the way practice is conducted can determine its
effectiveness. In CI 8, the practice could have been too regimented, as students were required to listen to each word 5 times and repeated it three times without exception. It is possible that the STs were prioritizing carrying out the practice as planned, and thus neglected to check students’ learning.
Although it is not stipulated in the National Curriculum Standards, elementary school teachers are encouraged to use English when teaching foreign language classes. For example, a goal in the core curriculum for the elementary school teacher course in foreign language education is “How to speak to pupils in English” (Tokyo Gakugei University, 2017, p. 1). Table 4 shows that CIs related to the STs using English tended to be negative. The 3rd level themes show that the primary issue was the STs did not feel that they were using enough English. The dilemma, “I know I should use English, but I could not or did not,” explores this theme.
CI themes Related to Using English and Their Associated Dilemmas.
I know I should use English, but I could not or did not.
CI 9 represents a common explanation that STs gave for not using enough English: they felt anxiety over students not understanding.
I couldn’t use classroom English so much because I didn’t know whether children could understand my explanations and instructions. Furthermore, I didn’t know what kind of classroom English children could understand. So, I used Japanese frequently. (CI 9, 2019, Grade 5)
CI 10 shows that another reason for STs not using English during language learning activities was that the instructions were complicated.
In my second lesson, I planned two activities. “Country Karuta” and “Bingo game.” I felt the difficulty of explaining their rules. I tried to explain in all English, but sometimes students understood differently. I could do “Country Karuta” smoothly with no problem.
However, when we did the Bingo game, I ended up using Japanese to explain the rules. I think that I need to be able to explain to students with simple and easy English. (CI 10, 2022, Grade 6)
Another common factor was that STs underestimated the challenge of using English in an elementary school foreign language class and were not sufficiently prepared. This is shown in CI 11.
I used only a little English in the class. I should have explained the games in English and use more classroom English. The reason this happened is my lack of preparation for my classes. I only spoke the English that I knew and Japanese in the class. (CI 11, 2022, Grade 5)
On the other hand, CI 12 shows a case in which an ST, through students’ reactions, realized that using Japanese was not as necessary as she thought.
When I explained the game in English, I intended to add an explanation in Japanese later. Because students’ understanding was better than I had expected, I used less Japanese than I intended. I think the reason for this incident was the use of many gestures and demonstrations in the game descriptions. In that situation, instead of adding Japanese to every explanation, I was conscious of using Japanese only when it was necessary after seeing the students’ reactions. (CI 12, 2022, Grade 5)
Through the above CIs, one can conclude that the dilemma about how much English to use is mostly an inner dilemma experienced by STs. STs feel anxiety about students not understanding and about their own English proficiency. Sometimes, STs do not realize they are not ready to use English with pupils until they find themselves unable to respond to students in the classroom (CI 11). Furthermore, CIs 10 and 11 represent an additional common theme: STs felt that they needed to use “simple English” or learn more “classroom English”. While teachers should try to use words that students are likely to understand and learn some expressions relevant to classroom management, most teacher education books advise that teachers use a limited range of words repeatedly, speak at a slow speed, provide context for the language, and use materials, demonstrations, gestures, etc. to support students’ understanding (For example, see VanPatten & Lee, 2003). Thus, rather than speaking simple English, STs should try to speak English simply.
The findings show the STs tended to write most about carrying out language learning activities in their CI Reports. Furthermore, of the CIs related to language learning activities, the majority
described how students performed. This likely represents the active nature of foreign language education in elementary school: activities are the primary conduit of learning. Also, previous research indicates that classroom management is a learning priority of novice English teachers (H阿ng et al., 2022; Tsui, 2003), and effective classroom management techniques are necessary to ensure that pupils are participating in the activities.
The dilemmas provided insights into the challenges of responding to communicative reforms from the perspective of STs. “How to balance fun with learning” can be linked with teaching foreign language activities and the foreign language subject. Elementary school English textbooks from grades 3 to 6 consist of many games, but how do we ensure that students both enjoy the games and learn the content?
The dilemmas “Students are not using the target expressions in an activity,” and “The role of practice” are related to encouraging language learning through activities. The National Curriculum Standards for English in grades 5 and 6 mandate the following for teachers: “Through language activities using English, give instruction to enable pupils to acquire skills they will be able to utilize in communication” (MEXT, 2019, p. 3). Thus, teachers will need to consider how to reconcile language instruction with students using the language in activities.
Lastly, “I know I should use English, but I could not or did not” is related to the language skills that teachers will need to teach English in elementary school. As foreign language (English) is now a subject in elementary school and students are expected to acquire linguistic skills, teachers are likewise required to model these skills. This dilemma explains some hurdles that STs will need to overcome to be able to use English in the elementary school classroom.
The dilemmas also show that STs are likely to have contradictory experiences. For example, games, communicative activities, or language practice could work well in one situation but not another. In this way, language teaching is a problem-solving activity which requires pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is described by Johnson and Golombek (2016, p. 11) as “contingent on teacher knowledge of particular students, in particular contexts, who are learning particular content, for particular purposes, it cannot be acquired in one context and then simply applied to another.”
It is my belief that a teacher education program in which STs are periodically reflecting on their own CIs as well as learning from the CIs of their peers, and reconciling any contradictions among these CIs, can help them develop the episodic knowledge of pedagogical concepts that will eventually lead to a tact for teaching or pedagogical content knowledge. The vision for this is expressed in Figure 3. Future research should examine how identifying and reflecting on CIs can help STs learn to navigate the dilemmas they encounter and develop from this process.
Model for Teacher Education
The purpose of this paper was to show the dilemmas that STs experience when teaching a communicative English lesson at elementary schools. This was done through the analysis of 297 CI reports written between 2015 and 2022. It was shown that in their CI writing, STs were most likely to focus on carrying out language learning activities which can be considered the foundation of the English curriculum at elementary school. The dilemmas showed the complexity of carrying out language learning activities as they contained contradictory cases. The dilemmas described in this paper are not a comprehensive list that STs will face, but they can be considered relevant to teaching a communicative English lesson at elementary school. They are also related to some of the communicative reforms which have impacted English language instruction in elementary schools. Learning to navigate these kinds of dilemmas can arguably help STs respond to these communicative reforms. I have suggested a reflective and collaborative model for teacher education using CI writing. Future research should examine how this model can help STs learn from the different dilemmas they encounter over their teacher education period.
This work was supported by the MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) [20K02845]. The author declares no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.
Asaoka, C. (2019). Early professional development in EFL teaching. Multilingual Matters.
Atai, M. R., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2016). Unpacking in-service EFL teachers’ critical incidents: The case of Iran. RELC Journal, 47(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631177
Atai, M. R., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2017). Exploring Iranian ESP teachers’ subject-related critical incidents. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.08.001
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. (ED298122) ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED298122
Brandenburg, R. (2021). Enacting a pedagogy of reflection in initial teacher education using critical incident identification and examination: A self-study of practice. Reflective Practice, 22(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1821626
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage Publications.
Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.148 Farrell, T. S. C. (2013). Critical incident analysis through narrative reflective practice: A case study.
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 79–89.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hall, J. M. (2017). A linguistic ethnography of learning to teach English at Japanese junior high schools. [University of Stirling]. In Faculty of Social Sciences: Vol. Unpublished. http://hdl.handle.net/1893/26002
Hall, J. M. (2022). Eportfolio post tagging for student-teacher development. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2096034
Hall, J. M., & Gaynor, B. (2020). Development of a new primary school English curriculum and textbooks in Myanmar. TESL-EJ, 24(3), 1–19.
Hall, J. M., & Townsend, S. D. C. (2017). Using critical incidents and E-Portfolios to understand the emergent practice of Japanese student-teachers of English. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 1–
9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.017
H阿ng, N. V. T., H阿ng, N. T., & Liên, N. T. (2022). Classroom management competence of novice teachers in Vietnam. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2124042
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful teacher education. Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Littlewood, W. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 541–557). Routledge.
MEXT. (2019). The national curriculum standards for grade 5 and grade 6 in Elementary School.
Section 10.
MEXT. (2022). Reiwa 3 nendo eigo kyouiku jicchi chousa no kekka nituite [2021 Survey of English Education Results]. https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1415043_00001.htm
Nakashima, T. (2021). Key points of the revised foreign language national curriculum standards (Course of Study) at elementary school and lower secondary school levels. https://www.nier.go.jp/English/educationjapan/pdf/20210623-01.pdf
Nguyen, H. T. M. (2017). Models of mentoring in language teacher education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44151-1
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers.
Cambridge University Press.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Second Edition. Sage Publications.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Todd, R., & Darasawang, P. (2020). English language teacher education in Thailand: A mix of global and local. In A. B. M. Tsui (Ed.), English language teaching and teacher education in East Asia (pp. 195–216). Cambridge University Press.
Tokyo Gakugei University. (2017). Elementary school teacher training course foreign language (English) core curriculum.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. Routledge. Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2020). Glocalization and globalization: critical issues in English language teaching and teacher education in East Asia. In A. B. M. Tsui (Ed.), English language teaching and teacher education in East Asia (pp. 1–36). Cambridge University Press.
van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching. The Althouse Press.
VanPatten, B., & Lee, J. F. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Yu, W. M. (2018). Critical incidents as a reflective tool for professional development: An experience with in-service teachers. Reflective Practice, 19(6), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1539652
