Beyond the practicum experience

Jessica Williams

The practicum is an important part of most TESL programmes; however, many novice teachers seek practical experiences beyond the practicum as part of their preparation for entering the profession. Collaborative projects between language learners and pre-service language teachers can offer such valuable practical experiences for both groups. The service encounter collaborative project is an example of an activity that provides an important link between the academic and experiential aspects of a teacher preparation programme. It is also a simple and practical way for new teachers to investigate authentic language use. In this project, pre-service teachers develop materials based on language samples they gather in collaboration with language learner partners. For the language learners, the programme provides access to authentic input, an opportunity for interaction with native speakers, as well as valuable cultural and sociolinguistic information.

The practicum in teacher education

Most TESL programmes, especially those at the post-graduate level, strive to offer a balance between a broad theoretical and pedagogical foundation and opportunities for practical experiences. For these programmes, a recurrent theme is the need for focused and well supported practical activities that prepare teachers for the classroom (Crandall 2000; Johnson 1996). Students with little background in teaching are particularly eager to expand the experiential aspects of their training. To this end, most T ES L programmes include some sort of practicum or student teaching experience. The current Directory of Professional Preparation Programmes in TESL in the United States and Canada (Christopher 2005) describes more than 80 per cent of the TESL MA programmes in the United States and Canada as offering or requiring a practicum of some kind. Typically, the core of the practicum is a guided teaching experience, but it may also include observations, analysis of videotaped classes, reective journals, and periodic meetings with mentoring teachers and/or faculty supervisors. Practice teaching experience is not limited to post-graduate programmes. Brandt (2006) reports that of the over 700 shorter, more intensive courses offered through institutions in the United Kingdom, most include a teaching practice component. In general, practica are considered opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge and skills, previously gained in the classroom, to authentic educational settings. Daresh (1990) stresses that students professional development is best fostered through participation in a variety of practical experiences throughout their training, suggesting that, in the case of TESL

68

E LT Journal Volume 63/1 January 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccn012

The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication March 5, 2008

students, such experiences should perhaps not be limited to a capstone student teaching assignment. Indeed, some pre-service teachers feel unprepared for teaching when they begin their practicum and wish that other activities had been available to prepare them for subsequent student teaching. Many teacher preparation programmes have found creative ways of expanding student teachers practical experiences beyond student teaching. Some have established partnerships with schools, most of them at the primary level, in which pre-service teachers make occasional classroom visits and participate in tutoring programmes or other kinds of service learning (for example, Ariza 2003; Hillyard, Reppen, and squez 2007; Vann and Fairbairn 2003). In fact, partnerships between Va university programmes and schools or community groups are relatively common and are an essential element of teacher education. According to Crandall, Partnerships between programmes of language teacher education and language teaching programmes or schools provide opportunities for contextualising and integrating preservice and inservice teacher education, encouraging prospective and experienced teachers, administrators and researchers to learn together as they also provide enhanced programmes for language learners (op.cit.: 35). Successful cross-institution partnerships in teacher education have several characteristics (Allum 1991; Sirotnik and Goodlad 1988): n they involve teachers in the development of partnership activities, n their goals are clear and jointly agreed upon by the parties, n they provide benets to both parties.

One programmes solution: investigating the service encounter

Several years ago faculty of the MA programme in T E S L at the University of Illinois at Chicago was looking for ways to extend the practical experiences of pre-service teachers in the programme. However, because this programme prepares teachers primarily for adult education, a university-school collaboration was not appropriate. Instead we looked within our own institution for a partnershipto the universitys intensive English programme (I E P). Our MA TESL programme has maintained a policy of collaboration and cooperation with the I E P, including observations of ESL classes by the MA students and the placement of student teachers in classes under the supervision of experienced mentor teachers. In addition, the two programmes have maintained a conversation partner programme, in which MA students are paired with low prociency IEP students, who have little other opportunity for interaction with native speakers. The programme had been moderately successful, but had not ourished, perhaps in part, because the arrangement did not have clear goals. The participants were not quite sure what they were supposed to be doing together, so conversation often lagged, or the I E P students wanted their partners to assist them with homework, something the I E P administration had explicitly requested that they not do. This situation, along with the MA students call for better integration of these experiential activities with their coursework, challenged us to re-examine our conversation partner programme and
Beyond the practicum experience 69

to try to shape it to meet the goals of both programmes in the partnership more successfully. We had several goals in reformulating the activities for the programme. We wanted them to n become goal-oriented, rather than simply conversational; n become more integrated with both programmes course work, allowing for follow-up activities in the two groups respective classes; n add value for the MA students, providing experience and useful material for their resumes or portfolios; squez (op. n provide the I E P students with what Hillyard, Reppen, and Va cit.:126) call multiexperience, that is, exposure to a variety of authentic English language input, while providing some level of support for that input. This was considered particularly important for low prociency students, who often nd participation in American life very challenging; n remain simple enough to allow low prociency learners to perform them successfully. With these goals in mind, we felt we had incorporated at least the last two characteristics of a successful partnership: our goals were clear and there would be a clear benet to both programmes. Next we needed to design activities that would meet our stated criteria. After consideration of a variety of possibilities, the course instructors in the
IE P and MA programmes decided that the conversation partner project

would focus on service encounters, that is, transactional interactions in commercial settings. The MA students would assist the ESL students in participating in real world interactions, and they, in turn, would gain insight in how these encounters occur, specically the language and structure of the interactions, and how context inuences language choice (see Gilmore 2004). Examples of service encounters include purchasing items at coffee shops and convenience stores, dropping off dry cleaning, and buying a train ticket. This focus was chosen for several reasons. Specically, these kinds of interaction are familiar to learners; they occur in all cultures, yet may differ across cultures in how they are accomplished. They are short, and usually have a fairly straightforward structure of recurring elements. These elements, which will be described in greater detail below, are routinized and reasonably predictable. These features make the interaction, and the language in it, generally accessible to low prociency learners. In addition, learning to navigate service encounters in a new culture would be extremely benecial for these students, many of whom have been in the United States for a short time. Finally, although the structure and function of service encounters are relatively simple, they can provide a window into the rich social web in which they are embedded. This too affords language learners a useful way into the host culture, an advantage that may be missing from purely classroombased instruction. Thus, the service encounter seemed ideally suited to our needs.

Integration of the project into the existing curricula

70

We changed the free-standing nature of the conversation programme and embedded it, along with the service encounter project, within an MA course on curriculum and materials development. One aspect of materials
Jessica Williams

development stressed in this course is the importance of incorporating authentic native speaker input into instructional materials. As part of this course, students learn to critically evaluate commercial materials. Often, they almost automatically conclude that such materials use idealized, rather than authentic, language. The debate as to what constitutes authentic language and its value in the classroom goes back at least thirty years. More recently Taylor (1994) has argued that authenticity is neither an abstract nor absolute quality of any text and maintains that it must be viewed not just in terms of the language, but in terms of the participants, the setting, and how the language is used. Most important, he notes that the classroom is an authentic setting and what might be considered sanitized or less than genuine in another setting might be authentic in the classroom. In fact, Guariento and Morley (2001: 348) argue that especially for lower prociency learners, the use of authentic texts may not only prevent learners from responding but lead them to feel frustrated, confused, and, more importantly, demotivated. Furthermore, in spite of pre-service teachers championing of authentic language, often they have little idea of what authentic language actually sounds like. It has long been known that our intuitions are an unreliable indicator of what speakers actually do and as a result, not necessarily a good basis for pedagogical decisions (Wolfson 1989). We therefore decided that the collection of authentic native speaker data would benecial for the MA students as well as good exposure and practice for the I E P students. The project was introduced to the MA class in such a way as to involve them as much as possible in its developmentone of our original goals. It began inductively with a series of role plays of service encounters by several members of the class while the rest of the class observed and took notes. Following the role plays, they were asked to make generalizations: n n n n n How did the encounters begin? Who initiated the interaction? What was the next turn? What was the response? How did the encounters end?

The MA students then observed several actual service encounters. In the next class, in groups, they developed ways of describing elements of service encounters. Their goal was to simplify the data collection process, in particular, to provide a framework that would make the task accessible to low prociency learners. The sequence of turn types below is a result of their analysis and represents a compromise between strict authenticity, which is undoubtedly far more complex, and the simplicity necessitated by the prociency of the I E P participants. Typical turns in service encounters
1 2 3 4 5

greeting offer request response to request response

Beyond the practicum experience

71

6 7 8

money exchange thanks closing.

Their next task was to turn this information into some sort of data collection instrument and to decide on the procedures for using it. In groups, the MA students developed a graphic organizer that the pairs could take into service encounter, one that could easily capture the interaction. Each year, the result differs slightly, but Figure 1 is typical. It allows pairs to collect language samples, information about the interaction, such as turn order, as well as demographic information, such as customer age and gender, and basic information about the location. Figure 1 shows the instrument with sample data gathered by one pair. The pairs collected data from at least four service encounters. In the rst two, the pair observed together, and the MA students modelled the process of lling out the form. In the third encounter, the MA student participated, with the I E P student watching and taking notes. It was not expected that the I E P student would be able to take the interaction down verbatim. The MA students subsequently reviewed the encounter with their partners and helped with the transcription. Normally, it is difcult to participate in an interaction and subsequently recall its details. However, because these were so simple and brief, the MA students were usually able to help ll in parts that the I E P students had missed or misunderstood. In the nal encounter, the I E P student participated, with the MA student taking notes.

From data to pedagogical materials MA students

Once the data were collected, the two programmes used them in quite different ways. As part of the requirement of their materials development class, the MA students used the authentic data as the basis for developing pedagogical activities. The project produced a considerable amount of data, in most years, about 100 encounters. Students posted their ndings online, along with collection tips and descriptions of their experiences. In this way, students could draw on a considerable amount of data in writing their materials. Their assignment was to develop materials based on the data. They were free to write for any prociency level and target any skill. Typically they used it to exploit a language or culture focus (for example, modal use or making polite requests in transactional settings) for a low prociency class. They developed communicative tasks using the language structures and functions. Figure 2 is an excerpt from the project of one student with little teaching experience that was fairly typical of these efforts (Caldwell 2006). She chose to develop a listening comprehension activity for low prociency students. She used the authentic data from service encounters in a coffee shop, and then had two native speakers record the interactions to reduce ambient noise and to ensure that the speech was clear. Each of the interactions is very shortabout four to ve turns long. They are variations on the same conversation: a reciprocal greeting, followed by an offer, a request for a beverage, the transaction, and thanks/leavetaking, much like the interaction in Figure 1. Each recording offers slightly different language for each turn (for example, How ya doing? Hows it going?/ Can I help you? What can I get you?/Id like a small coffee with cream and sugar. Ill have a large orange juice./Thanks. Have a good day.).
Jessica Williams

72

gure 1 Data collection instrument for service encounters

Beyond the practicum experience

73

The rst two steps were designed to allow students to listen for gist and a few details. The third step turns their attention to the structure of the interaction with a brief functional analysis of the language, followed by a role play.

gure 2 An example of material produced by MA students based on authentic data samples

The students projects, which also included print and digital materials, as well as lesson plans for using them, were included in the nal portfolios that all students produced as the nal course requirement.
IEP students

The IEP instructors have also utilized the service encounter experiences of their students in a variety of ways, depending on the prociency level of the students and the skill focus of the class. The most successful activities have involved lower prociency students. Following their meetings with the partners, these students wrote journal entries, describing what they had done and reporting words and phrases they had learnt. In class, they practised the language functions they had learnt in class, much as described

74

Jessica Williams

in Figure 2. Higher prociency students created entire scenarios of service encounters, complete with props and costumes, which they rehearsed and videotaped. At a gathering at the end of each semester since the projects inception, the I E P students have shared these results with the MA students, with journals, posters, skits, and videos. Some of their journal observations have provided the MA students with important insights into the experiences of the language learners. One student wrote that prior to this project, he had only bought food at vending machines or in supermarkets where the transactions could be accomplished silently. After the project, he had begun trying out his new languageand eating much better!

Assessment and reection

It is important that new components of a curriculum be assessed regularly. Yet, it would be difcult to attribute any specic aspects of language or professional development for the I E P or MA students respectively, to this project alone since, for both programmes, it was part of courses with many other components. However, it has been possible to assess student satisfaction and to have students offer their own views on the project. The nal stage of the project for the MA students included reection on their experiences. The opportunity to examine and reect on practical experiences is a crucial part of teacher preparation (Crandall: op. cit.). They were asked to post responses to their experiences on an online discussion board. Although many felt that the time devoted to the data collection portion of the project was a heavy burden given their already hectic schedules, most reported valuable learning experiences. Several observed that they had gained new insight into the struggles that second language learners faced. One student commented directly on the materials development aspect of the project: I really enjoyed the opportunity to develop materials from the ground up. I never realized how complex even simple routines like service encounters can be, and how much they are embedded in social conventions. Maybe that is why people always looked at me funny during service encounters in Thailand. I was probably doing them all wrong! My partner was saying, I want this. I want that. People probably thought he was rude. Another wrote: It was a lot more interesting to develop materials for teaching modals knowing that this information could really make a difference in a learners everyday life, especially one that I know personally. We have used suggestions from these reections to rene the project over the years, allowing us to provide better instruction to the pairs on how to structure their time. For example, we now provide more time in class for them to get acquainted before beginning any observations and we have established procedures to deal with problems we had not anticipated, such as how the participants should contact one another and what they should do when communication breaks down. For the low prociency learners in the IEP, extended reective responses are too challenging, so we have used a survey that allows them to respond more
Beyond the practicum experience 75

briey to multiple-choice questions. Here again, most of the responses were positive, with about three quarters of the students responding that they strongly agreed or agreed that the conversation partner programme had helped them to improve their English and learn about American culture. The biggest negative for most of the IEP students was the ephemeral and ambiguous nature of the relationship between their partners. They wanted an American friend, one that would last beyond the few weeks of the conversation partner programme. Although a few relationships did last, most did not. The MA students are extremely busy. They have families and established social networks; most are full-time students, and many have part-time jobs as well. They viewed the partnerships positively but as an educational and service experience, not as personal relationships. We are working to make sure that expectations on both sides are well informed and realistic. We are also developing additional data collection projects for low prociency learners that investigate other speech events such as greeting routines, and for higher prociency learners, speech acts, such as apologizing, interrupting, and asking for favours.

Conclusion

The service encounter project is constantly evolving, but in large measure, has been successful. It has allowed us to expand the practical component of the MA T ES L programme, to include experience working with non-native speakers prior to the teaching practicum. The students were involved in the development of the programme and they continue to participate in rening it. It provides an important bridge between work in their courses and their future work in the classroom. It has provided them with insight into language use in authentic discourse and how the structure of speech events may inuence language use. It also offers them a natural springboard for the creation of learner tasks and materials. For the ES L students, it provides goal-oriented interaction with native speakers, giving them access to authentic input and cultural information that they might not otherwise get. Finally, it has strengthened ties between two programmes with mutual interests. Final revised version received July 2007

References Allum, K. 1991. Partners in innovation: Schoolcollege collaborations. E D U C O M M Review 26/3: 2933. Ariza, E. 2003. TESL tutor time homework center: A collaboration of volunteer preservice teachers in a public elementary school. Urban Education 38/6: 70824. Brandt, C. 2006. Allowing for practice: A critical issue in T ES O L teacher preparation. E LT Journal 60/4: 35564. Caldwell, C. 2006. Service encounter project: linguistics 583. Unpublished course work, University of Illinois. Christopher, V. 2005. Directory of Professional Preparation Programs in T E S O L in the United States and Canada (20052007). Alexandria, VA: T ES O L.
76 Jessica Williams

Crandall, J. 2000. Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 3455. Daresh, J. 1990. Learning by doing: Research on the educational administration practicum. Journal of Educational Administration 28/2: 3447. Gilmore, A. 2004. A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal 58/4: 36371. Guariento, W. and J. Morley. 2001. Text and task authenticity in the E F L classroom. ELT Journal 55/4: 34753. squez. 2007. Hillyard, L., R. Reppen, and C. Va Bringing the outside world into an intensive English program. ELT Journal 61/2: 12634. Johnson, K. 1996. The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the T ES O L practicum in D. Freeman

and J. Richards (eds.). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sirotnik, K. and J. Goodlad. 1988. School-university Partnerships in Action: Concepts, Cases and Concerns. New York: Teacher College Press. Taylor, D. 1994. Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity?. T E S L- E J 1/2. http:// www-writing.berkeley.edu/T E S L - E J/ej02/a.1.html. Vann, R. and S. Fairbairn. 2003. Linking our worlds: A collaborative academic literacy project. TE S O L Journal 12/3: 1116. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and T ES O L. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

The author Jessica Williams teaches in the MA TE S OL programme at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests include second language writing and the effect of instruction in second language learning. She has written several professional reference books and textbooks, the most recent: Academic Encounters: American Studies (Cambridge University Press). Email: jessicaw@uic.edu

Beyond the practicum experience

77