Implementación de un Cuestionario de dos fases para evaluar la Gestión de Proyectos en las

For over three decades, research on teacher cognition, or teacher knowledge, “has helped to capture the complexities of who teachers are, what they know and believe, how they learn to teach, and how they carry out their work in diverse contexts throughout their careers” (Johnson, 2009, p. 10). Thus, one concern of teacher cognition research is “understanding what teachers think, know, and believe” (Borg, 2009, p. 163). Significant work regarding teacher knowledge has come from first language (L1) literature. In fact, many L2 authors acknowledge and use the work of Shulman (1986, 1987) as a conceptual frame for exploring L2 teacher knowledge (Richards, 1998; Velez-Rendón, 2002). Shulman (1987) is widely recognized for his empirically based proposition of seven knowledge categories encompassed by the construct teacher

knowledge:

• Content knowledge

• General pedagogical knowledge

• Curriculum knowledge

• Pedagogical content knowledge

• Knowledge of educational contexts

• Knowledge of learners and their characteristics

• Knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values and their philosophical and

historical grounds. (p. 227)

When it comes to what language teachers need to know, a major construct comes into play: the knowledge-base of second language teacher education (SLTE). This knowledge base can be defined as “all professional-related insights, which are potentially relevant to a teacher’s

activities” (Verloop et al., 2001, p. 442). Thus, “a knowledge-base sets the standard for professional licensure and credentialing, and in essence defines what it means to be a

professional L2 teacher” (Johnson, 2009, p. 11). Tedick (2005) expands the definition through a listing of some of its essential components:

Research and theory on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, teacher cognition, teacher learning in formal and informal contexts, teachers’ way of knowing, teacher socialization, reflective teaching, teacher identity, values and ethical dispositions, and the nature of disciplinary knowledge. (p. 1)

For over four decades, however, the core of SLTE has been built on second language acquisition (SLA) research traditions (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, 2004, 2005; Johnson, 2009). The centrality of models of language acquisition and linguistic knowledge has been a historic convention motivated by the idea that language teachers need to know the system of the language they are teaching just as teachers of mathematics would need to have a strong

background in mathematics in order to be able to teach mathematics effectively (Troudy, 2005). However, one could argue that while knowledge of either mathematics or linguistics may be a necessary initial condition for teaching, the possession of such knowledge does not guarantee that its possessor will be able to teach their subject of specialization successfully to others.

SLTE specialists such as Freeman and Johnson (1998, 2004, 2005) and Bartels (2004) refer to this focus on SLA as ‘linguistic imperialism’ and argue that knowing what language is, how it works and how it is learned does not necessarily translate into knowing how to teach it. Freeman and Johnson (1998, 2004, 2005) propose a knowledge base that is more directly informed by instructional pedagogy, which they consider to be neglected in traditional conceptions of SLTE, and by sociocultural conceptions of language teaching. They further propose that although language may be part of the subject matter of SLTE, its status as part of what L2 teachers need to know does not imply that SLTE is a separate discipline from general

teacher education. However, these specialists agree with Tarone and Allwright’s (2005)

observation that “teach is not an intransitive verb” (p. 17), and that therefore SLA should not be ignored. Freeman and Johnson’s position is that research into the thinking processes and

knowledge base of learners of L2 teaching is sorely underdeveloped. In addition, they reject the premise that knowledge about language (KAL) and SLA may serve as the core of LTE and propose instead that it is the teacher and the teacher’s professional learning that should serve to support articulations of a knowledge base of L2 teaching. In their own words:

The core of the new knowledge-base must focus on the activity of teaching itself; it should center on the teacher who does it, the contexts in which it is done, and the pedagogy by which it is done. Moreover, this knowledge-base should include forms of knowledge representation that document teacher learning within the social, cultural and institutional contexts in which it occurs. (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 397)

Guided by the principle that a knowledge-base is not static, and breaking from the KAL- and SLA-centered language teacher education perspective, Johnson (2009) argues in favor of a sociocultural perspective on teacher cognition. The thrust of Johnson’s position is that:

higher level human condition in the individual has its origins in social life. That is, instead of assuming that there are universal features of human cognition that can be separated from the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which they emerged and are used, a sociocultural perspective focuses on sociocultural activities as the essential processes through which human cognition is formed. (p. 3)

Johnson further argues that “a sociocultural perspective also emphasizes the role of the human agency in this developmental process” (p. 4). Thus, learning does not simply come from the outside in, but from connections made by the learner between socially mediated activity and internal mediational control. The result is potential for transformation of both the learner and the activity being learned. In the case of SFL programs, one implication is that for social mediation to take place, less experienced teachers (i.e., GSTAs) and more experienced teachers need to be in communication for such learning opportunities to take place.

Providing a sense of integration in teacher knowledge, one of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) major contributions was the development of the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which “goes beyond knowledge of the subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter for teaching” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). L2 researchers have extended Shulman’s (1986, 1987, 1999, 2000) PCK construct and applied it to L2 teaching, suggesting that L2 teaching entails not only knowing language and knowing about language, but also knowing how to support others in learning to produce such language (Hawkings & Irujo, 2004).

Other specialists have proposed comparably comprehensive and detailed models of L2 teacher knowledge. Richards (1998), an L2 teacher education specialist inspired by Shulman’s (1987) construct of PCK, proposed six dimensions of L2 teacher knowledge: 1) theories of teaching, 2) teaching skills, 3) communication skills and language proficiency, 4) subject matter knowledge, 5) pedagogical reasoning skills and decision making, and 6) contextual knowledge. Although other writers sometimes conflate the second and fifth dimensions, Richards (1998) explains that the former (i.e., teaching skills) involves the development of lesson-specific competencies (e.g., activity design and implementation), while the latter (dimension 5) refers to more reasoned knowledge such as the development of longer term instructional goals. It is likely however, that there may be some overlap between these two dimensions. Richards’ (1998) suggestion that all six dimensions interact and complement one another, supports the need for an integrated and integrating knowledge base of L2 teacher education.

In considerations of knowledge about teaching, the construct of pedagogical knowledge is essential. Gatbonton (1999) defines pedagogical knowledge as the teacher’s accumulated knowledge about the teaching act (i.e. its goals, procedures and strategies), which serves as the basis for the teacher’s classroom behavior and activities. Based on findings of earlier research in

general education, Grossman (2000, p. 6) presents a list of what constitutes pedagogical knowledge including:

knowledge and beliefs concerning learning and learners; knowledge of general principles of instruction, such as academic learning time, […] wait time […] or small group

instruction; […] knowledge and skills related to classroom management; […] and knowledge and beliefs about the aims and purposes of education.

Within the field of L2 teaching specifically, Gatbonton (1999) posits the following six domains of pedagogical knowledge:

• knowledge of how to manage specific language items so that students can learn them

• knowledge about the goals and subject matter of teaching

• knowledge about techniques and procedures

• knowledge about appropriate student-teacher relationships

• knowledge about evaluating student task involvement and progress during the

lessons. (p. 46)

In a longitudinal observation study with ESL teachers in Canada, Woods (1996) was able to group into two categories a number of factors influencing classroom decision-making;

external and internal factors:

External factors are situational factors teachers take into account in making decisions (or to be accurate, what teachers know, assume and believe about these factors). Internal factors are ones internal to the decision-making process itself, i.e., the internal structuring of decisions and the relationships of decisions to each other. (Woods, 1996, p. 128) As examples of external factors, Woods (1996, p. 129) mentions: availability of materials, student attendance, class dynamics, and conversations with other teachers, among others. The internal factors are somewhat harder to decipher from Wood’s (1996) discussion but they are related to how different instructional moments within a lesson, course or activity affect a teacher’s decisions and how those decisions interrelate. Thus, L2 teachers need to develop the ability to use methodology and techniques in effective ways, in different teaching contexts and to meet different instructional purposes. Richards et al. (1998, p. 9) call this process of transforming content into learnable material “pedagogical reasoning”.