minis...
I

 

4.
u, .
Haunt...)
.
.

.v. wt
.u. . .fiud‘
.Amflammflm .

‘-

 

v

33.4553. 4? V flgwfifiggagéy %%i V _ H 31%. ggflfim

.. ‘. : , 0.3“.

 

 

3 .LIBRARY
200‘? Michigan State
mversity

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

IN LOCO MA TERNIS:
RECENT MA TESOL GRADUATES SPEAK FROM COMMUNITY

COLLEGE ESL CLASSROOMS

presented by

ILDIKO PORTER—SZUCS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

 

Ph.D. degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Educafion
_./ 7 {- '_ ,
t/I/Q/t /// ~~//_4 (4/
/ Major Professor's Signature
/ 32T/ ‘ 6/7 *7
Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'IProMAcc8Pres/ClRC/Date0ue indd

 

1N LOCO MA TERNIS:
RECENT MA TESOL GRADUATES SPEAK FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGE ESL
CLASSROOMS
By

Ildiko Porter-Szucs

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2008

ABSTRACT
IN LOCO MA TERMS:
RECENT MA TESOL GRADUATES SPEAK FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGE ESL
CLASSROOMS
By

Ildiko Porter-Sums

This investigation focuses on recent graduates of MA TESOL programs,
exploring how they fare in community college classrooms and what implications this has
for their graduate preparation. I draw upon an online survey. in-person interviews, and a
variety of documents in order to explore the gender dynamics of ESL training and
teaching. I posit a tension between (on the one hand) the community college ESL faculty,
who construct themselves, their backgrounds, and their students using categories
typically Characterized as feminine, and (on the other hand) their TESOL programs,
which they construct using masculinized terms. The ESL teachers view their role as in
lam muternis, but the training programs prepare them in a way they perceive as
masculine. The gendered lenses structure the disparate worlds of native—English—speaking

ESL teachers and their teacher trainers.

Copyright by
ILDIKO PORTER—SZUCS
2008

To my family:
my parents Ilza and Istvan Szijcs
my husband Brian Porter-Sziics
and

my daughter Stefania

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several people have played a decisive role in helping this project come to fruition.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Brian, who has been a partner in
every way. His theoretical insight, gentle critique, unending patience, flexible attitude,
and nutritious cooking have kept me going. I would also like to express my gratitude to
baby Stefi for letting Anya write.

I would like to thank my advisor—Professor John Dirkx—and my committee
members—Professors Marilyn Amey, James Fairweather, Charlene Polio, and Donald
Freeman—for their invaluable comments and for shepherding me along the way. I am
grateful to both Michigan State University’s HALE department and Oakland Community
College for their financial assistance.

A special thanks goes to my full» and part-time colleagues at OCC, in particular,
Charlott Couch, Kathleen Reilly, and Shari Weisbaum fo.r graciously accommodating my '
schedule for many years. I would especially like to thank you for holding the fort during
my sabbatical leave.

Thanks to librarian Kate Corby, statisticians Nina Selaru and Barry DeCiceo, and
peer de-briefer John Brender. For valuable comments. I would like to thank Professor
Christen Pearson and Nigel Caplan.

My wonderful friends and family: I am grateful for allowing me to become a
hermit from time to time. I would especially like to thank my mentor—friend Hoda Zaki

and my babysitting friends Reni, Noe’mi, and Eszter.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ........................................... . ................................. I
The Study .................................... . ...... . ................................... 2
Rationale .............................................................................. 3
Research Questions and Procedure ................................................. '/
Inquiry Audiences ..................................................................... 9
Conclusion .............................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 2 '
RELATED RESEARCH ....................................................................... l I
Studying the TESOL Program ................................... . .................. l 1
Review of Research Articles ................................................ 12
Review of Theoretical Articles ........... - ................................. l3
Recent-Graduate Studies ................. . .................................. I4
The Practicum ................................................................. 15
Employment .................................................................... 16
Community Colleges ......................................................... 17
Studies in Education... ..................... , ................................. 2]
Conceptual Framework ............................. , .................................. 24
Initial Descriptive Framework .............................................. 25
Socialization of Early-Career Teachers ............................................. 26
Specific Aspects of Teacher Formation ............................................. 33
Efficacy ........................................................................ 33
Reflective Practice ........................................................... 35
Other Challenges .............................................................. 36
Mentors ......................................................................... 37
Conclusion ............................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY .............................................. . .............................. 40
Population and Sample ............................................................... 40
Design ................................................................... . ................ 44
Strategy of Inquiry ........................................................... 44
Instrumentation and Data Collection ................................................ 45
Instrumentation ............................................................... 45
Operational Definition of Key Factors in the Descriptive
Framework .................................................................... 45

vi

Narrative of Key Questions and Factors in the Descriptive

Framework .................................................................... 52
Data Sources .................................................................. 53
Data Collection ............................................................... 55
Analysis ................................................................................. 58
The Researchers’ Role ................................................................ 60
Ethical Consideration .................................................................. 61
Trustworthiness ........................................................................ 62
Timing ................................................................................... 63
Cost ...................................................................................... 64
Limitations .............................................................................. 64
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 67
Definitions ............................................................................. 68
The Survey Population ................................................................ 69
The Interviewed Participants’ Backgrounds ....................................... 71
Multicultural/Foreign Language Experiences ............................ 72
Educational Background/Former Teachers ............................... 77
Models to Avoid ..................................................... 79
Models to Emulate .................................................. 80
Family ......................................................................... 84
Faith ............................................................................ 85
The TESOL Programs ................................................................ 86
Survey Data ................................................................... 86
TESOL Professors ............................................................ 92
Preparation for the Classroom ............................................. 96
Theory vs. Practice ........................................................... 99
Practicum ............................................................................... l 1 l
Supervision .................................................................... 1 12
Institutional Context ................................................................... 121
Description of an ESL Program ..................................................... 123
The Teachers’ Perceived Classroom Realities .................................... 134
In Loco Maternis ............................................................. 134
Difficulties and Successes ............................................................. 143
Difficulties .................................................................... 143
Interpersonal Difficulties ........................................... 143
Theory vs. Practice .................................................. 152
Work Conditions ..................................................... 159
Successes ...................................................................... 169
Success based on its Source ........................................ 170
Success based on its Content ...................................... 174
Conclusion .............................................................................. 180

vii

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 182
Discussion .............................................................................. 182
Research Question 1 Answered ............................................ 183

Research Question 2 Answered ............................................ 184

Research Question 3 Answered ............................................ 185

Pre-Entry Influences ................................................ 185

Graduate School ..................................................... 186

Institutional Factors .................................................. 190

The Role of Memory ......................................................... 191

Revised Descriptive Framework ............................................ 193

Gendered Lenses .............................................................. 196

Abstract vs. Concrete ................................................ 199

Relevance .............................................................. 204

Institutions ............................................................. 206

Good Teaching? ....................................................... 210

Recommendations ..................................................................... 21 1

For TESOL Programs ........................................................ 212

For Community Colleges .................................................... 213

Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................... 214
Conclusion .................... . ......................................................... 216
APPENDIX A: Online Survey ............................................................... 218
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol ..................................... . ..................... 224
APPENDIX C: Informed Consent Form .................................................... 228
APPENDIX D: MA TESOL at Eastern Michigan University ............................ 230
APPENDIX E: MTESOL at Arizona State University .................................... 233
APPENDIX F: MA TESOL at Michigan State University ................................ 235
APPENDIX G: MA TESL at Andrews University ......................................... 237
APPENDIX H: MA TESL at Kent State University ...................................... 239
APPENDIX 1: Letter to TESOL Departments .............................................. 241
APPENDIX J: Letter to ESL Departments at Community Colleges .................... 243
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 245

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Research Questions Versus Survey and Interview Questions .................. 52
Table 2: Survey Respondents .................................................................. 70

Table 3: Satisfaction with MA TESOL Preparation for Teaching and Non-Teaching 97

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Initial Descriptive Framework of Factors Contributing to Successful ESL

Teaching in Community Colleges .................................................... 25
Figure 2: Graduate Institutions of TESOL Degree Holders ............................... 87
Figure 3: Student Teaching during MA TESOL ............................................ 90
Figure 4: Length of Student Teaching During MA TESOL ............................... 91
Figure 5: Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions 21 and 22 ....................... 98
Figure 6: Teaching-Related Duties at the Community Colleges ......................... 133

Figure 7: Revised Descriptive Framework of Factors Contributing to Successful
ESL Teaching in Community Colleges .............................................. 194

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

It was approximately six years ago that I was sitting in the office of the program
coordinator of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) at Michigan State
University (MSU) trying to decide whether this was the right venue for me to continue
my studies toward a research degree. I had done a lot of preliminary work investigating
the various disciplines of interest such as linguistics, applied linguistics, English as a
second language, and education. I had even considered waiting for a program that was
only in the planning stages to be launched years later. Eventually, I chose the College of
Education at MSU, but one question still remained: would HALE or Teacher Education
(TE) prepare me better to research the preparation of instructors like myself?

As I sat there, I recalled how years earlier in my first ESL teaching job at a
community college with my newly earned master’s degree in my pocket I was facing a
classroom full of eager students and the chairperson of the ESL department. During that
lesson. I was struggling to teach paragraph writing. In response to student questions. I
could confidently and enthusiastically recite the definition of a paragraph, for instance,
but both my confidence and my enthusiasm quickly waned when Students “weren’t
getting it" despite my lecturing, modeling. and error correction by providing the right
answer. The conversation between the chair and me following that lesson marked the
beginning of a year-long mentoring relationship. Over hundreds of cups of tea. she spent
hours on end helping me think through my lesson plans and play-acting activities. After

nearly every lesson, she would challenge me to reflect on how each lesson went and

suggest alternate ways of delivering the same material. I had been a teacher on paper but
as a result of her effort, I was turning into a teacher in person as well.

What got me to the HALE office years later was a desire to understand whether
my experience as a novice teacher was shared by others. However, I soon discovered that

‘fi‘O‘
I

what I was looking for—the place where instructors (With a small and not as an
academic title) were taught to teach-mdid not exist. The training of classroom teachers
took place in the TE department but only for grades K-12. On the other hand, the
preparation of researchers and subject matter specialists in post-secondary settings took
place in HALE. If I wanted to study the pedagogical preparation of teachers for post—
secondary classrooms, I would need to look to the combined wisdom of various academic
disciplines.
The Study

A sensitive ear will discern two cries. One calls for the need for English as a
Second Language (ESL) teachers due to a growing foreign—bom population in the United
States and an increasing number of these immigrants attending community colleges. The
other one calls for improvement in the preparation of ESL teachers in master’s—level
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)l programs. Although dozens
of studies purport to examine the effectiveness of this preparation, many current and

former students of these programs are, like I was years earlier, frustrated and we do not

have a clear and comprehensive understanding why.

 

' In this dissertation. I will use several names interchangeably to refer to master‘s-level TESOL programs:
master’s TESOL. master's in TESOL. MA TESOL. MS TESOL. M.Ed. TESOL. etc.. The acronym MA
TESOL will cover all master’s programs in TESOL even those with different acronyms such as MAT
ESOL or MS TESOL.

[\J

I argue that the reason for the systemic inadequacies of master’s TESOL
preparation—be it a reality or merely a perception—lies in an incomplete understanding
of the nature of the recent graduates’ difficulties in the classroom. In other words, the
effectiveness of the program can be demonstrated only when the graduate puts the
acquired knowledge and skills to use. Therefore, in this study I set out to investigate
recent graduates of master’s TESOL programs. In this inquiry the totality of the novice
teacher’s self is considered, including experiences before, during, and since the master’s
TESOL program because they all interact with each other and shape what kind of a
teacher one becomes. 1 have developed—and based on the findings revised—a
descriptive framework (see Figures 1 and 7) that depicts the interaction of factors
influencing the success of recent graduates teaching in the community college. In this
dissertation, I apply this framework to gain an understanding of the graduates’ memory of
their classroom difficulties and of the extent to which they attribute their challenges to
their pre—entry background, their master’s TESOL preparation, and/or the work setting.
Further, the gendered lenses through which the teachers view themselves and their
TESOL programs illuminate the real reason for the inadequacies in their training: a
different view of what ESL teaching is about. The teachers view their role as in lac-n
maternis, but their training programs prepare them in a way that they perceive as
masculine. This overarching theme unites the, at times, disjointed themes that emerged
about the teachers’ realities.

Rationale
As the number of foreign-born residents in the United States has grown from 9.6

million in 1970 to 31.1 million in 2000 (The American Immigration Law Foundation,

2002; Population Reference Bureau, 2003), so has the role that community colleges play
in their education. Currently nearly 38% of all students attending a 2— or 4-year college
attend a community college (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) and one in
four students at community colleges is an immigrant, and this number is increasing
(Crandall & Sheppard, 2004; Kuo, 1999; Lo, 2001a). The burgeoning immigrant
population has led to an increasing demand for English as a Second Language (ESL)
teachers.

ESL teachers/faculty/instructors (used as synonymous terms in this study) are
trained at a variety of levels, obtaining either specialist certificates, bachelor’s degrees,
master’s degrees, or doctorates. Of the approximately 340 programs offering ESL teacher
training in the United States and Canada in 2005, the majority (180) were at the master’s
level, resulting in either an MA, M.Ed., MS, or MAT degree (Christopher, 2005).
Furthermore, because the master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) is a terminal degree, the preparation of future ESL teachers is more
or less the same as master's in TESOL studies (Muchisky, 2005). Upon graduation with a
master’s in TESOL. ESL instructors who choose to remain in the United States and teach
adults often become classroom teachers in community colleges.

In the existing scholarly literature, master’s TESOL programs have been studied
by eliciting feedback from currently enrolled students and student teachers in practicum,
as if the teachers were decontextualized, free-floating subjects, able to assess their
training during or immediately upon its completiOn. In my dissertation, I argue that to
fully understand the effectiveness of master’s TESOL programs for preparing teachers

for the community college classroom, we must first understand “the teacher” as one unit

in a much broader pedagogical process, and extend our vision backwards (to the subject
formation process through which the teacher entered the program) and forwards (to the
social process in which the teacher is continually formed and reformed in the work
place). Therefore, those who examine master’s TESOL programs cannot just gather data
by asking currently enrolled TESOL students but must elicit systematic feedback from
recent graduates who are currently teaching in the community college classroom.

In the literature, various kinds of research approaches, such as empirical studies,
conceptual pieces and theoretical musings, have been employed to investigate TESOL
preparation and its efficacy. The majority of these studies have focused on the
shortcomings of the curriculum or on the misplaced emphasis in existing programs
(Fradd & Lee, 1997; Freeman, 1989; Freeman & Johnson, 2004; Sachs, 1994, 1996).
Some have critiqued the practicum experience (Janopoulos, 1991; Johnson, 1992), others
the training programs’ philosophy (Freeman, 1989; Freeman & Johnson, 1998), others
still the program’s incomplete nature (Gonzalez & Darling—Hammond, 2000; Govardhan,
Nayar. & Sheorey, 1999; Hussein, 1995b; Lo, 2001a). While these articles have all
contributed to our current understanding of ESL teachers’ preparation, none has relied on
the voices of the end users of these programs as sources of information: the graduates.
There exist some notable exceptions in the literature that have given voice to graduates
(Gaies, 1992; Lo, 2001a). While both of these studies are important in that they report on
the experiences of recent graduates, the findings are either not disseminated (Gaies, 1992)
or discuss the experiences of a small handful of graduates who teach overseas (Lo,

2001a).

Once we turn our attention to the teachers themselves, we learn that they
experience a variety of difficulties in the ESL classroom. Specifically, they complain of
not being able to answer student questions related to the subject matter. to plan a lesson
that is well-thought-out and appropriate to the students’ level, to meet course objectives,
to ensure student understanding, to give clear directions, and to balance accuracy with
fluency (Numrich, I996; Polio & Wilson—Duffy, 1998). The aforementioned insights
were gained from current students of TESOL programs. However, work by Johnson
(1992), anecdotal evidence and my own experience suggested that pre-service teachers
and novice in—service teachers have similar difficulties. Still, until now we have no
confirmation of this in the scholarly literature.

In the first half of the literature review, I have examined research studies,
theoretical analyses, and opinion essays that investigate various aspects of ESL teacher
preparation. The recognition of gaps in the current scholarship has led me to my general
question and three specific research questions (see page 7). To fill these gaps, or to know
what questions to ask in order to learn what is not currently known about the preparation
of the next generation of ESL instructors, in the second half of the literature review, I
have turned to several other bodies of literature. Specifically, teacher education,
sociology, higher education administration, and applied linguistics have examined the
experiences, knowledge base, successes, and difficulties of novice classroom instructors
and have, therefore, informed my study. In order to understand what, if any, influence the
workplace realities have on the graduates, I have turned my attention to scholarship
investigating institutions. The unifying theme in the chapter reviewing related research is

that each and every piece is essential to the overall approach that I have developed to get

at the body of knowledge that is missing. Each of these pieces has been found to
influence the experiences of early—career classroom instructors and thus I wanted to
understand what, if any role, they may play in the development of ESL teachers.

To summarize, my review of the existing scholarship has shown that serious gaps
remain in our understanding of how native-speaking graduates of master’s TESOL
programs perceive their preparation for teaching in the community college and what the
perceived nature and sources of their successes and difficulties are. At the same time,
amidst the weaknesses of the existing literature we could see indications of how these
problems are to be addressed, namely, what sorts of difficulties we can expect these
teachers to have in the classroom and what factors may have influenced their
development as teachers. This leads me to the following specific research questions.

Research Questions and Procedure

1) What are the perceptions of recent native—English-speaking graduates about

their TESOL training for classroom work in the community col lege?

2) Do they experience (and if so, in what way) any difficulties in the classroom,

and what is the nature of their difficulties?

3) In what way can their difficulties (or lack thereof) be attributed to their

master’s program, the nature of the work setting, and/or their pre-entry

background?

To answer the questions I posed, I set out to survey the entire population of recent
graduates who fit my criteria. This was done with a two-stage, statewide study. The first

stage, a brief online survey (see Appendix A), served to provide descriptive statistical

information about the population and to identify teachers who would be interviewed. In
order to gain access to the participants I approached master’s-level TESOL training
programs in Michigan, contacted the ESL programs of all Michigan community colleges,
sent a call for participation to the MITESOL (Michigan TESOL) listserv, recruited
through personal contacts, and conducted snowball sampling. The second and main part
of the study was an in-person interview with 12 recently graduated ESL teachers (for the
interview protocol, see Appendix B). The interview centered around the key questions
depicted in the framework in Figure I, specifically on pre—admission factors, graduate-
school experience, influences at the community college, success as an instructor, and
satisfaction with the graduate preparation for teaching in a community college. This
information was complemented with selective, onsite observation of work settings and
program descriptions from the catalogs of the graduates’ TESOL institutions and of the
community colleges where the teachers work. See Chapter 3, for a complete explanation
of the methodology.

In Chapter 4, I describe and interpret the findings. I paint a picture of the teachers’
backgrounds prior to entering graduate school, their perceptions of their TESOL
preparation for community college teaching (with special attention to their practicum
experiences), and their workplace successes and challenges. As I do so, I employ a
gendered interpretive lens to illuminate the gap between the frameworks of the feminized
teachers and the masculinized training programs. In Chapter 5, I discuss the findings on
two levels. First, the discussion takes place on the surface, examining the literal meanings
of the teachers’ perceptions; based on this, I offer a revised version of the initial

theoretical framework. Next, I examine the same findings through a gendered lens, which

illuminates the deeper reasons for the teachers’ perceptions. I close by making
recommendations to stakeholders and by suggesting areas for future research.
Inquiry Audiences

This study is of potential benefit to several audiences. Faculty members in
master’s TESOL programs statewide have already expressed interest in the findings.
They would like to understand more clearly how their graduates are fairing in the
classroom and what perceptions their graduates hold of their master’s-level preparation
for the classroom. Community college administrators and ESL departments may also gain
valuable insight into the nature of their novice teachers’ workplace experiences and
develop ways to better meet their needs. Prospective and current master’s TESOL
students may learn from hearing the voices of those who have gone before them. And last
but not least, as this study examines questions at the intersection of various disciplines-—
TESOL, ESL, teacher education, post—secondary education. educational administration.
adult education, gender studies, and feminist pedagogy—researchers in these disciplines
may benefit by duplicating or further investigating aspects of this research project.

Conclusion

On the one hand, there is an ever-increasing need for ESL teachers, many of
whom will be employed in community colleges. On the other hand, while there are many
attempts at understanding the experiences of ESL teachers, most are focused on those still
in the teacher training program and not on those who have already graduated and were
able to test their skills and knowledge in the classroom. There is ample anecdotal
evidence that once these teachers graduate from the TESOL program, they often feel

unprepared to teach but we do not fully understand why. In this dissertation, I investigate

what the perceived classroom teaching realities, challenges, and successes of recent
native-English-speaking graduates of master’s TESOL programs are in Michigan,
whether they are similar in nature, and whether these difficulties and successes are
attributable to the deficiencies and strengths of the graduate training and/or other factors.
Only by understanding their life narratives (which reveal strikingly similar patterns
across a wide range of variables) can we assess how well our approach to graduate
training integrates with the perceptions, memories, lenses, and reported experiences of

classroom teachers.

CHAPTER 2
RELATED RESEARCH

The purpose of this review of literature is to situate my study in prior and ongoing
research. The following review is structured along the integrative model of Cooper (as
cited in Creswell, 2003) by broad themes in the literature. It begins with a discussion of
empirical studies, conceptual pieces, and theoretical musings mainly on the preparation
of ESL teachers. The literature clearly shows that most of the attention has been paid to
feedback from teachers-in—training rather than graduates. The review continues with the
conceptual framework, research questions, and descriptive framework. This is followed
by a continuation of review of related research from related disciplines. This second
review serves to identify the themes worthy of attention in order to answer the questions
raised by the first half of the review. A summary, which links the major variables, closes
the review.

Studying the TESOL Program

In the existing scholarly literature, master’s TESOL programs have mainly been
studied by utilizing feedback from teachers in training, which I argue limits the depth and
breadth of information that programs and scholars can gain. A number of empirical
research studies (see Fradd & Lee, 1997, 1998; Grosse, 1991; Lo, 2001a, 2001b; Sachs,
1996), conceptual pieces (see Freeman, 1989; Freeman & Johnson, 1998, 2004; Johnson
& Golombek, 2003; Richards, 1997), and theoretical musings (see Gaies, 1992; Greis,
1984; Janopoulos, 1991) have focused on the shortcomings of the master’s TESOL

curriculum or program emphasis.

ll

Review of Research Articles

In a typical outcomes assessment initiative, Fradd and Lee (1997, 1998) described
an ongoing effort to improve an MS TESOL program in Florida, in which 69 current
students were interviewed about their studies upon entry into their programs, mid-way
through their studies, and upon graduation. Between 1991 and 1997, this program
continually improved and became more challenging due to the input of pre-service
teachers. The resulting changes affected the admissions criteria by developing a formal
interview protocol, a scoring rubric, and orientation materials. which helped ensure that
each applicant was aware of the program’s expectations and demands. Based on student
feedback, the TESOL knowledge base was redefined to include computer literacy,
interdisciplinary content courses from other majors in the College of Education,
advocacy, and professionalization; furthermore, courses were transformed into a series of
activities that intentionally integrated theory and research with hands—on projects and
applications. This integration was also the most important recommendation in Sachs’s
(1996) formative evaluation interview study of first and second-year students in a
bachelor’s in TESOL program in Hong Kong. These findings also revealed that the
theory taught in the TESOL program did not match the classroom reality that students
faced. Consequently, Sachs recommended changes in the structure, content, and delivery
of courses. Similarly, Tedick and Walker (1995) described how their program for second
language education gained an emphasis on teaching ESL and how the curriculum

changed to reflect the shift in focus in response to student interest.

Review of Theoretical Articles

In addition to the aforementioned research articles, several theoretical essays also
critiqued the TESOL curriculum. Santana-Williamson (2000), for instance, advocated
“critical pedagogy,” which empowers current students to influence curriculum design.
For the last ten to fifteen years, there has been a heated debate centering on the
reconceptualization of language teacher education. Freeman (1989) and Freeman and
Johnson (1998) portrayed the current situation as one in which the overwhelming
emphasis is on content courses (such as second language acquisition and applied
linguistics). Without questioning the importance of this training, they proposed
supplementing it with language teacher education that puts equal emphasis on teaching,
its social context, and pedagogical process. Muchisky and Yates (2004), Reagan (1997),
and Yates and Muchisky (2003), on the other hand, supported the maintenance of
linguistics and second language acquisition courses at the center of language teacher
education programs and emphasized the importance of declarative knowledge of second
language acquisition for all second language teachers. The debate continues on this
theoretical level as all sides recognize the importance of improving language teacher
education and the centrality of the curriculum in accomplishing this.

In conclusion, studies and articles abound aimed at deepening our understanding
of the nature of TESOL preparation. However, the vast majority of studies utilizes the
novice teacher before or at graduation as a valuable source of information, without
considering that these students have usually not had to put their skills to use and are,
therefore, limited in their understanding of their own experiences and in the kind of

feedback they can give to programs.

Recent-Graduate Studies

Within TESOL, one of the few notable exceptions to the dearth of recent—graduate
studies is an evaluation project at the University of Northern Iowa, which developed its
own student outcomes assessment plan. Teacher trainees were evaluated by means of a
portfolio approach three times during their studies and a fourth time one to three years
after graduation (Gaies, 1992). However, this study was marked by several weaknesses to
be relevant to my study: I) it was conducted in a bachelor’s (not master’s) program, 2) it
had a small sample size; 3) it was not focused on any particular work setting. Also. while
the author reports on an ongoing effort for program evaluation, he fails to mention the
findings of any such study. Despite a thorough search of the literature, I was unable to
locate a follow-up to this study.

In K-12 teacher education, however, research studies of the kind I am advocating
are much more common. One example is Schulz and Mandzuk’s (2005) naturalistic focus
group study of students in teacher education at the University of Manitoba, in which
students were interviewed about reflection on their practice during their last two years of
study and one year after graduation. They found that despite their initial embrace of
reflection, they soon grew to be more concerned with day-to-day practicalities (especially
as they started teaching). Teachers complained that the theoretical culture of teacher—
training programs clashed with the focus on practice they found in the schools. Based on
this feedback from recent graduates, these authors recommended that teacher training
programs be tailored to bridge the gap between the vastly different realities of the

cultures of public schools and universities.

The Practicum

A much~studied aspect of the TESOL curriculum is the practicum. This
experience, which is central to many TESOL programs, is designed to address the
recommendations (cited above) for integrating theory and practice and serves as the link
between disparate skills and their application to the classroom. I argue that, indeed, much
can be learned about the effectiveness of TESOL preparation by examining how pre-
service teachers perform in the classroom, but this should still not replace recent
graduates as sources of information because practicums usually take place in sheltered
environments and are, therefore, less realistic than a real teaching position. Several
theoretical essays critique the practicum. For instance, J anOpoulos (1991) and Johnson
(1992) claimed that there is no nationwide consensus about the objectives of the TESOL
practicum. Janopoulos (1991) argued that the practicum should be based on a clear
program philosophy and at the same time be custom-tailored to the graduate students’
needs. This last point rests on the assumption that student needs in a master’s TESOL
program may be different, depending on their personal, work, or educational experiences.
This point of view was supported by Greis (1984), who argued that from the non-native
ESL teacher’s perspective, supervised practice teaching opportunities should be gradual,
ample, and varied. Specifically, Greis proposed that students from various first language
backgrounds be gradually exposed to practice, supervised teaching, and teameteaching
opportunities. I would like to emphasize two implications of these articles. First, the
practicum is one'of the key elements of TESOL preparation because it is often the first
time teachers-in—training try to make a transition from the role of student to the role of

teacher. Second, depending on the TESOL students” backgrounds, their needs during the

15

practicum may differ substantially. Practicum teachers—their experiences, successes, and
difficulties—provide a wealth of information to TESOL departments. Based on my study,
I maintain that recently graduated classroom teachers could serve as an even greater
wealth of information.

Employment

A further aspect of the TESOL/ESL literature addresses the settings in which
graduates find employment. This is highly relevant to my study because it illustrates that
many TESOL programs fail to produce teachers who can stand their ground in particular
work settings. For instance, Govardhan, Nayar, and Sheorey (1999) and Lo (2001a,
2001b), in small-scale studies, pointed to the shortcomings of MA TESOL programs in
preparing graduates to teach abroad, or in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
setting. They argued, from the perspective of graduates now working overseas, that
TESOL programs focus on the preparation of teachers for ESL rather than EFL settings.
As a result, teachers overseas encounter numerous difficulties and face resistance to
methodologies that they learned in American MA TESOL programs.

Another setting for which graduates of TESOL programs feel unprepared is
administration. Hussein’s survey study of current administrators yielded both qualitative
and quantitative data revealing that ESL programs were dissatisfied with the
administrative preparation ESL professionals had received in their master’s training, so
they mainly relied on on-the-job training (1995a. 1995b). Little seemed to have changed
in this regard, when a decade later Muchisky (n.d.) called administration a craft that was '

passed down from experienced administrators to novices because hardly any TESOL

programs offer a course on administration. The experience of one recent graduate I
interviewed confirms this weakness.

Gonzalez and Darling-Hammond (2000) and Lopes (1997) described the
problems associated with graduate ESL teacher preparation for K-12 settings, such as
inadequately trained teachers, a fragmented view of first and second languages, and a
lack of focus on hands-on classroom teaching. Though this was not the main focus of my
study, one participant who is a full-time K-12 teacher in addition to being a part-time
community college instructor emphasized how inadequately prepared she was for the
public schools. Furthermore, Perkins (1997, 1998) concluded, based on his study of
Intensive English Programs (IEP), that not only are graduates of TESOL programs
inadequately prepared for IEPs, but TESOL departments also have an unrealistic view of
novice ESL teachers’ readiness for a_ny work setting.

Community Colleges

“Two-year colleges typically face greater challenges to unity of purpose than
other kinds of higher education institutions” (Davis. Crawford. Cutright, Fry, Liu, and
Trevor, 1997, p. 2). Brewer has also expressed this viewpoint (1999). The stated purpose
of community colleges—providing service to the community and access to basic and
higher education—has remained stable over time. Then as now, it has served as an
“academic bridge” for students between K-12 schools, colleges, businesses, government,
and the community (Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007). However, the emphasis has
increasingly shifted from simply a teaching institution to a more business-like and
diplomatic organization with an ever-expanding clientele (Amey, Jessup—Anger, &

Jessup—Anger, 2008; Levin, 1994). In the early days, junior colleges developed as upward

l7

extensions of secondary schools. The work rules and curricula stemmed from state
education codes and the colleges were often under the control of local school boards,
with the local principal as the administrator. As the colleges grew in size and scope, they
have become unaffiliated with the school districts as a form of governing unit to the point
where nowadays Michigan’s community colleges are reported to be among the least
centralized ones (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). At the same time, community colleges in the
21” century are becoming complex organizations that face growing external and internal
pressures (Amey, Jessup—Anger, & Jessup—Anger, 2008). Nothing demonstrates this
growth in size more than the fact that in little over one hundred years, the total number of
two—year colleges has grown from 8 to over 1200 (Cohen & Brawer, 1996), at the
beginning of the 21St century, approximately one third of all higher education faculty in
the United States teach at a community college, and half of all freshmen and sophomores
attend a community college (Carducci, 2002; Twombly & Townsend, 2008). The student
body at these institutions mainly consists of part—time students who have diverse family
backgrounds, interests, and educational preparation (Corbin. 1998; Fairweather, 2006;
Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2005; Maher & Tetreault, 2001 ).

This diverse student body includes not only the native but also the nonnative-
English-speaking population. In the community college setting, ESL is one of the fastest
growing areas because of an increase in immigrant and international visa students
nationwide (Crandall & Sheppard, 2004; Kuo, 1999). Many green card holders and most
Fl visa students seek a degree and attend ESL classes at a community college so as to
improve their written and oral communication skills for academic settings. At the same

time, other immigrants attend community colleges to receive survival and job skills, as

well as everyday, non-academic communication skills (Brickman & Nuzzo, 199%,
199%; Florez, 1997). Students range from those needing remedial instruction to those
who already have substantial proficiency (Kuo, 2000). This poses a challenge for, among
others, the teaching staff of community colleges.

In addition to the challenge of working with diverse students and their needs,
these colleges often employ marginalized adjunct faculty (Curry, 2001; Gappa, Austin, &
Trice, 2005; Townsend & LaPaglia, 2000). Two thirds of the faculty at community
colleges work part time, albeit they only teach one third of the classes because in most
institutions the teaching load of adjunct instructors is capped at two or three classes
(Twombly & Townsend, 2008).2 No formal teaching credential is needed to teach at a
community college, other than a degree, some classroom experience, and a fit with the
college’s mission (Twombly & Townsend. 2008). Among full—time ESL instructors, this
is fairly easily accomplished because there is an overabundance of master’s degree
holders in search of full—time employment and a shortage of full-time positions. For part—
time employment, however, the situation is reversed; thus the qualifications of part-
timers range from a K-I2 certificate and 18 credit hours in a relevant field to a terminal
degree in TESOL (Crandall & Sheppard, 2004).

Community colleges are reputed to be more nurturing than four—year institutions,
with better support services, such as laboratories, tutoring, and individual instruction.
These services may be necessary to help underprepared students succeed (Perin, 2002).
Faculty at community colleges have a reputation for being more in tune with and

sympathetic to the needs of these students (Hebel. 1999). This belief is shared by at least

 

2 Other studies have found that in all of higher education (not only at two-year schools). “on average. full-
time faculty taught less than one—quarter of all undergraduate courses. The remainder were taught by
teaching assistants and part-time faulty” (Fairweather. 1993. p. 44).

19

one instructor in Fugate and Amey’s study, according to whom it is up to the instructor to
ensure that students of diverse backgrounds understand the material (2000). Teachers
who lack the necessary pedagogical preparation should receive professional development
immediately. This emphasis on teaching is perhaps one reason why reports and studies of
more or less successful professional development programs at various community
colleges abound in the literature (Carducci, 2002; Ebersole, 2003; Lowry & Froese, 2001;
Lyons & Kysilka, 2000). However, some raise the question whether the stated
institutional mission of putting student learning first isjust lip service (Cohen & Outcalt,
2001; O’Banion. 1994). Cohen and Outcalt have found in their study of 1500 community
colleges that faculty have lost their focus on the primary mission of teaching. As
evidence they cite the decline of those community college instructors who have
experience teaching in secondary schools from approximately 60% to 45% in twenty—five
years. Furthermore, on a variety of measures indicating commitment to teaching (such as
revising syllabi, receiving teaching awards, participating in professional development,
and showing commitment to the institution), doctoral seekers and-the dwindling—full—
time faculty scored highest.

Recent master’s TESOL graduates seek employment in community colleges for a
variety of reasons. For some, it is the only opportunity available in a tight postsecondary
job market; others deliberately choose this alternative because it allows them to teach in
higher education without obtaining a doctorate, because of the potential for higher
salaries, or because they themselves have positive memories of being a student at a
community college (Fu gate & Amey, 2000). For all these reasons, the community college

remains an appealing option to many ESL instructors who have recently graduated from

US—based master’s in TESOL programs and therefore this setting is an important one that
the master’s TESOL program should consider in its training purposes.

To summarize this segment on TESOL preparation for particular jobs, it is crucial
to be aware that graduates of TESOL programs are often required to function in a variety
of settings, performing numerous tasks over the length of a career and often even
concurrently. This is the case for several teachers I surveyed and interviewed. Despite
this reality, I am not aware of any studies or even theoretical articles addressing the state
of ESL teacher preparation for community colleges, which is one of the most common
settings ESL instructors are employed at. This is especially surprising given two
characteristics of community colleges: an increasing need for ESL teachers and a
challenging work environment.

Studies in Education

Now I will turn my attention outside TESOL/ESL, specifically to the field of
education, where there is a parallel movement to improve the quality of teaching and
learning. In response to criticism inside and outside the academy (particularly the charge
that higher education is failing to adequately prepare students for work and the global
marketplace, that existing curricula fail to integrate student learning, and that professors
spend little time teaching) (Austin, 2002a; Dallimore. 2003: Fuhrmann, 1996; Nyquist,
Manning, Wulff, Austin, et al., 1999; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000; Stanton, 1996),
colleges and universities have been exploring various methods to demonstrate that
students are indeed learning. Systematic assessment programs intend to Show just that.
Palomba and Banta (I999) define assessment as “the systematic collection, review, and

use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving

21

student learning and development” (p. 4). Assessment can take many forms, but as
pointed out in the “Greater Expectations” report (American Association of Colleges and
Universities, 2002), the current ad-hoc assessment measures, which only occur to satisfy
accreditation requirements, are not satisfactory, and institutions must begin to engage in
systematic and multiple-means assessment. Indeed, if assessment is to shape the learning,
teaching, and curricular practices, it must include direct evidence of learning, reflect what
is known about how students learn, and share this information with multiple audiences,
so that these efforts lead to reflection and action by faculty, staff, and students (Palomba
& Banta, 1999).

A related movement is aimed at improving education through the “scholarship of
teaching and learning.” According to the “Greater Expectations” report (American
Association of Colleges and Universities, 2002), most university professors were trained
as researchers, not as teachers. Thus students are often taught by faculty who may
themselves have never been taught how best to facilitate learning. This was the
observation—nearly verbatim——of at least one of my interview participants as well. This
may, then, lead to a further challenge. The nature of the professoriate may change by the
time the students of these professors occupy faculty roles themselves. Current professors
“must prepare the next generation of faculty members for roles, responsibilities, and
challenges that [they] can only suspect, for academic lives that may be very different
from [their] own” (Austin, 2002b, p. 121). The primary emphasis on research in doctoral
programs may be appropriate for those few who will find employment in a like—
doctoral—setting. However, for the majority of graduates, who will work in other four-

year institutions of higher learning, faculty life may consist of daily teaching and service

k.)
IQ

and limited time—albeit considerable pressure—for research (Austin & McDaniels,
2006; Nyquist, Manning, Austin, et al., 1999). Of the trilogy of roles faculty must fill—-
teaching, research, and service—not all receive equal attention; at four-year institutions;
the reward structure continues to favor research over the other two components of faculty
roles (Fairweather, 1993; Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995; Fairweather, 2002). Throughout
academe, there is a call for increased attention to teaching and learning and for faculty
rewards to reflect this shifting emphasis"

Since Boyer (1990), many have advocated an enlarged definition of scholarship
(e.g., A. E. Austin, personal communication, November 2004; Austin & McDaniels,
2006; Gaff, 1996; and Shulman, 1999). Specifically, critics have argued that systematic
inquiries into teaching and learning should, upon dissemination, be considered
scholarship and be rewarded as such. Interestingly, in TESOL a very similar suggestion
has been made, albeit with different terminology. Bartels (2002) complained that teacher
trainers (i.e., university professors) have not attempted to improve their curricula by
systematically researching the classroom practices of graduates of their own master’s
TESOL programs as a curricular improvement measure. Muchisky and Yates (2004)
allowed that such classroom research was, in fact, very rare. Still Fradd and Lee (1998)
suggested that program assessment does occur in many TESOL programs, but virtually
none of the results are made public. Many projects are done to satisfy federal funding
agencies, university mandates, or internal interests. It is unknown, however, how many
use this opportunity for program improvement and actual changes. I maintain,
nevertheless, that TESOL programs must begin to engage in the kind of inquiry that I am

advocating (i.e., making the study of recent graduates’ perceptions a regular part of

 

3 - . . . .
For a revrew of scholarship on socralrzatron. see pages 26—33.

23

scholarship in every TESOL program). Furthermore, they must begin to gather and
disseminate this information systematically.

To summarize the literature thus far, there is ample evidence that the need for
ESL teachers is increasing and that many will be employed at community/two-year/junior
colleges. Furthermore, a great deal has been written on the appropriateness and
effectiveness of TESOL programs to prepare future ESL teachers and on the experiences
of the future teachers. What is missing from the current thinking is attention to those
teachers who have already graduated and have been able to test their Skills and
knowledge in any ESL classroom (in a community college or elsewhere).

Conceptual Framework

There is rich anecdotal evidence that once ESL teachers graduate from the
TESOL program, they often feel unprepared to teach but because we have given little
attention to this population, we do not fully understand why. In this empirical,
interpretative, historical, cross-sectional, phenomenological dissertation, I would like to
understand what the perceived realities, challenges, and successes of recent native-
English-speaking graduates of master’s TESOL programs are, whether they are similar in
nature, and whether these perceived difficulties and successes are attributable to the
deficiencies and strengths of the graduate training and/or other factors. This general
question leads me to the following specific research questions.

1) What are the perceptions of recent native—English-speaking graduates about

their TESOL training for classroom work in the community college?

2) Do they experience (and if so, in what way) any difficulties in the classroom,

and what is the nature of their difficulties?

3) In what way can their difficulties (or lack thereof) be attributed to their
master’s program, the nature of the work setting, and/or their pre-entry
background?

Initial Descriptive Framework

In order to understand the phenomenon of success in community college ESL

teaching, based on a review of the existing literature I have developed an Initial

Figure l - Initial Descriptive Framework .of Factors Contributing to Successful ESL

Teaching in Community Colleges

 
    

2. Master’s TESOL Experience
'3‘ Instructional Process. Quality.
Philosophy
Fit
Student Effort
Mentorship
° Practicum

 
      

O
.0

   

O

     

O

   

o
.0

      
 

O
0.0

   
  
 

  

0.0

 
 
   
  
   
  

4. Post-Graduation

 
   
  
   
    
  

  
   
  
   
  

     
   
 

Outcomes
1. Pre-Admission .° Ability to Function In the 3. Work Settlng
, . . Classroom '3' Fit
°.° Indrvrdual , . . . . .
°.° Satrslactron With the Graduate 0:0 Full—Time / Adjunct
Factors :
Program Status

°:° Education
03° Teaching Experience

   

.0

° Nature of Work Setting

0

 

Descriptive Framework (see Figure l). The inside circle of the framework contains the

two questions related to success as an instructor and satisfaction with graduate

preparation for teaching in a community college. The outside circle contains three more

key questions that have arisen from the literature and three pilot interviews: pre-

admission factors, graduate school experience, and the nature of the work setting.
Socialization of Early-Career Teachers

The first half of the literature review has examined research studies, theoretical
analyses, and opinion essays that investigate various aspects of teacher preparation,
mainly that of ESL teachers in TESOL programs. The recognition of gaps in the literature
has led me to the aforementioned general question and three specific research questions
(see pages 24-25). In order to fill the gaps in the scholarship thus far (i.e., to be able to
understand what is not known about the preparation of ESL teachers and what specific
effects that may have on their ability to teach in a classroom), I have turned to several
other bodies of literature, specifically applied linguistics, K-I2 teacher education,
sociology, and postsecondary education. All these fields have examined the experiences,
knowledge base, successes, and difficulties of novice classroom instructors. In the
following review of relevant literatures, 1 indicate the ways in which their findings inform
my study.

In a broader sense, my research investigates the process by which teachers are
formed. Therefore, it is necessary to turn to the teacher and faculty socialization
literatures. As I do, I illuminate divergent views on the stages of socialization and the
importance of each stage in the formation of teachers and professors. In order to

distinguish between the bodies of literature that a particular point of view comes from, on

the ensuing pages I will use different terminology: when referring to studies from K-l2
teacher education, I will use “teachers,” and when speaking of the higher education
literature, I will use “professors” and “faculty.” In both bodies of literature, the most
widely accepted definition of socialization comes from Merton, Reader, and Kendall
(1957). They define socialization as “the process by which people selectively acquire the
values and attitudes, the interest, skills, and knowledge - in short the culture — current in
the groups of which they are, or seek to become, a member” (p. 287). Numerous higher
education scholars have examined the importance of graduate school, where future
faculty are found to acquire many of the values that they will need in an academic
position (Austin, 2002a, 2002b; Bess, 1978; Clark, 1987; Clark & Corcoran. 1986;
Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995; Finkelstein, 1984; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993).

Although the emphasis among scholars of higher education when examining
faculty socialization is on beginning with the graduate school experience, this process of
becoming a professor (or teacher) does not start and end with the training program. Along
with Van Maanen (1983), Bess (1978), and Clark and Corcoran (1986), Austin (2002a)
acknowledged that “socialization begins with graduate school experience or even earlier”
(p. 96), a view which is widely held in the K—12 literature. For at least twelve years
during the “pretraining” period (Jackson, 1968), students engage in an “apprenticeship of
observation” (Lortie, I975) inside and outside the classroom. They do not enter training
programs as empty vessels but rather with preconceptions about teaching, being a
teacher, and interacting with students. For instance, Avery and Walker (1993) studied the
pre-conceived notions of both undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers (most of

whom were Caucasian) immediately upon entry into the education program. Students

were asked to explain the reasons for gender and ethnic disparities in student
achievement. Their answers revealed a largely simplistic and at times erroneous view of
the causes of student achievement. Before their official socialization into the profession
could have begun at the university, these teachers-to-be had already been unofficially
socialized. Clark and Corcoran (1986) refer to the first stage of faculty socialization not
as “pretraining” but rather an “anticipatory stage.” From a social—psychological
perspective this stage is very important because “attitudes, values, and beliefs tend to
stabilize in young adulthood and to become less likely to change as persons grow older”
(p. 23). Florez (1997), for instance, in a review of the scholarly literature found a link
between personal experience studying a foreign language and communicating cross-
culturally on the one hand, and later beliefs about language teaching on the other. A final
finding of interest about the first stage of socialization is self-selection for a particular
career. People must be predisposed for certain careers—such as that of a faculty
member—in their psychosocial development (Finkelstein, 1984). in their ability to enjoy
“intrinsic rewards” (Clark, 1987, p. 222), or in their self-motivation (Fairweather &
Rhoads, 1995). These qualities are also likely to endure over time, beyond the second
stage of socialization.

The next phase of teacher socialization is called “induction” (Jackson, 1968), or in
the case of faculty socialization, the entry stage (Clark & Corcoran, 1986). It begins with
the training program and lasts until the end of the novice stage, or when teachers (faculty)
become full members of the profession. During this time they partake of various
socialization events such as classroom observations and student teaching in the case of

teachers and research projects and graduate assistantships at the doctoral level.

When trying to understand the impact of the TESOL program on novice ESL
teachers to become the professionals that they are, it is essential to trace the beliefs these
teachers hold back to the source. One common way to achieve this is through reflection.
For example, Tigchelaar and Korthagen (2004) examined how reflection during the
practicum can help activate teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about what good teaching is,
with the aim of integrating theory and practice. They focused specifically on the two
types of decisions that teachers make in the classroom: “cool” (rational and planned) and
“hot” (emotional and unplanned). Their study investigated the beliefs and knowledge that
guide or trigger these decisions and how theory and best practices can shape a teacher’s
decisions. The authors recommended (among other things) that teachers focus their
reflections on few aspects of their experiences at one time, drawing upon microcosmic
theoretical principles to structure their future behavior and expectations. Marks’s (2007)
case study of four pre-service teachers’ socialization examines how, if at all, these
teachers implemented in their own classrooms what they learned in their teacher
education classes. She found that although by the end of their intern year they became
skilled at writing lesson plans that were in line with the program’s philosophy, their
behavior showed a lack of understanding of “the relationship between instruction,
assessment, management, and learning” (p. 14). Tigchelaar and Korthagen’s and
Marks’s studies confirmed and elaborated upon earlier research such as that by Polio and
Duff (1994) and Grossman (as cited in Shkedi & Laron, 2004), which argued that
teachers rely on their memories with which they enter the program, despite the training
program’s influences because that knowledge is more ingrained in them than their own

goals and intentions. Teachers’ personal beliefs often remain unchanged during training

unless some direct intervention occurs (Freeman, 1991a). Golombek (1998) suggested
that in the process of socializing teachers into the profession, professors focus on
allowing teachers-in-training to examine their own beliefs—what she calls “experiential
knowledge” ——and how they use it, and not merely on transmitting knowledge grounded
in academic research.

Not only scholarship in K-12 and TESOL but also in postsecondary education
emphasizes the inadequate impact of formal schooling on the future educator. The former
fields do this, as seen above, by demonstrating that frequently prior beliefs and attitudes
prevail into the workplace despite the intervention during the teacher training program.
The latter does not call into question the importance of the doctoral program as a
socialization force, however (Austin, 2002a; Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Baldwin &
Blackburn, 1981; Bess, I978; Boice, 1992). Instead, it questions whether the type of
socialization that occurs in graduate school accurately reflects the realities of most future
faculty (Austin, 2002a; Bess, 1978; Boice, 1992; Dallimore, 2003; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan,
Weibl, & Others, 2000; Nyquist, Manning, Wulff, Austin, et al., 1999; Rice, Sorcinelli, &
Austin, 2000). As discussed earlier in the section on studies in higher education, current
doctoral programs are accused (from inside and outside of academe) of preparing
graduate students as if they were all going to teach in research universities. This,
however, is the future of few. Most of those who stay in academe after graduation find
employment in other four-year settings or in community colleges, all of which will
require a greater emphasis on teaching and a smaller one on research.

My third research question allows that Master’s TESOL graduates’ classroom

experiences may be influenced by workplace realities. The following themes from the

literature suggest the types of factors that may impact a teacher’s classroom experiences.
Paese writes that the induction phase of teacher socialization extends past graduation
from the teacher training program, for at least three years on the job (as cited in Mohr,
2000). There the new faculty may be influenced by more—national, professional,
disciplinary, and institutional—socialization mechanisms (Clark, 1987). These often
competing influences, or “institutional sagas” (Clark, 1972, as cited in Fairweather, 2002)
of the workplace may be in conflict with the philosophy of the training program, causing
the graduates slowly to abandon what they were taught (Lawson, as cited in Mohr, 2000).
This phenomenon, also known as the wash-out eflect, may be temporary or permanent.
One such example of the socializing power of the workplace is manifested in faculty
rewards and work allocation (Austin & Baldwin, 1992; Fairweather, 1993; Jarvis, 1991).
Fairweather and Rhoads, for instance, found only a weak relationship between the
amount of graduate school socialization and the amount of time spent on teaching and
related activities at work; on the other hand, the reward structure (such as tenure
requirements) as well as the fit between the newly-arrived faculty member and the
institution were of greater importance (1995). “It makes intuitive sense to believe that the
graduate experience has a lasting impact, although the impact may be outweighed by later
factors such as faculty rewards and work allocation” (p. 191). Also, as long as the fit
between the new faculty member and the institution is close, with the help of “divestiture
socialization” any differences can be overcome (Van Maanen, I983).

Tuckman found that at a university the upper administration alone has not been
found to have enough power to affect change in new professors (as cited in Fairwather &

Rhoads, 1995) because the faculty member’s role set mainly contains his/her colleagues

31

(DeVries, 1975). However, when the message is more consistent and pervasive, change
does take place. In her cross—case study of public school teachers, Cobum (2004) found
that institutional pressures such as advocating certain teaching methodologies or forms of
assessment do reach classrooms, contrary to the widely accepted decoupling theory,
which states that teachers and classrooms are buffered from structural and procedural
changes in institutional organization. If the message was highly congruent, intense, and

9“

pervasive, teachers incorporated it somehow into their thinking. Teachers deep—seated
assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning are linked to broader movements
in the environment,” which in turn guide what makes sense to teachers at a subconscious
level and what governs teachers in the classroom (p. 234). Similarly, in a natural study of
the effects of the institutional climate on teachers, Olson and Einwohner (2001) have
found that job conditions and workplace characteristics affect teachers’ personality,
attitude, and behavior. This has also emerged as a very persistent theme in my study.
Palmer (1997) said that we “teach who we are” (p. 1). Olson and Einwohner (2001)
found that the so-called teaching self, which they define as “one’s sense of self as a
teacher” (p. 403), changes depending on how teachers are socialized by their institutions.
Fugate and Amey (2000), in their study of 22 early—career community college faculty
found that institutional support, especially during the first year, was crucial. This could
take the form of community building through social functions or (even more importantly)
instructional support through institutional faculty development programs. Nearly every
ESL teacher that I interviewed perceived the need for institutional support as vital as

well. Even so, for this external influence to take effect, the professor has to have been a

member of the faculty for approximately four years (DeVries, 1975).

32

In summary, scholars in the fields of K— 1 2 teacher education and higher education
have been interested in many of the same questions about the quality of education and the
formation of educators. They seem to have arrived at many of the same conclusions (i.e.,
stages of socialization, the importance of formal training, and the potential socializing
power of the workplace). At the same time, they also seem to have divergent findings in
several areas (i.e., the relative importance of prior experiences, formal schooling, and the
workplace as socializing agents). As for this study, the link between some pre-entry
experiences and later classroom performance is of vital importance because it suggests
that prior experiences may guide the actions of student and novice teachers without the
effect of recently studied theory. Furthermore, workplace experiences post- graduation
may also counteract what is taught at university. Especially because my participants are
recent graduates of master’s programs, it will be interesting to examine which influences
seem the strongest on them.

Specific Aspects of Teacher Formation
Eflicacy

Efficacy research has been a promising area worldwide for approximately 25
years, with implications for improving teacher education (see Chacon, 2005; Friedman &
Kass, 2002; Ho & Hau, 2004; Hoy & Spero, 2005; Labone, 2004; V. E. Lee, Dedrick, &
Smith, 1991; Raudenbush & Others, 1990; Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992).
Teacher efficacy (as it relates to the classroom) can be defined as “the extent to which a
teacher believes that she or he can influence students’ behavior and achievement”
(Friedman & Kass, 2002, p. 2). Findings suggest that this perception of effectiveness may

work as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers with equal knowledge but varying levels of

1‘»
DJ

belief in their ability to effect positive change in their students may, in fact, be able to
apply their knowledge and persist at teaching tasks to varying degrees. Specifically,
teacher efficacy has been linked to student efficacy because it affects, for example, the
teacher’s perseverance when faced with student error. Eff icacious teachers tend to be less
critical when students make errors and they spend more time with struggling students.
Teachers with higher efficacy are more optimistic about what they can accomplish in the
classroom, they rate the quality of their preparation higher, they are less bothered by the
challenges of teaching, and they are more likely to remain in the field (Chacon, 2005;
Friedman & Kass, 2002; Ho & Hau, 2004; V. E. Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). Student
teachers have generally high levels of perceived self—efficacy, which then drops during
their first year of teaching and does not increase until several years later (Bandura, I977;
Hoy, & Spero, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Eventually, it tends to
increase along with their feelings of autonomy (V. E. Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991;
Raudenbush & Others, 1990), their professional certainty over their role in the classroom
(Munthe, 2003), their preparation and their knowledge of the subject matter (Raudenbush
& Others, 1990), their students’ abilities and level of engagement (Raudenbush & Others,
1990), their collaboration with colleagues (Raudenbush & Others, 1990), and the sense of
accomplishment they derive from their training and professional development program
(Hoy & Spero, 2005). The teacher must feel that success occurred because of ability, and
not merely because of luck. Friedman (as cited in Hoy & Spero, 2005), described the
development of a sense of efficacy among teachers through their careers. At the college
teacher preparation and student teaching stages, the feeling of efficacy increases;

however, during the first year of teaching the initial unrealistic optimism for stellar

34

teaching performance is Shattered, and the level of confidence decreases along with it.
This sense of efficacy stabilizes as teachers gain more experience and become less
subject to change (Bandura, I977; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Research on
teacher efficacy has, thus, illuminated how teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities and
possibilities affect student learning.
Reflective Practice

Another, closely-related theme that is worth exploring in my survey study is
Dewey’s model of “reflective practice,” which lies at the heart of research on teacher
efficacy (H.-J. Lee, 2005). The goal of critical reflection—or inquiry—is to develop
teachers’ self-awareness about why they employ particular instructional strategies and
how they can improve their teaching to have a positive effect on their students (H.-J. Lee,
2005; Schulz & Mandzuk, 2005). This approach can also help reconcile classroom
realities with instructor goals and expectations (Florio-Ruane, 1989), as it did for me at
my first teaching job at the community college. In this process, they systematically think
about their own practices, consult others, draw on research, and adjust their teaching
accordingly (Schulz & Mandzuk, 2005). Based on their work with novice pre-service
ESL teachers, Holten and Brinton (who are proponents of reflective teaching) urged
practicum teachers to use dialog journals as self—reflection tools (1995). The post—lesson
interview with the practicum supervisor is also recommended as a good time to reflect
(Chalies, Ria, Bertone, Trohel, & Durand, 2004), and this seems to be the preferred
method in two of the MA TESOL programs from which my participants graduated.
However, there are difficulties involved in inquiry as stated in the literature: the open-

ended nature of the process and the potential to disrupt the status quo that the school,

'JJ
'Jt

students, and parents are used to (Schulz & Mandzuk, 2005). A further difficulty in
achieving effective reflection is that it is dependent on accurate and thorough recall of
classroom events, which improves with practice but is missing initially (Allen &
Casbergue, 1995). Finally, in an innovative reflection project, Freeman (1993) examined
the process by which four teachers renamed—and as a result reconstructed—their
practice while enrolled in an in-service master’s teaching program. These teachers
reflected on their everyday classroom experiences and articulated them in the
professional language of the field. This renaming effected the renegotiation of their
conceptions of practice. He found that the labels teachers used amongst themselves not
only expressed but also shaped their thoughts, and he recommends that the teacher
education program focus on transforming these thoughts in order to transform practice.
Other Challenges
When developing the descriptive framework that served as the basis for my
survey and interview questions, I made use of a variety of quantitative and qualitative
studies of pre- and in-service teachers. In doing so, I have found the following aspects of
teacher development to be relevant. On a more theoretical level of teacher formation,
novice instructors may struggle with
o self-definition as a teacher (Haritos, 2004)
0 conceptions of practice, which cover the development of social and knowledge
judgment that guide teachers in problematic classroom situations (Freeman,
I991c, 1996)
«- tensions in conceptions of practice, which cover moral dilemmas related to school

context, subject matter, and students (Freeman, 1996)

0 the process of articulation, or renaming and changing previously held beliefs
(Freeman, 1996; Golombek, 1998; Kwo, I996; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004)
0 the transfer and rejection of teaching skills based on their own second language
learning experiences (Florez, 1997).
On a more practical level, early-career instructors may experience teaching-related
difficulties in a number of areas:
0 pedagogical issues such as timing, class size, board use, level of students, course
objectives, activities. classroom atmosphere, participation (Polio & Wilson—Duffy,
1998)
0 ensuring student understanding (Johnson, 1992; Polio & Wilson-Duffy, 1998)
0 preoccupation with their own teaching as opposed to students’ needs and student
learning (Haritos, 2004; Mackey, Polio, & McDonough, 2004)
0 the maintenance of the flow of motivation and involvement (Johnson, 1992;
Mackey, Polio, & McDonough, 2004), and
0 the giving ofclear directions (Numrich, I996; Polio & Wilson-Duffy, 1998).
To summarize, the aforementioned studies have identified challenges that recent
graduates may experience either with becoming teachers or with practical issues in the
classroom. My second research question focuses on whether the experiences of my
participants (ESL teachers in community colleges) are similar to those found by other
scholars in other settings.
Mentors
A final factor mentioned in the existing literature - one that has proven to be

significant to my study — is the support of mentors and colleagues. Mentoring fits with

what we know about how individuals learn, in that the interpersonal relationship of a
mentor and protege gives space for the prote’gé to grow personally and professionally in
“experiential, situated learning experiences” (Chalies et al., 2004; Kerka, 1998; Klug &
Salzman, 1991; Vonk, I995). Especially because teachers in many settings (for example,
in community colleges) tend to work in isolation — apart from colleagues but surrounded
by students — socialization is difficult (Lortie, 1975). This is often exacerbated by the fact
that full-time employment is hard to come by without significant teaching experience.
Part-time, or adjunct, professors often feel alienated, ignored, and subordinated (Abbas &
McLean, 2001). In order to help the recently graduated teachers to integrate into school
life, it is crucial to have support from experienced colleagues. Farrell (2003), in a study
with Singaporean high school teachers, found that successfully mentored teachers are
more effective and leave the profession at a lower rate in the first three years. Mentoring,
however. is more than just a practicum supervisory or cooperating teacher role, in that in
mentoring there is a desire and choice by both parties, the role is not imposed from
above, and great emphasis is placed on developing a relationship between the student
teacher and the mentor (Awaya, McEwan, Heyler, Linsky, Lum, & Wakukawa, 2003).
Conclusion

To conclude, the literature suggests that the teacher is a dialogical. constantly
evolving being and that the workplace environment as well as all prior experiences
influence both the teacher and the teaching in the classroom. Despite the fact that the
aforementioned studies have been conducted on participants who vary by such factors as

age, education, work setting, and teaching experience, I can build on this scholarship;

these studies present findings relevant to my own work with recently graduated ESL

teachers in the community colleges, to which I now turn.

39

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

My study investigates the classroom realities of native speakers of English
(definition based on Boyle, 1997) who are recent graduates (within five years) of US-
based master’s TESOL programs, and who are teaching in the community college setting.
In this multi-stage study (online survey, face-to-face interview, and document analysis).
the interview of 12 teachers is aimed at the totality of the teachers’ subject formation,
including pre—admission factors, graduate-school experience, and the nature of the work
setting. The three specific research questions I pose are

1) What are the perceptions of recent native-English—speaking graduates about

their TESOL training for classroom work in the community college?

2) Do they experience (and if so, in what way) any difficulty in the classroom,

and what is the nature of their difficulties?

3) In what way can their difficulties (or lack thereof) be attributed to their

master’s program, the nature of the work setting, and/or their pre-entry

background?
In this section I describe the population and sample, design, instrumentation and data
collection, analysis, researcher’s role, ethical considerations, trustworthiness, timing,
cost, and limitations of the study.

Population and Sample

The entire population of English as a Second Language teachers in Michigan is

unknown. The closest approximation is that the membership in the statewide ESL and

TESOL professionals’ association—Michigan Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

40

Languages, or MITESOL—hovers around 300. However, this includes out-of—state
professionals, pre-service teachers, and retirees. At the same time, many practicing
teachers/instructors/professors are not members of MITESOL. Therefore, the entire
population of recent graduates teaching ESL in Michigan cannot be known either. Some
recently graduated teachers leave Michigan for overseas or out—of-state employment;
others stay but do not work in the field. Those who remain in Michigan and teach ESL
may do so in various settings; the community college, which is the focus of my study, is
just one of them.

I have limited the design of this study in several ways. First of all, only native
speakers of English were investigated because the needs of native speakers and normative
speakers differ in graduate school (Kwo, 1996). In the literature there is no widely
accepted and clear-cut definition of who is and who is not a native speaker. However,
based on Boyle’s (1997) combination of factors for the purpose of this study, I defined
native speaker as anyone who has used English continually as a dominant language at
least since the age of 5, has expertise/proficiency/fluency in it, and identifies with it
confidently/comfortably. Furthermore, I only investigated the experiences of full- or part-
time teachers in community/junior/two~year colleges in Michigan. Because of the lack of
full-time positions in post—secondary ESL, community colleges frequently offer the most
viable, albeit part—time, employment opportunities to recent graduates (Brickman &
Nuzzo, l999a; Crandall & Sheppard, 2004; Florez, 1997), and (as I expected) the
majority of my respondents were employed at community colleges as adjuncts. Finally,
only recent-graduates of master’s TESOL programs were examined. I defined recent

graduates as those who graduated from a master’s program within the last five years. In

41

the literature there is no consistent definition of “recent graduates.” Kwo (1996), in a case
study, called a teacher with two years of experience “novice.” Johnson (1992) found that
regardless of whether the student teachers have never taught before or have had less than
two years of teaching experience, their behavior was similar when teaching in a pre-
college or adult education setting. Gaies (1992) defined recent graduates as those who
have received their degrees within three years. Similarly, according to Freeman (1991a),
teachers enter an intermediate phase of expertise after about three years of experience.
Lastly, based on a study of eighteen teachers in a post-secondary intensive English
program, Mackey, Polio, and McDonough (2004) defined experienced teachers as those
with a minimum 4.5 years of full time, supervised experience Therefore, because of a
lack of consensus and in order to have the largest possible pool of participants, 1 defined
“recent graduates” as those who graduated within five years.

In my study, I attempted to survey the entire population of recent graduates who fit
my criteria, namely

V native speakers of English

V graduates of US-based master’s in TESOL programs

V graduates of programs that have a practicum or student teaching requirement

V graduates of programs that profess to prepare teachers of ESL

V graduates of no more than five years (estimated period 2000—2005) and

V current ESL teachers at a community/junior/two-year college in Michigan.
This was a multi-stage design as described in Creswell (2003) because I did not have
direct access to the majority of respondents. In order to gain access to the participants, 1

took multiple approaches. Based on the 2005-2007 TESOL Directory (Christopher, 2005)

and my local knowledge, I identified master’s-level TESOL training programs in
Michigan. I contacted all eight for access to their former students and the graduates of
seven did take the online survey. 1 also contacted the ESL programs of all Michigan
community colleges (28 in total) and received the cooperation of all but a few. I sent a
call for participation to the MITESOL listserv (mitesollistserv@umich.edu), and recruited
through personal contacts. Because the entire population of qualified participants that met
the above criteria was approached, there was no sampling problem at this stage of the
study. If anyone within the universe was left out of the study, it was due to non-response
or unavailability and not sampling flaws. Everyone who responded to the call for
participation was invited to take the survey but self-identified nonnative English speakers
or those who did not meet the participation requirements in any way were prevented from
progressing past some initial demographic questions and were excluded from the analysis
for the purposes of this dissertation research. I had estimated the response rate at 30
graduates; however, there were I 10 hits to the survey site and between 37 and 107
responses to individual questions.

Interview participants were selected from the brief online survey. Participant
selection at the second stage of the study was purposeful, rather than representative. I
sought to identify individuals with a wide range of experiences in order to best
understand the problem and research questions (for interview protocol, see Attachment
B). I interviewed all eleven recent graduates who met the selection criteria and
volunteered to be interviewed. Additionally, I included one more graduate in the
interviews who, despite having graduated six years before, took a leave of absence from

the field for nearly two years and exhibited the same characteristics as the other eleven.

43

Concurrent to the interviews, I observed the work setting in general and the classrooms,
office, and available resources in particular. I also collected documents from the
community colleges and program descriptions of graduate TESOL programs from
catalogs, websites, and the TESOL Directory (Christopher, 2005) in order to triangulate
the data.
Design

Strategy of Inquiry

Based on Denzin and Lincoln (2000), this is an instrumental collective case study
(i.e., an instrumental study extended to several cases) (p. 437). Individual cases were
selected with the expectation that they would exhibit certain characteristics. They were
examined to gain insight into the perceived reality of early-career ESL teachers in the
community college classroom and the possible contributing factors to this perception.

A qualitative approach was necessary in order to understand the teachers’
perceptions of their classrooms. A semi—structured interview format allowed for
important t0pics to emerge and for the participants to raise the most relevant topics.
Based on the literature and anecdotal evidence, I was able to identify a number of factors
that I anticipated being relevant to my research questions. However, because no similar
study has ever been done, further narrowing and focusing prior to the actual study was
impossible. Therefore, this study is largely exploratory. The very brief online survey
provided descriptive statistics of the population and to identify those teachers who
eventually participated in the interview. The study began with an Intemet—based survey
(see Appendix A for the data collection instrument) in order to provide a descriptive

profile of the participants. This was followed by onsite, .in—person interviews (for the

protocol see Appendix B and for the informed consent form see Appendix C), site
observation, and the collection of artifacts.
Instrumentation and Data Collection

Instrumentation

I developed a survey instrument (see Appendix A) based on the key questions
depicted in the initial descriptive framework introduced in Table I. The survey provided
descriptive statistical information about the population and helped to identify teachers
who would be interviewed. The second stage of the study consisted of a 75-90-minute
semi-structured interview (see Appendix B). The questions have been developed based
on the review of the literature, my own experience, and anecdotal evidence, and reflect
what I understand to be the key issues involved in the phenomenon. An earlier version of
these interview questions was field tested by three recently graduated ESL teachers, as
part of another project. Based on their input and further development in my thinking, the
survey was revised to its current form.
Operational Definition of K ey Factors in the Descriptive Framework

The following is a brief narrative operationalizing each key issue in the
framework depicted in Figure 1. For a table depicting the relationships among the issues,
the research questions, and the questions on the survey and the interview versus articles
referencing these issues in the literature, see Table 1. The framework I have developed
examines how events before, during, and after the master’s program may influence how
successful graduates feel in the classroom and how they view their master’s preparation

in hindsight.

45

Within the pre-admission category, there may be a variety of individual factors
contributing to the existence, degree or lack of difficulty. One such individual factor is a
person’s skill set to become a teacher (Chan & Elliott, 2004; Clark 1987; Finkelstein,
1984) and specifically, a teacher of non—native speakers of English. This category
comprises aptitude, or qualities, such as whether someone is a people person and enjoys
working with students, as well as competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes)
(Korthagen, 2004) that may be acquired and enhanced such as being able to provide clear
explanations or possessing cross—cultural communicative competence (Sehlaoui, 2001).
Another individual factor pertains to one’s ease and capacity of learning and adapting. A
further factor includes life experiences that may shape how the roles of the student and
teacher are viewed, how good teaching is seen, and for example how error correction is
treated (Golombek, 1998; Numrich, 1996). Teacher candidates are not blank slates when
they enter graduate school but they have been shaped through the “apprenticeship of
observation” (Lortie, 1975); having observed their own teachers in action has shaped how
they view teaching and learning. Furthermore, whether the teacher has an understanding
of or experience with community/junior/ two—year colleges may influence his/her ability
to adjust to the environment and empathize with the student body. Finally, intercultural
experiences, such as the novice teacher’s personal experience with learning another
language, interacting with non—native speakers of English while growing up, or visiting
another country, may shape the kind of personal-practical knowledge a teacher develops .
The descriptive framework (see Figure I) has been developed under the assumption that

all of these factors may contribute to how receptive the future teacher will be to

46

influences in graduate school and how smoothly the graduate transitions into the
community college classroom and becomes a proficient ESL instructor.

In addition to the individual factors that have shaped student teachers, relevant
education prior to admission to the master’s TESOL program may be important. This——
according to the participants in the pilot study—is understood as majoring or getting a
degree in teaching, foreign language education, speech therapy, literacy, or linguistics,
for instance. Fields with little transferability into teaching ESL may be computer science,
accounting, hotel management, or engineering. Even though the literature does not
directly address the connection between pre-entry and graduate education in terms of
relevance, I believe that because people are products of their cumulative experiences, the
influences that have shaped them may directly or indirectly influence their experiences in
graduate school and beyond.

The third main element of the first issue comprises formal or informal teaching or
tutoring experience prior to entry into the master’s in TESOL program. This may also
have a direct and/or indirect impact on the kind of teacher one becomes after graduation.
Kwo (1996) has found that the amount of prior teaching experience determined the nature
of students’ difficulty ranging from recognizing the relevance of coursework to teaching
with novices, all the way to clearing the mind from prior conceptions with experienced
teachers.

In the teachers’ life histories, the second key stage includes influences during the
master’s TESOL program but not necessarily due to it. Most importantly, this refers to
the make—up of the curriculum itself (which courses are mandatory and which are

optional, whether there is a practicum, what graduation requirements there are), the

47

nature of the instructional process (student- or teacher—centered, lecture or seminar
format, whether reflective thinking is emphasized), the program philosophy and intent
(whether its focus is on theory and/or skills and/or adaptation), and the quality of
instruction.

Furthermore, the fit between the interest of the master’s TESOL Student and the
focus of the graduate program may influence how the teacher training is perceived. Fit
can be looked at as the students’ fit with the graduate program, the students’ fit with the
workplace and the program’s preparation for a Specific work environment such as K-4
setting or EFL. Only the first kind of fit is a consideration during graduate school. I will
define the fit between the prospective teacher and the teacher preparation program as how
closely their stated or unstated goals match. A mismatch may occur, for instance, if a
student whose goal is to become a researcher applies to a program whose goal is teacher
preparation for the public schools and where the curriculum does not address research in
TESOUESL (Reynolds, Ross, & Rakow, 2002).

The third sub-category of the second influencing factor is student effort. Though
not specifically mentioned in the literature, I expected that student effort would also
influence the benefits that a student accrues from graduate school. I have defined student
effort as the combined effect of how much the student studied, how focused he/she was
on his/her studies, and to what extent he/she took advantage of learning opportunities
provided during graduate school. This also includes additional teaching and tutoring as
well as seeking out opportunities to interact with non-native English speakers.

One of the most valuable aspects and the most important socializing agents of the

TESOL preparation is the student-teaching requirement, or the practicum (Mohr, 2000).

48

This is often the first opportunity for future ESL teachers to connect theory to practice
(Janopoulos, 1991). In addition to or instead of the practicum, there may be other
opportunities to teach during graduate school, for instance as a teaching assistant or at a
language program outside the university. However, only graduates of programs with a
practicum, or student-teaching element, were invited to participate in this study.

A final element shaping the future teacher may be the opportunity to be mentored,
or guided, by an experienced teacher in the field (Holten & Brinton, 1995). Both a mentor
and a practicum supervisor may fulfill the apparently crucial role of supervising and
providing critical feedback to the graduate student on his/her teaching (Berg & Others,
1989; Lortie, 1975). Hence, in this study I am interested in the influence of mentoring on
teacher success.

The last key independent variable that may influence the recent graduate’s ability to
function as an ESL teacher includes the fit between the graduate and the workplace and
between graduate preparation and the specific work environment. The former refers to
the extent to which the teacher enjoys working at the community college, the latter
whether the philosophy of the graduate program matches that of the workplace. Fit as
discussed in the previous point can refer to the fit between students and the graduate
program, students and the workplace, and graduate program and a specific work
environment. I defined the first kind of fit in point 2. Now I will define the fit between
the teacher’s individual characteristics and the work setting as any of a variety of reasons
why a particular teacher prefers one work setting over another. This could range from
location, to personality, or to institutional culture. For instance, a teacher who thrives on

autonomy may feel stifled in a micro—managed work setting (Labone, 2004).

49

Ample studies exist that have investigated the effects offit between the teacher-
training program and the school where the graduate is working (Reynolds, Ross, &
Rakow, 2002; Vavrus, 2001). A problem with fit can occur, for instance, if the program
emphasizes student-centered teaching to teachers who, upon graduation, will teach in an
EFL setting where teacher-centered instruction is the norm. Further determining factors
may be the actual work responsibilities, for instance what skills and what levels the
instructor is expected to teach. Some skills such as pronunciation and grammar, for
instance, require more specialized knowledge by the teacher than conversation, and it
may not be addressed adequately by many TESOL programs.

Another factor isqu- versus part-time status. lrnplications of part-time employment
are that the teacher may experience isolation, may feel inferior to full-time colleagues
(Curry, 2001), may receive less institutional support, and may need to hold several jobs
concurrently (often in a variety of settings) in order to earn a full-time salary. All these
problems may impact the quality of teaching (Abbas & McLean, 2001).

The final aspect of the issues depicted in the framework is the nature of the work
setting. The institutional environment is also a source of various influences on classroom
instruction, which instructors resist or adopt to varying degrees (Coburn, 2004). In this
case, all graduates included in the study teach at community/two-year/junior colleges.
The nature of teaching ESL at a community college is different from other post-
secondary settings due to the diverse student population (Kuo, 2000), variety of academic
and non-academic subjects within ESL the teachers are required to teach (Brickman &
Nuzzo, 1999a, l999b; Florez, 1997), and the lack of full-time employment at community

colleges for classroom instructors with little teaching experience (Curry, 2001).

Furthermore, personal and professional commitments in addition to work, the availability
and applicability of staff development activities, and the opportunity to be mentored at
the beginning of one’s teaching career are all factors that may shape the recent graduate’s
teaching experience, specifically the nature, severity, and frequency of difficulty.

The inside circle of my descriptive framework (see Figure l), or the fourth
category of key factors, contains two phenomena that I investigated in this study:
success/difiiculty in the classroom and satisfaction with the graduate program. The first
one has two aspects: success and lack of success. I define success in the classroom as the
achievement of favorable teaching-learning outcomes. Success can be achieved in a
variety of tasks: timing, adjustment to class size, board use, adjustment to level of
students, meeting course objectives, appropriateness of activities, classroom atmosphere,
participation (Polio & Wilson—Duffy, 1998), giving clear directions (Numrich, 1996;
Polio & Wilson-Duffy, 1998), balancing accuracy and fluency (Numrich, 1996),
providing adequate and accurate error correction (Johnson, 1992; Numrich, 1996),
ensuring student understanding (Johnson, 1992; Polio & Wilson—Duffy, I998),
maintaining the flow of motivation and involvement (Johnson, 1992; Mackey et al.,
2004), ability to make a difference or influence student achievement, being able to
answer student questions related to the subject matter, lesson planning, and maintaining
discipline. “Lack of success” includes difficulty with the above teaching-related tasks.

The second dependent variable I investigated is satisfaction with the master’s
TESOL preparation from the perspective of a classroom teacher at a community college.

I allowed participants to define this term themselves.

51

Narrative of Key Questions and Factors in the Descriptive Framework

Table 1 matches up—first—the general research question and the three specific

questions with—second—the dependent and independent variables in the descriptive

framework with—third—specific questions in the online survey and the in-person

interview that aim to elicit answers to the research questions with——fourth—references to

each influencing factor in the literatures.

Table l - Research Questions Versus Survey and Interview Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Questions Key Questions Survey (S) References in the Literature
and Factors in & Interview
the Descriptive (1) Items
Framework
What is the nature ofthe I: I. la, 2. 4,
teachers’ reality? 4a. 5. 5a. 6. 7,
7a. 7b. 9. 9a-d.
10. ll
3) In what way can their 1. Pre-Admission 1:4. 6, 7b, 8.
difficulties (or lack thereof) Ila, 12. 14b.
be attributed to their 15. lSe
master’s program. the nature
of the work setting. and/or
their pre—entry background?
a. Individual S: 8. 9. 9a Austin (2002a). Chan & Elliott
Factors 1: 15c. 15d (2004), Clark (1987). Fairweather
& Rhoads (1995). Finkelstein
( I984), Florez ( I997). Golombek
(1998), Korthagen (2004), Lortie
(1975), Numrich (1996). Sehlaoui
(2001)
b. Relevance of I: 153 Austin (2002a)
Prior Education
c. Teaching or S: 6. 63. 7. 7a Austin (2002a). Kwo ( I996)
Tutoring 1: 15b
Experience Prior to
Entry
3) (see above) 2. During I: la, lb. Ila. 12. I3.
Master’s TESOL
3. Fit Between 1: la
Teacher & Teacher
Education
Program
52

Table 1 (cont’d)

 

b. Student Effort

S: 13,15,153,16

Reynolds, Ross. & Rakow

 

 

 

I: 13c, 13f (2002)
C. Mentorship S: 14 Berg & Others (1989). Holten &
I: l3e Brinton (I995), Lortie (1975)
d. Practicum S: 3, 3a. 3b. 15. Janopoulos (1991)
15a,
1: 13b, 13d
3) (see above) 3. Work Setting 1: 3, 9, Ila. l2

 

2) Do they experience (and
if so, in what way) any
difficulties in the classroom
and what is the nature of
their difficulties?

1) What are the perceptions
of recent native-English-
speaking graduates about
their TESOL training for
classroom work in the
community college?

Data Sources

a. Fit Between
Student and
Workplace or
Between TES( )L
Program and
Workplace

b. Full- v. Part-Time

Status
c. Nature of Work
Setting

4a. Ability to
Function in the
Classroom

4b. Teacher
Satisfaction with
Master’s TESOL
Preparation

8:11.12.2|,22
I:9b.9c

S: 17. 17a

1: 2. 9d. 9e

S: 17. 17a, 18.
19, 20

I: 2. 9. 9a. 9d. 9e

1:4. 4a. 5. 5a. 6.
7, 7a, 7b, 8, 10

l: 6. 7b. 8, 9b.
13, 14,143, 14b.
14c

Bartels (2002), Labone (2004).
Reynolds, Ross, & Rakow
(2002). Vavrus (2001)

Abbas & McLean (2001). Curry
(2001)

Brickman & Nuzzo (l999a,
l999b), Coburn (2004), Curry
(2001), Florez (1997), Kuo
(2000)

Friedman & Kass (2002),
Johnson (1992), Mackey et al.
(2004), Numrich (I996), Polio &
Wilson-Duffy (1998)

Data sources used in this study included an online survey (see Appendix A), one

semi-structured interview with each participant (for the protocol see Appendix B), site

observation, and documents. The major parts of the survey instrument are the cover letter,

the informed consent form, the items (descriptive demographics on a categorical scale:

choices from a drop-down menu and yes-no questions; inferential questions on a

continuous, 4—point, Likert-type scale: from I = “Strongly Disagree” to 4 = “Strongly

Agree”); and closing instructions. The descriptive statistical data were gathered on a four-
rather than five-point Likert scale. The middle option of “Neither Agree nor Disagree”
was eliminated in order to reduce the potential for distortion from central tendency bias
“since when using an odd number the respondent can avoid making a real choice by
selecting the middle neutral category” (Domyei, 2003, p. 37). The survey was accessible
for 30 days through the www.3urveymonkey.com website. Upon completion of the
survey period, I downloaded all answers into an Excel file for easy access.

The semi—structured interviews served as the most important source of data in this
study. The instrument (see Appendix B) consists of the instructions, the interview
questions, and closing comments. Prior to the interview, participants signed a separate
informed consent form (see Appendix C); they kept the first page and I retained the
second page. The interviews lasted between 75 and 90 minutes, largely depending on
how willing each participant was to elaborate on his/her answers. All interviews were
tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed multiple times for themes. During the site
observations, I noted the campus, the buildings where the teachers taught and worked, the
classroom, and any relevant support rooms. The latter included a testing center, an
adjunct office, and a computer lab.

On site I also gathered a variety of supporting documents such as lesson plans,
syllabi, course descriptions, and catalogs. Some materials were teacher-generated and
others published by the colleges. I also visited the websites of the alma maters of all the
teachers (see Appendices D-H). In some cases the websites confirmed themes raised by

the teachers, such as an orientation toward teaching or research. I also perused any

websites of the ESL departments where the participants taught. The site observation and
document analysis facilitated the development of converging lines of inquiries.
Data Collection

Based on the TESOL program directory (Christopher, 2005), I identified seven
programs that advertised ESL teacher preparation at the master’s level in Michigan; these
were Andrews University, Aquinas College, Central Michigan University, Cornerstone
University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Madonna
University, and Michigan State University. During the actual survey study, an additional
program—at Andrews University—was identified by respondents. Having chosen
Michigan graduate programs that fit the requirements, I sent a letter to these TESOL
departments to gain access to their graduates (see Appendix I). This letter was followed
up with a phone call and/or e-mail within 10 days to answer any questions or concerns
institutions may have had about participating in the study; participation occurred by
either directly releasing the graduates’ contact information to me (my preference), by
encouraging graduates to contact me, or by directing graduates to the
www.3urvevmonkev.com website to take the survey. One TESOL program released the
contact information to me directly. Another program sent me a carbon copy of the e-mail
that was sent to its graduates. In both cases I had the opportunity to send out reminders to
graduates to participate in the study. The other programs directed their current and former
students to the website to take the survey.

In addition to direct contact 'with TESOL departments to gain access to recent
graduates, I telephoned or e-mailed a call for participation (see Appendix J) to ESL

departments and ESL faculty at all 28 Michigan community colleges (Alpena, Bay De

Noe, Delta, Glen Oaks, Gogebic, Grand Rapids, Henry Ford, Jackson, Kalamazoo,
Kellogg, Kirtland, Lake Michigan, Lansing, Macomb, Mid-Michigan, Monroe,
Nontcalm, Mort, Muskegon, North Central, Northwestern, Oakland, St. Clair,
Schoolcraft, Southwestern, Washtenaw, Wayne County, and West Shore). Furthermore, I
posted a message through the listserv (mitesollistserv@umich.edu) of the Michigan ESL
teachers’ professional association (M ITESOL) and encouraged participation directly. I
also engaged in snowball sampling and invited all ESL/TESOL professionals to promote
the study to their friends and colleagues.

Once contact had been made, the teachers were asked to take the online survey on
www.survevmonkev.com. I sent several reminders via e-mail. Graduates were asked to
complete the survey within 14 days but the link to the survey stayed active for up to 30
days. During this time, two reminders to take the survey were sent to potential
participants through the MITESOL listserv. At the end of the online survey. teachers
were given the option to accept or decline further participation in an interview. At the
conclusion of the first stage, in March of 2006, I set up the oral interviews.

Data analysis and preliminary participant selection were ongoing. After the
survey period, a purposeful sample of 12 individuals was selected and interviews were set
up for the remainder of the semester. Originally it had been my goal to interview 15-20
graduates. However, of those who fit my selection criteria, only 12 volunteered to be
interviewed. Due to scheduling conflicts, one eventually dropped out and was replaced by
another teacher from the same college. Initially, I included Dontaku (all participants
chose their own pseudonyms) in the study conditionally because he had graduated from

the TESOL program in December of 1999, which was prior to the cut off date of January

2000 that I had identified for someone to qualify as a “recent” graduate. However, during
the interview I learned that shortly after graduation he took a nearly two—year leave of
absence from teaching to work for the state government and that his responses were
similar to those of other participants. Therefore, eventually I included him in my analysis
and considered him a recent graduate.

The interviews took place from March through May of 2006. All but one
interview was completed by the end of the Winter/Spring semester as planned. However,
Lynn needed to leave early on the day of our meeting; thus, we concluded the interview
at the beginning of May. Some interviews were conducted in the teachers’ own
classroom, others in their offices, one in the teachers’ lounge, and one in the teacher’s
home. In one case the teacher (Suzy) was called away during our conversation, and we
finished it on the telephone a few days later. However, in all cases I was able to see the
teachers’ classrooms. The length of the interviews ranged from 75 to 90 minutes.

At the time of the individual interviews, I conducted onsite observations of the
work setting and collected artifacts (such as catalogs, syllabi, and mission statements). In
the cases when the actual meeting with the teacher did not take place in the classroom, I
made a separate trip to the classroom so as to get a better sense of the teachers’ work
environments. During the site observations, I took field notes. I noted the campus, the
buildings where the teachers taught and worked, the classroom, and any relevant support
rooms. The latter included a testing center, an adjunct office, and a computer lab. Prior to
entering any building, I observed the. campus, its surroundings, and its physical layout
and audio—taped my impressions immediately. I noted the natural and manmade

geography surrounding the campus, the campus’ size and age, the number of buildings,

57

etc. I also observed the students. I noted who they congregated with and what they were
doing. I made a note of their activities, their age, gender, and color. I was particularly
interested in the languages they were speaking and when speaking English whether they
spoke it with a foreign accent. At each college inside the building where the interview
took place, I again observed both the physical layout and the students and staff. With the
help of my interview participants, I visited a classroom, office, computer lab, testing
center, etc. Either before or after the interview, I also walked around campus and visited
at least one other building that housed the cafeteria or the library to try to get an overall
sense of the school. I recorded these impressions either at the same time or immediately
following the campus visit.

In addition, whenever possible, I visited the website of each ESL program and
graduating TESOL program and analyzed the 2005-2007 TESOL Directory (Christopher,
2005) in order to understand the contexts that the teachers were trained and employed in,
respectively.

Analysis
In the survey part of the study I ran basic descriptive statistical analyses, such as
the frequency of answers and the observed mean, as a measure of central tendency in the
responses to satisfaction questions such as questions 20 and 21 (see Appendix A).
Furthermore, I calculated the spread between the data points and the observed average
with standard deviation as well as the difference between the two extreme data points

with the range. All this was done to gain a general picture of satisfaction with master’s

TESOL programs.

To be able to describe the nature of graduates’ difficulties, research question 2)
also utilizes descriptive statistics and additional qualitative analyses. The interview
provides qualitatively rich information about graduates’ classroom realities. Data analysis
started with the preparation of data by transcribing interviews, typing up field notes, and
arranging catalogs, course descriptions, syllabi, and other sources. In keeping with the
constant comparative method, all materials were read through to obtain an overall sense
of the themes, the tone, and the depth of the information. The materials were read and re-
read for underlying meanings and coded accordingly. Quotes exemplifying each theme
were categorized. These quotes were read for subthemes and patterns and were clustered
and conceptualized in order to move from specific quotes to higher levels of abstractions
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data were analyzed for evidence of possible difficulties
the participants may find in their work. With some participants I found few problems;
still it was informative to see what may have contributed to their lack of difficulty and to
their successes. Also, what they chose to praise in their experiences was illuminating. In
addition, the survey, the interview, the onsite observation, and the document analysis
were used to generate description of the setting, people, relationships, and processes.
They were used to help understand each individual case and to compare across cases.

The teachers noted a great deal of dissatisfaction and some satisfaction with their
training. Both aspects were expressed in a wide variety of ways, pointing to a huge
number of themes that were loosely connected through the descriptive framework that I
had developed (See Figure I). Still, understanding the reason for the teachers’ views was
difficult. While writing up the findings in Chapter 4, I became aware of a commonality

that cut through the apparent confusion. I noticed that the teachers used language that cast

59

themselves, their classes, and their positive experiences in feminine terms while they cast
negative aspects of their graduate training and other negative influences in masculine
terms. When I reexamined the findings through this gendered lens, a greater coherence
emerged. In Chapter 4, I both present and interpret the findings to emphasize the
teachers’ lens along the way. However, the intertwined presentation does not reflect the
process through which I arrived at my thesis. That happened in a purely inductive way, as
outlined above. Therefore, the data have led me to my thesis, and I have only blended the
presentation of the findings with their interpretation at the last stage in order to explain
the thesis most effectively and in the most authentic way.
The Researcher’s Role

I am a graduate of a master’s level TESOL program myself. As a recent graduate
of an M.Ed. program, for approximately three years I felt ill-prepared to teach in a
community college. I struggled with both content and pedagogy, as did several of the
recent graduates that I interviewed. A further consideration of my role as the researcher is
that because I am active in the state-level organization of ESL teachers—MITESOL—I
am also acquainted with some of the teachers that I surveyed and I am familiar with the
faculty at some of the local TESOL programs. Furthermore, I teach ESL at a Michigan
community college, where during my tenure, seven of the twelve teachers I interviewed
have also taught. At the time of the interview one was teaching at my campus. As the
researcher, I designed all instruments, collected all the data, and analyzed the data.
During the final phases of the study (analysis and writing), I became a parent. It is
possible that this heightened my awareness of parenthood in general and motherhood in

specific. Because of this close personal involvement with all aspects of the study,

60

trustworthiness of the interpretation of the findings is crucial. I tried to achieve it in the
following way.

I- Clarification of researcher bias: the researcher’s role is clarified at the

beginning of the study

2- Peer examination: the researcher enlisted the help of a cohort colleague who

also has background in ESL to verify the accuracy of the interpretation of data

and to verify the accuracy of conclusions drawn

3- Use of quotes: relevant quotations from the interviews are used to present the

participants’ views

4— Triangulation: multiple data sources are used to build a coherent argument

5— Reporting of discrepant information: findings that run counter to expectations

are also reported

6- Verification: the dissertation advisor verified the trustworthiness of data

interpretation.

Ethical Consideration

I sought and obtained approval for the study from the Michigan State University
institutional review board—the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)—-to protect the rights of participants (for approval,
see IRB#X06-048/APP#i024098). I also contacted a variety of gatekeepers at the
institutions whose graduates I studied to answer any questions and concerns. I am not
aware of any sensitive ethical issues that may emerge from the study or any danger that
participants may face as a result of their cooperation. They remained anonymous during

the survey unless they decided to volunteer for the follow-up stage (interview) of the

61

study. Even so, their identities are concealed by pseudonyms and their answers and
contact information are kept confidential. They were informed that at any point during
and after the study they could withdraw from it. Identifying information relating to the
study is kept locked away and is only accessible to the researcher and her advisor. In
accordance with Institutional Review Board guidelines, I sought the participants’
informed consent for the survey (see the first page of the online survey in Appendix A).
Of the 1 10 hits that the Surveymonkey site received, 107 agreed to participate and were
allowed to enter the survey portion of the study. However, only 97 proceeded to take the
survey. Interview participants signed a separate consent form at the time of the interview
(see Appendix C), and all agreed to being audiotaped.
Trustworthiness

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) speak to the importance of establishing the
trustworthiness of the researcher, the data, and the interpretation of data. As there is one
principal investigator conducting the study and one peer debriefer helping to analyze the
data, the reliability, validity, and trustworthiness of data need to be established. The peer
debriefer, who is familiar with the fields of TESOL, ESL, and postsecondary education,
was asked to check for the consistency of patterns in theme development and conclusions
drawn from the interview, observation, and textual analysis. The dissertation advisor
served as an external auditor to review the findings. I have turned intermediate versions
of this study into scholarly presentations at state, regional, and national conferences. I
have also published conference proceedings articles based on the presentations. Six of the
twelve participants have attended one or more of these talks, and others may have read

the articles.

62

Timing

The data collection of the study took place between Fall 2005 and Summer 2006.
In the fall of 2005, I developed initial versions of the instruments, identified TESOL
programs statewide, and contacted all community colleges to secure access to graduates.
In order to test the data collection instruments, I conducted a pilot study in February of
2006. This study involved three graduates of Michigan’s master’s TESOL programs. The
pilot participants were asked to comment on timing, flow, and clarity of the instruments;
whether any questions have been left out; and whether the instrument accomplishes what
it has been designed to do. Based on this initial study, I modified the data collection
instruments. Concurrently, I recruited participants through graduate programs, places of
employment, their professional organization, and word of mouth. The online survey took
place in March, 2006. This was followed by individual interviews between mid—March
and early May. This time period was chosen because by then, even very recent graduates
had some on-the—job experience behind them. Participants had the convenience of taking
the survey 24 hours a day during the 30-day period. The completion of the survey took
approximately 10-15 minutes. The interview lasted on average 70-75 minutes. The onsite
observations and artifact collection also took place on the day of the interview.
Participants were asked if the researcher may contact them with clarification questions if
necessary. Teachers were given the researcher’s information (e-mail and telephone
number) for contact in case further ideas or questions emerged after the study, and two

teachers submitted supporting documentation this way.

Cost

Oakland Community College (OCC) and Michigan State University (MSU) paid
for several semesters of dissertation credits during the study. Also, both OCC and MSU
have secured travel funds and registration fees to conferences where I could disseminate
intermediate results of the Study. I was able to obtain a transcription machine at no cost.
Otherwise, I paid for all expenses associated with the study, such as telephone calls,
website fee, and travel cost to research sites.

Limitations

The initial descriptive framework (see Figure l) and the conceptual framework it
rests upon depict four key factors that may play a role in shaping the perception of recent
graduates’ realities in the classroom. In this descriptive framework several of the factors
have not been clearly understood or researched thus far. Despite my best attempt, 1 may
have left out key factors or have included others that are not helpful in understanding the
phenomenon.

Another limitation is that there are no data available about the population (i.e., we
do not know how many native-English-speaking ESL teachers who are recent master’s
TESOL graduates are currently working in community colleges in Michigan). Therefore,
it is difficult to estimate how representative the sample is of the population.

A further limitation rests with the definitions used in the study. The way a “recent
graduate” is defined only considers time since graduation. However, it does not consider
the actual teaching experience a recent graduate has. Some graduates entered their
master’s studies with several years of teaching experience in ESL/EFL or another field.

Others have taught continuously throughout graduate school and in the years since

64

graduation and have accumulated several years’ worth of full-time—equivalent classroom
teaching experience. Still, others have had little teaching experience beyond the
practicum and have taught one class per semester since graduation. Clearly, while all are
recent graduates, their actual classroom experiences vary and, as a result, so does their
InterTeaching -— “the teacher’s movement toward effective and self—sufficient practice”
(see Freeman, I99lb, p. 1). Therefore, the nature and extent of their difficulties may vary
widely as well.

It may also appear that the findings of this study have been influenced by an
interview sample heavily biased toward women because 11 women (91.7%) and 1 man
were interviewed. However, the gender distribution of the interview sample is very
similar to that of the pOpuIation that I surveyed—35 women (89.7%) and 4 men (see
Table 2). At the same time, there is only one male in the interview group and it is
impossible to ascertain how “representative” he is. This is a possible limitation based on
the number of men interviewed, rather than of the percentage distribution of my sample
by gender. Still, the results of this study are unlikely to have been produced by a biased
sample because a cultural construct such as gender must not be confused with a
biological construct such as sex.

The nature of social science research and especially perception studies is such that
it reflects the spatiotemporally bound perceptions of the participants about their graduate
preparation, their realities in a particular context, place, and time - as partially filtered
through the lens of the researcher. Therefore, the participants will provide answers that
represent their views and perceptions at the moment of taking the survey; however, the

reality of the same participant at a different point in time might be different, as will be

demonstrated by Diana’s case on page 191. Last but not least, I, as the researcher, served
as the medium of transmission. My biases and lenses may have influenced how I

interpreted the views of participants and the data.

66

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

In this chapter, I present and interpret the findings. This is perhaps unusual;
however, the more customary framework—a separation of these two steps—would have
been so confining as to render the presentation ineffective and inefficient. In order to
explore the gender dynamics of ESL teaching and TESOL teacher training, I analyze the
rhetoric of the recent graduates. It is through this analysis that their gendered lenses
become apparent. The participants could not articulate this consciously themselves, hence
the need for my interpretative lens. Without it, the findings would be reduced to their
literal meanings (i.e., often disparate challenges and successes in ESL teaching and
teacher formation) while the deeper meaning (i.e., the unifying reason for their views)
would be obscured. Had I left the interpretation for the next chapter as is customarily the
case, it would have been necessary to repeat the majority of the quotations in order to
illuminate this view. Presenting and interpreting the results at the same time, solves both
problems.

However, the intertwined presentation does not reflect the process through which
I arrived at my thesis. That happened in a purely inductive way, as explained in Chapter
3. I had collected an array of seemingly disparate stories about past influences, classroom
realities, successes, challenges, and opinions about the training programs. It was through
the examination of the commonly mentioned themes and a search for a deeper meaning
connecting these stories that the gendered lens emerged. Through this lens, I then re-
examined the data and that is how it is presented below. Therefore, the data have led me

to the thesis and I have only blended the presentation of the findings with their

67

interpretation at this last stage in order to explain the thesis most effectively and in the
most authentic way.

I continue this chapter with a brief introduction to the gender-related terminology
that I use in chapters 4 and 5. The rest (and the majority of) this chapter presents the three
main stages of the teachers’ subject formation in chronological order. The first stage
explains how the teachers’ pre-MA—TESOL backgrounds reveal their feminized
orientation. The next stage focuses on the clash of the teachers’ feminized worldviews
with the masculinized way in which they cast the TESOL programs and professors. The
last stage—the community college workplace realities—provides a deeper understanding
of how the teachers view their own roles as in loco maternis. Within each stage. I focus
on the most commonly cited themes (which are depicted in the revised descriptive
framework in Figure 7).

Definitions

Gender is the socio-culturally constructed correlate of sex, and gender stereotypes
are “the characteristics generally believed to be typical of men and women” within a
specific cultural setting (Golombok & Fivush, 1994, p. 5). Both gender and stereotypical
traits, or characteristics, associated with that gender are specific to a particular cultural
context at a particular time. These are not biologically inherent characteristics but rather
common associations, which for whatever reason have come to be recognized as relating
to femininity or masculinity in a given society. In order to avoid any implication that the
fellowing characteristics, behaviors, and values are feminine/masculine I will not be
referring to the teachers as feminine; rather, I will call them feminized or constructed as

feminine. Similarly, TESOL faculty and the culture of the TESOL programs will not be

68

referred to as masculine but rather as masculinized or constructed as masculine. When
viewed together, they will be referred to as gendered.

The expression in loco parentis4 is customarily used to describe a person or
institution who acts in place of or in the role of a parent. Often this doctrine is applied to
educational institutions, which act in the best interest of the students. In this study, I refer
to the recent graduates as acting in loco matemis (in place of a mother), in order to
emphasize the gendered (feminized) lens through which they seem to view their roles at
the community colleges. This is in contrast to their masculinized view of their master’s
TESOL training. I will now turn to a presentation and analysis of the findings. For a
discussion of the gendered lens, also see Chapter 5.

The Survey Population

For lack of clear and direct access to my survey population, I surveyed every ESL
and TESOL professional whom I could reach. After the initial 1 10 hits to the website, 97
respondents—80 female and I7 male—took the survey (see Table 2 below). The
demographic questions allowed me to find the actual population under investigation in
this study (i.e., respondents who hold degrees in TESOL, are native speakers of English,
have recently graduated, and are currently teaching ESL in a community college in

Michigan). The population comprised 39 individuals. Twentycfive individuals (or 64%)

 

4 Up until the late l800s. higher educational institutions in the United States had a legal relationship with
their students that was reminiscent of one between a parent and a child, hence the term in loco parentis
(Price & Glassman. 2007). Faculty and administration were not only expected to educate the students but
also strengthen their morality (Davis. Crawford, Cutright, Fry. Liu. & Trevor, 1997). “This provided a
strong. unifying purpose for higher education institutions that contributed towards the development ofa
college campus community. The members ofthis limited community simulated the traditional family. They
lived together. cared for each other, celebrated with cultural and community events. and abided by common
laws or rules" (p. 3). According to Price & Glassman (2007). this practice began to fade first slowly in the
late 1800s and then rapidly in the 19605. as the practice of moral education declined and students'
autonomy increased. However. the pendulum started to swing back in the l980s. when incidents of
substance abuse and crime increased on campuses and the courts ruled that institutions of higher education
had to take reasonable precautions to protect the safety and well-being of their students.

69

Table 2 - Survey Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N - 97 Gender 80 Female (82%). 17 Male (18%)
N 97 Native English 93 Native English Speakers (96%). 4 Nonnative English Speakers
Speakers (4% )
N = 97 Degrees Earned 67 Earned Master‘s in TESOL (69%). 10 Not Yet Earned MA
TESOL (10%). 20 Earned Other Degree (21%)
N = 96 Graduate Institution 33 Eastern Michigan University (25%), 19 Michigan State University
(20% ), 17 Out of State (18%)
N = 96 Year Degree Earned 5 in the l97()s (5% ), 10 in the l980s (10% ), 23 in the 19905 (25% ), 49
since 2000 (51%). 9 answers could not be interpreted (9%)
n = 67 Year TESOL Degree 1 in the l97()s (1%). 6 in the l980s (9%), 18 in the l990s (28%). 42
Earned since 2000 (62%)
N = 96 Student Teaching 70 Yes (73% ). 26 No (27%)
N = 96 Employed at a 34 Yes (35%). 62 No (65%)
Community College
n = 39 Gender 35 Female (90%). 4 Male ( 10%)
n = 39 Any Teaching 25 Yes (64% ). 14 No (36%)
Experience Pre-Entry
n = 39 Experience Abroad 8 Had None (21%). 2 Had 0-1 Year (5% ). 3 Had 1-3 Years (8%). 5
Had 3-5 Years (13%). 2 Had IO Years (5% ). 19 Had 10+ Years (48%)
n = 39 Studied Foreign 2 Had Never (5% ). I Did 0-1 Year (3% ). 8 Did 1—3 Years (21%). 11
Language Did 3-5 Years (28%). 13 Did 5-10 Years (33% ). 4 Did 10+ Years
(10% )
n = 39 Taught/Tutored while 28 Yes Part-Time (71%). 3 Yes Full-Time (8%.). 8 No (21%)
in MA TESOL
Key N = Total Number of Respondents

n = Population under Investigation

 

had some teaching experience in either ESL/EFL or another field prior to enrolling in the
master’s-level training program. Of the 39, 31 (or 79%) had been abroad. Nearly all
(95%) had studied a foreign language prior to enrolling in MA TESOL. While in
graduate school, 31 (or 79%) taught or tutored ESL and most of them, 28 (or 71%), did it
part—time. From this population, twelve individuals volunteered to be interviewed. Citing
scheduling conflicts, one withdrew before our first meeting and was replaced by a

colleague; hence, the interviewed sample of twelve.

70

The Interviewed Participants’ Backgrounds

I am grateful to the twelve recently graduated teachers who allowed me into their
lives for the duration of this study. Over the course of a semester, they filled out the
online survey, exchanged several e-mails with me to verify eligibility and to clear up any
uncertainty about participation, and devoted between 70 minutes and 3 hours to our
meeting. They welcomed me into their classrooms, their offices, and their homes; they
gathered supporting documents; they showed me around their buildings and offices; and
they introduced me to key personnel. During the interviews, they entrusted me with both
professional and personal aspects of their lives. I will not take their trust lightly.

In describing the twelve participants, my primary concern is that they remain
unidentifiable. Therefore, instead of synthesizing their biographies and presenting them
in a transparent way, I will center my discussion around the themes that emerged from
the interviews. The factors that the graduates perceived as most influential in shaping
them to become the teachers that they were at the time of the interviews were
multicultural/foreign-Ianguage—study experiences, educational background (especially
former teachers), family, prior work experiences,5 the TESOL program, and the current
work setting. In this section, I will examine how the pre-graduate—school influences had
shaped the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning; the other
influences (those during the TESOL program and at the community colleges) will be
discussed later in this chapter. As put forth in Chapter I, one of the assumptions in my

study was that one must understand the totality of the novice teacher’s self (including

 

5 Pre-entry work experiences also influenced the teacher formation process. Students who had acquired
teaching experience prior to entering graduate school tended to be more focused on what they wanted to
learn. They had concrete teaching situations to reflect upon. which seemed to make certain classes more
relevant. This. however. will be discussed in the next section because of the close connection between prior
work experience and the practicum.

7l

experiences before, during, and since master’s TESOL) because they all interact with
each other and shape what kind of a teacher one becomes. In chronological order, I will
now focus on the pre—entry influences.
Multicultural/Foreign Language Experiences
My interview participants would approve of requiring the study of a foreign
language as a prerequisite for teaching English to speakers of other languages because
they considered their own experiences in language learning (along with other cross-
cultural and international experiences) to be highly influential. All had studied a language
for several years, and six of them had done so for at least 5 years. All teachers drew a
parallel between their own difficulties and those of their students. Here is Suzy's story:
Because I took [foreign language]. . .classes and that was my major, I think to a
certain degree I can really foresee some of the issues when teaching another
language to the students. It helps me figure it out when I was learning [the foreign
language], I had these issues. And when I lived in [two foreign countries] I had
these issues. And I know that this was tough for me, so it's possible that it’s tough
for them when they’re Ieaming English.
This is an example of a factor that contributed to Suzy’s empathy for her students’
situations. From her personal experience, she remembered the struggle. Her teaching was
shaped by the lessons learned from her own difficulties, such as when she realized that
her communicative competence in a foreign language was lower than she had expected.
She discovered this in a country whose language she had studied extensively. As a result

of that experience, later as a teacher she had greater empathy for her students, who often

felt demoralized by suddenly being placed in a low-level ESL class despite having
studied English for years and years.

In the following example, the teacher was also motivated by empathy for her
students, which grew out of her own painful language learning experience. Joan
remembered the feeling of wanting to express her adult thoughts with the language of a
child.

[The foreign language experience] has impacted [my teaching] because...l know

what it’s like to struggle to speak, especially at the elementary levels

when...there’s so much to say and you can’t say it. And just that frustration...l do

have empathy for that ‘cause I know what it’s like to be in a strange country and

they got different cultures, and they look at you weird.
Parker Palmer’s (1997) famous aphorism that “we teach who we are” (p. 15) is highly
relevant here. A frustrating and humiliating experience of not being understood and
possibly even looked down upon leaves its mark on who we are, and it later manifests
itself in how we teach. Let us look at Aniko‘s example, which not only underscores this
sentiment but also demonstrates her desire to spare the students the pain that she had
experienced.

When I’m in the classroom, I can tell them I know what it feels like to go into a

grocery store and they don’t understand what I’m saying. They’re asking me to

repeat it and repeat it. And I know some of [the students’] hurt because what I

found is when you need to repeat, people look at it as a form of ignorance; they

don’t think you’re smart enough.

Joan and Aniko experienced similarly humiliating situations but in different settings. Joan
was an exchange student in Europe while Aniko and her family were immigrants to the
US.6 The impact of their painful language learning experiences could still be observed in
their teaching philosophies. Just like many immigrant parents who do not want their
children to experience the same kind of hardship that they had, both Joan and Aniko
expressed a strong desire for their students to have an easier life in the US than they had
when they were immersed in a foreign culture. Both teachers developed empathy and to a
certain degree a sense of parental responsibility for their students.

In addition to the teachers’ foreign language studies, which were very influential,
their other multicultural experiences also shaped them to become the teachers that they
are today. Some of them spoke of growing up in ethnically homogeneous areas and after
college making a conscious choice to seek diversity. Others grew up surrounded by
diversity in the United States or overseas. In their encounters with students, the teachers
would draw on these experiences very frequently. The use of personal examples was a
very important technique in order to establish a connection with their students. It is a
technique that seemed to have satisfied the needs of both parties simultaneously: the
students enjoyed learning about and establishing a connection with their teachers, and the
teachers themselves used it to establish their bona fides as being one of them and to
motivate the students. On this last point, several teachers mentioned proving to their
students that they really cared about them as people and that they really understood their

situations. Katie was one of them.

 

b Aniko arrived in the United States at the age of6 months but she did not start learning English until 5
years old because her family lived in an ethnic neighborhood. Now she speaks English without the trace of
an accent. uses it fluently. and identifies with it comfortably. Therefore. she is considered a native speaker
of English and could participate in the study.

74

I think your students know when you know where they’re from and what’s going
on, and they respond to that. They want to work harder because they see that you
care about them and everything about them and not just if they’re crossing their
‘T’s and if they’re putting periods at the end of their sentences.
Katie’s caring attitude came from having family members who married foreigners and
from having spent some time teaching English overseas. In class she would reveal her
personal history to the students, thereby encouraging them to do the same. In the
aforementioned quotation, Katie wanted to demonstrate that this personal connection was
an important motivational tool (“they respond to that”). The students, as a result, would
open up and become more accepting of the instruction and correction they were
receiving. The teacher felt that the students would be less likely to perceive her demands
as unreasonable because they viewed the teacher as someone who understood them.
Similarly, Lynn talked about how she used her foreign-language study and travel—abroad
experiences to push her students to work hard.
It’s helped me from the get-go here in the ESL teaching community because I can
recognize things like culture shock. It actually helps me to be more objective
about the American culture and, you know, I often tell my students that I have
culture shock when I come and go and I don’t like to live here that much. And
they can then feel more open to discuss more critically. . .Another thing that helps
me attest to the need for hard work and good attitude in language Ieaming is the
fact that I have done it three times myself and that I was an adult for two of those
three experiences, because so many of my students try to give up because they’re

older.

This single quotation exemplifies the two points that have been discussed so far (giving
personal examples and establishing a personal connection) and a third one that will be
discussed later in greater detail (creating a safe environment). Lynn used her experience
(“I often tell my students”) to show that she was one of them (“I don’t like to live here
that much” and “I have done it. . .myself”) and that it was safe for the students to confide
in her (“they can feel more open to discuss more critically”). Having established her bona
fides, she could motivate them (“I was an adult for two of those three experiences,
because so many of my students try to give up because they are older”). When living
overseas, Lynn went through culture shock (i.e., she cycled through stages of loving the
new country, then hating it, then slowly adapting to it, and finally integrating both the old
and the new cultures). Because she had felt it first hand, she was more attuned to it in her
students and was able to recognize it more easily than if she had simply studied about it
in class. As Thomas (2006) asserts, as a result of Lynn’s foreign-language study and
cross-cultural experience, she was able to view her own “cultural situatedness.” In other
words, by viewing her “own cultural boundaries from a distance,” she was able to
“communicate across multiple cultures” (p. 237).

The care and empathy that the teachers felt for their current students was apparent
as they described their cross-cultural and foreign-Ianguage-study experiences. They
emphasized that their personal experiences allowed them to understand and anticipate the
difficulties that their students were likely to face. As a result, they wanted to prevent or

alleviate these difficulties, which is what most parents would do for their children.

76

Educational Background/Former Teachers

Eleven of the twelve interview participants had remarkably similar schooling
prior to earning a master’s degree in TESOL. The one outlier had a bachelor’s degree in
Criminal Justice. When I asked how it informed her current job, she jokingly said that she
could understand those students of hers who got in trouble with the law. Owing to her
prior education, which she considered irrelevant to ESL, she found graduate school rather
challenging. The remaining participants all had degrees related to the study of language,
albeit in a wide variety of socio-cultural contexts (five in a foreign language, two in
English and Secondary Education, one in Secondary Education and TESOL, one in
Speech Therapy, one in General Studies emphasizing communication skills, and one in
Public Relations). As to the relevance of their degrees to their current jobs, some of their
answers were counter-intuitive. The teacher with the Public Relations degree said that she
could not have had a better preparation for teaching overseas during the attacks of
September I l, 2001. Her students were eager to engage her in conversations about the
event and its circumstances and because of her preparation, she was able to do so
diplomatically. On the other hand, two participants with degrees in Education and one in
a Foreign Language failed to see direct relevance. They were possibly so focused on their
needs and shortcomings that initially they dismissed their strengths. Later after some
contemplation, however, one of the teachers allowed that the various courses on
pedagogy and teaching methodologies, combined with now years of teaching experience,
might have made certain skills so ingrained as to be imperceptible, thus making the
undergraduate degree in education relevant after all. Still, that only happened in response

to my surprised facial expression and after some reflection.

77

Another plausible explanation for the perceived irrelevance is that there is a
broadly-based sense of disconnect within the culture of the academy and the workplace
(Austin, 2002b, Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Boyer (1990); Fairweather, 1993;
Fairweather & Rhoads, I995; Fairweather, 2002; Gaff, I996; Nyquist, Manning, Austin,
et al., 1999; Shulman, 1999). This discussion about educational background takes on a
new meaning when viewed through the gendered lens of our teachers. Objectively, one
would presume that a degree in Education or in a Foreign Language must have informed
the ESL teachers. The language program must have emphasized the nature of language
and the Education program must have focused on teaching and Ieaming. However, what
seemed to matter to the teachers was whether there was any noticeable and concrete
applicability of their degrees to their classrooms. When viewed through this lens of
relevance, then it is possible that a degree in Public Relations at the time of an
international crisis was more valuable than one in Education. I will return to the question
of relevance in Chapter 5 in greater detail.

In response to question #12——-who or what has influenced the teaching of recent
graduates—the majority of the responses named former teachers. Sophia’s response was
a typical one. “Both positive and negative models: things that I absolutely avoid doing
and things that I consciously. . .do, like that teacher that I had.” As discussed in Chapter 2,
teacher socialization does not begin in the graduate teacher—training program. It does not
even begin during undergraduate education. In fact, it begins with the first exposure to
teachers and classrooms. Over the subsequent decades, students engage in an

“apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975); they form views of what good and bad

78

teaching is and what good and bad teachers are like. Being apprenticed by the culture of
K— 12 education is a familiar maternal theme.

Models to Avoid. Borrowing Sophia’s expression, then, let us look at what the
teachers “absolutely avoid doing.” Several teachers mentioned observing teaching
techniques that they wanted to avoid perpetuating. Examples included not using the
chalkboard but lecturing the whole semester, telling the student to look up the answer in
the book instead of answering a student’s question directly, and having students give
presentations much of the semester while doing little actual teaching. However, the most
powerful Ieaming tools seemed to be those when, as students, the teachers were no longer
just engaging in an apprenticeship of observation but rather in—what I would call—an
apprenticeship of self-presermtion. What I mean by this is that the student’s focus shifts
from observing what teaching is and what teachers do to surviving the class with the least
harm inflicted by his/her teacher (and with minimal Ieaming). Here, the student’s goal
ceases to be learning and instead becomes self—preservation, or survival of the class.
Diana, for instance, remembered having a foreign language teacher who would cover her
ears, accompanied by a pained expression on her face, whenever Diana’s pronunciation
was incorrect. Suzy told about another foreign language instructor who, because of her
limited English, would have communication difficulties with her beginning students.
Every time a difficulty arose, the teacher would become upset with the class. Both Diana
and Suzy vowed not to perpetuate these examples; instead, they wanted to create a warm
and welcoming atmosphere where mistakes were tolerated. Earlier in the interview, when
speaking of her successes, Diana mentioned celebrating her students’ accomplishments

by having the celebrated students stand up and the whole class applaud until both she and

79

some of the students would become teary-eyed (an act with highly gendered
implications). She would remind the students how far they had come since the beginning
of the semester. If the pre—tests were available, she would have the students examine
them, reflect on the differences, and then share the highlights of their progress with the
rest of the class. She would never publicly focus on the students’ shortcomings but would
publicly celebrate their achievements.7 I believe that this technique may be, at least in
part, a reaction to the humiliation she endured as a language student. Also, this affirming
feedback is probably what some of the graduates missed in their own TESOL training
and especially during their practicum, as will be discussed later in this chapter.

Models to Emulate. Again invoking Sophia, let us now turn to what the teachers
know consciously that they do like other teachers. Dontaku (the only man in the study)
mentioned several teachers who shaped him in his formative years, but this example best
demonstrates the direct impact one particular teacher had on his teaching.

I had a math teacher in high school. If only one thing I remember about him: the

guy was so patient. If you asked, he’d explain it on the board long form.

Everybody would get it but a couple of us, [so the teacher would say] “OK, let’s

do it again.” [He] erased the board and [would] do another topic. I just remember

him catering to Ieaming styles. I didn’t know what was going on when I was l6-

I7. I was thinking if I were to teach (because I didn’t think I’d go into teaching at

that time), if I were to teach, I’d want to be like that.

At that time Dontaku was not considering education as a career and did not consciously

model his teaching after his math teacher. It happened nevertheless. During the interview

 

7 It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss the cultural appropriateness of Diana's technique. In some
cultures it may make a student feel uncomfortable to be singled out in front of the class even if for the
purpose of celebrating his/her success.

80

Dontaku demonstrated through his examples that he had adopted his math teacher’s
philosophy of patience and perseverance.

When I prompted Katie to reflect on who or what had influenced her teaching, she
realized that she had never thought about this question before. After a moment of silence,
she mentioned one former college professor and one high school language teacher. The
former served as a model for how Katie organized her classroom and structured her
activities and the other one for an exercise she regularly used with her beginning
students. It is noteworthy that she—~as most others—had never reflected (or didn’t
remember ever having done so) on such important influencing factors before. It is also
remarkable that even though the interview question (see #12 in Appendix B) did not
specify one way or another, only two of the teachers answered it by naming TESOL
faculty. The position of question #12 in the interview protocol was before the focus
became either the TESOL program or other stages of the teachers’ education. At the same
time, the teachers had already heard my introduction to the study, in which I specifically
pointed them to my interest in the TESOL program; finally, several questions before #12
did refer to “graduation,” which was to be understood as referring to MA TESOL. If any
bias crept into question #12, it would have been toward TESOL faculty and not toward
K-l6 teachers. Still, only two graduates mentioned their professors in the teacher training
program as influential. All the other sources of influence predated the graduate program
and were probably accidental influences. In other words, the graduates seemed to have
apprenticed through observation during their pre-induction years. been influenced by it

deeply and enduringly, and been unaware of it.

81

Only one teacher recounted an incident in which she participated in the
apprenticeship of observation knowingly. One year after graduation from the MA TESOL
program, Kate started taking a foreign language class. Therefore, she was a language
teacher and learner at the same time.

So being a language student in a foreign language classroom, I was like, “Oh, my

god! A totally new perspective on what I do every day and what my students must

think!” So this was really interesting: I) being a student and 2) how the teacher
was teaching. So both being the student in the language classroom again like,

“Don’t call on me; don’t call on me; I don’t know the answer!”...Particularly this

helped with my teaching beginners because now I was a beginner and I was like,

“m is how somebody does it.”. . .lt was great! Definitely great!

Kate gained a dual perspective. She was able to alternate between a student’s lens and a
teacher’s lens, an experience which she used to empathize with her students more (“what
my students must think” and “Don’t call on me; don’t call on me; I don’t know the
answer!”) From a teacher’s perspective, Kate used to have difficulty teaching beginners
because she naturally spoke quickly and because she lacked experience with novice
learners. Being a student in a beginning class when she was also teaching one offered her
an opportunity to get concrete ideas from an experienced teacher. Here the teacher was
switching perspectives consciously. Although this example does not belong in the
category of pre-entry influences on the teachers, it is very interesting because of the

awareness that Kate brings to it.

82

Note how all the teacher-related influences (Diana’s, Suzy’s, Dontaku’s, Katie’s,
and Kate’s) fell into one of two categories: the teachers’ personalities or teaching
techniques. Lynn’s story exemplifies both.

Lynn- I had an awesome [foreign language] teacher in college. [Lynn walks to a

shelf and shows me a bracelet] At the end of my second year she gave me a

bracelet, made of gold. I really learned how to teach because she was the best

teacher I’ve ever had.

Ildi- What made her the best teacher?

Lynn— It was a balance. It was not only that she cared about us but she never let,

never wasted a single moment of our time.

Lynn’s former language teacher was caring and efficient. She also dressed professionally
and struck a balance between being both relaxed and strict with her students. These
qualities made her “the best teacher [Lynn had] ever had.” In earlier examples, Diana and
Suzy learned how not to treat students, Dontaku saw the importance of patience, Katie
became organized and learned an activity, and Kate focused on the techniques used by
her teacher. Not a single example was of a knowledgeable, subject-matter expert. All the
graduates seemed to be affected most by nurturing—maternal—traits in their teachers
(see Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997; Gawelek, Mulqueen, & Tarule, 1994; Stuart,
1996). Those teachers and professors who exuded warmth and comfort were
remembered fondly and imitated. Those who did not were rejected, along with their
subject of expertise. At what point and in what way this selection occurred is unclear. It
could be that in hindsight, because of the socializing forces of the community college

ESL setting and/or because of their own challenges as novice teachers, former teachers

83

and professors who were most similar culturally to the graduates’ current needs were
remembered as having been most influential. It could also partially be a
predisposition/pre—seIection into the field of ESL on the part of the graduates, for this
kind of teaching model is based on personality and personal experiences. For a more in-
depth discussion of the possible origin of the teachers’ caring lens, see Chapter 5.
Family
At times, influences fit into more than one category. For instance, when as a child
one of the graduates lived overseas for several years and due to the family’s philosophy
of total immersion into the host culture she had many rich cross-cultural encounters, I did
not try to separate the influences of the family and of the cross—cultural experience.
Instead, in cases like this, I relied on the participants’ categorization. Sophia’s example
demonstrates the intertwining influences of family and multiculturalism. In this excerpt,
Sophia was explaining that one set of grandparents emigrated from Europe in the 19305
and because of political and historical reasons, the family’s native language got lost.
[My mother] really grew up with [the language of the old country], [but] she
wasn’t allowed to speak it because it was a stigma and because my grandmother
was raised during World War II. And then nobody wanted to be [that nationality].
And how as an adult, [my mother] is going through like “I can’t believe you
didn’t teach us [the language]”. . .Her and my aunts really get mad at my
grandmother sometimes, you know, because she didn’t teach them [the native
language]. But for her it was a safety issue, better that they not have an accent.
Because her mother did not learn the native language, neither did Sophia and her siblings,

which pained her mother.

84

So that’s what I see in my students’ future as you do get away from your culture
to a certain extent, no matter what good intentions you have. You’re not in
Mexico, so you can only hold on to it for so long. And then a lot of people are
lucky to have a community. I wasn’t raised in a community.
This teacher drew an analogy between her own and her family’s fate and the fate which
her students and their families were going to face. This story takes us back to some
earlier ones in which the teachers’ foreign—language and other multicultural experiences
provided the link between the teachers and their respective students. It also allows the
young, novice teacher to pose as an experienced “matemal” figure who can pass on
advice to her “children.”
Faith
Another source of influence was the intertwining of family and faith. The
teaching of three participants was directly influenced by their faith. All three, at some
point in their postsecondary schooling, attended religiously-affiliated institutions. Leah’s
influence was the most clearly articulated.
My students all have purpose and they all have value. And they’re individual,
distinct human beings that are just awesome. And for me as a Christian, I know
how much God loves me, and he’s met me where I’m at, and he’s changing me,
and that’s what he did with my students. That’s what I’m called to do, to meet
them where they’re at. Probably family [was another source of influence on this
teacher’s teaching] as well, you know. The two usually are related in some way. I
know...when I was in college [I] didn’t do well in all my classes and my parents

always said, “You know we love you and you just do the best you can and that’s

85

all we ask for.” That’s what I do with all my students, “Just do the best you can;

that’s all I ask for.”

Leah said that her purpose in teaching ESL was not missionary in the sense that she did
not want to convert her students to her faith. However, her teaching philosophy was
mostly influenced by both her faith and her family. Leah considered herself as a child of
both God and her parents, all of whom she portrayed as gentle, loving, and nurturing (all
traits that are commonly associated with the feminine). As God’s child, she believed that
it was her duty on Earth (“That’s what I’m called to do”) to be the mother—-—in loco
maternis—to her students, who were children of God and under her care while in her
classroom.

In summary, the most important influences on the formation of the twelve
teachers that occurred prior to the TESOL training were multicultural (especially foreign—
language-Ieaming experiences), educational background (particularly the impact of
former teachers), family, and faith. These experiences and examples taught the teachers
some specific teaching techniques. However, most of all, they exemplified behaviors and
traits that the teachers either wanted to avoid or to emulate. The most important ones of
the latter were warm, caring, gentle, and nurturing: all of which in our socio-cultural
context have come to be viewed as feminized, stereotypically maternal, in other words in
loco maternis. Now let us examine how the teacher-training program shaped the teachers.

The TESOL Programs
Survey Data
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) is taught at eight

institutions in Michigan (Andrews University, Aquinas College, Central Michigan

86

University, Cornerstone University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State
University, Madonna University, and Michigan State University).8 A total of 54 former
students of seven9 of these programs and an additional 13 of out—of—state programs took
this part of the online survey. As Figure 2 indicates, the greatest number of survey

respondents with TESOL degrees who teaches ESL in Michigan comes from Eastern

Figure 2 - Graduate Institutions of TESOL Degree Holders

Western Michigan U:
2: 3%

n=67

    
  
  
 
 
  

Andrews U‘ 2_ 2% Central Michigan U:

1%
Aquinas College: 2:

omerstone U: 0'. 0%
3%

Madonna U: 3: 4%

Grand Valley State U:
4: 6"; Eastern Michigan U:
282 43!}

Michigan State U: 12:
18%

Out of State*: 13:
19%

*1 each: U Southern Califomia. USM [sic]. U Illinois. San Francisco State. Monterey. SUNY Albany. UT Austin.
Arizona State. U Penn. Kent State. Temple U. Indiana U. Southem Illinois U

 

8 ESL professionals in Michigan hold degrees other than TESOL. Of the 96 respondents to this question. 67
held TESOL degrees. The rest were Applied Linguistics. Art of Teaching. Bilingual and Biculrural
Education, Communication. Community College Education, Early Childhood Education. Elementary
Education, English. ESL Endorsement, Linguistics, Reading. Religious Studies. Social Sciences. Spanish.
Swedish and Scandinavian Culture, and additional coursework in TESOL. Ten additional respondents were
in the process of completing their TES()L degrees at the time of the survey.

9 There were no respondents from Cornerstone University.

87

Michigan University (28 respondents). This is also true of the interview participants: six
of the twelve graduates I spoke to had studied there. The second largest group of
respondents graduated from Michigan State, as did two interview participants. I also
spoke to two graduates of Andrews University, one of Kent State University, and one of
Arizona State University. Appendixes D through H provide a summary of the claims and
program requirements made by the five universities where the twelve interviewees came
from. These TESOL programs (all of which claim to prepare teachers rather than—or in
addition to—linguists or researchers) are affiliated with various departments at the five
universities: Linguistics, English, or Foreign Languages. The affiliation of each program
is suggestive of its philosophy because it may determine what counts as knowledge. In
this case, language seems to be at the center of all three departments. This suggests that at
the core of these programs are linguistics and second language acquisition rather than
pedagogics and teacher education. This is confirmed by a brief examination of required
courses, as advertised on the TESOL programs’ websites (Appendixes D through H).
Although it is unclear exactly what content is covered and what the dominant
instructional approach is, based on an examination of each program’s website it seems
that at the center lie second language acquisition, grammar, some type of linguistics, and
some form of instructional methods classes. Four of the five have a mandatory
practicum/student-teaching requirement. Arizona State simply encourages its graduate
students to gain teaching practice by applying for one of the dozens of opportunities
listed on the program website. Except for Michigan State University, all programs have a
foreign-language requirement, either as a prerequisite for entry (Andrews University) or

for graduation (Eastern and Arizona State). The number of credit hours needed to

88

graduate ranges from 30 (Arizona State) to 36 (Kent State). The structure of the TESOL
curriculum is also rather similar across the five universities: it starts with a series of
classes and ends with the practicum.IO What is not apparent from an examination of the
websites is how TESOL students become prepared for the teaching part, as only the
practicum is clearly focused on practical application, which I will speak of later in this
section in greater detail.

All of the interview participants had a practicum, or student teaching. H However,
when I asked this question on the survey, two said that they hadn’t. One was the Arizona
State University graduate, whose program does not have student teaching as a
requirement for graduation. Still, this graduate did take advantage of one of the teaching
opportunities advocated by the university and tutored children in an after-school program.
The other one was a Michigan State University graduate who initially was exempted
from the practicum because of prior teaching experience but was later required to take
another class that turned into a practicum. Upon further reflection, during the interview
they both changed the answers they had given in the survey to having had student
teaching. As for the rest of the survey respondents, although a teaching component is part
of most of the TESOL programs whose graduates responded, this is not universally the
case (see Figure 3 below). Nearly all of the survey respondents who had student teaching
were supervised. One of the three who answered that there was no supervision also
participated in the interview. This graduate explained that the student teaching was

videotaped and that the professor and fellow graduate students would critique the

 

’0 According to Professor C. Polio of Michigan State University, TESOL students there are allowed to take
the practicum at any point in the semester although most take it at the end. They are even allowed to repeat
it for additional practice. interestingly. however, few do (personal communication. January 15. 2008).

H In fact. Andrews University requires two practicum classes. Neither graduate could explain the reason for
and the utility of the two classes. however.

89

Figure 3 - Student Teaching During MA TESOL

Yes/Not Supervised;

3; 5% n=67

.........
.........
..........
..........
...........
...........
...........
............
............
............
............
.............

............

..........
---------
.......

......

 

Yes/Supervised; 49:
75%

videotape together. Yet, this teacher did not consider that supervision. The teacher was
disillusioned by the practicum experience because it did not meet the teacher’s
expectations. A cohort colleague. on the other hand, was very satisfied with the same
practicum class and answered “Yes” to whether or not the student teaching was
supervised.

The length of the practicum—the capstone teaching experience—can vary a lot. It
ranges from under 3 weeks to over 15. The majority of survey respondents taught for 4-6
weeks or 15+ weeks. These two groups accounted for 65% of the responses (see Figure
4). Four teachers gave answers which I could not interpret; some said “one semester,”
which could range from 6 to 15 weeks depending on the time of year; others said that

they could not remember its length. Even some of the other responses need clarification,

90

Figure 4 — Length of Student Teaching During MA TESOL

Can't Tell:~I: 71:; "3 WWW-‘1‘");

4—6 Weeks: 17:
31%

15+ Weeks: 18;
34%

   

7-9 \Vccks‘. 7'. I39?

[(1—14 Weeks15:
9%

however. At some universities, student teaching comprises only part of the semester. Out

ofa twelve-week summer session. for instance, six weeks may be spent on observation,

curriculum design, and lesson planning. The actual time for teaching ESL students is

reduced to 6 weeks. Some graduates of such a program may mark 4—6 weeks while others

10-14 weeks. Other universities allow students to place themselves outside the program

into other settings, such as adult education, which may result in a wide range of

practicum lengths. Still other universities have student-teaching opportunities in all

semesters, some of which are shorter than others. The six EMU graduates are a good

example of the wide range of answers that I received to the question about semester

91

 

length. Two marked 6 weeks, one marked 12 weeks, and three marked 15 weeks. What
the data do not tell us is how many hours each teacher spent in the classroom. It is
plausible that in a 15-week semester, there were 30 contact hours if a class met once a
week for two hours; while in a 6-week semester, in an intensive program, a student
teacher may have spent just as much time meeting five days a week one hour at a time.
Therefore, one must be cautious about drawing any conclusions based on the data
presented in Figure 4. Still, it is remarkable that the length of practicum experiences
varies as widely as it does. Some variation can be easily explained by factors such as the
graduates’ perceptions, the teaching site, and the semester (as demonstrated above), but at
least some difference can be attributed to the philosophies of the various TESOL
programs. Depending on the number and nature of guided mini-teaching modules that are
included in the course of study prior to the practicum, the emphasis on the practicum may
vary. In a program, for instance, where there are regular opportunities for graduate
students to teach real ESL students, there may not be much emphasis placed on this final
class. However, this is a good example of what is impossible to tell just by examining the
course descriptions. Therefore, I only have the graduates’ perceptions of how much
attention was paid to learning how to teach, as opposed to Ieaming about language. Let us
now examine further aspects of the TESOL programs.
TESOL Professors

Unlike the feminized backgrounds of the twelve participants, the culture of the
five master’s TESOL programs was described by the graduates in a way that leads me to
categorize it as masculinized (based on Bakan, 1966; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, &

Tarule, 1985; Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997: Noddings, 1989). When they

described the instruction, mentoring, and supervision that they received, they used
different language than when they spoke of their own backgrounds, the community
colleges, and their own students. They had an expectation that they would develop a
personal relationship with their professors. Instead, they were often disappointed by what
they perceived as their TESOL professors’ distant attitude. As Barbara put it, “I think
some of the instructors liked being somewhat intimidating and not approachable, which I
think is something that I have reacted to in just the opposite way: that I don’t want to be
that intimidating and unapproachable instructor.” The way Barbara perceived it. her
professors had two effects on her: during graduate school, she did not get as involved in
departmental life as later she wished she had, and she did not seek out opportunities to
interact with faculty other than her advisor. Later, as a recent graduate and teacher, she
made a conscious decision to be different from her former professors. With her own
students she made sure that she was approachable, friendly, and caring. At a different
university, Dontaku perceived the climate of his TESOL program similarly to the way
Barbara did. In speaking of the faculty, he said: “I didn’t feel I could approach them, you
know.” Then he recounted two reasons why. The first incident that he referred to took
place when he ran into one of his professors who had been on sabbatical leave. In
response to Dontaku’s question about how the leave was going, the professor gave the
following response, introduced by Dontaku: “But really...when you have a professor say,
‘This would be a good job if I didn’t have to teach.’” He continued with specifics of why
he felt that his professors were unapproachable, “Or when your own professors walk by
you in the hallway and look down when you walk by, you’re not going to go there.” His

expectation had been for a warm, friendly, and caring environment, like the one created

by the former instructors he tried to model his teaching after, as demonstrated by the
following quotation. “I don’t think my program prepared me for the day in and day out of
teaching. ..I don’t remember anyone ever once talking to me about creating a classroom
milieu, interacting with students, or going the extra mile for students.” Whether
Dontaku’s preference for a warm, caring, maternal institutional culture and student-
teacher interaction developed in response to his experience in graduate school or whether
it had been present before is unclear and in this context also irrelevant. In his eyes this
difference in atmospheres—stemming from, as I argue, a fundamental difference in
gendered conceptualizations—manifested itself as a shortcoming of the TESOL program.

One exception may not entirely prove the rule. However, in this case, perhaps it
strengthens the argument that the teachers constructed TESOL professors as gendered
masculine. One professor was mentioned by several graduates as having taken a personal
interest in them, being a mentor, providing useful feedback during practicum supervision,
and making time for them despite being as busy as the other professors. This one
professor was the object of both solicited (Question #13e: Did you have a mentor?) and
unsolicited comments, all of which were very positive and cast the professor in the role of
the caretaker. This, juxtaposed against the previous descriptions, highlights the perceived
masculinity of the TESOL programs and professors.

In addition to the aforementioned traits and behaviors that lack femininity, other
professors were associated with the masculinized traits of being no-nonsense or research-
oriented. One particular professor was mentioned by two students in relation to research.
One teacher named this professor as a mentor because of their shared love of research.

Another one had conflicts with this professor and attributed them to the fact that the

94

student-teacher was not interested in research. Dontaku also saw his professors primarily
as researchers. He felt that this primary affiliation came in conflict with their other role:
the teacher/mentor. “If you had a great research idea that you could do the work on and
then write the paper and get both of your names on the paper to get published, then they
were approachable.” Dontaku felt that those graduate students who furthered their
professors’ research agendas (or those who would become researchers like them)
received warmer treatment than those students who were “simply” studying to be
teachers.

1 would like to emphasize that research is not inherently masculine. Certain types
of research, such as technical or manipulative research, have come to be constructed as
masculine. Other types, for instance interpretative research, have much less of a
masculine connotation. Instead, what I believe the participants alluded to is the tension in
the roles that faculty in four—year institutions have. The graduates’ complaints take us
back to the discussion in Chapter 2 on the trilogy of roles: research, teaching, and service.
It is well known that research is valued most by the academy (Austin, 2002b, Austin &
McDaniels, 2006; Boyer (1990); Gaff, 1996; Nyquist, Manning, Austin, et al., 1999);
now this value stnrcture is confirmed by the perception of those at the receiving end: the
master’s students. TESOL faculty are socialized by the university. They are accountable
to the university and other researchers around the world who work on similar topics to
theirs, and not to the schools where their graduates find employment and to the master’s
students themselves. To the graduates it is palpable that the TESOL programs are
embedded in a masculinized professorial academic framework. Furthermore, traditionally

university professors have been male. Although women have been making headway in all

fields (in fact, in TESOL the majority of professors are female), the norms of
masculinized professionalization and sociability linger to this day. The emphasis is on
business-like professionalism and abstract pedagogical principles to a much greater
degree than warmth, application, and practice. I suggest that it is this difference between
the gendered lenses of the TESOL programs and their graduate students that accounts for
the ways in which my participants established a dichotomy between theory, research, and
unapproachability on the one hand and practice, concreteness, and nurturing on the other
hand (for more on this, see Chapter 5).
Preparation for the Classroom

In the online survey I asked how satisfied MA TESOL graduates were with their
preparation for the classroom (see Appendix A). One question (Q21) asked about
preparation for teaching while the other one (Q22) asked about preparation for non—
teaching classroom duties. As Table 3 depicts, the twenty-three respondents who worked
at community colleges were generally satisfied with their preparation to teach; the mean
of their answers was 3.1, or “Agree,” and both the mode and median answer showed
agreement with the statement. However, graduates were slightly less satisfied with their
preparation for non-teaching duties. The mean score dropped to 2.7 and the most
frequently given answer was “Disagree.” When we only consider the answers of the
twelve interview participants, as depicted in Table 3 and Figure 5 below, the satisfaction
to both questions is slightly lower. For question 21 (preparation for teaching), the mode
and median are still 3, but the mean is 2.9. For question 22 (preparation for non-teaching
duties in the classroom), the mean and median are 2.5, and the mode is 2 and 3. This

suggests that the recent graduates who eventually participated in the interview tended to

96

Table 3 - Satisfaction with MA TESOL Preparation for Teaching and Non-Teaching

 

Mean
Std
Median
Mode
Min,
Max

Legend

 

Surveyed- Surveyed-
Teaching (Q21) Non-Teaching
(£222)

23 23

3.1 2.7

0.694 0.782

3 2.5

3 2

2, 4 l, 4

I = Strongly Disagree Q =

2 = Disagree

3 2 Agree

4 = Strongly Agree

 

Interviewed- Interviewed-

Teaching (Q21) Non-Teaching
(Q2_2)

12 12

2.9 2.5

0.793 0.798

3 2.5

3 2, 3

2, 4 1, 4

Survey Question

 

rate their preparation for classroom duties a little lower than those who did not.'2

Similarly to all 23 survey respondents, the 12 interview participants rated their

preparation for non-teaching activities slightly lower than for teaching. This is somewhat

supported by the values for “Teaching” compared to “Non-Teaching,” respectively:

Mean 2 2.9 > 2.5; Median = 3 vs. 2.5; Mode = 3 and 2. However, based on such a small

dataset, these findings are not conclusive but rather hypothesis generating.

 

r3 . . . . . . .
Those survey respondents who were not rntervrewed erthcr drd not qualrly or drd not volunteer.

97

Figure 5 - Frequency of Responses to Survey Questions 21 and 22

Question 21: Program Prepared Them for Teaching Duties
Question 22: Program Prepared Them for Non-Teaching
Classroom Duties

Frequency

 

1 2 Score 3 4

In the survey, I did not provide a definition of what non-teaching classroom duties
mean. Examples of how the interview participants understood it are classroom
management; evaluation of papers; adjustment of materials, activities, and teacher talk to
the level of students; curriculum design; grade keeping; classroom milieu; and cultural
sensitivity. The data also reveal that the interview participants were reasonably satisfied
with their training for teaching duties. This is important to keep in mind while reading the
following pages, where they offer an extensive critique of their TESOL programs. Their
critique mainly focuses on theory versus practice in the curriculum and on supervision in

the practicum.

98

Theory Versus Practice
Several teachers mentioned how important it is that theory and practice be in
balance, although they disagreed on what that meant and whether their TESOL program
met this expectation. Some wanted more content and more pedagogy; others would have
liked less theory overall and more practice; some others wanted more theoretical
preparation in specific areas; still others initially did not appreciate theory but in
hindsight wished they had. Barbara voiced the wishes of many for both more content
knowledge in specific areas and pedagogical knowledge to apply the content.
I would like to have taken a full class, for example, in phonetics and phonology. I
have an overview of that and then having taught pronunciation and things like that
I learned a lot on my own...I would like to know more about effective
methods...You know, my methodology class started with, you know, Grammar
Translation and went through the whole history of all the [approaches and
methods], which I think is good and interesting, but, you know, it’s the last week
of class and we’re talking about what people are doing now. I think we should
have gotten to that sooner. We should’ve gotten to what really works and what
people are really using a lot sooner. ..I learned a lot of that by trial and error more
than anything else.
Two of the five TESOL programs combine phonology with grammar, which was the
source of frequent dissatisfaction. The teachers felt that they were, therefore, lacking in
both areas. Native speakers inherently know how to use grammar (and how to pronounce

American English). They do not, however, know the explicit rules that govern the

99

language. They do not know how to explain these rules to others, nor do they know the
pedagogical application of those rules. Typically methods classes are structured around a
historical overview of teaching approaches and methods. They start with the “Grammar
Translation Method” and by the end of the semester arrive at today’s “post-method” era.
According to Professor W. Wang of Eastern Michigan University, the reason for
structuring methods classes in such a way is to expose students to the evolution of
various ideas that have been tried in the past. Students can then make an informed
decision about which ones they will accept and which ones they will reject as they form
their own teaching philosophy. Some TESOL programs, therefore, specifically do not
want to tell graduate students what they should believe (personal communication,
October 19, 2007). However, it is precisely this approach that the teachers, such as
Dontaku, were dissatisfied with.
We had to take a class in grammar, teaching them grammar. But again really it
wasn’t, other than pairs of students presenting some lesson plans on a particular
form, we really didn’t discuss how to teach grammar. Again, we talked about
syntax; we talked about different things about prescriptive and descriptive... How
do the native speakers feel about this...how do the international students feel?
Just trying to tease out the differences, which was fascinating from a usage
standpoint but in terms of how do I structure a grammar lesson, how do I teach
these ideas and how are some ideas related, and you know some people see that
stuff intuitively...And I’m not intuitive there. So I need, I’ve got a different

Ieaming style, I need to go a different direction.

100

They felt that they were introduced to theory, historical methods, and trends in the field,
but they were not told which of these methods would work with various populations,
skills, and levels. They were not told how to apply techniques to achieve their goals.
They had expected to learn such things in graduate school. Dontaku did mention one
class though that did meet his expectations. The professor focused on how to make the
best use of materials. Rather than photocopying different exercises to practice different
skills, s/hel3 would take a two-page story and demonstrate how to transform it into
grammar, speaking, and listening exercises. Diana was taught the same lesson during her
practicum, when her supervisor observed her and commented on the fact that Diana was
compensating for her lack of knowledge and skills by drowning her students in handouts.
What [s/he] was trying to say to me was I didn’t need 60 handouts. I could get a
lot of content from one. And [I] still struggle from that today...I still kind of
overwhelm my students with handouts: “More must be better; ok, here is another
way to look at articles, and here is another way, and here is another from a
grammar book.”
These are two of the examples that demonstrate what the teachers were expecting to learn
in graduate school. They wanted very concrete, hands on, step-by-step instruction on how
various outcomes should be accomplished. Sophia’s example also displays her struggle to
find the relevance of a research methods class to her everyday reality as a classroom
teacher. She gave the following response to my question about how well the TESOL

program prepared her on a practical level.

 

'3 In order to protect the identity of the professors and especially the interview participants. each professor
will be referred to by both pronouns: she and he.

10]

That is. . .lacking just a little bit...I don’t know really how to keep grades. Like in
our statistics class, I learned about grading and standard deviation. . .but I don’t
even know what’s a good program to use. . .to keep track of grades. I don’t

know. ..[whether] Excel [will] add up and average the scores for me...I don’t

know anything like that.

One might be tempted to dismiss this complaint because obviously the purpose of a
statistics class is not to teach grade—keeping. However, what is important here is that
Sophia was grasping for practical applicability so fervently that she found it difficult to
engage in a class where that was not the focus, where the connection to everyday
teaching was not clearly made. This underscores the gendered dichotomy of
abstract/concrete, as introduced earlier, which lines up with masculinized/feminized
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, I985; Maher and Tetrault, 2001).

Even Aniko, who was the only participant who spoke glowingly about every
aspect of her training, brought up gaps in her theoretical and practical preparation. Here
she talked about teaching oral communication, or “Discourse” as the class is called at the
coHege.

So [name of colleague] is from [another country]; she refuses to teach Discourse

because she’s not comfortable with it because of her pronunciation. . .And [name

of another colleague] doesn’t like Discourse at all because she doesn’t know what
to do with Discourse. And I’m winging it by the seat of my pants.
Aniko is not alone. Most teachers admitted to “winging it” in class or relying on other

adjunct instructors and the Internet for teaching suggestions.

Perhaps the most poignant quotation regarding the imbalance of theory and
practice in the TESOL curriculum came from Dontaku.
And I know form talking to some other colleagues, though I can’t speak for them,
we just all felt like we were losing on the applied side...to get a feel for the
applied and theory and the tension that existed between the theoretical and applied
is that we’d have this joke. Someone had this really good lesson and we were so
excited about this method we tried in our class: “Man, this was the greatest
method in the world; it was so great!” Then we saw some of our professors in the
hall, “Man, you wouldn’t believe what I did in my class. I tried this thing and it
worked so well, it worked so well.” And they’d say, “Well, that’s all good in
practice, but let’s see how it works in theory.” And that’s the tension that a lot of
us felt. That aspect of it was. And I really appreciate all the stuff I learned because
I can go to MITESOL conferences now to some theoretical presentations and I
know that stuff. But I miss the other part.
The aforementioned anecdote—true or not——clearly demonstrates how strongly these
students felt the need for hands~on training. Dontaku and his cohort colleagues reversed
the well-known test of whether something works (How does that work in practice?). As
they saw it, their TESOL program was so focused on theory that even if a teaching idea
worked in practice, it did not matter until it was proven by theory.
Depending on their backgrounds, teachers disagreed about whether there was too
much grammar theory or too little, enough phonology or not enough, but nearly all of '
them said that they wished they had had more opportunity to practice teaching on real

ESL students. As for theory. some teachers did realize in hindsight that theoretical

preparation was necessary after all. In graduate school they were so focused on wanting
hands-on training that they missed the importance of the other. Theory (the abstract) only
became worthwhile when its relevance to the practical (the concrete) was emphasized. As
Barbara put it:
Back then I was probably like a typical student and a lot of times thought, “Why
do I have to do this?...Why do I have to read all this? Why do I have to study all
this? Why are you putting me through all this torture?” Now, when I think about
[it], I wish I had done more. I look at my transcripts, and I say that is not nearly
enough to know everything I need to know coming into a class when [I’m]
teaching. Itjust isn’t enough.
Barbara realized the value of content knowledge only when she was struggling to answer
students’ questions in her own classroom. Prior to entering the TESOL program, she had
no teaching experience; therefore, theory was so abstract and far removed from the
classroom that she did not see its importance at the time. The next teacher. Dontaku, had
approximately three years of classroom experience.
I think that [now I] would rate the theoretical aspect a little higher than I would’ve
then. It gave me a better foundation than I thought because I was a little resistant
to it at the time just because I wasn’t getting what I wanted in applied. So I would
probably rank that a little higher than I did then because I see in terms [of] just
being able to work with the literature and be able to understand ideas and it’s
interesting that I’ve taken some of those ideas and shared them with my students.
It’s kind of neat to be able to say “this is what language is,” say that to students

that “it does it in English so it probably does it in your language too.”

104

 

During graduate training, he did not reject theory like some of the other teachers did.
Still, he was so preoccupied with his perception that he was not being prepared to teach
that he was not able to appreciate the other aspect of his training, however useful it may
have been.

In contrast to the previous teacher, Lynn did not feel in need of any more practical
knowledge. However, similarly to the previous excerpt, this one exemplifies how
hindsight could clarify one’s perspective on the relationship between theory and practice.
After two years of teaching overseas, Lynn felt like a veteran. She did not realize how
narrow her vision was, however, because of her monolithic experience. Therefore, any
talk of practical application to various settings seemed irrelevant to her.

I was a little too cocky in my TESOL program because I’d had the two years of

teaching experience in the Peace Corps and I thought “I’m just having to sit

through these classes; it’sjust. torture; I’m never going to use this stuff.” And I

didn’t know how much time I was going to spend [teaching in different schools

while looking for full-time work] in the ESL teaching field, and I wish I had paid

better attention, took it all a little more seriously. . .Every time I get a new job, I

have to learn a new curriculum. Who knows when some of that stuff would have

helped me? If one school had asked me a particular method, then I should have

been more, paying better attention. I just [thought], “Eh, teaching. I can do that!” I

guess that’s just a young teacher thing.

Because of her feeling of superiority, she did not pay attention during discussions of how

to apply new ideas to a variety of teaching settings. It had not occurred to her that she

105

might have to teach part time in multiple settings. Therefore, she was dissatisfied with
what she perceived as an undue emphasis on the practical application of concepts.

In addition to the debate over the proper ratio of theory to practice, another
tension involves the proper sequence of the two. It was the general perception of the
teachers I interviewed that they only had sporadic opportunities to apply theory to
practice. And even when it happened, it entailed practicing on other TESOL students
rather than real ESL students. The first time that many of them faced ESL students was in
the practicum, which typically occurred at the conclusion of the course of study,
following a series of theory-related classes."4 When the teachers in the interviews spoke
about their needs, it became apparent that they were concerned with the order in which
theory and practice followed each other. They were, however, unsure of what the proper
order should be. One teacher started the MA TESOL program with nothing more than
minimal tutoring experience. Halfway into her first semester of graduate school she took
a leave of absence to teach abroad. Upon return, she had a different perspective of the
utility of theory classes.

Diana- It started to make a little more sense to me then. As far as the little bit of, 6

weeks of, graduate school that I had attended it kind of made things a little bit

more clear to me that I recall.

Ildi- In terms of teaching?

Diana~ Uh-hum. And knowing what my students were going through and I think I

had a lot of questions about teaching after that.

 

H Only at Andrews University are two practicum classes required. They consist of mostly observations of
other classes. one videotaped practice teaching. and a critique of the videotape. Therefore. students get very
limited actual classroom time even if they do get two opportunities to teach under supervision.

106

Diana had attended graduate school for only six weeks before finding herself teaching
EFL in another country, where she had trouble responding to student questions. Before
leaving, she had not appreciated the theory classes; her teaching experience, however,
made her realize that what she was lacking abroad was taught in the theory classes. This
energized her and transformed the rest of her training. This suggests that theory classes
gag be refrarned by teacher-trainees in a way that makes it seem applicable to them, but
only if they can re-conceptualize it as a component of a practical (“concrete”) training
program. As long as theory seems like an “abstract” academic area of scholarship, it is
framed as irrelevant to the “real world” of teaching in the classroom (see Chapter 5 for
more on the gendered implications of abstract versus concrete). For another teacher this
transformation occurred before she even started because she had substantial tutoring and
some overseas teaching experience before graduate school.
So it was good to have that little background knowledge and to be able to. . .in my
imagination say, “Oh, yeah so if I had split the past and done this...” something
like that and kind of imagined real peOple that I still have in my head doing the
things that I was learning about; that was helpful. And you know with the
tutoring, it was extremely helpful just getting through like the little grammar
points that they come to you with. Knowing, realizing that things are an issue that
you never would have imagined, like “will” versus “going to...” And so like stuff
like that where I had already worked through the nuts and bolts and...made
mistakes and told my students the wrong thing, you know, and gone back and

realized stuff like that. So I liked that. . .I already had a nice body of mistakes

107

going into it, so I was like prepared to do things right now...So, [the teaching
experience prior to the TESOL program] was beneficial.
Sophia was able to connect what she was studying in her TESOL classes to real students
and teaching situations that were still fresh in her mind.‘5 This made the theory relevant
for her. She was also able to recognize the mistakes she had made in the past and thus
open herself to better ways of teaching. An additional benefit of her tutoring experience
was that she already knew what questions to anticipate from students. When those points
were discussed in her methods classes, she knew to pay special attention to them. Note
that none of this would have been possible had she not had at least some prior teaching
experience. Despite having had some when starting the program, Sophia was unsure
about the best sequence of theory and practice later on.
And then the observation class was helpful too. I liked that. And to me it was
connected to the research...I almost wish that we did [it] in reverse, where I had
learned more of like the research, like the different types of research before I took
the observation class. But then maybe I just would have been too crowded with
focusing on an approach or stuff like that, instead of just relaxing and listening to
what a teacher is doing.
In the observation class, students are required to observe half a dozen ESL classes in a
variety of settings. This class was perceived by all Eastern Michigan graduates as the
most useful—and practically oriented—class. Sophia took it at the beginning of her
program, when she had not yet taken any theory. She later wondered if she could have

benefited more from that class if she had first studied theory. Sophia was unsure of the

 

'5 She did not specify what teaching technique was enrployed in the TESOL program that allowed her to
make the connections and desirable changes.

108

proper sequence, but two other participants did make specific suggestion for integrating
theory with practice. The first teacher recommended a second observation class, in which
the graduate students would participate in the classes that they observe.
I think it would be useful maybe even have another observation class and
maybe...even be able to participate, not just in the TESOL program but in other
classes as a student teacher. Just kind of see what’s out there and to learn more
about the classroom management part of it and to learn more about actually being
in the classroom because that’s what teaching is. It’s not a book; it’s not a
handout; it’s not a video. It’s being in the classroom; it’s the connection you have
with the students. And I think that’s the part of it that you don’t get. And so for
me the most useful—and...I have no idea how they could do it—. . .would have
been. . .to actually have more time in the classroom with students. And maybe not
teaching it myself, maybe more observing or maybe more helping, ‘cause I know
the practicum, you know you do the practicum, which is definitely useful, but you
only see one environment, so that’s why the observation class was really an eye
opener to see how different teachers do it differently in different kind of
classrooms.
Kathy also wished the TESOL program had given her the opportunity to spend more time
in the classroom, interacting with students. Her solution involved one additional class, in
which student teachers were to be given the opportunity to apprentice in various
classroom settings. However, it was Suzy who articulated most clearly what other
teachers were trying to say. Theory and practice should be integrated throughout the

program. In every class, as much as possible, the two should be connected.

109

I think more hands—on. I know that you can’t start teaching right from the
beginning; you need some education, some Ieaming in your field. I think maybe
more hands—on stuff where we could go and either sit in on grad classes, you
know grad school ESL classes or even undergrad ESL classes and see what the
teachers do with the students and help out. Even though it’s not the practicum or
student teaching yet, I think that if we were more involved in positive stuff, and
saw how it works in everyday school life, it would have been a lot more beneficial
than waiting for the practicum. Then you could see how the real stuff works all
the time. And maybe go to the classroom once a week but it could’ve been part of
one of the classes where you have to go and assist the teacher in, you know,
teaching the class in at least one activity for Tuesday from 4 to 6, or something
like that. That would’ve been very—very helpful with me because I would’ve seen
better how the classes work.
Suzy’s comment nicely integrated calls for more focus on practical application and for
the appropriate sequence of theory and practice. She gave specific suggestions how this
could be accomplished prior to the practicum. She advocated, what I would call, a
practice across the curriculum approach, akin to the writing across the curriculum
approach in undergraduate education across the country. This would facilitate practice on
discrete tasks like giving directions, explaining a grammar point, sequencing activities
from simple to complex, etc. That way, by the end of the program, the practicum can
truly be the capstone: an experience that can combine all the skills that had previously

been learned and practiced (as opposed to introduced or lectured about) in isolation.

 

110

Practicum

Currently, the various TESOL programs provide more or less of an opportunity to
integrate theory with practice. Based on the graduates’ perceptions, these opportunities
were infrequent and inadequate until the practicum. The practicum, on the other hand,
was the highlight of their studies: the first chance to demonstrate their newly acquired
knowledge and skills. At the same time, typically the practicum is the final class in the
TESOL programs and the last stage of the teachers’ socialization that the programs can
influence. It is perhaps the most important part of their training. I would argue that it
serves two main purposes. From the perspective of the masculinized TESOL programs,
primary is to provide the student—teachers with an opportunity to integrate disparate
concepts and to apply them to a classroom setting. For the feminized teachers-in-training,
however, it also serves another, possibly more important, purpose: it is to affirm that they
are skilled and well-prepared teachers. The practicum is to leave them with self—
confidence. Let us examine how these two perspectives are manifested.

For two of the participants, it was indeed the first opportunity to teach. They may
have been exposed to nonnative speakers while growing up, attending school, or
traveling, but they had never before taught or tutored. Seven more had some
tutoring/teaching experience but it was unsupervised. Only three had ever received
feedback from an experienced teacher on their strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, all
the teachers mentioned looking forward to regular, personalized, constructive, and

affirming feedback. This, however, very few of them got.

111

Supervision. The clearest theme surrounding the practicum was the teachers’
dissatisfaction with practicum supervision.l6 There was some variation among the five
programs as to how, when, and what kind of feedback the student teachers would receive.
Even within the same program there were widely divergent practices. Teachers whose
classes were off campus received the least amount of supervision due to their professors’
schedules. One teacher, for instance, was observed only once and even then toward the
end of the semester. At the other end of the continuum, one teacher was observed every
time and had regular pre- and post-class conferences with the supervising professor.
Another difference was in the requirements placed on the teachers in addition to
conducting class. In most instances, they only had to turn in their lesson plans before or
after class. Occasionally, however, the teachers even had to turn in a copy of all materials
that they handed out in class, keep a reflective journal, and/or write papers about their
teaching experiences. A final difference was in the provision of feedback. Some
professors gave instantaneous corrective feedback while most waited until after the
conclusion of a class session to do so. Many professors met with the teachers in groups:
with the whole practicum class or with the co-teachers of each ESL class. Few met with
each teacher individually and provided personalized feedback. These findings corroborate
those of Johnson’s that there is little consensus over the nature of the practicum (1992).
With so much variation and so many exceptions to common practice, each teacher’s
experience was unique. Even talking about “common practice” across programs or within
each individual program becomes difficult. Yet, it is remarkable that despite the

differences, the teachers’ stories share so many commonalities. They share the

 

'6 Only one teacher, the one with nearly ten years of combined teaching experience, did not want close
supervision. Still, she wanted the practicum supervisor’s recognition of her skills and confirmation that she
did not require further improvement.

commonalities because they are all working within the same gendered conceptual
framework. They are all seeing the world from a common set of assumptions, desires,
and expectations. This way, divergent experiences end up being discussed in similar
ways.

One such common desire was for regular concrete and affirming feedback. Diana
was only observed once in her entire practicum because of her off-campus placement. At
the time she appreciated the lack of attention because she was able to cut comers. She did
not have to type up the lesson plans ahead of each class, which saved her time in the short
run. When she did get observed toward the end of the semester, she retroactively wrote
up all the lesson plans. However, in hindsight she wished she had had more rigorous
supervision, which would have been more beneficial to her in the long run.

Yeah [I wish I had been observed more] because it was kind of like teachers gone

wild. Both [a fellow graduate student] and I were like so busy and...we were

happy that we didn’t have supervision because we’re not going to type out these

lesson plans [if] we can get away with that. And then the bad side is that because

we don’t have that supervision, we don’t get that feedback.
The teacher cast her relationship to the professor as that of a child to a disciplinarian, a
role which the professor did not seem to play. Diana spoke like a child who was getting
away with not brushing her teeth while her mother was not looking. Instead, she wetted
the tooth brush. Later, when her teeth decayed, she wished she had not been able to get
away with it. Again, the theme of in loco maternis emerges clearly, but in this role
reversal the maternal figure is the professor and the child—like figure is the pre-service

teacher.

At the same institution, however, another teacher received very regular feedback.
“It was an hour-long class and then a little bit ahead of time we would conference and
then afterwards we would conference. So I did have a lot of [feedback], not every time,
almost every time. There was a lot of communication with [him/her].” Kathy was
satisfied with the frequency of meetings and the amount of attention she received from
her supervising professor. What she was not satisfied with was the k_i_nd_ of feedback
given.

When the teachers did receive feedback from the supervising professor, they
wanted it to be “constructive.” Depending on one’s vantage point, this term could be
understood in different ways. For the masculinized professor, this seemed to mean mainly
focusing on the areas in need of improvement, the negatives. In a stereotypically
masculine setting such as a football team or the armed forces, focusing on the positive
would be considered coddling. However, the feminized teacher wanted to learn where
both her strengths and weaknesses as a teacher lay. As the practicum was the last hurdle
to jump in the TESOL program, it would leave a lasting impression on the teachers’
memories of the whole experience. It could be an affirming experience, after which each
graduate student would feel like a teacher who is ready to handle his/her own classroom.
For Kathy, however, it was not.

And the experience that I had with Professor [name of professor in the program]

was not, I don’t want to say it was a negative experience but I don’t feel that it

was a positive, reinforcing kind of experience. I didn’t feel a lot of positive
reinforcement. I heard a lot of negative stuff, like “Well, you know, could have

done this, da—da-da-dah,” not “Oh, you did a really good job doing this, did a

114

really good job doing that.” So coming out of that whole practicum experience I
didn’t feel like I knew very much. Like I wasn’t a very good teacher [her voice
trails off].
Kathy had not had any classroom teaching experience before enrolling in graduate
school. She had only had very limited and informal tutoring in an EFL setting. During her
TESOL training she did not teach in or outside the university either. The first time she
stood in front of a classroom was during the practicum. Kathy was expecting not only to
get corrective feedback in her student teaching but also to receive positive comments that
would confirm her potential to become a good teacher. Insecurity and the need for
affirmation are also traditionally feminized traits (for a discussion on separated and
connected ways of knowing, see Chapter 5). Lynn faced a very similar situation when the
supervising professor’s feedback—which she perceived as highly critical—caused her to
conclude the program with a bitter taste in her mouth.
I thought I was going fine, and I did a lot of teaching in class. And at the end of
the semester [s/he] gave me like a yelling to, not just a talking to...At the end of
the semester, [s/he] really yelled at me about how I’m not professional, and I
didn’t work hard, don’t have my priorities straight, don’t have the ability to plan
long term. [Now she is speaking as if directly to the professor] “You need to give

your students regular, honest feedback, so that we can avoid this devastation at

 

the end of the semester.”
Lynn is yet another example of a graduate who perceived the feedback that she received
from the professor to be unconstructive. From a gendered perspective, both Kathy and

Lynn were expecting their supervisors to be more affirming and nurturing. Meanwhile, in

their eyes, the professors were blunt and business-like and did not accept the role of the
caring mother, which is what the teachers would have liked to see. Sophia also
complained about what she perceived as a lack of empathy and skill from her professor
during her feedback sessions.
I had a bad time with my practicum, like it was good because if I could survive
that, I could survive anything...Well, [the supervising professor] would drop in
sometimes and interrupt...and just make you feel as uncomfortable as possible
and then use you as an example...[The professor would correct you] while you’re
in front of the class, which would have been fine if [s/he] would have just used
complete sentences and said, “You really should explain it like X, Y and 2.” But
instead [s/he] would like kind of make these cryptic remarks, like “negative
versus positive.” And I’m just standing there like “What the hell is [s/he] talking
about?! Negative versus positive? Oh my god!” You know and then it’s just like
your heart starts racing.
Sophia said that being corrected in front of the class was “fine,” but the nervous laughter
that accompanied her account suggests otherwise. She probably would have much
preferred to be told in private what she had done wrong. In class, her affective filter was
so high and she was so nervous and defensive that the type of feedback she received
created anxiety in her. She did not find the professor’s comments or even presence
helpful, which is evident through her use of the word “interrupt” to describe the
observation.
The teachers I interviewed also believed that the definition of constructive

feedback should also include concrete and personalized comments. The teachers wanted

ll6

specific suggestions addressing actual issues that arose in the classroom. Instead of only
discussing pedagogical principles, the teachers wanted to know specifically what grey
had done right or wrong.
I don’t think I got enough constructive feedback, honestly. I think my mentor
teacher felt like I’m articulate, I’m confident...and I’m going to be fine. And I
think [s/he] could’ve taken the opportunity to really challenge me more and hone
my skills, so to speak, but I think [s/he] just kind of gave me free reign...it was
never like, “Katie, you should have mentioned this to the student or why didn’t
you tell him such and so?” [S/he] was involved in the discussion but never really
told gr_e how 1 could be better, which is what I wished I had gotten.
This teacher already had a degree in education. On paper she was qualified, and she did
not make many of the basic mistakes that some of her cohort colleagues made. To her
professor, she must have appeared competent enough not to require special attention. To
Katie, however, the practicum was an opportunity to become even better and to “hone
[her] skills.” She was disappointed because of the lack of individualized feedback. She
even felt like she was teaching for free and not growing as a result of the experience. The
professor concentrated his/her attention on other students, who needed more advice; that,
however, left Katie feeling ignored. This situation is analogous to a family dynamic, in
which the problem child gets all the parents’ attention while the other one is ignored.
From the parents’ perspective this practice is understandable, but from the child’s
perspective it is less so.
For Kate, on the other hand, the feedback did not have to come directly from the

practicum supervisor. All student teachers who participated in the practicum at the same

117

time were required to observe all their colleagues as well as all the professors in the
program. Once a week all student teachers got together and brainstormed suggestions
how to solve individual teachers’ challenges. The focus rotated from teacher to teacher.
The role of the supervisor was that of an observer, discussion facilitator, and occasional
participant in the discussion.
[The supervising professor] came to see us also though. [S/he] was definitely an
active observer and active in the feedback session. But other than that, [s/he] was
really a facilitator. We ended up in the class, when we met once a week it was
mostly discussion, kind of like seminar style. Like, “I had a problem in class; here
it is; how can I get feedback?” So [s/he] mostly facilitated this dialog. [S/he]
offered advice also.
The two scenarios—those of Katie and Kate—seem very similar albeit from different
TESOL programs. Why then was one dissatisfied but the other satisfied? It is possible
that contrasting personalities and post—graduation experiences alone could account for
these differences. However, it is worth considering other explanations. Kate was
observed by not only her professor but also her entire cohort: fifteen student teachers over
the course of the semester. That provides fifteen more opportunities for concrete, hands-
on feedback than in Katie’s situation. Students tend to understand the needs of fellow
students and tend to operate on the same level of abstraction. It is likely that Kate
received specific teaching tips as part of her critique. Also, in Kate’s program, every
teacher became the focus of the feedback session for a set amount of time. Yet another
factor may have been how receptive each teacher was to receiving the kind of feedback

that was given. A final possible contributing factor is the amount of experience the two

118

teachers had. Katie had had two supervised student teaching practicums as part of her
undergraduate program and approximately three years of teaching/tutoring experience by
the time she was in the last semester of MA TESOL. Although during the interview she
described her old self when she entered the program as only being qualified on paper, her
experience must have made her less of a priority than Kate, who had not had any
classroom experience prior to the TESOL program.

The final excerpt specifically points to the importance of considering the teachers’
personal histories. Joan’s comment refers to the different needs that she and her co-
teachers had during the practicum. She starts out by only focusing on the normative
TESOL students but closes by generalizing her comment to everyone without a teaching
background.

I wish the practicum would have been a little longer. Not for me. Really. But for

my partners. . .who were. . .from another country...and probably needed more time

in the classroom. I have a state teaching certificate...and I’ve been in front of a

classroom. And there is a huge difference between being a student and being in

front of a classroom as a teacher. And 6 weeks was fine. I got a feel for the
practicum and knew what I was doing in terms of teaching English but my
partners. . .could’ve used more time. And for anybody who has not had teaching
experience, that practicum, that 6 weeks, is probably not enough.
It is common practice among TESOL programs not to adjust the curriculum based on the
graduate students’ background. In fact, the website of Eastern Michigan University
specifically states this. Under the “Frequently Asked Questions,” the first answer is that

no specific undergraduate major is required in order to be admitted to the MA TESOL

119

program because “[a]ny knowledge that [an applicant needs] is included in the program’s
sequence of courses” (Eastern Michigan University, n.d.). All TESOL programs Operate
under the same assumption, whether stated or unstated. The only prerequisites in most
programs are linguistics and foreign language. Prior teaching or tutoring experience is not
required.

As we have seen earlier, teaching experience before entry into graduate school

 

shapes one’s experiences Mtg the program. Diana recognized the applicability of
theory to practice only after a semester teaching abroad. SOphia was eager to learn how to
do things right precisely because she had the opportunity to do them wrong before. At
least from their professors’ point of view, Katie and Joan excelled in the practicum
because their teaching backgrounds were apparent. Joan’s co-teachers struggled in part'7
because one six-week class did not provide sufficient practice.

In summary, when describing their TESOL programs, the teachers frequently
mentioned a lack of focus on the concrete and practical. They contemplated the proper
balance between and integration of abstract and applied notions. In their theoretical and
methods classes, they sought relevance to the classroom above all. Those teachers-in-
training who had some prior teaching or tutoring experience were somewhat better able
to find this relevance by themselves. When speaking about their TESOL professors, the
recent graduates described them as emphasizing abstractions and research, which are cast
as having masculine qualities, and deemphasizing nurturing and relational aspects, which
are stereotypically considered feminine qualities (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and

Tarule, 1985; Maher and Tetrault, 2001). They especially underscored these points in

 

'7 Nonnative speakers frequently face different challenges in the MA TESOL program from native speakers
of English. One of the most significant ones is English language proficiency.

120

their critique of the supervision they received during the practicum. In only one instance
was their description of a professor similar to their description of former teachers and of
their own classroom realities (as will be demonstrated below). This professor was
perceived as making time for the teachers, for being a mentor, and for exhibiting
nurturing behavior. What unites these seemingly disjointed findings is the lens through
which, as I argue, the teachers see the world. This feminized lens focuses their vision. It
allows them to perceive nurturing, concrete applications, and relevance to the classroom.
At the same time, it limits their vision. It deems irrelevant abstractions that do not seem
directly applicable to the classroom and it frames behaviors that do not emphasize
nurturing as wrong. In their pre-entry backgrounds and in their description of graduate
school, we have seen this framework in operation. Let us now examine how this mindset
manifests itself in the way the teachers view their workplaces.
Institutional Context

Describing community colleges may appear to be a simple task. Quoting from the
definition used by the American Association of Community Colleges (n.d.),

[c]ommunity colleges are centers of educational opportunity. They are an

American invention that put publicly funded higher education at close-to-home

facilities, beginning nearly 100 years ago with Joliet Junior College. Since then,

they have been inclusive institutions that welcome all who desire to learn,

regardless of wealth, heritage, or previous academic experience.
The twelve interview participants at the time of the study represented seven community
colleges in lower Michigan. All seven colleges fit the aforementioned definition in that

they are located in or near population centers and welcome students of various

backgrounds. Among the students of various backgrounds are those who are studying
English as a Second Language from Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and
Europe. The ESL programs, in keeping with the mission of each community college,
profess to prepare their students for academic success, whether or not the program is
considered academic and whether or not the prospective student is prepared for college-
level academic work. As Joan put it, “Community colleges are open enrollment, anybody
can enroll. And so we have to help them from where they are, and a lot of them are at
third-grade reading level even though they have a high school diploma; we help them
from 3rd grade reading level.” The aforementioned definition by the American
Association of Community Colleges suggests a certain homogeneity among community
colleges. However, it is worth noting the general language in the definition. The reality is
that beyond those general aspects, there is a great deal of variety among colleges and
even among individual instructors’ situations, which the definition masks.

In size these colleges range from one with an enrollment of 3,000 students to one
with eight times that many (Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth,
2004). Some draw their students from the mostly blue—collar and farming communities
that the school is located in while others from some of the most prosperous suburbs of the
state. One is nestled among gently rolling hills and another among intertwining highways.
Several of these colleges offer the sole postsecondary educational opportunity for the
community for miles around; another is only one of half a dozen options within a ten-
minute drive. As the observer walks around the campuses, differences in the student body
become apparent. At one college at the time of my visit, there was an annual

multicultural festival. In the cafeteria—the location of the festivities—I heard groups of

122

students speaking various languages. I helped myself to a smorgasbord of international
dishes and sat down to watch two young women from Africa dancing to the beat of a
drum while a fourth student explained the meaning of the dancers’ moves. The audience
consisted of faces from what seemed like every part of the world. At another community
college in between two interviews I also found myself sitting in the cafeteria, eating a
slice of microwaved pizza, listening to Fox News, and observing the activities at various
tables. They were all occupied by Caucasian students aged from late teens to late forties.
mostly women, speaking without the trace of a foreign accent.

Description of an ESL Program

Community colleges are not monolithic institutions, nor are the ESL programs
housed within them. Nevertheless, I have attempted to create a composite of the seven
ESL programs in the study. This composite captures the essential features of a
community college ESL program from various perspectives: the college’s, the students’,
and the faculty’s.

English as a Second Language is not a separate department but part of another.
such as English. at our composite community college. The college’s purpose by offering
ESL classes is to prepare nonnative-English-speaking students for mainstream college
classes in the United States. The students. however, fall into three main categories in
terms of their purpose for attending ESL: degree-seeking, academically-oriented students
on an F1 student visa or with a green card; members of the community seeking to
improve their language skills for work or pleasure; and international students, solely
coming for linguistic and cultural experiences. Most classes, therefore, try to

accommodate all three groups. Students receive college credit for ESL but these credits

do not transfer to another institution. Classes are taught at four levels: beginning, low—
intermediate, high—intermediate, and advanced. A placement test determines the
appropriate level for each student. Typical classes focus on listening, speaking, reading,
writing, and grammar. Class size is usually capped at 20 so as to allow for as much
individualized feedback as possible. In class, students study from textbooks; learn with
the assistance of technology (such as an audiotape or a computer program); and practice
English in pairs, small groups, and whole class; lectures are rare. In addition to Ieaming
the language itself , students must also learn content, such as how to write a five-
paragraph essay. The final aspect of language learning is American culture. This is
accomplished by studying about the topic in class and then taking a field trip. For
instance, a holiday such as Halloween may be celebrated on a pumpkin patch or in order
to understand the US legal system, the class may visit a court room after having read The
Runaway Jury and watched Twelve Angry Men.

The ESL program has two full-time faculty members, who hold MA TESOL
degrees and have a minimum of 7 years of teaching experience each. In addition,
depending on enrollment, 4-6 adjunct instructors are on the faculty, who teach two
classes each. Classes are taught all day long five days a week, and most classes are
offered over two to three days a week. When not in the classroom, the part-time teachers
are either at another job or in the adjunct instructors’ office, where they may sit at an
available desk with a computer and telephone. This is where they meet with students and
do some of their class preparation. In preparation for writing and grammar classes, the
teachers also have dozens of hours of additional grading to do each week in order to

provide the students individualized feedback on their assignments. All materials——

textbooks, tapes, syllabi—are prepared by the full-time instructors. The adjuncts only
have control over the use of these materials in class and the amount and kind of
homework they assign.

As noted earlier, the statements and descriptions above may be true of all or the
majority of cases. However, nearly every statement has exceptions because the actual
seven programs may diverge greatly from the “average.” Now specific to the current
study, at one of the smallest colleges (at one end of the extreme) ESL is not a separate
department but rather part of the Foundation Studies department, along with the writing
center, tutoring, and the office for at-risk students. In fact, the only sign of the existence
of a budding ESL program is a small classroom (approximately 8x12 feet), with six
individual student desks, three computers, and two shelves with a small handful of ESL
books and tapes. The walls are decorated with numerous Polaroid snapshots of current
and former ESL students who have gotten a jump—start to their US academic careers in
that room. The instructor/program director, who is one of the participants in my study,
recounts:

I think that even with the minimal resources that I have here, with the minimal

resources on a tutoring basis, I’ve gotten several students into college, community

college classes and they’re moving on in a career or in an academic program for
an associate degree. One gal up there [pointing at one of the snapshots on the

classroom wall] who, who is a dual-enrolled high school student. She was a

sophomore, or supposedly a sophomore at. . .one of the local high schools, and her

instructor said, “We don’t know what to do with her”...so she was dual—enrolled

and she was with me sophomore. junior, senior. She graduated from high school,

she stayed here, has been meshed nicely into some of our developmental courses
and she’s, I think, she’s been at the community college now three years and she’ll
be transferring into a program in dental hygiene. [It] never would have crossed
her mind six years ago when she canre with such limited English.
This ESL program is the only one of the seven schools I studied that functions mainly on
an individual tutoring basis due to the small handful of ESL students who studies there
each semester. Though ESL enrollment is on the rise, the students’ various schedules,
different levels of proficiency, and small numbers at any given time have not yet
warranted formal classes. The program was created entirely by this teacher, the then
adjunct instructor, now full-time program director. She is now in charge of not only the
ESL aspect of Foundation Studies but all the other aspects as well. As she remembers the
history of the program, it becomes clear that over six years it has gained visibility and
importance at the college.
So then I was moved out of a corner of one building into the library and it kept
growing, so then I was moved from the library to another room, and it kept
growing; and finally in 2003, they created the new department; we had this huge
room, and I actually got a classroom. If you had seen what I was operating out of
before, you would just be amazed. But now I have a room, with computers! This
is really-really a very big step up from what I had. But even now this is not big
enough.
The success of the ESL program and that of its graduates brought about institution-wide
support for a formal, more stmctured program. The program director convinced key

administrators that there were enough “intemet brides”-——as she called the foreign women

who married local men after having met them through international dating sites—that a
structured, multi-level curriculum was called for. She enjoyed the support and trust of her
institution to make this happen. It is worth noting that this ESL program and teacher are
unique among all the ones in the study. Not only is she the only teacher in a tutoring—type
setting but also the sole recent graduate who is employed full time at a community
college.’8
Another community college in the study (at the other end of the spectrum) is more
typical of the context that recent MA TESOL graduates find themselves in. I interviewed
four teachers on three campuses of the largest ESL program I studied. Three additional
teachers in the study have also worked there in the past. At this college, ESL (once part
of other departments) is now its own entity, with several full-time and dozens of part-
time faculty members. There are separate classes for various skills and levels: thirteen
classes altogether. There is a formal program—placement test—administered at the testing
center—and each student must pass an exit test before moving on to the next level of ESL
or mainstream classes. ESL classes are taught in various classrooms, all of which seat a
minimum of 25 students. Most of these rooms are shared with other departments, hence
the lack of personal touch and decorative items. The tables are arranged lecture style.
Each classroom has a teacher’s tech station, which consists of a data projector, a
document camera, a computer with Internet access, a CD/CD—ROM player, and an audio-
cassette player; upon request, a VCR, TV, and camcorder can be made available as well.
Other facilities that are at the students’ and teachers’ disposal are a computer lab with

various ESL—specific instructional media. an ESL lending library, an office for students

 

' In order to preserve the teachers anonymity. when descrrbrng their unique rnstrtutronal settrngs. I Will
not identify the informants by name. However. when no identifying information is given in the quotation. I
will use their pseudonyms.

with individual and special needs, and a drop—in tutoring center. In fact, some of the
teachers supplement their income by tutoring there. Sophia summarizes the teaching
context in the following way.

I appreciate the fact that ESL is given an emphasis and a lot of attention and time

and money. I think that that’s great. And being in that field, of course, I appreciate

that. You know the software and the individualized instruction center and the
different resources to support the students is outstanding. And I think it’s a good
balance between having good relationships with the students and being able to be
friendly and casual and yet having high academic standards and expectations. You
know that’s the accountability of the testing rigor. I think it’s good. And you
know, trying to keep things consistent among campuses is also really smart.

Her last comment refers to the fact that although English as a Second Language is taught

on various campuses, the exit exam of all students is evaluated together, according to a

common standard, by faculty from all the campuses.

Part—time instructors at various campuses of this college share an office with
adjuncts from either all disciplines or just their own department, which is a typical set up
among all the community colleges in this study.'9The office has a few tables with
computers, which are often occupied by other adjuncts. Some of the desks have
telephones on them. Mailboxes, a photocopier, some lockers, filing cabinets, and
bookshelves line the walls. Teachers are rarely able to use this space for work requiring
silence and concentration. At times there is a line waiting for the phone, a computer, or
the copy machine. Conferences with students, out of courtesy to other instructors, usually

take place in the hallway outside the adjunct office. The following quotation, though it

 

It) . . . ..
Only one part-tune teacher tn the study has her own office and classroom.

I28

comes from Barbara, an instructor at one of the other colleges, summarizes the office
situation well and could easily have been said about this college.
We have this little office over here for the part timers and our division is huge and
I think there are 4 or 5 computers in there and just as many places to sit and. . .on a
Monday afternoon you’ll never get on a computer in there, and you’ll never even
get a place to sit down and work on your, you know if you wanted to work on
something. And so we complain about that regularly. We want to meet with
students but we’ve no way we can meet with students because if we bring
students in there, other instructors complain.
While the situation is similar at yet another community college, Dontaku mentions it as
an opportunity for collegiality rather than a lack of resources.
...because you saw our office space. We got this where we’re all hanging out
together, we only have 4 computers, sometimes there’s 5 or 6 of us in there, so
we’re sharing computers you know. Everything in there is community property.
I’ve started saving my stuff on the jump drive so in case I come in and somebody
else needs that computer, I can go somewhere else.
Interpretations of the physical space may vary by instructor and by situation. When the
emphasis is on unmet needs (such as a lack of private space where the teachers may leave
their belongings or where they can meet with students) the disadvantages of the situation
gain prominence. On the other hand, when adjuncts find themselves in shared space (i.e.,
a lack of resources) and they strike up conversations, then th_at becomes a resource in and
of itself. In the following quotation, a teacher’s focus is on the type of institutional

support she receives. However, it reveals that full-time instructors are physically and

temporally separated from all the part-timers, who on the other hand share one common
space. These part-timers then become a resource to each other. In Sophia’s words:

I have like all the adjuncts here that I can ask questions to. I haven’t met

everybody but I don’t know if you’ve met [name of a fellow adjunct instructor].

she teaches the same that I do on Tuesdays and she and I are constantly back-and-
forth asking each other questions. We’ve become like a little support system for
each other. And so, other than that, I have [the three full-time instructorsl’s e—mail
and so I can shoot all three of them an e-mail “if anybody,

+if any of you have a chance to explain this to me.”

Adjunct instructors in five of the seven community colleges that I studied share this
reality. Exceptions are the two smallest programs. In one college the one full-timer is the
only instructor. In the other, there are three part-timers: one has her own classroom-
office, one has made the adjunct office her own private office, and one does not feel
comfortable “intruding” on her colleague in the adjunct office. Therefore, her “office” is
the various classrooms in which she teaches.

One final aspect of the institutional context is the teachers’ level of integration
into the lives of their respective community colleges. At all of the colleges in this study,
there are staff meetings, in-service workshops, and opportunities for innovation. The
degree to which the teachers are aware of or included in them, however, varies greatly. At
one end of the continuum are three teachers at three different colleges who are involved
and invited. At the other end are those who are unaware, excluded, or disinterested. In
addition to the one full—time teacher/program director described earlier and the one part-

time teacher who has succeeded in securing her own classroom-office, I would like to

130

highlight another teacher at yet another college who, despite the fact that she works there
part-time, is the unofficial ESL coordinator. She not only has the interest to get involved
in the institution’s life, but her dean and other administrators and faculty count on her
knowledge and experience. In this quotation, she clearly demonstrates her situation.
I’m kind of the person that everyone goes to now when they have questions about
things. I chose all the books; I wrote all the syllabi; I was the one who went to the
curriculum committee and made sure that everything got approved so we could
offer the courses. . .So I’m now really in an odd position because as an adjunct, I
don’t have any real say in what happens; I’m not always privy to what’s going on
in the college but yet I’m really the only one who knows the whole history and
scope of what happens in ESL, so it’s kind of an odd position to be in. . .everyone
comes to me, but I’m not in any kind of official capacity. So I make all these
decisions and I bring them to the dean and she signs off on it and then it goes
through.
In other words, in spite of being an adjunct, this teacher was invited by the dean to serve
on a committee, of which she is now the longest serving member after three years. Her
involvement is openly welcome and she is eager to take advantage of the opportunity.
The other nine participants get involved in the lives of their institutions to a much
lesser degree. The perception of some, such as the following teacher’s, is that as a part-
timer she is at the periphery of the institution’s collective vision. “Well, I know there is
stuff going on and I know that I’m, well I’m not usually invited, well if I came, they’d be
like ‘Oh, hey, cool, you’re here, that’s fine, that’s great!’ But I don’t think itjust ever

crosses their mind, anybody’s mind to do that.” Leah sounds somewhat discouraged by

131

not being invited to any events. Another teacher assumes that there are no opportunities
for part-timers, “But as far as professional development or any other kind of support, I
don’t think that the school does that for the adjuncts.” This person teaches part time at the
institution where I am employed full time. I receive weekly e-mails from the professional
development office advertising their services to both full- and part-time faculty. The fact
that this teacher is unaware of the opportunities at her institution suggests a breakdown in
communication from the organizers, through the full-time faculty, to the part-time
teachers. Frequently even if adjuncts are aware of or interested in getting involved, they
cannot, as Kate clearly explains in the following quotation.
Meetings? I generally don’t go to even when they’re offered because I have a
conflict in my schedule. If they’re during the day, I’m either in class or at my
other job. So they generally have a department-wide meeting at the beginning of
the semester, kind of everybody get acquainted...[so] people [who] are teaching
this ESL class or. ..if you want help with syllabus planning or what you’re going
to cover this semester, just tips, ideas, etc. which I usually go to because it’s
before the semesters begin, but if there is any meetings that happen during the
semester, I don’t go.
Eleven out of twelve instructors in the study have other standing professional
commitments in the form of either another job or school. Due to scheduling conflicts,
they are often unable to attend nonessential meetings. Also, if they were to attend a
meeting, they may not be paid for that time and they would have to give up the
opportunity to earn money elsewhere. Therefore, usually part-time teachers do not attend

department- or college-wide events. Instead, they direct their attention outside the college

3%...» o t Homnymamfiafia 6:23 m. :5 02555.3. 02??

2.
mm
m:

 

 

 

133

(by attending statewide and national conferences) and inside their classroom, which I will
now explore in the next section.
The Teachers’ Perceived Classroom Realities

For fear of stating the obvious: in the classroom teachers teach and learners
(hopefully) leam.20 The teachers routinely also engage in other related tasks, such as
lesson planning, assessment, and meeting with students. Depending on the setting, they
may also be required to perform numerous other tasks as demonstrated by Figure 6.
The chart below depicts data from the online survey. The first eight items, up to and
including “Advising Students,” were given as choices in the survey; the last six were
provided by the respondents when asked to specify what “other” duties they had.
Therefore, in the latter case, the categories are more meaningful than the frequency with
which they appear.2| The total number of responses to this survey question was 39, which
includes the 12 interview participants as well as 27 other community college teachers
who did not meet all the selection criteria for the interview stage of my study.
In Loco Maternis

Much more interesting is the way in which the twelve recent graduates perceive
their role as teachers. They seem to view their roles as those of protective parents,
reminiscent of the Colonial practice of in loco parentis. When referring to their students,

themselves, or their jobs they frequently use language that one would commonly

 

3" In ESL classrooms. however. the reverse is also frequently true. Many teachers mentioned learning from
their students. especially about cultural matters.

3’ This may be beneficial information for TESOL programs and future ESL teachers so that they may
ensure that graduates are adequately prepared for the various duties. Most of the duties that were provided
by the survey respondents suggest that these teachers have more responsibility than is usual for a
community college instructor. For instance. mentoring other teachers. developing the curriculum. and
selecting textbooks tend to be the duties ofdepartment chairs or program directors. On closer examination.
of the eight respondents the seven who identified themselves at the end of the survey did have full-time
positions and some were. indeed. department heads.

I34

associate with the clergy or with parents, especially mothers. Such words are “safe,”

99 6‘ ,9 6‘ 99 £6 99 6‘

“happy,” “relationship, reach out, my calling, help, making a difference,” and
“respect.” In the following pages, I would like to demonstrate various aspects of this “in
loco maternis” attitude and various ways of “being a mother.”

Even those teachers who did not strike me as particularly nurturing recounted
stories that showed that these teachers viewed nurturing as part of their realities. In the
interview, Lynn was very serious. Though her teacher personality may be quite different,
during our conversation she seemed like a very private and quietly stern individual. Still
when speaking of her students’ problems, it became clear that she was drawn into them;
counseling, or giving advice to, her students was part of her unofficial job. When she
made the following comment, I had just asked her about which classes during her MA
TESOL program she found useful.

One of the best ones that helped me that I did not anticipate was a counseling

class. I took a, like, basic skills in counseling class. And that at a community

college has been super valuable. I had no idea that people were going to come to
me after class and tell me “I don’t want to get pregnant; my in—laws are making
me.”. .. “I’ve been beaten by my husband.” I had no idea that I was going to need
all that stuff. And use it.
Counseling is part of a community-college ESL teacher’s reality. Although several
teachers in the interview mentioned this, not all teachers were comfortable with it. Diana
was clearly struggling to strike a‘healthy balance between personal involvement and her

own needs. Because she would take her students’ private matters to heart too much, she

needed to redraw the line.

I used to take on a lot of their personal problems; the co—dependent Diana would
do that. I had one student who was a housekeeper in addition to taking care of the
kids, and she didn’t have time to study. And so she got into a fight with the
mother, the whole fiasco.. . .She would come and see me in the adjunct office and
she would cry and cry. Of course, you want to help somebody like that. I’m like,
“How can I get her a job under the table because she’s an F-l student?” I’m like,
“Wait a minute! That’s insane! I can’t do that...” And [eventually] I said [to my
students when they were explaining their situations], “What happens to me is I
start worrying about it that your father’s ill or that your kids have a soccer game
and were injured and you can’t get here on time. I can’t know that about you
because I can’t do my job. So don’t tell me why you’re absent. I’ll acknowledge
that you’re not here and hope that everything is ok for you but please don’t tell me
why.” That’s what I do. Because I take that on, you know.
Diana was possibly struggling to maintain a boundary between herself and her students.
First, she over-identified with one student’s problems (trying to find her a job under the
table) and later she became unwilling to attend to her students’ problems in general
(“don’t tell me why you’re absent”). As Dirkx, Fonfara, and Flaska (1993) assert,
practitioners (i.e., teachers) who have a healthy awareness of the boundaries between
themselves and their students will not lose “themselves within their learners’ lives” (p.
56). They will not give in to the “emotional pull of the practitioner-leamer relationship”
(p. 59).
In addition to the aforementioned psychosocial dilemma that this teacher faced,

what is perhaps even more striking is that Diana was faced with it at all. She appears to

be negotiating the expectation to be in loco maternis and her desire to avoid it. Other
instructors in other postsecondary settings, such as a university, would probably never
face the situation in which they are compelled to struggle with how not to be drawn into
students’ private lives. The culture in other institutions and of other groups of students
may never lead to the situation in which students would open up to their instructors to
such a degree of intimacy. Therefore, those instructors/professors would never be forced
to reject this role. However. in a community college setting (similarly to adult basic
education, Dirkx, Fonfara, & Flaska, 1993), not only is there opportunity but also the
expectation to nurture. The emphasis here is not simply on the fact that Diana rejected the

role of in loco maternis but that she was put in a situation in which she had to reject it.

 

As demonstrated above, sometimes teachers do not consider it sufficient simply to
lend an ear to their students. In their caring, they do not hesitate to go to great lengths to
get involved. Dontaku tells the story of how he once drove a student to the drug store in
his own car.

I’ve had a student sitting in my class; her eyes were red and they were swollen.

This went on for like two weeks. I said, “Are you OK?” She said, “Yeah, it’sjust

allergies.” I said, “Are you taking medicine for these allergies?” “No, I want

some, but I can’t figure out these medicines in the pharmacy. I don’t know what
to buy.” I said, “I teach till 3 this afternoon; we’ll go to Meijer; we’ll get in my
car.”

This teacher’s behavior mirrors that of an attentive parent with his child. If the child

cannot manage on her own, the parent takes charge. Although I use the word “parent” in

this case, I do still mean a feminized person in that role. Because teaching is such a

137

gendered profession, it may override the usual expectations that are attached to males. It
seems that being an ESL teacher at a community college—a femininel y gendered
profession—feminizes someone who is biologically male.22

Teaching about the host culture is another aspect of how these recently graduated
teachers viewed their roles. Their stated goal was to mediate between the nonnative
students and the native population, as if to ease their entry into the greater society.
Different teachers emphasized this goal in a different way though. For instance, as an
undergraduate, Joan had a negative study-abroad experience from a cultural perspective.
Later as a teacher, she wanted to shield her own students from a similar disappointment;
she did not want them to repeat her mistakes and not get involved. Therefore, she took
them golfing, horseback riding, to a pumpkin patch at Halloween, and to other cultural
activities that were available in her area. Another teacher routinely invited students home
for potluck parties, so that they could see what an American home was like.

Perhaps the most ambitious and lofty goal that any of the teachers set for herself
was that of Lynn. Her aim was to give her students a tool to become happy and healthy
individuals.

...because I am a language learner and because I believe that in order to be happy

in another culture you have to be able to speak in that language, I really feel

like—as my goal was in these other countries where I wanted to be a happy,
healthy person—to a great extent that’s what I’m hoping for. . .that they can be

functional in not only everyday life but in school and university level.

 

7') . . . . . . . . . .
“ It rs also possrble that someone who rs already gendered lernrnrne sell-selects rnto a prolessron—such as
teaching—that calls on that predisposition.

Lynn’s professed goal was reminiscent of how mothers view their roles toward their
children. Most mothers want to equip their children for “Life” (with a capital L). They
want to ensure that their offspring possess the skills that will allow them to become
happy and healthy people. Knowing the language of the country that the child lives in is
one of the most basic of these skills. When Lynn mentioned her hope for her students “to
become happy and healthy individuals” in relation to language learning, I believe she was
invoking the maternal aspect of how she viewed her role as an ESL teacher.

Not all mothers are alike and not all of them mother the same way. At the center
of the next teacher’s every interaction with her students was her warm, personal
approach. Aniko was probably the embodiment of a caring mother. During our interview,
two students from Malawi walked into the classroom. Aniko greeted each student with an
embrace and home-baked cookies. They stayed for five—ten minutes munching on cookies
and making small talk about the here and now. They walked around the classroom
comfortably and randomly picked up and examined sheets of paper lying on the tables. It
seemed to me that they only stopped by to say ‘hello’ as they had done many times
before. The operative word for this teacher was “comfortable”: it was paramount for her
that her students feel comfortable in her classroom, with her, and with each other. When I
commented on the intimate atmosphere, she offered the following snapshot.

I try to get here about two hours or an hour before class starts, only because my

classroom——everyone knows—is open to anyone. There is always chocolate here;

there is always food to eat; they know that they’re welcome to come in here and
study; they’re welcome to use my dictionary. [One day] I walked into my

classroom and I had all these students everywhere and I thought, “Now, isn’t that

139

a warm welcome?” I, actually, when I come to my classroom and that door’s shut,
it’s locked, I’m kind of let down. “Oh, darn, nobody there.” So I know that they
feel so totally comfortable that they can come here and they can study quietly and
they can socialize.
The warmth with which Aniko treated her students was not limited to interactions outside
of class. More so than the other teachers, she seemed to invite her students to open up to
her personally. Even if she started the lesson with a plan—a review of the previous
lesson, grammar exercises from the book, and guided writing—if a student raised a
personal problem, she would allow that to become part of the lesson plan. In Aniko’s
words:
...because in my ESL classroom it’s not just that I teach you the phonetics and I
teach you grammar, it’s like they bring their problems. “Aniko, what does
‘egghead’ mean?” or “My kids are having trouble at school” or “I don’t know
what to say to my boss.” Suddenly, the classroom takes on a very safe haven for
these students.
When students brought up their personal problems in class, this teacher took that as a sign
of comfort and trust. She seemed to welcome this level of involvement with the students;
what’s more, she seemed to believe it was part of what being a good teacher in this
setting was about.
Safety was not only an operative word for Aniko but also for Dontaku. In order
for learning to take place, he believed that students had to feel comfortable enough to

make mistakes. It was his job to create this caring and welcoming environment. Dontaku

140

prided himself on having no difficulty creating a milieu that is conducive to Ieaming. In
the following quotation, he explained the specifics of his approach.

I think [one] of my strengths as a teacher...is creating a safe environment. I think

that that’s important; I think about myself as a student, and professors and

teachers have created a safe environment where I can screw up and flub up and
just be myself and offer ideas and get shot down and think out loud. It’s always

been helpful to me. And it’s kind of where I am; it’s the kind of personality that I

have. So I really try to create an atmosphere where I’m approachable, where I

know my students’ names, they know each other’s names, they interact a lot,

they’re safe, they make mistakes. I make mistakes in class. ..[For example, today
in class] they felt comfortable saying, “Hey, Dontaku, there is a mistake there.”

And I [am] just trying to create an atmosphere that’s safe, where Ieaming can

happen.

Dontaku’s approach was another way of being a “mother.” The classroom, or his home,
was a place where his students, or children, could come and feel safe enough to be
themselves. His role was to establish good rapport and create a supportive atmosphere.
similarly to the safe space that his former teachers created for him.

The final excerpt demonstrates the most common way in which the teachers
expressed themselves. They emphasized the relational, the interpersonal. Just like all the
teachers, Katie spoke of taking a personal interest in her students and of treating them
foremost as pe0ple.

I think your students know when you know where they’re from and what’s going

on, and they respond to that. They want to work harder because they see that you

141

care about them and everything about them and not just if they’re crossing their

‘T’s and if they’re putting periods at the end of their sentences.

In summary, one of the strongest themes that emerged from the interviews is that
all these teachers perceived their roles in the classroom through the eyes of an empathetic
caretaker. It was as if they considered their classroom a home away from home and
themselves, by extension, as mothers away from mothers. Motherhood for these teachers
came in different forms. For Lynn it meant giving advice and equipping her children for
“Life.” For Diana it involved struggling with enmeshment and over-involvement in her
children’s problems. For Dontaku it meant the provision of a safe haven. For Joan the
task entailed steering her children away from bad decisions and creating opportunities for
them. For Aniko motherhood meant the smell of home-baked cookies and always “being
there.” Finally, for Katie it involved relating to each child as an individual. It is highly
significant that no single interview question elicited these responses. At the time I was
designing the study, I had not anticipated this theme to emerge; therefore, I had not
prepared any questions about it. The various responses I cited above came to the
following interview questions: 2 (Describe your current position), 5 (What would you
consider some of your successes?), 9a (What are your duties in your current work
setting?), 9b (How well do you feel that the TESOL program prepared you for these
duties?), 10 (To what degree do you feel you are making a positive change in your
students’ lives?), 1 1 (What values and aims guide you in your day-to-day teaching?), 15c
(Tell me about your bachelor’s education), 15e (Tell me about any teaching experience

you had prior to starting the MA TESOL) (for the complete interview protocol, see

142

Appendix B). All of these questions could have been answered in many ways that would
not have included language that is so suggestive of the role of a mother. Instead, because
of their feminized worldview, the teachers cast themselves in relation to their students as
in loco maternis.
Difficulties and Successes

Unlike the previous theme, which emerged from responses I received to several
different questions (and no direct question), my next theme (also the answer to Research
Question #2) relates to a single inquiry into the successes and difficulties that the twelve
ESL teachers had encountered since graduation. I was most interested in teaching-related
accomplishments and challenges at the community college, but at times the graduates
offered examples from other duties and settings as well. In this section, I will also discuss
some of the areas in which the participants have improved since graduate school because
their successes have often resulted from overcoming challenges in the past. The
discussion yet again will take place through the lens of a job that is constructed as
gendered feminine, because this seems to be the framework that the teachers operate
from.
Difliculties

When I asked teachers to recall some of their challenges, the overwhelming
majority were related to dealing with students, specifically to classroom management. As
demonstrated in the previous section, all the instructors were gendered feminine, working
in classrooms where the dynamics seemed to place a maternal role on them.

Interpersonal Difiiculties. In this setting, the most frequently mentioned problem

was inappropriate interaction between students and the teacher. Kate’s example

highlights the difficulty of a teacher who lacked both the skills and the experience to be
in command of her own classroom, in which she faced uncooperative students.

I could not teach because I could not have their attention. And even if I had some

of the attention then the two in the back would be “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

blah” in Ukrainian. And how many times can I stop a lesson and call you and say

“Stop!”? It was particularly challenging because I did not have, I don’t think, the

skills because I hadn’t had the experience to deal with discipline. 1 was, in

particularly, I didn’t think I should have to deal with discipline with an adult

population. But it was the biggest challenge.
Kate’s expectation that she should not have to “deal with discipline with an adult
population” is an important (and reasonable) one. However, the fact is that community
colleges are open-entry institutions, where (as discussed in Chapter 2) students with
diverse backgrounds, skills, and motivations come together. Their attitude (shaped by the
norms of their cultures of origin) toward a young female teacher can easily result in
discipline problems. Therefore, all teachers in a community college setting must be
prepared to maintain discipline in their classrooms.

Just as the previous example, the following situation resulted from a difficult class
dynamic, which the teacher did not know how to handle. However, unlike the previous
challenge, it was because a small group of students was very nice to the teacher.

It was a full class: 22 [sic] students. Grammar, intermediate level. And there was

18 Asian students and 3 elderly Russian women. And the Russian women knew

that I had this Russian background...They didn’t speak in Russian to me but they

just decided that they loved me, they adopted me, and they were going to talk to

144

me during the class as if we were just the 3 of us in the room. And the Asian
students just, just stayed and observed basically. And...I really had a hard time. I
split them up; I put them in different corners of the room. I got, you know, my
relatively lowest student evaluations from that class. They were still like at the
college average but I had the definite feeling that the class didn’t gel and I hadn’t
managed it well.
This is a very interesting example because it seems to reverse the in-loco-matemis
dynamic. The language Lynn used in order to describe the students’ attitude toward her
(“they loved me, they adopted me”) suggests that these elderly women took on the role of
the mother (possibly grandmother) to the recently graduated teacher in her mid-twenties.
In the Soviet Union (which is what Russia would have been part of when these women
were school—age), the age limit for attending any school full—time or as a so-called “day—
time” student was 35 (Eaton, 2004). Therefore, it would have been unlikely that students
would encounter a teacher who was much younger than her students. Also, these three
women probably grew up in such a society, where the role of elderly women towards
young women was maternal. Their behavior toward Lynn was probably governed by their
own culture’s expectations. If instead of three women there had been one or more
Russian men, the dynamic would have still been difficult but very different because the
men may have felt contempt for a young female instructor. The dynamic that emerged
did so because of the convergence of various factors. The teacher was in a Iiminal
position. As the ESL teacher, she was supposed to be in loco maternis to her students:
caring and attentive but an authority figure, nevertheless. This position became

challenged when there was an actual mother in the classroom, especially from a culture

where mothering is the accepted way in which an elderly woman would relate to a young
one. This inappropriate affection compromised the inexperienced teacher’s ability to be
in control of her own classroom. Had the other students not been from Asia but from a
less tacitum culture, this dynamic would have probably still come to light but not nearly
as blatantly as it did.

The previous two examples demonstrate challenges in student-teacher
interactions; Suzy’s challenge arose from both inappropriate student—teacher and student-
student interaction. She had to make, what Tigchelaar and Korthagen (2004) call, a “hot
decision” (or one that was made in the heat of the moment”) and in one case it got out of
hand. I will cite relevant excerpts from this somewhat lengthy story so as to demonstrate
the escalation of emotions and challenges that Suzy faced and how she dealt with them.

It was two years ago. I had given those students in a conversation class... 15

minutes. . .to come up with 2 answers to a question in groups. You know, I came

back in (because I had to go put something in a mailbox), “So alright class...” I

was writing on the chalk board or wrote the question “So what’s the answer?” I

turn around just 5 seconds later and everyone’s just staring at me. And this wasn’t

early in the morning; they’d already been in class for an hour. I’m like, “There is
no reason for you guys not to talk.” I’m like, “What’s the first question-answer?”

I’m like, “Ok, that’s it. You guys are going to write 2 pages and you’re going to

tell me exactly what these answers are each. You’re going to type it up, it’s going

to be due, you know, the following class period.” I was just like, “Come on, this is

a conversation class; no one’s talking. I’ve actually given you 15 minutes, not like

 

2" “Hot” decisions are said to activate the kind of knowledge that is most ingrained in the teacher. “Cold”
decisions can be planned for and. therefore. theory and best practices can inform them even if the preferred
action is not yet ingrained.

146

I said on the spot.” And I got really upset at this one girl, who from the beginning,
never felt like she belonged. She’s like, “I’m too good for this class.” She had an
attitude from the beginning. And she didn’t want to participate. And she was like
“Well, if you turned your back to us, you know, then we could talk.” And I’m
like, I looked at her and I stared right at her, I stood in front of her, like, I spun
around and said, “Is this better for you?” I was so mad at that point.

This altercation between the student and the teacher continued in the director’s office,

where the student said that she had never had such a teacher in her academic career, to

which the teacher retorted that §_h_e had never had such a student in her teaching career.

 

The student ended up withdrawing from the class and the teacher continued to be
employed at the same college. As Suzy reflected during the interview on how she had
reacted to the classroom management problem, she offered the following “cold”
assessment on what she should have done.
Maybe I could have just said, “Can you please come out [of] the classroom. into
the hall? I’d like to talk with you.” Instead of saying “Is this better?” you
know. . .Actually, I didn’t yell at her. I was about to ask her to leave and she was
yelling at me and I was trying to calm her down but I think before all that I would
have said, [softly] “If you’re trying to be disrespectful, I’d like to talk with you
after class. If you stay in class, then you can come and see me afterwards and you
can leave now if you’d like.” I would definitely have handled it a lot differently, a
lot more calm, because I reacted out of anger too. Uhm, no yelling.”
Note how, first of all, the teacher left her classroom to put something in a mailbox and

then upon return immediately expected the students to perform without assessing the

147

progress they had made in her absence. This suggests a preoccupation with her own
activities and an inability to focus on the students’ needs, which is characteristic of
novice teachers (Haritos, 2004; Mackey, Polio, & McDonough, 2004). Her behavior
parallels that of young, inexperienced, and unskilled mothers who seem to believe that by
simply instructing their children to act in a certain way (regardless of the guidance they
receive), they would do so. Next, the tone of her voice and the language she used to
recount the situation (“Ok, that’s it. You guys are going to write 2 pages and you’re going
to tell me exactly what these answers are. . .”) seemed like those of a mother (or possibly
an elementary-school teacher) chiding her children. The tone of her voice was
authoritatively impatient and her words commanding and curt. Both suggest that the
speaker felt in control of the listeners’ time and how it should be spent not only inside the
classroom but also outside. She made instantaneous demands on them as a form of
punishment for misbehaving, and she did so with a perceived educational purpose in
mind. It is also interesting that when given the opportunity to reflect, she did not
comment on any of the steps that had led up to the confrontation (such as leaving the
classroom in the middle of class, not reconnecting with the class upon return, challenging
rather than assessing). It is as if in her mind the confrontation had been inevitable. Both
Suzy’s “hot” and “cold” decisions (but especially the former) resulted in remarks that
were rather defensive and emotional. It is unlikely that this teacher had been prepared to
deal with classroom management problems. and it is certain that she had not internalized
a technique that could have diffused such a conflict. Instead, the teacher allowed the

conflict to escalate out of (her) control.

148

I believe that this is an example of what can happen when the framework of in
loco maternis comes in conflict with personality. In an earlier part of the interview, Suzy
spoke of her hope to create a warm atmosphere and make a positive impact on her
students, especially as this may be their first visit to the United States. She hOped that she
was not “a horrible example of an American” and that what her students were “learning
in the classroom, the culture things and the skills” would be useful in their lives. The lens
through which she viewed her role in the classroom and her responsibility toward her
students was that of a mother. By knowing that she was supposed to act as a positive role
model, she tried to serve as the mediator between the sheltered environment of the
classroom (the home) and greater society. However, there are different ways to be a
mother and Suzy was at times struggling not to give in to the emotional pull of the
classroom (Dirkx, Fonfara, & Flaska, 1993) and possibly negative examples she had seen
through an apprenticeship of self-preservation;24 her personality and skills did not easily
lend themselves to this role. Suzy’s behavior is reminiscent of those mothers who can be
seen yelling at their children in public, spanking them, and throwing tantrums that rival
those of their children’s.25 She was the young, inexperienced mother on whom society
placed the expectation of being the caring, nurturing role model but who lacked the skills
to behave that way when faced with a challenging situation. Her socialization into that
role was not complete. Therefore, although her rhetoric reflected one reality, her actual

behavior exemplified a different one.

 

3’ Even ifteachers have gone through an apprenticeship of self-preservation (i.e.. survived negative
experiences that they vowed to avoid). in the heat of the moment they may find themselves perpetuating
them.

2" Suzy is also probably an example of a teacher whose efficacy is low. Efficacious teachers are less likely
to attribute the course ofevents to the inevitable and are less likely to pass the blame when something goes
awry (Bandura. 1977: Chacon, 2005: Friedman & Kass. 2002: Ho & Hau. 2004: Hoy & Spero. 2005: V. E.
Lee. Dedrick. & Smith. 1991: Tschannen—Moran. Hoy. & Hoy. I998).

149

Several of the teachers found themselves in situations in which they would over-
identify with their learners. When only individual teachers are considered, this is the
boundary-awareness problem that Dirkx, Fonfara, and Flaska spoke of as stemming from
“an individual’s psychosocial identity and [which is] intimately bound up with the
practitioner’s own self—awareness and self—knowledge (citing Slater, Dirkx et al., 1993, p.
55). Suzy’s example above is one such case. Another one was Diana’s when she tried to
rescue a student by getting her a job under the table. Two other teachers lost themselves
occasionally in their relationships with learners. However, Diana gave the clearest
examples of when she found it challenging not to take students’ actions personally. One
story she told was about how personally hurt she felt whenever she encountered
plagiarism, especially after teaching students how to avoid it. Not only did she feel
disappointed but it was hard for her not to feel that the student wanted to cheat her
personally. The second story she told was about a student who was failing her class.
When the student got an opportunity to earn extra credit to improve her grade, she
plagiarized the assignment. Therefore, the teacher was going to suspend her from that
class.

I don’t know what it is about this particular student but I have suggested

wholeheartedly that she get a...tutor because her level of English is not for my

class and she’s going to fail. She cannot write a coherent paragraph let alone an
essay. So I go through these stages of being angry and then I’ll go like I’ll do
whatever it takes to show you one-on-one how to write this. . .To have a student
beg you [not to be suspended after plagiarizing], it just pulled on my heart strings.

It was pretty emotional. And I was fighting being angry with her. That’s my first

150

emotion. Anger. And then I can look back and go anger was masking my

frustration that she didn’t understand what I was talking about and that we

weren’t communicating. So first it’s anger and then I can back it up.
Diana allowed her students to affect her deeply and she seemed to take responsibility for
their behavior as well as her own. When a student did not follow her advice, she felt
personally disappointed, to the point of becoming angry. This suggests that in her mind
her student’s failure was her own failure. However, it was perceptive of her to realize that
the underlying reason for her reaction, in fact, was her feeling of low efficacy——
frustration over her own helplessness—because she was not able to communicate with
the student.

Both examples of Diana’s inability to draw the line between herself and her
students fit in with the in~loco-maternis thinking that I have observed among the
participants. Just like the mother who experiences her children’s failures as her own, so
did these teachers fail to separate themselves from their students’ lapses. Although on the
surface it may seem that the lack of boundary awareness is a personality issue and not a
cultural one, it is endemic among my participants. Certain environments lend themselves
more easily to this problem. For instance, adult basic education, refugee resettlement, and
community college ESL are settings in which tutors, case workers, and teachers,
respectively, often find themselves in situations where the boundary between their
professional roles and personal caring is blurred (Dirkx, Fonfara, & Flaska, 1993). Their
students frequently bring personal problems into the classroom or the office, which (to
invoke Diana’s wording) pulls on the teacher’s heart strings. The level and kind of

involvement which is exemplified above is as likely in this setting as it is unlikely in

another kind of higher educational setting. At a university, for instance, a situation of this
closeness between a professor (note that it. is no longer “the teacher”) and a student would
be unlikely because the culture of the setting would not lend itself to it. Therefore, if a
student plagiarized despite having been taught how to avoid plagiarism, the student
would have suffered the consequences. In the best case scenario, the student would have
been referred to the counseling center for specialists to work out the difficulties. The
professor would not have hesitated, been anguished, or considered tutoring the student
(even a foreign-born one) privately about how not to break the rules next time. Hence,
due to the nature of the work setting, an individual challenge takes on greater proportions.
Theory Versus Practice. After interpersonal problems, the largest category of
difficulties mentioned by the teachers I spoke to related to the tensions between theory
and practice. Some teachers were struggling because they lacked knowledge about the
subject matter, others because they did not know how to apply their knowledge in the
classroom, still others because they had shortcomings in both areas. Interestingly,
grammar was the content area that was mentioned most frequently as a trouble spot.
Lynn, for example, felt insecure about her ability to apply the theory in practice.
[I] kind of knew what I was doing but, like, I hadn’t explored written grammar
very much. I hadn’t explored the actual methods that would work with students. I
talked to some people about ideas but mostly it was, it’s like a lot of times when
you never taught the class before, like trial and error and experimenting.
The speech filler “kind of” suggests that she did not feel secure about her theoretical
foundation either, but that problem dwarfed in comparison to that of practice. She did not

know how to translate her theoretical knowledge into practical application. She consulted

other adjunct instructors (most of whom were also recent graduates and equally
inexperienced) or kept trying out different ideas to see what would work. Dontaku, on the
other hand, specifically said that he had not studied grammar since the 7lh grade, which is
curious because the MA TESOL program he is a graduate of does teach grammar. Still he
was lacking confidence in his knowledge of theory.

Before discussing the problems related to the tensions of theory and practice, let
us examine the next two quotations, which will demonstrate further what the teachers
mean by practical application. Suzy, for instance, illuminates one source of the problem.
Native speakers, by virtue of being native speakers, know how to use English grammar
but because they have never had to study it, they do not know the metalanguage and they
cannot anticipate trouble spots (another frequent theme).

You know native English speakers they know how to use these verbs. They don’t

know what they’re called and they don’t know how, why they use them, so that

was my problem. I think. . .non-native ESL teachers have a leg up with that
because they have to learn it, so they know some of the questions. They can
predict them beforehand. Me, I was like, “What are they going to ask?! What are
they going to do? How do I do this?”
Kathy also struggled with similar issues. Although she started by saying that she knew
the theory, she ended by doubting her knowledge.

I just felt like I didn’t really know how to teach it. So it was the how to teach part

and the grammar part too because I knew the grammar but I didn’t know how to

teach it. So it was terrifying looking at Restrictive Relative Clauses and going

“Oh, my gosh! How do I do this?”...But still it was absolutely terrifying because I

153

didn’t know what kinds of questions to anticipate. And the students would ask me

a question and I’d think, “Oh my gosh! Do I know the answer to that?!”
Partially, the teachers’ difficulty stems from being novice teachers, or recent graduates.
Uncertainty and stage fright are part of being a new teacher. After a few semesters, the
teachers gain enough practice to face even new classes with confidence. However, what
all these teachers seem to be emphasizing goes beyond first day jitters. Their problems
may persist despite the fact that some may have been teaching for several years. Some
teachers feel uncertain whether they know the subject matter. The websites of the two
TESOL programs whose graduates were mentioned above claim that “Pedagogical
Grammar” and “Structures or Functions of English,” respectively, are part of the core
curriculum. Still, one of the teachers said that he had to rely on 7'h grade grammar and
another that she had to rely on her knowledge as a native speaker. It would appear that
these teachers were unable to access their theoretical knowledge when they were in the
classroom. Others acknowledged that they did know the theory—albeit not firmly—but
they had trouble applying what they knew. They struggled to break down a grammatical
concept such as Restrictive Relative Clauses into teachable and comprehensible units.
These units may include creating the opportunity for students to discover the concept,
defining the concept, explaining its meaning, demonstrating its uses, highlighting trouble
spots, presenting examples that show what it is and what it is not, creating exercises that
are increasingly complex and contextualized, providing ample opportunity for practice of
the target structure, providing varied and appropriate corrective feedback, and starting all

over with different techniques if students have trouble. Novice teachers may skip some of

154

these necessary steps when teaching a concept. They may hurry through others. They
may focus on their own performance more than the needs of their students.

These findings are not new; many of these difficulties have been demonstrated by
Mackey, Polio, & McDonough (2004), Polio & Wilson—Duffy (1998), and others as
discussed in Chapter 2. What is new, however, is that grammar was the most frequently
mentioned skill with which teachers had difficulty. Seven of the twelve mentioned it
specifically as an area of difficulty. Only two teachers (Kate and Katie) felt that their
knowledge of grammar was strong. In Katie’s words, “We had to take a class on
grammar, which used a book I had used in my undergrad, which some students really
struggled with because they didn’t come from a strong linguistics or language
background like I did.” The first important implication is that the teachers’ pre—entry
background is important. Those teachers who have studied grammar as part of their
undergraduate curriculum found this subject easy and the instruction they received in
their TESOL programs sufficient; others did not. Another implication is that these
teachers not only had trouble with theory but also with practice. They struggled with not
only yrs/M to teach but also M to teach it. From a gendered perspective, the fact that
they so freely discussed their initial insecurity about the “what” and the “how” suggests
femininity. The masculine trait is self-confidence and even if the professor should feel
vulnerable, it is not something he (or she) would be expected to discuss.

Teacher identity formation is another practice-related difficulty that was
mentioned by several participants. All graduates clearly remember the moment when they
were facing their own classroom for the very first time. Until that moment, their identity

had not been transformed from student to teacher. In hindsight, Kate understood that as a

teaching assistant and student teacher in her MA TESOL program she had felt more like
a student than a teacher. She had felt comfortable not knowing everything. She had not
yet had the expectation of herself that she should have all the answers. This allowed her
to consult her mentor and grammar guru regularly. Through this close collaboration over
two years, she was growing increasingly comfortable with applying grammar theory to
practice. In a sense, Kate had the ideal apprenticeship experience in teaching grammar.
Still, despite the two—year preparation and experience in front of a class, her identity as a
teacher had not been fully formed.
When not having the answer but not seeing myself as the teacher, it was fine for
me to go ask [the mentor]. I didn’t have that same “I’m the teacher, I should
know.” Because my primary, I guess, identity at that time was being a
student. ..[It was] definitely ok not to know. . .I really took advantage of
that...[The first teaching experience after graduation] what I remember is having
the lesson of Ieaming that it’s OK not to know. Like ...“I don’t know. I’ll find out
and get back to you.” But that’s hard to say the first time when you’re in front of
the class...l mean now I’m used to it. Now I’m making mistakes all the time.
The real transition from student to teacher occurred when she was first faced with her
very own class after graduation. That is when she realized that _sh_e was the teacher, with
which came her own expectation that she was supposed to know it all. Being in charge of
their own classroom was a scary experience for many of the teachers I interviewed. They
spoke about the moment of facing their own class for the first time in very similar terms.

Here is Diana’s example.

I’ll never forget this as long as I live. Standing in the classroom the very first day
of class at this campus. It was in 0107 or 106 room. And I’m standing there going
“Everyone’s looking at me because _I_’__n_r the teacher!” Like, “Here you go, you’re
the boss. Oh, my gosh, everyone’s looking at me!” It was just so weird. “I’m in
charge.”
Sometimes this feeling of slight panic would last or go away temporarily but return
throughout the semester. She would start having doubts about the effectiveness of her
teaching. As she put it, “I’d get that panicky feeling like I’m not, they’re not learning
enough. I have to just keep shoving this down their throat.” Self—doubt was also a
recurrent theme, even among teachers with some experience. Dontaku, for instance, had
approximately four years of teaching experience by the time he graduated from the
TESOL program. However, he then worked in a different field, and when he returned he
felt like a beginner all over again.
I remember the first time driving to [a community college] in 2002; it was 100
miles and l wasjust sick all the way. It’s like “Oh, my god. I’m going to go into
the classroom. I’m scared. What’s this I’m getting into? Can I do this?” I don’t
feel like that any more.
His stage fright was exacerbated by the fact that he had been gone from the classroom for
two years. Also, he was going to work in a new setting: a community college.
Sophia’s first-day panic manifested itself in a different way. She was so focused
on her own role and lesson plan that she forgot about the students (which is a frequent

difficult of novice teachers) (Haritos, 2004; Mackey, Polio, & McDonough, 2004).

157

I lunged right into it. I didn’t even introduce myself or anything. Then I was like,
“Oh, ok, by the way.” I was just like looking at my plan, “Ok, so we’re going to
start with pronunciation or whatever.” And I don’t know; I just remember it being
very quiet at times, a quiet group. so it’s like if it weren’t small, I would have
never even known that they don’t understand what I am saying. I just don’t even
remember what I did.

Although the self-doubt and confusion would occasionally return even after the first day,

gradually all the teachers were becoming more self-assured. At the time of the interview,

they felt that they were able to focus on the students more, feel more comfortable with

their identity as teachers, and face new classes and new skills with confidence. Kathy’s

experience sums it up well.
And now, even if I don’t do it in a perfect way, whatever class it is, I don’t feel
that way. So I guess the difference is in how I feel about WWI know that it’s
easier for me now than it was at the beginning to identify what their challenges
were. I think that’s my challenge. It’s being able to figure out what they need,
what they don’t understand, what they most need help with. You know if it’s a
native Mandarin speaker, articles or... ‘he/she.’ or knowing that different
language groups have different challenges. At the beginning it was all a challenge.
I can’t say that there is any _on_e. thing that I felt like was bigger because everything
was new.

The formation of teachers is a very well—researched area and my findings confirm those'

of many others. The types of challenges that those recent graduates who had little

teaching experience26 reported were consistent with the findings of previous studies (see
Chapter 2 for a discussion of related research). With time and practice, they would
overcome the aforementioned challenges as their identities as classroom teachers became
more solidified.

Let us interrogate the kind of identity that was being formed though. Socialization
into the professoriate (to become a university professor) is likely to include an intensive
5+ year period of induction beginning in graduate school, emphasis on the development
of expertise in a subject matter, and only marginal attention to pedagogics (Sorcinelli.
Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). During this time, the shift from student to scholar takes
place albeit the process of socialization for the institutional type continues. In contrast,
socialization into teaching ESL at a community college begins with the pre—induction
years of K-12 education, during which students engage in a decade of apprenticeship of
observation. Then after typically four years of more-or—less related undergraduate studies,
the formal induction into the profession only lasts (at most) two years, during which
emphasis is placed on (to varying degrees) both the subject matter and its method of
instruction. The shift from student to teacher (not scholar or professor) may not take
place until teachers face their first class after graduation. The process of socialization into
the field is completed after several semesters of teaching and is influenced by the
conditions and atmosphere of the workplace.

Work Conditions. The final and most insurmountable challenge for these mostly
part—time teachers stemmed from the conditions and atmosphere of the workplace,

specifically their adjunct instructor status. Only two instructors did not complain about

 

26

The most experienced teacher in the study was Joan (5-10 years of teaching by the time she graduated
from the TESOL program). Her challenges after graduation were ofa different nature such as teaching with
minimal resources and developing a curriculum.

159

part-time work: one who held a full-time position in a K-12 setting and another one who,
in addition to being a part-time instructor, owned a business in an unrelated field.
Although they were both fully committed to their community college jobs, they did not
depend on them for a living. Even the only full-time instructor/program director started
out as a part-timer and raised the issue when asked about challenges.

One could argue that, strictly speaking, in the classroom it does not matter
whether an instructor is employed full- or part-time. However, as these recently
graduated teachers explain, it becomes apparent that it makes a lot of difference in their
resources, their self—esteem, and their commitment to the field: all of which may leave
their mark on the classroom. The lack of a private office (and by extension office hours, a
private computer, a private room to see students, space to call one’s own) is the physical
manifestation of the emotional need that part-time teachers have. The following two
excerpts demonstrate this. Kate explained that because she did not get paid for office
hours, she did not have any.

Many particularly part-time teachers, I mean, even I’m definitely guilty of this

too, this is ajob, I come here for a paycheck. I don’t have office space, you know.

You go to the part-time faculty commons, where there is a bunch of computers,

you have a mailbox, etc. But it is not the same as having an office door that you

can close and books to pile up. And if a student wants to meet me, I have to come,

I have to make an appointment specifically for them because I’m not just going to

be here and have office hours because [I’m] a part time teacher, you know.
The focus of Kate’s story was on the lack of part-timers’ office hours. Diana’s story

illuminated the flip side: full time instructors’ office hours.

160

Full-time faculty have posted office hours on their door. And I sit here in the
adjunct office at the time when their office hours are and they’re never in their
office during office hours. In fact, they get to their office 5 minutes before their
class begins. . .And that really frustrates me. And I know I shouldn’t concentrate
on what other people are doing, but it’s hard when I get a parade of students going
“Where is the teacher?” “On the freeway, on the way here.” And then when the
person does get here, then they say, “I’m sorry I don’t have time to talk to you; I
have to prep for my class.”

Diana was clearly upset over the inequity that she perceived. She, the adjunct, had to field

students’ questions about their full-time teachers’ whereabouts while she, the adjunct, did

not get paid for that time but the full-timers did. She then continued her story raising

another inequity: the workload.
There was a semester, where I was teaching 6 classes: 2 here, 2 at another
community college, and 2 at a university. And I had an instructor, a full-time
faculty, I was in her class from when she was finished, and she had the audacity to
complain about her teaching load of 5 or 6 classes. And I thought, “Sister, if I
could teach all 6 of my classes at one campus, I would be very happy.” So I really
found it offensive that a full-time faculty can complain to an adjunct about their
workload, which is not mandatory. And I don’t hear them complaining carrying
all the bags of money to the bank or all the other benefits.

Incidents like the above highlight the difficult working conditions of adjunct instructors

in Michigan. They practically live out of their cars as they drive from one part-time job to

another. They work multiple jobs to piece together a full—time salary (Finder, 2007).

161

Usually they only get paid for class time but not for meetings or office hours.27 They do
not have benefits. In other words, they have very challenging work conditions. Most
teachers that I spoke to had not been aware of this reality before entering the job market
with their MA TESOL diplomas in hand.

For Dontaku, the years since graduation have been sobering. The dismal
employment situation had dampened his spirits but he was still able to be committed to
teaching and his students.

My experience teaching, how has that changed? Maybe my view of the field. I

was a little more na’r’ve. Even though I knew that I wasn’t going to get full-time

work without going overseas, but still kind of hoped. No idea of the reality. I

think I’ll do this 10 years from now: I can’t because I couldn’t survive financially.

It’s just the reality. It’s nothing to be bitter or troubled about; it’s just the reality.

You know, so that changed the perspective, occasionally changed, but for the

most part I think I’m able to maintain the energy level, sort of a devotion.

This teacher, like many others, had no idea that finding full-time employment in a post—
secondary setting would be so difficult. Now that he had been out of graduate school for
five years, he understood the reality. Even though the future looked bleak, he was not yet
ready to give up and leave the field. Nor was the next teacher.

Looking back I think that I may have done it differently. Not that I regret doing

what I’m doing because I love what I’m doing. I love the students. I love the

atmosphere. I really like [name of the community college]. I like the people that I

 

27 In one of the colleges that I studied. instructors w_e[§ paid for office hours. However. they did not get
paid for all of the time they were required to spend in the classroom. The instructor who brought this point
up was apparently told that this practice was necessary to help their struggling new program to gain some
strength and momentum.

work with, so. That’s not the reason why. It’s reallyjust because I’m looking
ahead at the future, thinking, “Alright, I want to work for the next 20 years or 30
years or whatever.” And it’s just really hard to just do it part-time.
Kathy also saw no change in sight. She also knew that she could not go on being an
adjunct indefinitely for financial reasons. Interestingly, unlike Dontaku, Kathy had asked
ESL teachers in the field about the employment situation when contemplating getting a
master’s degree. She was told that there was a great need for teachers. What she was not
told, however, was that all the need was for part-time instructors.28 She continued to
elaborate on another reason why being a part—time instructor was challenging.
And it’s also, you feel like you’re not a real member of the college. You got
faculty; you got administration; you’ve got, you know, the parapros, the classified
staff, or whatever you call that. They’re in. And then you’ve got adjuncts; you got
the part-time; you get bumped out of your classes; you never know what you’re
teaching from one semester to the next. It’s really sort of, you feel disposable
because there’s always somebody willing to come up behind you. If you don’t
want it and you’re not happy with that situation, “Oh, well, too bad; somebody
else will teach it for you.”
Every one of the adjunct instructors that I spoke to had the necessary qualifications to get
a full-time ESL teaching position at a community college. They were just as well
educated as their full—time colleagues. Still, they felt inferior to the full-time faculty and

marginalized by the college. The practice of being offered leftover classes (the ones that

 

3” At the time of writing up this study. I ran into Kathy at a professional meeting. She informed me that she
was actively looking for work outside academe because five years after graduation she still saw no hope of
finding a full-time teaching position. Although she was still teaching at the same community college part
time. her energy and focus were already elsewhere.

no full-timer wants) and of being “bumped” (having to surrender a class if a full-timer’s
class does not make but the part-timer’s docs) are demeaning practices to these
professionals.

Several part-time teachers experienced further challenges in relation to full-time
faculty and administrators. With some notable exceptions, part-time instructors rarely
interacted with their full—time colleagues. Often their schedules were incompatible. Part-
time faculty tended to teach classes that full-timers chose not to—usually in the evening.
Adjuncts often did not schedule office hours; they might be teaching another class at
another school immediately before and/or after their classes at the community college, so
they were simply not around. Even if they spent some time in the adjunct office, the
location of the full- and part-time offices might be quite distant from each other. They
might not meet at staff meetings either because of scheduling conflicts or because
adjuncts would not have the luxury of giving up the opportunity to earn money elsewhere
while they attended an unpaid meeting. For all the aforementioned reasons, part-timers
and full-timers rarely crossed paths socially or professionally. This means that adjuncts
were on their own and felt unsupported. As I discussed earlier in this chapter, Sophia
remarked that she rarely interacted with the full-time faculty at her college. She would
send them an e-mail or give them a call if she had a question, but otherwise she relied on
her fellow adjuncts for support. Sometimes adjunct instructors took the initiative to get
together on the weekend and discuss a topic of common concern, such as how to evaluate
written assignments. Two of the participants relayed the same story about one time when
adjuncts initiated such a workshop-like get-together and took the idea to the full-time

faculty. They were hoping for help with organizing the event. Instead of support, they

164

found indignation. This is how Kathy told the story, speaking of the organizer of the
event
She had a very good idea and wanted to get together with the faculty and the
adjuncts and discuss certain things about the writing program and was told
specifically that adjuncts are not supposed to do that. That is not something that is
in the adjunct’s job description and almost like “How dare you?!”
And this is how Diana, who was one of the two organizers, told the same story.
We were going to have a workshop here and we were going to conduct it. And we
asked for pemrission and we were knocked down big time. Nothing gets done
here unless it’s initiated by a full-time faculty member. I mean it was almost
borderline cruel the way it was handled. Not like “Oh, you know what, what a
great idea; let’s see what full-time faculty member can help you with this.” Or
“What a great job and yes, I love the points that you got on the agenda; let’s see
what we can do with this and see who all is interested.” It was shot down.
Apart from the differences in style of delivery and the teachers’ personalities, the stories
were identical. They spoke loudly of the great division between full- and part-time
instructors that existed at some community colleges. Gappa, Austin, & Trice (2005) have
found that part-time faculty lack the opportunity to grow professionally and to become
part of the collegial community. The part-timers in this study also had an unmet need for
support. They needed opportunity to bounce ideas off each other, discuss problems
related to their students. share teaching techniques, reflect on their classes, etc. They
seemed to want their full-time colleagues to meet this need. And “colleague” is the

operative word. Because of all the aforementioned reasons, there was a chasm between

165

these two groups and adjuncts did not feel that full-timers were their colleagues. They did
not seem to have a collegial relationship with each other.29 Not only was there very little
interaction between full— and part—time instructors, the little that there was was often
perceived negatively by the part-timers.

Several participants also voiced their dissatisfaction with supervisory
relationships. Sometimes because they were too strict; other times because they were not
strict enough. Kate put it very well when she contrasted the atmosphere of her TESOL
program with that of her workplace.

In the TESOL program, in the school environment you have a lot of support;

everybody wants you to succeed; everybody wants to help you. And I find that in

my professional experience that’s not there. That’s not there unless I seek it out. If

I want someone to come and observe me, yes, sure, they’ll probably come and

observe me.

At the college she was feeling alone and unsupported, which was in stark contrast with
how supported she felt in graduate school. Now she was feeling a bit neglected. In her
opinion, it would take exceptionally bad course evaluations for someone to take notice.
Otherwise, adjuncts at the college were invisible. As she put it, “I feel like, I could
probably teach here for 20 years without recognition.” Another teacher voiced a similar
concern about working at a different college. Her observation was similar although the
meaning she made out of it was different. In answer to the kind of supervision she

preferred, Suzy said, “Not necessarily, ‘way to go, good job’ but just something like, I

 

39 Not every teacher had difficulty stemming from his/her part-time status. Aniko. for instance. was
included in all departmental meetings. was given a classroom/office. and felt respected by her full-time
colleagues. However. the fact that she brought these examples up at all (albeit in a positive light) affirms
the importance of the issue.

166

don’t know. I like a little bit of supervision. Someone to keep me in line, make sure I’m
doing what I’m supposed to be doing.” At yet another institution, Diana’s preference for
the right supervision was very different from that of Suzy’s. Diana felt that she was not
trusted despite her qualifications and the fact that she had taught a class 3 or 4 times
before.
What I am supposed to do is my very first in-class writing, I’m supposed to make
a copy of an A paper, a B paper, a C paper, a D paper and a failing paper of my
in-class writing and say this is why I think this is an A paper, whatever. Well, I
didn’t do that. Also, during the semester I have to create a portfolio for my
students. I have to have an in-class writing and I have a grade with comments on
it and I have to have their first out-of—class paper with multiple drafts as part of
their portfolio. What that’s used for, l have no idea....I can tell you what I think
they’re used for. And it’s kind of ajaded version. I think it’s a way to
micromanage me as a teacher here.
What cuts across all the examples given is that the teachers feel that they are unnoticed
and their work is unrecognized. Even Diana did not believe that the kind of supervision
she was receiving was used to constructive ends or that she would be commended for the
job she was doing. Let us, for a moment, examine the word “supervision.” Whether an
adjunct wants more or less supervision is less important than the fact that all the ones
who mentioned it accepted it. Most of the teachers did not question the practice that they
were supervised, that they were given syllabi and lesson plans, that their grading was

double-checked, and that their work conditions were tightly controlled. This is despite the

167

fact that these teachers were fully qualified to be in charge of their own classes. It would
seem that they have internalized the subordination, that the adjunct system imposed.

The essence of the problem is captured by the conflict between Joan and her
supervisor, whose control of Joan’s work environment made it impossible for Joan to do
her job. As an adjunct, Joan was tutoring in a larger office. Her supervisor moved a high-
traffic printer right next to the table at which she was tutoring. Because of the constant
noise from the printer and people coming and going, Joan and her students were unable to
concentrate. So she moved the printer away from the tutoring area.

Well, the administrator absolutely hit the roof, called me in, was going to file a

grievance. I was given a reprimand and indicated that when she wanted that

printer moved, she had the right to move it. And I said, “But I’m teaching and I’m

supposed to be able to have freedom to teach.” And she said, “You are only an

adjunct and you have no rights.” And that has stuck with me for a long time:

“only an adjunct” means that you cannot decide for your teaching, you cannot

indicate what’s best for you and it really got me thinking about...where the

importance of teaching is in terms of administration versus instructors.

To summarize the various challenges that were mentioned by the twelve
participants, there were three clear themes.30 The most frequently mentioned one was the

interaction with students; the second difficulty was the nature of being an early-career

 

"0 Several other challenges were also named by various participants. In no particular order. they were not
knowing how to do curriculum development. not knowing how to set up a grade book. struggling with
grading papers (because of not knowing what to look for. what grade to give an assignment, and how to
contain the amount of time grading takes). not being able to determine ifa student’s lack of progress was
due to disability or lack of aptitude. students’ trying to avoid ESL classes because of the stigma attached to
ESL, mainstream faculty viewing ESL as a developmental subject. counselors overwriting faculty
recommendations and allowing students to bypass ESL classes despite their score on the placement test. I
chose not to elaborate on these difficulties because each one was only mentioned by one participant.

168

instructor; and the final theme was that of the undervalued adjunct instructor. The first
and third themes clearly (and the second one to a lesser degree) bring us back to the
feminized gendered classroom and institutional reality of the part-time ESL instructor at
the community college. In the hierarchy of jobs/roles, according to Paludi and Strayer,
occupations that have historically been dominated by men and those with higher levels of
education tend to have more prestige (as cited in Golombok & Fivush, 1985). The
university professor is one such occupation despite the fact that the TESOL professor is
frequently a woman. In contrast, feminized jobs (such as motherhood or teaching) have
traditionally been undervalued. As demonstrated in the preceding pages, teachers
frequently find themselves in a role that is typically gendered feminine (with a focus on
nurturing) and deprofessionalized (through low pay, short-term contracts, minimal social
respect). What is more, the relegation of adjuncts to a subordinate status is reminiscent of
the feminized division of labor that once existed in the academy.
Successes

Amidst the challenges, there was no shortage of successes. Every interview
participant felt either “successful” or “very successful” as a teacher of English as a
second language at a community college. In fact, every survey respondent (n = 37)3 I felt
the same way about question #20 on the online survey (see Table 3); 17 answered
“Agree” and 20 answered “Strongly Agree” to the statement that they are successful
teachers. Of the interview participants, half agreed and half strongly agreed. The
explanation for this high level of perceived success probably lies in a combination of

factors. First, (as this was an exploratory study) I did not provide teachers with a

 

"’ The number of survey respondents (or n) keeps changing depending on the question for two reasons.
First. I programmed various filters into the survey program in order to arrive at the target population.
Second, some participants skipped some questions but answered others. Thus the it count keeps fluctuating.

169

definition of success, but rather allowed them to define it as they saw it. This way they
were able to recall experiences that were meaningful to them and that they perceived as
successful. Second, the volunteer effect may have resulted in the finding that all teachers
felt successful. Teachers volunteered for both the survey and the interview, and it is
unlikely that those who did not believe in their ability to teach well would have
volunteered to participate. Last but not least, nearly all the interviewees seemed
efficacious.32 As discussed in Chapter 2, classroom efficacy can be defined as the degree
to which teachers feel that they are effecting positive change in their students (Friedman
& Kass, 2002). When I asked a specific question about this, responses ranged from
“Daily. I feel it all the time” (Aniko) to “I think I’m a positive presence but I wouldn’t
attribute any changes to what I’m doing” (Sophia). On average, teachers admitted that it
was unclear how much of the progress that they observed in their students was due to
their own influence; still, they attributed their students’ success at least partially to
themselves. It is as if they were using maternal pride as a way of coping with the
challenges. This is how Kathy connects the two.

And it’s just awesome. That’s why I’m saying that even being an adjunct, you

know, it’s still such a positive experience, not every day, not all the time, but so

often. And that’s why I love teaching ‘cause you feel that you gag make a

difference. And when you see that difference, it’s awesome. It’s phenomenal...

Success based on its Source. The twelve interview participants experienced

success when their efforts and accomplishments were noticed by someone and relayed

 

32 The focus of this study was not to determine teacher efficacy; therefore. my assessment is based on one
direct question during the interview (#10 in Appendix B and an overall sense based on the rest of the
interview.

I70

back to them. The source of feedback may have been the students themselves, a boss or
colleague at the community college, or a professor in the TESOL program. Feedback
from students may have been direct, as in Barbara’s story.
In general I would say yes. I get a lot of feedback from students that tell that they
really appreciate the way I teach, that they feel like they learned something from
me, that students that I worked with 2 or 3 years ago that still send me e-mails and
letting me know how they’re doing. And to me that says that there was something
that they got out of working with me that would make them want to continue
communicating with me even after a couple years.
The instructor experienced a sense of affirmation when former students kept in touch and
shared with her their own successes. She saw that as proof that her teaching was
effective. She also attributed student Ieaming to her efforts (“they appreciate the way I
teach, that they feel like they learned something from me,” and “to me that says that there
was something that they got out of working with me”), which is a sign of efficacy. The
next example comes from a university—based intensive English language program, but it
could have taken place anywhere. In this case, Leah received positive feedback not only
from her former students but also from her mentor, who was a professor at the same
university.
It was a reading class I taught at [name of university], ‘cause I taught there and
here at the same time. I made it a project-based reading class instead of just using
the book. And it was really, some really good, ‘cause for the final project they had
to do a 10-15 minute presentation, like I had one student compare the husbands in

the Terry Schivo and the Laci Peterson case, so he compared and contrasted them.

171

I had another student present about the death penalty. So they had to do a lot of
reading and synthesizing and putting together and presenting it. So I just think
that’s so awesome...I consider it successful when after the semester is over, I still
hear from them and they tell me, like “Oh, I still enjoy reading, I still enjoy
writing.” So that’s when I know that it was success in the long term, not just the
short term.
Leah is proud of not only having designed an innovative class but also of having
contributed to a positive attitude towards reading and writing. A less frequently cited
source of success, however, is Lynn’s case. “Sometimes there were even students that
hadn’t passed came back like ‘I know why you didn’t pass me. I’m struggling. Thanks a
lot.’” In this case the success came from the student who recognized that failing the class
was a blessing in disguise and came to thank the teacher for it.

Sometimes success grows out of a challenge. Lynn confronted two uncooperative
students in her advanced class-—--the most common sort of difficulty that the teachers
mentioned. Often students at the highest level of the ESL sequence of classes do not see
the benefit in the class but view it instead as a barrier that stands between them and
mainstream classes. They demonstrate their displeasure through body language (by
sitting slumped in their chairs, with their arms folded, looking bored) and inappropriate
class participation (either too little, too much. or off topic). In this case the students rolled
their eyes during class. After awhile, the teacher decided to reason with them.

For some reason I knew that they didn’t hate me, [but] that they just didn’t want

 

to be there any more. And so I talked to each of them individually about a third of

the way through the semester, “You know your grades are suffering and you’re

not participating. I don’t hear you.” And “What’s wrong?” You know, “What’s
going on? Are you just going to waste your time and your money here this
semester? ‘Cause we could really get a lot done here. I think you’re a great
student. I think your English is wonderful and you have interesting ideas and I
think you should do this.” And they didn’t even blink an eye. They just flipped
personalities. From the next week they were asking questions. . .One of them is
finishing her master’s at Eastern [Michigan University].
Lynn derived her success from gaining the cooperation of two uninvolved students.
However, the fact that one of them has not only finished ESL successfully but has also
gone on to further study—a master’s degree at that—is no doubt a great source of success
as well. Note Lynn’s personal approach. She started out by saying that the students’
attitude was probably not due to their personal dislike of her. Then she continued by
asking each student a series of questions, trying to diagnose the reason for their behavior
in class. Her comments were both chiding (“Are you just going to waste your time and
money here this semester?”) and supportive (“I think you’re a great student”). She
approached the students from a counseling, caring, or maternal angle. Had this incident
taken place at a four-year institution, it is less likely that the professor would have
considered talking to the students but it is also less likely that the students would have
“misbehaved” in the first place. They did so because they also recognized the familial
pattern of this sort of classroom.
The following examples of successes were all relayed to the teachers by someone
at their institution. This is a very important source of success because—as demonstrated

in the previous section of this chapter—teachers frequently feel that their

accomplishments go unnoticed. Leah told the story of how she was rehired after her first
semester.

So I applied and they called me in for an interview and said, “Ok, we’d like to

offer you the job.” And then. . .the first class that I worked with had two students

in it that had consistently failed their class, 2 or 3 times, but they passed [under

Leah’s guidance] and they spoke glowingly about me and so they’re, “We want to

keep you because the students like you.” And I said, “OK, I’ll stay.”

There is dual satisfaction in this example: the students passed even though they had failed
many times before and the department chair noticed this and rehired Leah. Aniko’s
example of success also came from the department chair.

When I first got into the ESL, I had absolutely not a clue what to expect. The

funny thing is, Ildi, when I got into the ESL here, it came about as natural as

riding a bike. I mean, [the Chair] has even told me, as recently as the last month,

that she never worked with anyone who felt as natural in this program as I did.

In the aforementioned examples, the actual content of successes is less significant than
the source. Once the positive comment made its way back to the teachers, it was a real
affirmation of their efforts. And the importance of the fact that it was relayed by a
supervisory figure underscores the subordinated relationship of the teachers.

Success based on its Content. The success stories in the following segment,
however, emphasize the content of the successes. The teachers frequently spoke of
observable student outcomes. Some of them were tangible (such as a higher score on a
post—test than on a pro-test, writing a paper with fewer mistakes, and giving an organized

oral presentation) while others were intangible (such as eyes lighting up as a sign of

I74

understanding, students talking more, or students gaining self-confidence). Of the four
skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking), writing is the easiest one to assess. Not
only is it the result of production (as opposed to reception) but it is also captured
permanently on paper, so the reader can return to it if necessary. Perhaps that is one
reason why nearly all the examples of observable student successes were of progress
made with writing. Dontaku, for instance, explained how he prepared his students to pass
a rigorous exit exam, where two to three blind reviewers determined if the piece of
writing measured up to the benchmark.

I’m able to take 20 students in [at the beginning of the semester]. I’ve read that

first writing sample, [and] I think 15 of them are not going to make it. But by the

time we get to the end it’s only about 2 or 3 that don’t get there.
In other words, even though at the beginning of the semester 15 students seemed
hOpeless, by the end of the term only 2 or 3 did not pass the exam and had to repeat the
class. This was a definite confidence-booster for the teacher because he helped 12-13
students pass who would not have done so otherwise. Note the personal responsibility
that the teacher takes for his students’ success or failure. I posit that a university professor
would put the emphasis more on the students’ responsibility for their own Ieaming than
his/her own.

The next two success stories are also about writing. Sophia felt successful when
her students’ writing improved because they made use of her comments. Here the
progress is also tangible because it is clear whether or not her students have responded to
her comments. “In the writing class, it’s the difference between the first draft and the

second draft, where I really feel success. They’re where I would expect them to be. It’s

175

the evidence that they’re reading the comments that I’m making.” As a result of Sophia’s
feedback to a writing assignment, the subsequent draft showed improvement, which filled
the teacher with pride. Katie also viewed success in similar terms.

Seeing students to be able to form cohesive paragraphs: that’s a success. Seeing

students be able to write, use transitions, put ideas together: that is definitely a

good feeling because you see a product at the end. You know the students may be

using language correctly or some other thing that you’ve taught them but to see a

finished product is a real quantifiable measure of success.
The two teachers gave similar examples of success with an observable, tangible outcome:
improvement between the first and subsequent drafts of a writing assignment. The
language they used, however, was quite different. Sophia seemed to be using what
Freeman (1993) called “local language,” which is what teachers use to explain what they
do on a daily basis when they talk to their colleagues at work. Freeman suggests that this
stems partially from their apprenticeship of observation and from normative ways of
talking and thinking in their environments. On the other hand, Katie used professional
language, which is what the discourse community uses in the teacher-training program. In
Katie’s case the use of outcomes assessment language may also have resulted from the K-
12 environment, where she is a full~time teacher. The recent emphasis on assessing
student Ieaming in her daily work may have penetrated her thinking. This may be a
reason why she used this language to describe success even in her part-time, community
coHegejobf

The next success story is one of few about a skill other than writing. As Suzy

recounted the story of one of her novice, or so-called “zero-beginner” students, she

176

started out by emphasizing that initially she needed to use sign language to communicate
with him. She would carve out class time to tutor him individually and catch him up to
the rest of the beginning, pre—academic class that she was teaching. Then she continued.
And I saw him last semester and it’s been just two semesters that I hadn’t seen
him. And I said, “Hi, how are you? How is school going?” And he said whole
sentences. And I can’t take all the credit for that because I only had him for 4
months but only 7 months had passed and I was like, “Oh, I helped you with some
of that!” Or maybe it wasn’t all me but it was like, “Wow, I taught him from the
beginning and now where he’s at, it’s really cool.” And that’s like having a child;
you know you see them as babies and now they’re talking and walking. And my
daughter is playing piano, doing gymnastics, and reading. ..It’s great to see the
progress in the thinking of the students.
This example is of a less tangible nature but definitely observable by the teacher. All of
these measures of success (comprehending the teacher’s questions, giving appropriate
responses, producing more language, and using whole sentences), though difficult to
quantify, were evident for the teacher and made her feel successful. Suzy helped this
unprepared student to pass her class and to catch up. It is important to keep in mind that
the preparation of such students is one of the most important missions of community
colleges. As teachers get socialized into the ethos of this nurturing environment, they
learn that it is the expectation of teachers there to help struggling students personally.
Furthermore, the familiar theme of in loco maternis emerged once again, as Suzy
compared the progress of her former student to that of her daughter. She realized that the

success was not hers alone but she claimed it as hers, nevertheless. She clearly was

177

thinking within the framework of a parent who, even if she could not take full credit for
her child’s success, was proud of the progress. Had this student been attending another
class at a four-year institution of higher Ieaming, where the institutional and field-specific
cultures are not feminized, he would have been referred to the tutoring center and/or
advised to withdraw from the class. It is unimaginable that the professor would have
taken class time to tutor him privately. Finally, if the student had succeeded and visited
the former professor, his progress would have been attributed to his own effort and no
comparison would have been made to childhood development; the professor would not
have made him/herself analogous to a mother raising children.

Kate’s example demonstrated two intangible forms of success. Primarily, she was
proud of her newly acquired ability to adjust her teaching to the level of her class.
Secondarily, the feedback she received from her students was another. source of success.

When I first started teaching, I could not teach beginners. I had a very-very

difficult time breaking things down to the level of a beginner. I was meant for

advanced students. This is what I’m like. I speak fast. I had a really hard time

adjusting...The first time that I had [to teach beginners]. . .was a disaster because I

couldn’t do it. But like after having to do it several times, to be able to do it,

actually see myself doing and...you know you get...the bright eyes, like “My
god, they were understanding; I did something right this time!”
The feeling of success was multiplied when the teacher’s internal assessment of her
performance was immediately confirmed by the students. Kathy also mentioned the

exhilarating feeling that she got whenever students understood her explanation.

178

Part of it I think is little moments when you feel like you’ve really
connected. ..Sometimes it happens here [referring to the tutoring center where
Kathy also works and where our interview took place] and sometimes it happens
in the classroom, when you feel like the light bulb goes on. When you can explain
it in such a way that’s interesting, hopefully, and understandable and it really
makes them feel like they’ve really learned it and that they can use it. That’s when
students go, “Oh, my gosh! M I understand it! Now I get it! I know what you’re
talking about.” And to me that’s what teaching is all about, when you feel that
you can make a difference.
Clark (1987) calls it the power of education to make a difference a myth that endures
over time; it is so powerful a feeling that it can overshadow drawbacks in the teaching
profession. The aforementioned quotation clearly shows that the myth is still thriving. All
of the recent graduates made a connection with their students. These moments of
affirmation and success—seeing their “children” use skills that they taught them—
allowed them to keep going. They derived so much personal satisfaction from their jobs
that for awhile they could keep the challenges in perspective. Unfortunately, the greatest
challenge—the part-time employment situation——-made their commitment unsustainable
in the long run. Of the six teachers who were actively looking for a full-time ESL
teaching position at the time of the study; one is currently studying for a K-l2 teaching
certificate and has given up on post-secondary education; one is preparing for admission
to law school; one is applying for non-teaching jobs; one is in a doctoral program in a
field in education but unrelated to ESL; and two are continuing to work at multiple

community colleges each semester while hoping that their luck will change.

179

Conclusion

The twelve recently graduated teachers exhibited attitudes, behaviors, and
qualities that for whatever reason have come to be recognized in today’s society as
gendered feminine. This manifested itself in a variety of ways (and with certain teachers
more prominently than with others), as discussed in this chapter. They were shaped by
mostly K-12 teachers whose personalities or teaching techniques served as either positive
or negative examples. Their prior teaching, multicultural, and foreign-language-learning
experiences made enduring impressions. As a result of them, the teachers became
empathetic and at times even protective of their students. In their approach to graduate
school further gendered traits became apparent. The teachers were interested in concrete.
hands—on techniques that could be used while teaching or tutoring. Theoretical
preparation was interesting to them so long as it seemed directly relevant to the
classroom. When speaking of the TESOL programs and faculty, they employed familiar
images that are typically associated with low femininity and high masculinity. The
programs emphasized abstract principles less than concrete application. The teachers cast
their former professors as researchers, several of whom seemed unapproachable. In their
interaction during the practicum, the feedback that they received was not always concrete
and affirming enough. In their own teaching post graduation, they played the role of in
loco maternis to their students. Both towards current and former students, they felt a
sense of duty filled with care, gentleness, and maternal pride. At times, the teachers
celebrated their students’ successes like a mother celebrates her children’s
accomplishments. At other times, they struggled to discipline their unruly children.

Occasionally, while doing so they struggled and failed to keep their own emotions in

180

check. In this chapter, I employed certain metaphors (such as the feminine and masculine
figures) to capture implicit meanings. A discussion of these meanings and the implication

of these findings will be the topic of the next chapter.

181

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Discussion

In this study, I investigated the recent graduates of Master’s in Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages programs, exploring how they fared in the community
college classrooms, and what factors shaped them. Of the influencing factors, I was
particularly interested in their perception of their graduate preparation for the community
college setting. I sought to answer the following specific questions.

I) What are the perceptions of recent native—English-speaking graduates about

their TESOL training for classroom work in the community college?

2) Do they experience (and if so, in what way) any difficulties in the classroom,

and what is the nature of their difficulties?

3) In what way can their difficulties (or lack thereof) be attributed to their

master’s program, the nature of the work setting. and/or their pre-entry

background?
The conceptual basis of the study lies in the framework that I developed based on the
literature and my personal experience (see Figure 1). The inside circle contains the focus
of my analysis: the ability to function in the community college classroom and the
retrospective perception of the TESOL training program. The outside circle contains the
three stages of teacher formation: prior to the TESOL program, during the program, and
at the community college after the program. I operationalized each item in the conceptual
framework, related them to relevant references in the literature, and matched them up

with the research questions. The findings of this study, however, took me in an entirely

unexpected direction from the initial conceptualization. The presentation of findings in
Chapter 4 was organized according to the original framework while the emphasis lay on
the surprising, new results. In this chapter, I will arrange the presentation and discussion
according to the research questions. I will also show how the pieces of the descriptive
framework are connected. The theoretical framework with minor revisions (see Figure 7)
accounted for a surface interpretation of the findings. However, it failed to account for
the deeper meaning—the gendered lens—that unites the various pieces. Therefore, in this
chapter I will first discuss the surface33 meaning and later the deeper level of
interpretation.
Research Question I Answered

When asked about their TESOL preparation for classroom work in the community
college (see Research Question #1), the respondents rated their preparation for teaching
duties slightly higher than for non-teaching duties. Although the interviewees assessed
their overall preparation somewhat lower than the rest of the survey respondents in both
teaching and non-teaching categories, their assessment was still moderately favorable.
When given a chance to elaborate in the interviews, they generally praised their
theoretical preparation in second language acquisition, the history of teaching approaches
and methodologies, and the practice of lesson plan writing. They acknowledged the
subject—matter expertise of their former professors. They felt prepared to work with many
aspects of an adult population. In addition to praising various aspects of the program,
they were also rather critical of their preparation, as discussed in the answer to Research

Question 2. Their critique may seem surprising given that they graduated from accredited

 

3" For lack of a better word. I have elected to use the terms “surface” and “deep meanings.” They will be
used colloquially and are not to be confused with the concept of “deep and surface Ieaming.”

183

programs and institutions, earned a minimum of thirty credit hours, attended lectures,
passed tests, wrote papers, engaged in discussions, participated in the practicum, and
earned good grades.34 So what did they mean when they claimed not to have been
prepared?
Research Question 2 Answered

On the surface, findings indicate perceived inadequacies in their readiness to
perform certain tasks after graduation, such as teaching grammar, designing and
implementing instructional activities, evaluating and marking papers, and maintaining
classroom discipline. Their pre-master’s experiences had included these areas to varying
degrees; therefore, their readiness to perform these tasks post-graduation varied as well.
On the one hand, the teachers with degrees in education and/or with extensive teaching
experiences only had gaps in TESOL content knowledge. They were confident in their
pedagogical skills that were transferable across subject matters and instructional settings.
Specifically, their classes did not get out of control, they structured their lessons soundly,
and they facilitated Ieaming skillfully. On the other hand, those teachers who had
continued their education immediately after earning a bachelor’s degree (even if their
previous degree was in TESOL) and those without an extensive teaching background
prior to graduate school tended to complain about lack of practice. Although the MA
TESOL program’s cursory treatment of each skill (i.e., listening, speaking, pronunciation,
reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary) offered little new content-specific information to

a few teachers, they may still have felt insecure about structuring and conducting a

 

3’ Initially I had planned to use the teachers’ grade point average (GPA) as one indicator ofeffort in their
studies. I even included a question about it in the interview (sec Question 13c in Appendix B). However.
after a few interviews. I stopped asking this question because of the vague answers it generated. Most
participants said that they could not remember their GPA but it was “good.”

184

lesson—in other words, putting knowledge into practice. Still, others would have
preferred to have more preparation in both theory and application. Because their
backgrounds differed in both their pedagogical content knowledge (see Shulman, 1987)
and teaching experience, they had differing needs in the TESOL training program. The
majority of the teachers fell into this last category. Although their backgrounds were
broadly related to language, only one teacher (the one whose undergraduate degree was
in TESOL) had directly relevant previous education. The others were better prepared in
some areas and less so in others, and what was a challenging subject to one trainee was
repetitious to another. These teachers differed in their cultural backgrounds—and culture
is to be understood in a broader sense here to include all factors that have shaped the
graduates, including their foreign-language, multicultural, prior education, and teaching
experiences (Porter-Szucs, 2007, 2008). However, the TESOL programs with their static
curricula could not be individualized to consider the diverse cultural backgrounds, hence
the needs of their student teachers.
Research Question 3 Answered

Continuing our discussion on the surface, the graduates’ difficulties or lack
thereof (see Research Question #3) could be attributed to all three of their socialization
stages: their pre—entry background, their master’s program, and the nature of their work
setting.

Pre-Entry Influences. As summarized in the previous paragraph, prior schooling
and teaching experiences were interconnected with how graduate school was
experienced. This finding is not surprising given what is well-known in the Teacher

Education, Higher Education. and TESOL literatures, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Austin,

185

2002a; Avery and Walker, 1993; Clark & Corcoran, I986; Florez, 1997; Kwo, 1996;
Lortie, I975). The teachers’ perceived or real needs stemmed from their experiences prior
to graduate school. These experiences included those from their family, in particular
religious upbringing and cross-cultural experiences. As for the latter, some participants
grew up in a multicultural home or neighborhood. They were acutely aware of
“otherness” when they either interacted with the majority society that surrounded them35
or attended racially and culturally diverse schools. Nearly all the teachers I interviewed
had lived or traveled abroad, which was another important source of cross-cultural
experiences. This factor has also been found to be influential by others in the literature
(Florez, 1997; Golombek, 1998). Other influential pre-entry factors were former teachers.
These (primarily K-l6) teachers/instructors were mentioned as being the sources of the
teaching techniques and the classroom atmosphere that the graduates either emulated or
avoided. This is very well supported in the K-12 literature (Berg & Others, 1989; Holten
& Brinton, 1995; Lortie, 1975). Scholars of higher education have also found this;
however, the focus there has been mainly on the influence of faculty in doctoral programs
(Austin, 2002a, 2002b; Fuhrmann, 1996; Nyquist, Manning, Wulff, Austin, et al., 1999;
Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000; Stanton, 1996). What is of special interest in this case is
that these graduate students still reported on the memorable (though not always positive)
impact of their teachers from elementary and high schools. This makes their perceptions
more akin to teachers in K-12 although they are not undergraduate students.

Graduate School. The second stage of the teachers’ socialization cycle that

contributed to both their successes and difficulties was the master’s TESOL program

 

35 . . . . . . . . .
All twelve interview partrcrpants were Whrte. However. four of them rnerrtroned therr rnrmrgrant
background.

186

itself. Professors of TESOL were mentioned, both positively and negatively, in relation to
their subject—matter expertise, focus on research, ability to teach, and practicum
supervisory styles. Only one professor was described with language that the graduates of
his/her TESOL program had also used to describe themselves or their jobs. This professor
was praised for having taken a personal interest in his/her students, making time for them,
providing useful feedback in and out of the classroom, and keeping in touch with former
students. Note that the criteria for this one professor were mainly relational as opposed to
the criteria for the other professors, which were predominantly competence-based. The
reason for the dual criteria will become clear when, in the next section, we examine the
findings beyond their surface meaning. In addition to the professors, the curricula of the
five TESOL programs were also mentioned as having contributed to the degree to which
the graduates felt prepared for community college teaching. Some classes were praised
for their usefulness. Most frequently mentioned examples were the “observation class,”
which required the observation of half a dozen ESL teachers in their classrooms in a
variety of settings, and the “methods classes,” which focused on the methodologies and
approaches of teaching various second-language skills. Other classes were criticized,
such as the combined grammar-phonology class for its broad-brush approach to two
subjects of great complexity. And finally, the fact that no class focused on classroom
savvy, classroom management, and relating to students led to problems after graduation.
The importance of the above finding to novice teachers is confirmed by other studies,
such as Corley (1998).

The single strongest theme that emerged was the tension between theory and

practice: the balance between, the integration of, and the sequencing of the two. Several

187

teachers struggled to recognize the relevance of theoretical concepts to the classroom,
which negatively impacted how well they learned them. Eventually, most of them did
come to understand their relevance, but only after struggling to answer students’
questions in their own classes. For some this realization occurred during graduate school
but for others only after graduation. The subject matter that presented the most difficulty
later on was grammar. On the flip side, most teachers were also dissatisfied with their
readiness to apply theory to practice. Specifically, breaking down a concept (such as the
Simple Past Tense) into teachable parts and implementing it proved to be a challenge.
They attributed this problem to insufficient opportunity to practice the various steps
involved in teaching a lesson. Therefore, most teachers felt that theory and practice were
not in balance: the TESOL programs overemphasized theory to the detriment of practice.
The misplaced emphasis of the TESOL curriculum has long been at the center of
scholarship albeit not necessarily because of the balance of any theory to practice but
rather the balance of linguistic v. educational/pedagogical subjects (Fradd & Lee, 1997;
Freeman, 1989; Freeman & Johnson, 2004; Sachs, I994, 1996).

In addition to the imbalance, the sequencing of the two aspects of their training
was mentioned as a contributing factor to their later challenges. As discussed earlier,
teaching practice before a class that focused on theory brought the need for the latter into
sharper focus. Practice after theory, on the other hand. allowed the latter to solidify.
Although most teachers were unclear of the best way to achieve the integration of the
two, a few suggested including a practical component in every class. What the teachers
were unanimous about, however, was that the programs’ reliance on the practicum to

provide the first substantive opportunity for teaching practice was insufficient. Only the

188

teacher with a decade-long classroom experience in other subjects found the length
adequate for her to get a feel for how her teaching skills transferred to English—as—a-
second-language learners. Although many have documented the shortcomings of
different aspects of the TESOL practicum (Greis, 1984; Janopoulos, 1991; Johnson,
1992), the participants in this study were specifically concerned about the supervision
they received during the practicum. All but one—the one with ten years of teaching
practice—wanted regular supervision, with concrete, personalized, and affirming
feedback from the professor. The fact that few, if any, received the kind of supervision
that they would have considered “constructive” was mentioned as one of the reasons why
the teachers were having difficulty in the classroom post-graduation.

This general dissatisfaction of colleges/universities to prepare future
teachers/faculty for teaching is an oft-heard theme, as discussed at length in Chapter 2. In
this study, however, I would like to emphasize an additional perspective: the interaction
between pre—entry credentials and the trainees’ ability to benefit from graduate school.
Malcolm Knowles’ andragogy, or “the art and science of helping adults learn,” (as cited
in Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) is based on five assumptions. The most relevant ones to
this discussion are 2) “An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is
a rich resource for Ieaming” and 4) “There is a change in time perspective as people
mature—from future application of knowledge to immediacy of application” (p. 272).
According to the theory of andragogy, thus, adults are different learners from younger
students in that they have substantially more experience, which can aid in their
subsequent learning. Also. they tend to be more goal—oriented in that they seek immediate

relevance, or applicability, in what they are studying to their future goals. This influences

189

the effort that they devote to the task. The more relevant they perceive it to be the greater
the student effort (which is another factor in the Descriptive Framework). I would like to
emphasize that teaching experience and studies in a relevant field prior to enrollment in
the master’s TESOL program can help teachers—in-training to recognize the importance
and relevance of their classes to their post—graduation goals. This, in turn, may increase
the efficacy of the graduate training.

Institutional Factors. Finally, factors beyond graduation—those relating to the
institutional setting—also contributed to the teachers’ challenges. The nature of teaching
ESL in a community college (as perceived by the graduates) demands a very close,
personal, and nurturing relationship between the teachers and their students. Skills in
classroom management and counseling, which most of the teachers did not possess, were
sorely missed. Some of the participants (such as Aniko) seemed to welcome this reality
while others (such as Diana) seemed to struggle with it. However, the most important
source of difficulty was that eleven of the twelve teachers were employed part-time in the
community colleges. Most of them were isolated from other (especially full-time)
teachers, left without resources, and made to feel like second-class citizens. Teaching
effectively in such a climate was perhaps the greatest of the challenges that these recent
graduates faced. What is more, only the Kent State graduate had expected to face such a
work environment; for the others, it came as a surprise that several years after they had
been awarded a master’s degree, they would still be facing these difficulties and living
out of their cars as adjuncts. This reality was problematic for many of the teachers
because of disadvantages stemming from comparatively low income, job insecurity,

unmet physical needs (office, phone, computer access, privacy to conference with

190

 

students and to plan), isolation from full—time colleagues, and lack of contact with
relevant personnel at the college. Unfortunately, the dismal employment situation and the
resulting hardships are nothing new to those familiar with the fields of postsecondary
education and English as a Second Language.36
The Role of Memory

Tire perception of inadequate preparation was the result of not only the interaction
between the teachers’ background, the TESOL curriculum, and the workplace. Hindsight
may have contributed to this result as well. In this study I have relied on the teachers’
memories of graduate school. These memories were shaped by a variety of factors. On
the one hand, the teachers’ schemata (organizing structures) that were in existence at the
time of an event are likely to have partially determined how that event was perceived.
Taylor and Crocker (as cited in Golombok and Fivush, 2004) applied the concept of
“schema-driven memory” to the study of gender, but obviously it can be applied more
broadly as well. In this case, it explains how the retrospective nature of this study may
have influenced the findings. Schemata both organize and guide the way in which we
understand the world. Information that fits our schemata is remembered more clearly than
information that does not. Information that does not make sense in terms of what we
know may be misremembered so that it better fits with our existing schemata. An
example of the latter may be Kathy’s comment about feedback. Whenever she gave
feedback to her students, she was always guided by a deep respect for their

accomplishments. Therefore, she considered feedback constructive if it was balanced

 

3° On that note. let me share a personal anecdote. Recently I presented the findings of my dissertation at the
international TESOL conference. The title of my talk was “Interpreting the Voices of Recent TESOL
Graduates.” Just as my session was due to begin. a young woman walked up to me and asked whether I was
going to say anything other than how hopeless the full-time job market was in the US. Apparently. she had
been to several presentations that week which turned into gripe sessions around that very issue.

191

between the positive and the negative, if not mainly affirming. In light of that view, when
her practicum supervisor focused largely on areas of improvement, Kathy may not have
been able to “hear” the actual feedback but only criticism. With time, she may have
distorted the professor’s message in her mind while trying to make sense of his/her
comments, all as a result of schema-driven memory bias.

On the other hand, the lens of hindsight also shaped the way teachers remembered
graduate school. Their experiences since that time—their institutional contexts, their
classroom realities, their challenges, their successes, and especially the job market—have
made it impossible to remember the past without a shadow of what has happened since
then. In fact, “what has happened since then” is also a memory, albeit a more recent one.
so it too is framed by the present. A difficult student question about grammar, for
instance, may make novice teachers wish they had paid closer attention when theory was
discussed in class. The need to counsel 3 distraught student about family problems may
highlight the importance of a class in counseling that the teacher originally took without
much conviction. Whenever the need for a skill arises, that skill gains prominence in
hindsight. This is also a reminder that the participants’ views can only be taken to reflect
their thoughts and feelings in the present. Perhaps the best example is Diana, whose
assessment of ESL teaching changed within one week (between our preliminary
conversation and the actual interview), during which time she was offered a highly paid
but tedious job. While trying to decide whether to give up looking for a full-time position
teaching English, she came to realize how much ESL meant to her, and as a result her
assessment of the past and present became much more positive. After turning down the

job, during our interview, she kept qualifying her statements about the TESOL program.

A critical remark earlier about gaps in her preparation became much softer with the added
comment that it was unreasonable to expect the program to prepare her more thoroughly.
The schema, therefore, that is perhaps most relevant in memory is the one that is
operative at the time of the remembering, not the time of the initial event. This does not
diminish the importance of the teachers’ observations. On the contrary, their
perceptions—which are now field tested—provide valuable feedback to TESOL
programs.

A final way in which memory may have influenced the findings is simply the time
that has passed since graduation. Some participants did have trouble recalling exactly
which classes they had taken in the TESOL program, but because they had my e-mail and
telephone number, they had the possibility of contacting me with any corrections or
additions to the interview. Two participants did e—mail me a few lesson plans after the
interview, but the others did not contact me again. In general, time since graduation alone
did not interfere with our discussion, and no memory in this study can be considered
“truer” than another.

Revised Descriptive Framework

As a result of the findings and the contribution of memory, I have revised the
initial Descriptive Framework in Figure 1, which guided the conceptualization of the
study and which served as the basis for the data collection instruments (see Figure 7 for
the revised framework). The new framework no longer contains some initial factors that
did not seem to be influential in the process of teacher formation. Such variables were the
“quality of instruction” and the “fit” between the graduate students and the TESOL

program. Neither the surface nor the deep meaning of their words indicated either

Figure 7 - Revised Descriptive Framework of Factors Contributing to Successful

ESL Teaching in Community Colleges

   

2. Master’s TESOL Experience
*Instructional Processes, Philosophy
*Interactions with Professors
*Student Effort

*Practicum

      
      
 

4. Post-Graduation Outcomes
*Ability to Function in the
Classroom

[1

*Satisfaction with the
Graduate Program

 
   
    
     
     
    
    

l. Pre-Admission 3. Work Setting
*Individual Factors *Fit Between Work & Preparation
* Education *Fit Between Work & Personality
*Teaching Experience *Nature of Work Setting

*Full-Time/Adjunct Status

     

 

V

        
   

satisfaction or dissatisfaction with either variable. The fact that “fit” was never mentioned
in terms of graduate school is noteworthy because it was found to be important in terms
of the workplace. Findings in the literature support the importance of the latter
(Fairweather & Rhoads, 1995; Reynolds, Ross, & Rakow 2002; Van Maanen, 1983) but
do not seem to speak of the former either. However, this finding should not be taken to
mean that fit between the graduate program and the student (or quality of instruction) is

irrelevant. Rather, it is more likely that the participants in this study failed to confirm its

194

importance and relevance. Furthermore, I changed Mentorship to Interaction with
Professors because the latter is a broader category. It encompasses not only mentorship
but also conversations in and out of class, feedback, supervision, non-verbal interaction,
etc. Among the post-graduation factors, I specified the two kinds of “fit” that seemed to
be most important. Originally, I had only thought of the fit between the personality of the
teacher and the work setting. However, the graduates also spoke about the fit between
their TESOL preparation and the demands of the work setting. Another change to the
framework involved separating the two post-graduation outcomes. The ability to function
in the classroom seemed to be the ultimate vantage point, from which the other factors——
including their perception of the graduate program—were viewed.

The new framework also accounts for the role of memory. The thick, hollow
arrows point back from one of the post-graduation outcomes that I was examining (the
ability to function in the classroom) toward all the other factors, including those before
admission, during the TESOL program, and after graduation relating to the work setting.
as well as the other post—graduation outcome (the retrospective satisfaction with the
graduate program).

In summary, each stage of the teacher formation process seemed to influence
successes and challenges in the classroom directly and indirectly. For instance, the
teachers’ reliance on their own foreign-language studies when teaching their students or
the inability to ask teaching—related questions at the time of need because of the lack of
contact with full—time colleagues are examples of the former. An example of the indirect
influence (i.e., influence filtered through graduate school) is not appreciating the

importance of theory until after graduation because of lack of teaching experience prior

I95

to graduate school. In the descriptive framework these relationships are depicted with
positioning and arrows. The three stages of teacher socialization (pre, during, and post)
show arrows leading to the next stage (indirect influence) and directly to the situation in
the classroom. At the same time, the teachers’ successes and challenges in teaching ESL
students at a community college influenced how they thought of all the other stages and
factors in the process of teacher formation. This is depicted with thick, hollow arrows
pointing back to each stage because in hindsight certain experiences gained prominence
and relevance. One must resist the temptation, however, to single out any influencing
factor or stage as the strongest one. The data do not point in an unequivocal direction. In
each individual case and at any given time, a different force may have been the strongest.
Gendered Lenses

As noted earlier, the descriptive framework, even in its revised form, is unable to
account for everything. The single most important question that it fails to answer is why
the teachers perceived certain phenomena the way they did. For instance, why did they
praise certain qualities of their TESOL professors and why not others or why did they
view their roles in the classroom the way they did? The surface-level interpretation,
which is possible based on my descriptive framework, accounts for the “what” and
“how.” It can answer questions such as what particular difficulties the teachers were
experiencing or how the various pre-, during, and post-factors interacted with each other.
However, in order to see the reason for these particular phenomena, we need to look.
deeper. At this new level, we can illuminate the real problem, which is the gendered
framework which structures the disparate worlds of the community college ESL teachers

and the university master’s TESOL programs.

196

The teachers employed tropes that placed the TESOL programs and (all but one
of) their faculty high on the masculinity continuum and themselves high on the
femininity continuum.37 They seemed to view ESL teaching and training through a
gendered lens. As mentioned in the previous chapter, I use the widely accepted definition
of gender as the socio—culturally constructed relations between women and men (Stuart,
1996, p. 137); in other words, gender is everything that is not sex. A child is born with
only sex and no gender, but as a result of behaviors and feelings associated with that sex
within that culture at that time, the child acquires a gender in addition to sex (Berry,
1992). Based on Golombok and Fivush (1994), gender stereotypes are “the
characteristics generally believed to be typical of men and women” within a specific
cultural setting. These stereotypes emphasize “natural” characteristics of women (such as
less violent, more in tune with feelings, more nurturing, connected) and of men
(autonomous, dominant, separate) (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, I997; Gawelek,
Mulqueen, & Tarule, 1994). “While this may be true statistically, it begs the question of
the cause-—social or biological—and the wide range of difference to be found among
individual women and men. Some men may be nurturing and some women domineering,
for example[;] thus belying facile generalizations” (Stuart, 1996, p. 144).

I do not claim that there are inherent feminine and masculine characteristics;
rather, this construction (gender) is highly fluid and context specific (Friedman &
Cousins, 1996). When describing themselves or their role in their classrooms, the
participants used language (such as “caring” and “safe”) believed to be typical of women,

and they invoked metaphors of motherhood (such as seeing one’s daughter walking and

 

"7 In contrast with earlier views, where masculinity and femininity were bipolar opposites of each other.
now they are believed to be on two separate continua. Therefore. it is possible for someone to be both
feminine and masculine at the same time (Golombok & Fivush, 1994).

197

talking). The teachers also referred to themselves as empathetic and relational. In North
America all these have stereotypically been feminine traits (see, for example, Bem’s Sex
Role Inventory; Gawelek, Mulqueen, & Tarule, 1994). On the other hand, the teachers
described several of their TESOL professors as avoiding social relationships, being
intimidating, and withholding affirmation in their interaction with their students——
behaviors which are considered unfeminine.

In Western societies a dichotomous thinking tends to prevail and whatever
attributes are masculine are valued and whatever attributes are feminine are usually
ignored (Bakan, 1966; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1985; Belenky, Bond, &
Weinstock, 1997). Noddings studied the effects of this dualistic thinking (1989). The
examples she gives are nature—nurture, thinking-feeling, true-false, mind-body, etc. When
juxtaposed like this, one tends to focus on one and deny the other in order to have the
satisfaction of seeing very complex issues in a simple light. Even though these polarities

may seem complementary to each other, they are, in fact, hierarchical. For example,

,9 6‘ .99 ‘6

consider the word “right”: it is associated with “light,” “up, mind,” “culture, good,”
“god,” and “male,” while “wrong” is associated with “dark,” “down,” “body,” “nature,”
“evil,” “witch,” and “female” (Noddings, 1989). In dichotomies, one of the terms is
considered the “unmarked,” basic, default, standard, or normal form, and the other, the
“marked” form is a non-basic, less natural, deviant form (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock,
1997; Wikipedia, n.d.). For instance, the word “mankind” is unmarked and it includes
both men and women; it is the standard; it is non—polluting, but the word “womankind” is

marked and does not include men. Similar is the study of race, when one Black ancestor

could make someone Black but one White ancestor will not make a person White because

I98

“White” is unmarked. This widespread dichotomous thinking is harmful because when
“women are defined in relation to men,” women usually come out worse in this
comparison (Belenky et al., 1985, p. 10). The next subsection explores another related
dichotomy.

Abstract Versus Concrete. The teachers spoke of the philosophies and
curricula of their TESOL programs as abstract, theory-heavy, and removed from the
teachers’ perceptions of real classrooms. This observation suggests a patriarchal
anchoring of education, as explained by Gawelek, Mulqueen, & Tarule (1994).

Prevalent ‘majority culture’ theory about Ieaming has always been the basis for

educational design and practice. Dominant descriptions, ethos, and practices about

cognitive development and educational practice emphasize the developing learner
as separate—isolated, solitary, and, usually, competitive. Connected learners, on
the other hand, describe nondominant characteristics of the learning environment
as providing them with appropriate challenge and support, characteristics that

emphasize affirmation, dialogue, and collegial efforts (p. 182).

While the gendering of adjectives like “abstract/theoretical” and “concrete/applied” are
problematic and multivalent, I argue that in this specific context they are dichotomous——
as explained above—and inscribed with masculinity and femininity, respectively. My
argument can be supported by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1985), “The
processes that are involved in considering the abstract and the impersonal have been
labeled ‘thinking’ and are attributed primarily to men; while those that deal with the
personal and the interpersonal fall under the rubric of ‘emotions’ and are largely

relegated to women” (p. I l). Maher and Tetrault (2001) have found that male professors

I99

often engage their male students in competitive, high-powered, intellectual battles. This is
in contrast with feminist classrooms in which caringly connecting with one’s lived
experience is the entry-way. Morgan (1996), however, cautions against appropriating
“experience” as a women-only term. He disaggregates various kinds of experience.

I would wish to argue that the rhetoric of experience continues to play an

important part in the construction of modern masculinities; it is not simply a

residue from some more traditional or prerational era. Men appropriate experience

as well as reason although it is likely that these understandings or constructions of
experience are different from those experiences associated with women and with
femininity. Put another way, the distinction between reason and experience not
only maps out difference between men and women, masculinity and femininity,

but also maps out difference among men or styles of masculinity” (pp. 105-106).
Thus Morgan cautions against overgeneralization and stereotyping. Not all experience is
gendered feminine (such as relating to the battle field). But because some types of
experience are more masculine and in our patriarchal system this is what is more valued,
“experience, then. creates hierarchies between men” (p. 106).

There is also a certain hierarchy of prestige among jobs and the more prestigious
positions have been occupied by men both outside and inside academe (Belenky, Bond,
& Weinstock, 1997). For example, in health care the doctor has typically been male but
the nurse female; in K- 12 education, the principal male but the teacher female. Similarly,
the more prestigious positions (as the most learned people in those positions) have tended
to be more theoretical. This is the case within individual academic disciplines (but not

necessarily across disciplines). For instance, theoretical mathematicians view applied

200

mathematicians with thinly-veiled condescension, who in turn look at mathematics
educators in a similar manner. Borrowing Boyer’s labels (1990), a similar hierarchy
prevails among faculty roles: theoretical research (or the scholarship of discovery) has
generally been more highly esteemed than applied research (or the scholarship of
application) which has traditionally been more important than teaching (or the
scholarship of teaching). Therefore, in a certain way, these adjectives do carry gendered
implications.
Enns’s (1993) summary of the literature on gender and Ieaming styles further
supports my claim.
“Critical thinking, objective observation, abstract analysis, and the comprehension
of great ideas are usually considered essential components of learning, thinking,
and conceptualizing within academic disciplines. . .In their popular book on
women’s ways of Ieaming and knowing, Belenky et al. (1986) associated [these]
activities with separate knowing, a form of Ieaming that is dominant in most
educational institutions and most consistent with many men’s experiences in
western culture” (p. 7).
An institution, program, or professor viewing education in this masculinized, or
“separate” way, would emphasize abstract thinking, understanding great ideas, clarifying
theoretical models, evaluating, and critiquing. As this is most prevalent in academe, even
women professors are trained to think in this way (Gawelek, Mulqueen, & Tarule, 1994;
J ipson, I995). Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) contrast the above with
connected knowing, which covers concrete experience and active experimentation. From

a more feminized, or “connected” perspective, personal application. applying knowledge

201

to new situations, and empathizing are the marks of valuable education. Truly connected
knowers can see both men and women as both thinkers and feelers; thus this kind of
knowledge is not exclusive to women albeit it is more prevalent among them (Belenky,
Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1985).

As we read the following quotations, let us notice what types of learning
experiences some of the teachers perceived as more or less prevalent in their TESOL
programs. Katie used the words “content” and “language” to refer to abstract theory:
“You know, it was a lot more content-, it was a lot more language-based than teaching-
based, [not much] beyond lesson plans.” In her general praise of the program, Sophia also
felt that her program was theory—heavy: “I felt like it prepared me really well, especially
in like the more philosophical teaching language and language acquisition [aspects].”
Then she continued with the practical aspect: “That is, like, lacking just a little bit.” To
explain the latter point, she brought up the already familiar point that in her statistics
class she was not taught grade keeping. Dontaku explained that while the many
theoretical debates had a certain appeal in graduate school, they were of little value when
put to the test of the day—to-day grind of his own classroom.

What is syllabus and what is curriculum and which governs which? On a

theoretical level that’s interesting stuff to know, but nuts and bolts, when you’re

in the classroom 20 hours a week, it just loses some of its [unintelligible]. I

appreciate all this stuff and I wish I had more time to think about those things but

if you’re doing grammar quizzes and trying to figure out how can I teach the

Present Perfect because this week we skipped the level of grammar we shouldn’t

have, you know, you’re not worried any more about what drives curriculum or do

to
o
to

syllabi drive curriculum or curriculum drive syllabi, so that’s kind of where that
was.
Similarly to Dontaku, Suzy perceived the theory—driven nature of her program and
questioned the applicability of this focus to her goal as a classroom teacher:
While I was getting it, it was interesting and I think a lot of these grad programs
in general they try to focus on trying to get you to think: theory, research, you
know, getting to expand your horizons. And while I was in it, I think it was
helpful for that, helpful to expand my horizons, get me to ask questions, to not
accept the answers that are given to me, and to really research stuff. But after the
program, I’d have to say that the stuff that helped was when I was in the
methodology classes. . .I think more hands-on.
All four teachers assessed their TESOL programs similarly in that the programs
emphasized abstractions and deemphasized concrete applications to the classroom. This
is not very surprising in light of earlier discussions about the historical roots of TESOL
lying in linguistics and second language acquisition and that all the TESOL departments
in question were housed outside the college of education at their respective universities.
However, when we view the above observation through a gendered lens, we can see that
this tradition has implications for how well feminized student-teachers can learn in such
an environment. As the field of feminist pedagogy tells us, “connected” learners in a
“separated” environment may be left behind (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule,
1996). Kathy put this sentiment in the following words, “Give us more exposure to actual
classroom experience, put us in classrooms more instead of reading, reading, reading.”

And this is how Lynn phrased it.

Linguistics classes I didn’t feel were very helpful. I don’t care for linguistics

because I’m a language learner not a language scientist and I can learn a whole lot

more trying to pick up a language than I can by studying linguistic science...One

of the best classes that helped me that I did not anticipate was a counseling class.
It may be tempting to dismiss this teacher’s comment. Clearly, a language teacher needs
far more knowledge than one can intuit by being a language learner. However, all twelve
teachers seemed to view themselves and their TESOL programs through a gendered lens
though the degree to which individual teachers did so varied. Through this lens, the
philosophies and curricula of their TESOL programs were cast as abstract, theory-heavy.
and removed from the teachers’ perceptions of real classrooms.

Relevance. In order to further illuminate the teachers’ worldview, let us now turn
to one more gendered aspect of graduate school: the perceived lack of emphasis on
relevance. Golombok and Fivush (1994) explain the connection between self-concept and
relevance in this way, “We need to consider the subjective value of the task. How does
the task relate to the individual’s self-concept? For example, if one perceives oneself as
nurturant, then tasks that confirm that self-concept will be more valuable than tasks that
are unrelated to nurturance” (p. 179). In other words, what is relevant is defined by a
person’s self-perception. This may be one more reason why Lynn, who viewed herself as
a language learner and not a linguistic scientist, dismissed the relevance of linguistics
classes. As discussed before, this does not mean that abstraction and theory are inherently
masculine while relevance, concreteness, and application are inherently feminine
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1985, 1986). Neither does this mean that men

want abstract training while women want relevant and concrete training. Rather,

204

relevance here is a situationally gendered concept. The gendered lens that the teachers
seem to be looking through both focuses and limits their vision. If they view themselves
and their classroom realities as highly nurturing, for instance, then whenever they
encounter information that is related to nurturance, they will consider it relevant.
However, that which is not related will have diminished value and, therefore, relevance.
This can explain why Dontaku both complained of irrelevant coursework and prided
himself in possessing the very skills that the program did not teach, as demonstrated by
the following quotations.
I think some of my strengths as a teacher are (and I’m always working at this and
I need to get better) is creating a safe environment. I think that that’s
important. . .It’s kind of where I am; it’s the kind of personality that I have. So I
really try to create an atmosphere where I’m approachable, where I know my
students’ names, they know each other’s names, they interact a lot, they’re safe,
they make mistakes, I make mistakes in class.
And later he said:
I don’t think my program prepared me for the day in and day out of teaching.
lesson planning and prepping and interactions with students. I don’t remember
anyone ever once talking to me about creating a classroom milieu, interacting
with students, or going the extra mile for students.
Dontaku’s self-concept included the ability to create a safe classroom environment. He
considered this ability one of his strengths. What is more, from the vantage point of his
community college classroom, it was a daily necessity. Therefore, a graduate class would

have had high subjective value for him if it had related to this self-concept. As his

coursework did not focus on the creation of a classroom milieu, he considered it removed
from the daily realities of teaching ESL, hence irrelevant.

Institutions. Acker has argued that organizations are conceptualized as gender-
neutral (as cited in Kimmel, 2000). DeSole and Butler (1994) had also found this.
Despite this conceptualization, the origins of higher educational institutions lie in a
masculine framework. This is evident in some institutions (such as universities) more so
than in others (such as community colleges). Historically, universities were created by
men and for men. And although particularly since the second half of the twentieth
century an increasing number of women have joined the professoriate, they are still
greatly outnumbered by men—approximately 2: l—(DeSole & Butler, 1994; Hulbert,
I994; Knapp et al., 2006), especially in institutions that grant advanced degrees. Despite
these gains in numbers and the cultural revolution of the 19605, gender stereotypes have
remained remarkably constant. In the words of Golombok and Fivush (1994), “[a]1though
there have been many changes in the roles that females and males play in our society,
beliefs about gender-related traits and characteristics have not undergone much change”
(p. 36). In any case, the actual presence or absence of women has no necessary
correlation with the way a particular social role is gendered. For example, in a cultural
sense police officers and firemen are still “men” even when they are not. Cultural change
is slow and if one functions within this historically masculine reality—in other words, if
one views the world through that lens—it is difficult to see one’s cultural situatedness
(Thomas, 2006). TESOL faculty, who operate within the same framework as other
university professors/researchers, have to be accountable to their institutions. They are.

therefore, socialized in a way that can be thought of as stereotypically male (DeSole &

206

Butler, 1994). This would account for why the graduates in this study so often spoke of
their professors in content- and competence-based terms. They spoke of research, of
knowledge, and of theoretical debates. When these professors were praised, it was for one
of these reasons. However, when they were criticized, it was for not modeling desirable
teaching skills, for not being concrete enough, and for lacking in relational aspects (such
as being unapproachable, unsocial, and un-affirming). Although the graduates spoke of
several of their former professors in very positive terms, only one professor was praised
for his/her “interpersonal and prosocial” behavior (to use Golombok & Fivush’s
terminology). It seems likely that this professor’s behavior was noticed because it stood
in contrast to the other faculty’s and to the overall culture of the graduate program and
because it met the teachers’ expectations.

The community college (the other institutional type of higher Ieaming in this
study) may appear to have shed its affiliation with the masculine framework of its origin.
Its ethos consists of an open, inviting place, where everyone can have a fresh start. Let us
recall that the American Association of Community Colleges defined these colleges as
“inclusive institutions that welcome all who desire to learn” and that they brought “higher
education [to] close-to-home facilities” (2002). Community colleges go to the public that
they serve by erecting campuses in the neighborhoods. They are grounded in and
partnered with the community. They have a powerful component of teaching and
institutional service but generally no research requirement (Townsend & Twombly,
2007). They are widely reputed to have a relational orientation to the community, their
students, and even the K-12 school system, which is a stereotypically feminine

characteristic. However, it is arguable to what degree this ethos reflects reality. If Diana’s

207

description of the full-time ESL faculty on her campus is any indication, they are
frequently unavailable to their students during posted office hours. Or when Joan was still
“only an adjunct,” she had to fight with an administrator for the right to maintain working
conditions that were conducive to teaching. Grubb and Associates ( I999) criticized
community colleges as lacking systematic institutional commitment (that goes beyond
rhetoric) to teaching. This is further demonstrated by the fact that hiring criteria at these
institutions do not include special pedagogical preparation but rather a master’s degree
and some teaching practice (Twombly & Townsend, 2008). Good teaching is usually left
up to individual instructors, whose commitment to teaching and their students varies a
lot. This gap, however, between ideals and realities does not weaken the power of the
cultural model that structures the way most people perceive the community college.
Where, then, did the twelve interview participants in the current study develop
their gendered worldviews? Where did this feminine orientation in the teachers come
from? It is impossible to tell for certain whether it is due to a pre-disposition, a result of
the TESOL training, and/or a product of workplace socialization. To some degree, it is
probably all three. It seems to be the case that at the community colleges where some of
the interviewed teachers work, this nurturing, student—centered ethos is an accurate
reflection of the institutional or departmental culture. For Aniko, for example, the
socializing force of the workplace may have played an affirming role. She did, in fact,
quote her boss as saying how well she fit into the culture of the department. The
socializing or counter—socializing power of the workplace is well-documented (Austin &
Baldwin, 1992; Clark, 1987; Dallimore, 2003; Fairweather, I993; Fairweather & Rhoads,

1995; Jarvis, 1991; Kuh. Kinzie, Schuh, &Whitt, 2005). However, these scholars have

 

mainly investigated four-year institutions, where tenured or tenure-track faculty members
are immersed in the institutional culture. Although time pressure due to starting a new
position may limit the amount of contact newly—hired professors may have with their
veteran colleagues, fellow professors are still the role set that faculty members want to
emulate and thus the socializing power of the workplace will eventually take effect
(DeVries, 1975). However, for this force of socialization to be effective, approximately
four years must pass. Of the twelve interview participants, only two had been at their
respective colleges for that length of time: Aniko and Joan. They were also considered
full-fledged members of their departments and welcome to meetings. For the others,
however, it is unlikely that departmental and institutional cultures would have resulted in
this gendered worldview.

To a great extent, the teachers’ feminized framework may be due to factors that
predate the TESOL program. First of all, the teachers self-selected into the field of ESL
based on pre—admission factors such as personality, upbringing, apprenticeship of
observation, multicultural experiences, etc. Finkelstein (1984) does emphasize the
importance of predispositions in the selection of a career. Also, the participants called
ESL teaching a calling, a vocation; every one of them mentioned a love for and a deep
commitment to the field. This is especially remarkable in light of the challenging
workplace conditions that many of them reported, as discussed in the previous chapter.
Also, given that the teachers described their master’s programs with language that
suggests a less nurturing, less concrete and more independent and analytical approach to
the field, it is unlikely that their sense of calling developed as a result of (rather than in

reaction to) the training program. In fact Leah, who disliked nearly every aspect of her

TESOL training, was committed to not tricking her students into the wrong answer on a
test (as she reported was told to do) but rather gently steering them toward success.
Barbara also reacted to her unapproachable and intimidating professors by acting in the
opposite way with her students. What is more likely, however, is that their
predispositions were brought into sharp contrast by the different culture of the TESOL
programs. Prior to graduate school their authentic, true selves (see Palmer, 2000) may not
have been called into being but as a result of their training and the workplace they did
emerge. The TESOL program may have served as a catalyst in this process as may have
the socializing force of the community college. Still it is impossible and futile to pinpoint
the exact source of these teachers’ worldviews. Even if this study had been designed to
answer this question and even if this finding hadn’t been an accidental one, cultural
influences both transcend (i.e., influences external to any given stage may take
precedence) and penetrate (i.e., no stage is isolated from society) every stage of teacher
formation.

Good Teaching? As I presented the findings of this study at various
conferences state- and nationwide, one of the most frequently asked questions was
whether this feminized teaching constituted good teaching, whether it was a model to be
emulated. One concerned department chair predicted that these teachers would burn out
quickly if they did not learn to distance themselves from their students’ lives. Another
full-time faculty member at a community college asked whether I had any information
about how well the students of these teachers performed. There is no easy answer to these
questions. My study was not designed to evaluate a particular worldview or teaching

philosophy. I did not observe any classes. I did not interview any students. My data do

not support any evaluation or critique. Based on the participants’ perception, their own
teaching differs substantially from the teaching they received in their graduate programs.
It also differs from many other examples that they cited (remember the foreign language
teacher who would yell in frustration and the one who would cover her ears?) However,
they also cited positive examples (such as the patience of a math teacher and the caring
teacher who gave her student a bracelet), which they have tried to emulate. Based on the
data, I would cautiously compare their practices to the “connected teaching” advocated
by Belenky and her colleagues and Jipson’s “teacher-mother” (1995). However, at times
their actions seem to go even further than that (such as when going to the drug store or
when horseback riding with students). At times it even seems overinvolved (for instance,
when the teacher considers finding a student an illegal job). In this latter case, it seems to
resemble the adult education situation described by Dirkx, Fonfara, and Flaska (1993), in
which practitioners seemed to struggle with boundary awareness. What I can definitively
say, however, is that this issue is worth exploring further. It should constitute the topic of
future research.
Recommendations

It is not the focus of this study to make recommendations for use of the findings.
However, master’s TESOL departments as well as other teacher training or Preparing
Future Faculty programs, community colleges, and other stakeholders may find the
results of interest and identify ways in which to improve the preparation of future

teachers/faculty. Below are some suggestions.

21]

For TESOL Programs

The single most important piece of advice is for TESOL departments to begin
engaging in systematic program evaluation that utilizes feedback from recent graduates.
The insight gained from such investigation will be specific to each training program
rather than general, covering nearly half a dozen programs, as in the present case. TESOL
faculty may also benefit from reexamining their programs’ philosophies, their own
assumptions about the knowledge- and skill—set needed for ESL teachers in the settings
that their graduates most frequently work in, and the degree to which their current
curricula and instructional practices prepare their students for such work. They may also
find it enlightening to view themselves and their programs through a gendered lens rather
than assuming gender—neutrality. The findings of such studies should then be
disseminated so that our collective body of knowledge may grow.

Several possible programmatic innovations may be of interest to TESOL
programs. They should consider tailoring the curriculum to the backgrounds of the
incoming graduate students to a greater degree than it is done currently. When
considering the cultural backgrounds of these students, “culture” needs to be understood
in a broader sense to include their “personal, cross—cultural, foreign-language-learning,
classroom observation, and actual teaching experiences in addition to the factors usually
associated with culture” (Porter-Szucs, 2007). In addition to a linguistics and a foreign-
language prerequisite, it may be beneficial to consider prior supervised teaching
experience as well when determining the required courses. To the greatest extent
possible, all classes should incorporate opportunities for teachers—in-training to practice

their skills in order to bridge the two gendered realities that the teachers perceive.

I“)
10

Currently, only the observation class accomplishes this unequivocally. However,
according to a study by Corley (1998) “practice teaching in front of peers in a methods
class or, a lesson or two, in a field experience setting were not authentic enough
experiences to be seen as useful by the teachers” (p. 32), a sentiment which was echoed
by the recent graduates in the current study. Therefore, each program should strive to find
creative ways to bring TESOL and ESL students together regularly. Furthermore, if
TESOL programs hope to pass down their philosophies to their graduate students, they
should consider building ways for reflective practice into every course in order to allow
the teachers to interrogate and possibly override unwanted pre-graduate school
influences, which are highly resistant to change. Perhaps the simplest programmatic
recommendation is a realistic orientation of each incoming student to teaching ESL.
Primarily, teachers-in-training need to be aware of the job market locally, regionally,
nationally, and internationally. Secondarily, they need to get an accurate picture of what
can be expected after 30-36 credit hours of instruction, given their preparation and when
they will “attain completeness in their professional expertise, perspectives or
accomplishments” (Stansbury & Long, 1992, p. 2). The implementation of any and all the
aforementioned recommendations should be informed by feminist pedagogy (such as the
works of Belenky, Caffarella, and Tisdell) and adult Ieaming theories (such as the works
of Baumgartner, Dirkx, Knowles, and Merriam) so as to effect change in the underlying
problems.
For Community Colleges

With the intent of better serving ESL students, community colleges will need to

retain the teachers of these students. Although what most teachers need is a full-time

h)
33

position, improvement in the following “quality of life indicators” alone could make a
marked difference in their work conditions. These indicators, according to Louis and
Smith, are respect from relevant adults, participation in decision making, frequent and
stimulating professional interaction, a high sense of efficacy, the use of skills and
knowledge, resources to carry out the job, and goal congruence (as cited in Stroot &
Whipple, 2003). Colleges could and should explore ways to help their faculty (both full-
and part-time) enjoy a higher quality of life on the job. Novice teachers especially need
ongoing emotional and instructional support from full—time colleagues. This could start
with an orientation and continue with mentoring throughout the first semester. Ideally
mentors should receive training in effective mentoring techniques and release time to do
classroom observations. Preferably the roles of mentors and supervisors should be
separated so that mentors can focus on guidance and supervisors on evaluation. For
specific suggestions on school-based mentoring programs, see Corley (1998).
Suggestions for Future Research

I envision this project as merely one part of a much broader research agenda,
aimed at understanding the experiences of recent graduates of TESOL programs, what
influences shape them to become the best teachers they can be and what role master’s-
level TESOL programs in the United States do and can play in this process. In the future,
this statewide study should be followed by a nationwide study of both quantitative and
qualitative analyses of graduates’ experiences. The present study uncovered the gendered
lens of twelve recent graduates. It may be interesting to investigate the other side of the
coin more directly: the lens(es) of the TESOL programs. How do TESOL faculty

perceive their role in preparing future ESL teachers to teach in community colleges? Is

214

their worldview structured in a masculine way, as interpreted by the graduates? Another
angle from which the gendered lens can be approached is that of another setting in which
ESL is taught. Of the postsecondary settings, the community college (along with adult
education and refugee resettlement) is perhaps the most feminized. How about a
university-based Intensive English Program or an English-for-Academic-Purposes
program? Such programs are typically either housed within the same department as
TESOL and even taught by the same faculty or, if not, they are integral parts of another
academic department within the university. The orientation of a program and its faculty
in such a Iiminal position may be very interesting. Yet, another project for the future is
the point of view of the ESL students at community colleges. How do they perceive their
teachers’ roles in the classroom, successes, difficulties, and abilities to bring about
positive change in their students’ English skills? How can all these points of view be
reconciled with the current findings? A further interrogation of the teachers’ worldviews
and phi1050phies is another intriguing area of research. This would necessarily involve
classroom observations and interviews with students to determine in what way students
benefit from this feminized teaching. Making this a longitudinal study would also allow
the researcher to track the teachers’ persistence in the field and whether (and if so, in
what way) their teaching changes over time.

The topic of memory formation may also yield fruitful results. Building on the
knowledge base of other disciplines such as history, anthropology, literary studies, neuro-
psychology, and social psychology, researchers could investigate how memory is formed

and how TESOL programs contribute to memory formation. In a related project, it may

 

prove fruitful to analyze teachers’ pasts in order to compare their lived experiences with
the rhetoric of professionalization projects.
Conclusion

There is a profound gap between the existing training systems and the classroom
experiences of ESL instructors. This gap can be attributed to divergent models of the role
of the teacher, models that can be traced to clusters of gendered imagery. There seems to
be a clash between how the TESOL programs—from a historically masculine
framework—attempt to socialize ESL teachers and how the teachers—from a feminine
worldview—~seem (to want) to be socialized. The role that the recently graduated teachers
play vis-a-vis their students is that of in loco maternis. The lack of attention to the
practical preparation for both roles—those of mother and teacher—is noteworthy. The
training programs either do not place enough emphasis on providing the skills that the
teachers claim to need or fail to draw enough attention to it when they do. My study
confirms the findings of Brousseau and Freeman (1988) that teacher education programs
often do not make a major impact on the educational beliefs of teachers-in-training
because their beliefs have been shaped by their “apprenticeship of observation” of the
previous 16+ years (Lortie, 1975) and numerous other pre-entry factors. On the other
hand, changing underlying educational beliefs may be an endeavor that is easier said than
done because these notions are very resistant to change if the only intervention is
studying about the results of educational research (Schreiber & Moss, 2002).

Although, similarly to me, the next applicant looking for the department that
provides future faculty with both content and pedagogical knowledge for a postsecondary

setting will not succeed either, I trust that with the completion of this study the gap has

216

narrowed in our understanding of how nativespeaking graduates of master’s TESOL
programs perceive their preparation for teaching in the community college and what the
perceived nature and sources of their successes and difficulties are. I also hope that a
further benefit of this research is that future ESL teachers will be better prepared to fulfill
their role of in loco maternis. Ultimately, however, my hope is to contribute to the
removal of the sharp dichotomy between ESL teaching and training and the
professionalization of ESL teaching. In the process I hope that the concept of

“professional” will become de—masculinized.

217

 

—__ *4” “L . ___ _7

Appendix A

Online Survey
Recent Master’s TESOL Graduate Survey
Hello. My name is Ildi Thomas and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University.
I am the primary investigator in this study.
Why is your participation in this study important?
This study is being sent to dozens of graduates of master’s TESOL programs in
Michigan. The study has two parts. The first part is a very brief, anonymous, online
survey to identify your eligibility in participating in an interview and to gather basic
demographic information about recent TESOL graduates in the state. This survey takes
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and your participation is completely voluntfl
If you also volunteer for the follow-up interview, it will take approximately 75 minutes.
Are my responses confidential?
You may be assured of complete confidentiality. You will remain anonymous in any
report or publication of research findings. Results of findings may be given to the TESOL
programs whose graduates provided the answers but there will be no way for the
programs to identify any of the participants. To fill out the survey, you do not need to
identify yourself and that way even I will not know who you are; however, if you agree to
participate in the second stage of the study - the interview - you may choose to provide
contact information. Even then, I can assure you that your name or other identifying
information will never be associated with any of the findings. You will only be referred

to by a pseudonym of your choice.

 

Are there any risks and benefits?
There are no known risks to you by participating either in the survey or the interview.
There is no known direct benefit to you. However, results of this study will be made
available through conference presentations and professional publications, which will be
of indirect benefit.
Where should I turn if I have questions?
In case you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, or if
you are dissatisfied with any aspect of this study, please feel free to contact Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan State University’s Chair of University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503,
email: <ucrihs@msu.edu>, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.
You may also contact (name and contact information of their master’s TESOL
program) or me, Ildi Thomas, at 248—246-2681 or at thomasil@msu.edu
I agree to participate in this survey. Yes/No.

In this survey, you will be asked some questions about your background and experience.
Please answer by clicking on the answer that best describes you and your
exgrience.
l. I am male / female
2. I have a master’s degree in TESOL from a US. university Yes/No
2a. Select the name of your graduate institution from the drop down menu.

* Acquinas College, MI

* Cornerstone University, MI

* Eastern Michigan University, MI

219

 

* Madonna University, MI
* Michigan State University, MI
* Saginaw Valley State University, MI

* other:

 

2b. I earned my master’s degree in TESOL in

 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 other:
3. During the TESOL program, I had a practicum / student teaching. Yes/No
3a. If yes, was it supervised? Yes/No

 

3b. If yes, how long was it in weeks?
4. My native language is English Yes/No
5. I am now employed at a community/junior/two-year college in Michigan. Yes/No

5a. At the community college, I am employed teaching ESL. Yes/No

 

6. Before enrolling in the TESOL program, I had teaching/tutoring experience in ESL-
EFL. Yes/No

6a. If yes, how many years full-time equivalent? 0—1 1—3 3-5 5-10 10 or
more

7. I had some teaching experience in a field other than ESL-EFL. Yes/No

7a. If yes, how many wfull-time equivalent? 0-1 1—3 3-5 5-10 10 or
more

8. Before enrolling in the master’s program, I had international or multicultural
experience (within the US or abroad). Yes/No

9. Before enrolling in the master’s program, I traveled abroad. Yes/No

220

9a. If yes, how many _m_g_r_i_t_h§_ total? 0-1 1-3 3-6 6-9 912 1 year or more

l0. Before enrolling in the master’s program, I studied a foreign language Yes/No.

10a. If yes, for how many ye_ar§? 0—1 1-3 3-5 5-10 10 or more

I 1. As a student I attended a community college before accepting this position to teach
ESL. Yes/No

12. This is my first time teaching/ working at a community/junior/two-year college.

Yes/No

 

l3. In my master’s TESOL studies, I studied part time / full time

14. While in graduate school, I had a mentor (senior teacher) who took special interest in
me and helped me a lot. Yes/No

15. In addition to the practicum, I taught/tutored while I was enrolled in my master’s
TESOL program. Yes/No

15a. If yes, part time / full time

16. In graduate school I sought out opportunities to interact with non—native speakers of

English. Yes/No

 

 

17. In addition to this community college, I am employed in any other setting teaching
ESL. Yes/No
17a. If yes, select all settings from the drop down menu that apply
*a different community college
*adult education

*IEP

*EAP

*private language school
*literacy program
*TESOL program

*other:

 

18. At this community college, I participate in staff development activities (workshops,
conferences, etc.)? Yes/No
19. My current teaching-related duties at the community college are (select all that apply)
* teaching ESL students
* teaching in a credit program
* teaching in a non-credit program
* teaching academic English
* teaching non-academic English
* materials development
* supervising other teachers
* student advisement

*other:

 

20. Overall, I feel successful as a classroom teacher at the community college.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

2 l .The TESOL program prepared me for my current te_aching duties.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

22. The TESOL program prepared me for my classroom duties other than teaching.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

R)
IN)
N

 

 

 

Are you interested in participating in the next stage of the study?

This winter-spring I plan to interview some survey respondents in greater depth. Would
you be willing to be interviewed?

_Yes. You may contact me to discuss an interview.

_Maybe. I need more information; you may contact me to talk further.

____No. I’m not interested in an interview.

If yes or maybe, please tell me how to reach you.

your name

 

e-mail

 

 

or phone number

Thank you for participating in this survey.

IQ
N
LN

Appendix B

Interview Protocol

Recent Master’s TESOL Graduate Interview Study

Prior to the Interview

r Hello. My name is Ildi Thomas and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State

University. I am the primary investigator in this study. Thank you for filling out
the online survey and for agreeing to participate in this interview. It will last
approximately 75 minutes.

What pseudonym would you like to use?

Is it alright to tape record our conversation? The recording will only be used to
refresh my memory and nobody else will have access to it.

Have you had a chance to read and sign the Informed Consent form?

You may withdraw your consent at any point during or after the interview.

My dissertation research investigates the experiences of native English-speaking,
recent graduates of US-based MA TESOL programs as they teach in a community
college in the United States. One objective today is to teacher is to seek
information about your current teaching situation and several events that have
contributed to making you into the teacher you are today. Another objective is
determine how satisfied you are with your master’s TESOL preparation now that

you are employed as an ESL teacher.

'r Do you have any questions before we start?

Interview Questions

I.

How did you get interested in TESOL?

 

a. Why did you choose that particular TESOL program?

b. Why did you choose to get an MA in TESOL and not a BA or a certificate?

Describe your current position(s) (what do you do, how much time do you spend

there).

What brought you to the community college?

Describe your first ESL teaching experience after graduation.

a. How has it changed since your first experience?

What would you consider some of your successes?

a. How do you know that X was successful? What was your evidence?

What do you attribute these successes to?

Describe an incident that was particularly challenging. Describe it for me.

a. What about that was problematic?

b. What contributed to the challenges?

In retrospect, how could the problem have been avoided?

Tell me about your current work setting.

a. What are your duties?

b. How well do you feel that the TESOL program prepared you for these
duties?

c. Tell me about the fit between you and this community college.

(I. Tell me about the (institutional, collegial) support you receive at this
community college.

e. In addition to this work setting, do you work anywhere else? / Do you teach

anywhere else?

to
I‘d
U!

 

1].

l2.

I4.

15.

. To what degree do you feel that you are making a positive change in your

students’ lives?
What values and aims guide you in your day—to—day teaching?
a. Where do these values and aims come from?

What/Who has influenced your teaching the most either positively or negatively?

. Tell me about your TESOL program and preparation.

a. What were your TESOL program’s philosophy, emphasis, instructional
processes, strengths, weaknesses?

b. Tell me about the content of the classes you took.

c. Feel free not to answer this question, but if you remember, what was your
GPA in the TESOL program?

d. Tell me about the practicum.

F”

Did you have a mentor/lead teacher or someone who took special interest in

helping you succeed? Do you have one now?

1")

In addition to the practicum, did you gain any other teaching experience in
graduate school?
Compare how you felt about the effectiveness of your TESOL training while in
graduate school and how you feel about it now.
a. Describe your preparation to teach ESL.
b. How could have your preparation been improved?
c. Describe any changes to how prepared you feel now compared to graduation.
What did you do before enrolling in the MA TESOL program?

a. Tell me about your bachelor’s education.

IQ
to
C)

b. Tell me about any teaching experience you had prior to starting the MA
TESOL.

c. Tell me about any cross-cultural or international experiences you had.

P-

Have you studied a foreign language? Tell me about it.
e. How, if at all, have they influenced your teaching?
16. I would like to follow up on something that you wrote in the online survey...

Post—interview:

 

)9 That was my last question. Is there anything that you would like to add? Is there
anything that we haven’t talked about but that you feel is relevant and important
for me to know?

> Thank you.

"r May I contact you in the future for further clarification regarding this study?

3" Feel free to contact me if you think of anything else you would like to add (Ildi
Thomas, at 248-246-2681 or at thomasil@msu.edu)

> Do you have any questions“?

)9 Thanks again.

227

Appendix C

Informed Consent Form
Project Title: Recent Graduates Speak Out
Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of the experiences
of recent’TESOL graduates working in community colleges.
Estimate of Participant’s Time: One 60-75 minute interview
Privacy: This study is completely voluntary. You have the right to refuse to participate
and you are free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. Additionally,
you may choose not to answer any questions. I will protect your privacy to the maximum
extent allowable by law. The interview will be audio-recorded and I will also take notes. I
will label the recorded interviews using a numerical coding system. I will report any data
utilizing a pseudonym (that you will choose). Your name, institution and/or any other
identifiable information will be omitted. I will keep all information in a locked cabinet. I
will be the only person along with the independent study supervisor with access to the

interviews.

228

 

 

Contact Persons for Participants

 

Dr. John Dirkx Ildiko S. Thomas

419 Erickson Hall 9707 Harbour Cove Ct

Michigan State University Ypsilanti, MI 48197

East Lansing, MI 48824 (734) 645-6311 or thomasil@msu.edu

(517) 353—8927 or dirkx@msu.edu
For questions about the participants’ rights as human subjects of research please contact
Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair, Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving

Human Subjects at (517) 355-2180 or ucrihs@msu.edu.

 

 

Based on the information provided above, you agree to participate in the project “Recent
Graduates Speak Outy” conducted by Ildiko Thomas and supervised by Dr. John Dirkx.
Participation in this study involves one interview. Please note that the researcher (Ildiko
Thomas) may contact you at a later time if there is a need to clarify any responses.
Please indicate:

Audio-recorded yes—no

Printed Name of Participant:

 

(Please print)

I agree to participate

 

Signature Date
Please note that your signature indicates that you freely agree to be part of the

study.

229

 

Appendix D
MA TESOL at Eastern Michigan University
Accessed on June 7, 2007 from

http://www.emich.edu/public/foreignlanguages/tesol/matesol.htm and
http://www.emich.edu/public/foreignlanguages/tesol/index.html
Claims made:

0 Preparation to teach ESL or EFL

- Combination of theory & practice

0 Combination of education & applied linguistics

0 Experience to apply theory to various settings

0 Focus on culture

0 Supervised teaching in ESL classroom

0 Appreciation for professional development & growth

0 Possibility of ESL endorsement added to certification

0 Full time or part time (16 months of full time study)

0 25% of MA students from abroad

0 No need to have related undergrad major; the TESOL program supplies all

knowledge [under FAQ 1]

o No GRE required to enter

0 TOELF/MELAB/IELTS required for F 1 students

0 Prerequisite for graduation: 2 college semesters of foreign language w/ C or better

0 Completion requirement within 6 years

0 In addition to MA TESOL, available Certificate, undergrad minor

230

 

 

Course: Core (20 hours)

Observation (TSLN500)

Theoretical Foundations of ESL Pedagogy (TSLNSOI)

Pedagogical Grammar and Phonology of ESL (TSLN502)

FL Testing and Evaluation (TSLN520)

TESOL Methods: Reading, writing, grammar l & 2 (TSLN321 and 320)
TESOL Methods: Listening, Speaking and pronunciation l & 2 (TSL533 & 532)
Seminar (TSLN694)

Practicum (TSLN688)

Course: Cognates (6 hours from the English department)

Introduction to Linguistics
Modern English Grammar
Introduction to Phonology
Introduction to Syntax
Syntactic Analysis
Semantics
Sociolinguistics
Psycholinguistics
Phonological Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Course: Electives (6 hours)

In College of Arts and Sciences

0 From Communication and Theater Arts

231

 

O

O

From English Languages and Literature
From Foreign Languages and Bilingual Studies
From Psychology

From Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology

o In College of Education

0

O

O

From Leadership and Counseling
From Special Education

From Teacher Education

to
b)
N

 

 

Appendix E
MTESOL at Arizona State University
Accessed on June 12, 2007 from
http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/linguistics/index.html
http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/gradstudies/tesl.htm
http://wwwasu.edu/clas/english/gradstudies/mteslhandbook.htm
Claims made:
0 Admission requirements:
0 Upper undergrad GPA minimum B
0 Recommendation of the academic unit where student wants to study
0 Graduation requirements:
0 Reading knowledge of a foreign language, demonstrated on an exam
0 Graduate scholars of English and/or Arizona TESOL
- Teaching practice
0 30 hours of coursework
Course: Core (20 hours)
0 Research Methods (LINSOO)
0 English Linguistics (LIN510)
0 Theories of SLA (LINSZO)
. Methods of TESL (LIN52 1)
0 Applied Project (LINS93): theoretical or empirical project -) 40-60 page
document

0 Oral exam based on Applied Project

1‘9
0)
'4)

Course: Electives (6 hours)
0 In English Dept: LIN or ENG
Course: Electives (9 hours)
0 In any department but approved by Director of Linguistics & MTESOL
o Internship (LIN584) at an outside site where ESL is taught
0 Teaching assistantships are competitive internally

0 Teaching a foreign language is also possible

234

 

 

Appendix F
MA TESOL at Michigan State University
Accessed on June 11, 2007 from
http://www.msu.edu/~linglang/tesol/ and www.msu.edu/~linglang/tesol/admissions.html.
Claims made:
0 Preparation for professional careers in language teaching, especially English
0 Knowledge and experience in language education
0 Language Ieaming
0 Materials development
0 Curriculum design
0 Teaching
0 Mix of theory and practice
0 Opportunity to put knowledge to use
0 Principles of the field
0 Interpretation of current research to language teaching
0 Provision of leadership in their school settings
0 Critical examination of one’s own teaching
0 33 credit hours
0 Thesis or certifying exam
0 Prerequisite: Introduction to Linguistics (LIN 401 )
o ESL Endorsement/Minor, dual MA in TESOL and Linguistics, and Ph.D. also

available

 

Course: Core

Introduction to Language Teaching Methods (LLT807)

Assessment for Language Teaching and Research (LLT 808)

Introduction to Second Language Acquisition (LLT 860, formerly 461)
Research Methods in Language Learning and Teaching (LLT872)
Structures and Functions of English (LLT846) (grammar)

Special Topics in Teaching and Learning (LLT84 1)

Classroom Practices (LLT 895)

Practicum (LLT 896)

From Linguistics either Phonology, Syntax or Semantics & Pragmatics
From language in context either Variation in English, Language & Culture,

Sociolinguistics, Language Socialization, or Cross-Cultural Communication

Course: Electives

For those who write a thesis '9 Master’s Thesis Research (LLT 899)
For Teaching Assistants -) LLT 897

For others '9 any LLT or LIN

to
'9)
ON

 

*— ws... 5'."—

Appendix G
MA TESL at Andrews University
Accessed on June 1 l, 2007 from

http://www.andrews.edu/cas/english/programs/degreeshtml and
http://www.andrews.edu/cas/english/esl/index.html.
Claims made:

0 Designed for teachers of ESL or those focusing on linguistics
Courses (core):

0 Graduate Seminar (ENGL589)

0 Research Methods (ENGL597)

0 Project Research (ENGL595) or Master’s Thesis (ENGL699)
Courses (required):

0 TESL Methods (ENGL465)

0 Phonetics and Phonology (ENGL466)

0 Second Language Acquisition (ENGL469)

0 Practicum (ENGL505)

0 Discourse Analysis (ENGL530)

0 Language and Culture (ENGL540)
Courses (electives):

0 Either Linguistics (ENGL435) or Topics (ENGL525)

0 Two classes from Development of Modern English (ENGL474), a writing course

or a literature course

237

 

 

 

Or Alternative MAT ESOL Program

Claims made:

0 Designed for teachers of ESL with a minimum of 15 credits in English
Prerequisite:

0 33 English graduate credits

0 At least 30 semester hours of English (undergraduate degree preferred)

0 ENGL300 or equivalent

0 Proficiency in a foreign language by either college—level intermediate classes with

C average, passed exam approved by the English Department, or completed

education through secondary school in a first language other than English

 

Courses (required):
0 Linguistics (ENGL460)
0 TESL Methods (ENGL465)
0 Second Language Acquisition (ENGL469)
- Practicum (ENGL505)
- Written comprehensive exam.
Courses (electives):
0 Two from Phonetics and Phonology (ENGL466), Topics (ENGL525), or

Language and Culture (ENGL540)

[‘0
DJ
00

 

Appendix H
MA TESL at Kent State University
Accessed on June 12, 2007 from

http://www.kent.edu/english/MAPrograms/MAinTESL/index.cfm
Claims made:

0 Coursework and teaching experience

0 Communication-based approach to TESL

0 Strong grounding in language theory

0 Development of interpersonal skills

0 2 years of study

0 36 hours of coursework

0 Final portfolio

0 Foreign language requirement: intermediate level knowledge
Course: (Core Required)

0 Linguistics for the Language Professions (ENG63040)

Descriptive Grammar of English (ENG63041)

Second Language Acquisition (ENG63033)

Methodology of TESL (ENG6300l)

Practicum in Teaching International Students (ENG68492)
Course: (choose one of)
0 Literate Practices and Sociolinguistics (ENG63034)

0 Teaching Conversation Strategies (ENG63037)

239

Course: (Electives) (6 credits)

Literate Practices and Sociolinguistics (ENG63034)
Computer for Second Language Teachers (ENG63035)
Teaching Conversation Strategies (ENG63037)

Second Language Curriculum and Testing (ENG63037)
Teaching Literature and Culture (ENG63038)

Research in Second Language Pedagogy (ENG63098)

Special Topics Courses in Linguistics and Language Teaching (ENG66895)

240

 

 

 

Appendix I
Letter to TESOL Departments
Dear __ (name of director/coordinator/chair of graduate admissions into Master’s
TESOL),
My name is Ildi Thomas and I am a doctoral candidate at Michigan State

University. I am writing to you on the recommendation of (name of

 

someone they know) to request your participation in a study investigating the realities,
successes and challenges of recent master’s TESOL graduates of (name of
their institution). I am particularly interested in native speakers of English, who are
currently employed in a community college in Michigan teaching English as a Second
Language.

In the first stage of the study, graduates of the last three years will be asked to fill
out a very brief anonymous online survey (enclosed) to gain demographic information of
ESL teachers and to determine their interest and eligibility in participating in the
interview portion of the study. In the second (interview) stage of the study, in March,
2006, I will interview the teachers to understand their perceptions and experiences as
ESL teachers in community colleges in Michigan and their satisfaction with their
master’s TESOL preparation (interview protocol enclosed).

In exchange for access to graduates of (name of institution), I will be
happy to provide you with anonymous graduate satisfaction data from the graduates who

respond.

241

 

I would like to contact you by phone and/or e—mail in the next ten days, so that I
may answer any questions or concerns you may have regarding your institution’s

participation in the study. Also, feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Ildi Thomas

(248)246-2681 or thomasil@msu.edu

242

Appendix J
Letter to ESL Departments at Community Colleges
Dear (name of ESL faculty/teachers/instructors),

My name is Ildi Thomas and I am a doctoral candidate at Michigan State
University. I am writing to you on the recommendation of (name of
someone they know) to request your participation in a study investigating the realities,
successes and challenges of recently graduated ESL teachers. I am particularly interested
in native speakers of English, who are currently employed in a community college in the
United States teaching English as a Second Language.

In the first stage of the study, graduates of the last five years (since 2000) will be
asked to fill out a very brief anonymous online survey (enclosed). The purpose of this
phase is to establish eligibility in the study, to gain a general understanding of the ESL
teachers’ background, and to identify participants who will agree to grant an interview.
The second stage of the study — the interview —- is aimed at understanding the teachers’
perceptions and experiences of teaching ESL and their satisfaction with their master’s
TESOL program (interview protocol enclosed). I will be conducting the interviews in
February—March, 2006 at the community college.

If you are not a recent graduate of a master’s TESOL program, please forward
this letter to those colleagues of yours who are. In the next ten days, I would like to
contact you by phone and/or e-mail, so that I may answer any questions or concerns you
may have regarding your participation in the study. Also, feel free to contact me at your

convenience.

Sincerely,
Ildi Thomas

(248)246—2681 or thomasil @msu.edu

 

REFERENCES

Abbas, A., & McLean, M. (2001). Becoming sociologists: Professional identity for part-

time teachers of university sociology. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
22(3), 339-352.

Allen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (1995, April). Evolution of novice through expert
teachers' recall. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2002, October). Greater
expectations: A new vision for Ieaming as a nation goes to college. National
panel report. Retrieved April 23, 2005, from http://greaterexpectations.org/

American Association of Community Colleges. (n.d.). About community colleges.
Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Template.cfm?section=AboutCommunityColleges

The American Immigration Law Foundation. (2002). Immigration policy report:
Preliminary census data released. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policv reports 2002 census.asp

Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and
collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2007(139), 5—14.

Amey, M. J ., Jessup—Anger, E., & Jessup-Anger, J. (2008). Community college
governance: What matters and why? New Directions for Community Colleges,
2008(141), 5—14.

Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1992). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of
scholarship and teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series.
Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and
Human Development.

Austin, A. E. (2002a). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 94-
122.

Austin, A. E. (2002b). Creating a bridge to the new future: Preparing new faculty to face
changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education,
26(2), 119-144.

Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to
work within Boyer's four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2006( 129), 51-65.

Avery, P. G., & Walker, C. (1993). Prospective teachers' perceptions of ethnic and
gender differences in academic achievement. Journal of Teacher Education,
44(1), 27-37.

 

Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003).
Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45—56.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communication in
westem man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (198]). The academic career as a developmental
process. Journal of Higher Education, 52(6), 598-614.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bartels, N. (2002). Professional preparation and action research: Only for language
teachers? TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 71-79.

Belenky, M. F., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1997). A tradition that has no name.
New York: Basic Books.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. M. (1985). Epistemological
development and the politics of talk in family life. Journal of Education, 167(3),
927.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women '5 ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Bem's Sex Role Inventory. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
httpzllfacultv.sunflutchessedu/andrews/bem sex.htm

Berg, M., & Others. (1989, March). The effect of preservice clinical supervision on
beginning teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Berry, J. W. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: '
Cambridge University Press.

Bess, J. L. (Ed.). (1978, April). Academic work: Doing it well: Doing it better. Papers
presented at a conference sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University.
New York, NY.

 

Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boyle, J. (1997). Native-speaker teachers of English in Hong Kong. Language and
Education, 11(3), 163-181.

Brewer, D. J. (1999). How do community college faculty view institutional mission? An
analysis of national survey data. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED440695)

Brickman, B., & Nuzzo, R. (l999a). Curricula and programs for international and
immigrant students. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 13, 53-62.

Brickman, B., & Nuzzo, R. (199%). International versus immigrant ESL students:

Designing curriculum and programs to meet the needs of both. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED426610)

Brousseau, B. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1988). How Do Teacher Education Faculty
Members Define Desirable Teacher Beliefs? Teaching & Teacher Education,
4(3), 257-273.

Carducci, R. (2002). Understanding faculty: A step toward improving professional
development programs. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477910)

Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language
teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3),
257-272.

Chalies, S., Ria, L., Bertone, S., Trohel, J ., & Durand, M. (2004). Interactions between
preservice and cooperating teachers and knowledge construction during post-
lesson interviews. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 765—781.

Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and

conceptions about teaching and Ieaming. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8),
817-831.

Christopher, V. (Ed.). (2005). Directory of teacher education programs in TESOL in the
United States and Canada 2005-2007. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages.

 

...__ —_._.._——_.w m fi . ‘5 _.

Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Clark, S. M. & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of
women faculty: A case of cumulative disadvantage? The Journal of Higher
Education, 57(1), 20—43.

Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the
institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 21 1-
244.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M., & Outcalt, C. L. (2001). A profile of the community college professoriate:
A report submitted to the Small Research Grants Program of the Spencer

Foundation. Center for the Study of Community Colleges, Los Angeles, CA.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454930)

Corbin, S. K. T. (1998). Role perceptions and job satisfaction of community college
faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of America,
Washington, DC.

Corley, E. L. (1998, October). F irst-year teachers: Strangers in strange lands. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Crandall, J. J ., & Sheppard, K. (2004, December 13). Adult ESL and the community
college. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from www.caalusa.org/eslreportpdf

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2"d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Curry, M. J. (2001, April). Adult ESL students in the contact zone: Exploring the effects
of multiple educational attainment levels on the community college writing
classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Dallimore, E. J. (2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered

socialization of new university faculty. Women '3 Studies in Communication,
26(2), 214-265.

Davis, L. D., Crawford, E. K., Cutright, M., Fry, J. E., Liu, R. W., & Trevor, T. (1997).

In search of community: Faculty assessment of its presence at three institutions.
Community College Review, 25(1), 3- I4.

248

 

 

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. s. (Eds). (2000). Handbook ofqualitative research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeSole, G., & Butler, M. (1994). Building an effective model for institutional change:
Academic women as catalyst. In S. M. Deats & L. T. Lenker (Eds.), Gender and
academe: Feminist pedagogy and politics (pp. 217-229). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers.

DeVries, D. L. (1975). Relationship of role expectations to faculty behavior. Research in
Higher Education, 3, 111-129.

Dirkx, J. M., Fonfara, T., & Flaska, K. (1993). Self and not-self in the practitioner-leamer
relationship: The problem of boundary awareness in ABE practice. Adult Basic
Education, 3(1), 51-68.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eastern Michigan University's Masters in TESOL F.A.Q. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12,
2007, from http://www.emich.edu/public/foreignlanguages/tesol/matesol.htm#faq

Eaton, K. B. (2004). Daily life in the Soviet Union. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Ebersole, T. (2003). A learning community for new faculty. Transformational Learning
Connections. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from
http://www.league.org/leaguetlc/express/inn0302.html

Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional and
professional homogenization. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 603-623.

Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for
institutional policy and decisions making. The Journal of Higher Education,
73(1), 26-48.

Fairweather, J. S. (2003). Faculty rewards reconsidered: The nature of tradeoffs. Change,
25(4), 44—47. .

Fairweather, J. S. (2006). Higher education and the new economy. East Lansing, MI:
Higher Education Policy Center. Michigan State University.

Fairweather, J. S., & Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Teaching and the faculty role: Enhancing the
commitment to instruction in American colleges and universities. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 179-194.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal
influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 95-111.

 

Finder, A. (2007, November 20). Decline of the tenure track raises concerns. New York
Times. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
httpzllwww.nvtimes.com/2007/1 l/20/education/20adjunct.html?ex=l 196226000&
en=ac2d9c9ccfad6543&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social
scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University
Press.

Florez, M. C. (1997). The adult ESL teaching profession. (Report No. EDO-LE-98-02).
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED413794)

Florio-Ruane, S. (1989). Social organization of classes and schools. Issue paper 89-2.
East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, 0. (1997). Teachers' voices in program evaluation and
improvement: A case study of a TESOL program. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13(6), 563-577.

Fradd, S. H., & Lee, 0. (1998). Development of a knowledge base for ESOL teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 761-773.

Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of
teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly,
23(1), 27-45.

Freeman, D. (1991a, April). Language teacher education, emerging discourse, and
change in classroom practice. Paper presented at the International Congress on
Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching, Hong Kong.

Freeman, D. (l99lb, October). Learning teaching: "InterTeaching" and other views of
the development of teachers' knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Washington Area Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Washington.

Freeman, D. (1991c, September). Teacher education and emerging conceptions of
practice. Paper presented at a Meeting of the International Study Association on
Teacher Thinking, Surrey, England.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new
understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5/6), 485-497.

Freeman, D. (1996). "To take them at their word": Language data in the study of teachers'
knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 732-761.

 

 

 

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Comments on Robert Yates and Dennis
Muchisky's "On reconceptualizing teacher education." TESOL Quarterly, 38(1),
119-127.

Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization
conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 675-686.

Friedman, M., & Cousins, C. C. (1996). Holding the space: Gender, race and conflict in
training. In S. Walters & L. Manicom (Eds), Gender in popular education:
Methods for empowerment, (pp. 61-86).

Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A
qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community
College Review, 28(1), 1-22.

Fuhrmann, B. S. (1996). Philosophies and aims. In J. G. Gaff, J. L. Ratcliff, & Associates
(Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of
undergraduate education. Change, 28(4), 38—45.

Gaff, J. G., Pruitt-Logan, A. S., Weibl, R. A., & Others. (2000). Building the faculty we
need: Colleges and universities working together. Washington, DC: Association
of American Colleges and Universities.

Gaies, S. J. (1992). An approach to the evaluation of BLT preparation programs. In E.
Sadtono (Ed.), Language Teacher Education in a F ast-Changing World.
Anthology Series 29. University of Northern Iowa.

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work and
workplace. Change, 37(6), 32-39.

Gawelek, M. A., Mulqueen, M., & Tarule, J. M. (1994). Woman to women:
Understanding the needs of our female students. In S. M. Deats & L. T. Lenker
(Eds), Gender and academe: Feminist pedagogy and politics (pp. 179-198).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.

Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

 

-..-q— - ......-.._—.—---—-. --.. _._. .-.L

Gonzalez, J. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Programs that prepare teachers to
work effectively with students Ieaming English (Report No. EDO-FL—OO-09).
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED447724)

Govardhan, A. K., Nayar, B., & Sheorey, R. (1999). Do U.S. MATESOL programs
prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 114-125.

Greis, N. (1984). Toward a better preparation of the non-native ESOL teacher. In On
TESOL '84: A brave new world for TESOL. Selected papers from the Annual
Convention of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Houston,
TX.

Grosse, C. U. (1991). The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 29-49.

Grubb, W. N., Worthen, H., Byrd, B., Webb, B, Badway, N., Case, C., Goto, S., &
Villeneuve, J. C. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in
community colleges. New York: Routledge.

Haritos, C. (2004). Understanding teaching through the minds of teacher candidates: A
curious blend of realism and idealism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6),
637-654.

Hebe], S. (1999, May 7). The community college of Denver wins fans with ability to
tackle tough issues. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(35), A37-A38.

Ho, I. T., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and
differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in
external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 313-323.

Holten, C. A., & Brinton, D. M. (1995). "You shoulda been there": Charting novice
teacher growth using dialogue journals. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 23-26.

Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(4), 343-356.

Hulbert, K. D. (1994). Gender patterns in faculty-student mentoring relationships. In S.
M. Deats & L. T. Lenker (Eds.), Gender and academe: Feminist pedagogy and
politics (pp. 247-263). Lanham, MD:' Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Hussein, A. A. (19953, March). English as a second language instructors: Preservice
and inservice training. Paper presented at the Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages, Long Beach, CA.

10
L11
IQ

 

 

 

Hussein, A. A. (1995b, March). Preparation for administration of English as a second
language programs. Paper presented at the Teachers of English as a Second
Language, Long Beach, CA.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Janopoulos, M. (1991). TESOL practicum: Bridging the gap between student needs and
program objectives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED333743)

Jarvis, D. K. (1991). Junior faculty development: A handbook. New York: Modern
Language Association of America.

Jipson, J. (1995). Teacher-mother: An imposition of identity. In J. Jipson, P. Munro, S.
Victor, K. F. Jones, & G. Freed-Rowland (Eds.), Repositioning feminism &
education: Perspectives on educating for social change (pp. 21-35). Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of
preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507-534.

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2003). "Seeing" teacher Ieaming. TESOL Quarterly,
37(4), 729-737.

Kerka, S. (1998). New perspectives on mentoring. ERIC Digest No. 194. (Report EDO-
CE-98-194). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418249)

Kimmel, M. S. (with Aronson, A.). The gendered society reader. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Klug, B. J., & Salzman, S. A. (1991, February). Strengthening the team: An inclusive
model of university/school district support for novice teachers. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, New Orleans, LA.

Knapp, L. G, Kelly—Reid, J. E., Whitmore, R. W., Huh, 8., Zhao, L., Levine, B.,
Ginder, S., Wang, J., & Broyles, S. G. (2006, January 16). Staff in postsecondary
institutions, fall 2003, and salaries of full-time instructional faculty, 2003-04.
Education Statistics Quarterly, 7( 1&2). Retrieved December 10, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterlv/vol 7/1 2/5 10.asp

Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence 'of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Never let it rest. Change,
37(4), 44-51.

IQ
{It
to)

 

. _s- --— _-~.—'_x _—..—._-

Kuo, E. W. (1999). Analysis of ESL course offerings in community colleges. University of
California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427795)

Kwo, O. (1996). Learning to teach English in Hong Kong classrooms: Patterns of
reflections. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in
Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in
alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 341-359.

Leat, D. (1999). Rolling the stone uphill: Teacher development and the implementation
of thinking skills programmes. Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 387-403.

Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699-715.

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of
schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 190-
208.

Levin, J. S. (1994, November). Community colleges as organization of change. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Tucson, AZ.

Lo, Y.-H. G. (2001a, March). From western language teacher education programs to
eastern EFL classrooms: Alienation of theory and practice. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL), St. Louis, M0.

L0. Y.-H. G. (2001b, March). What do they need from MA TESOL programs: A case
study of four non-native EFL teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), St. Louis, MO.

Lopes, S. A. (1997). State-wide needs assessment in ESL education: Findings. James
Madison University, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED411241)

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Lowry, C., & Froese, W. (2001, May). Transitions: Becoming a college teacher. Paper
presented at the 2001 Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium,
Quebec City, QC.

Lyons, R. E., & Kysilka, M. L. (2000, May). A proven program for developing adjunct
community college faculty. Paper presented at the International Conference on

254

 

 

 

sill

Teaching and Leadership Excellence on the National Institute for Staff and
Organizational Development, Austin, TX.

Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience,
education and teachers' use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language
Teaching Research, 7(8), 301-327.

Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. (2001). The feminist classroom: Dynamics of gender,
race, and privilege. Expanded edition. Lanhalm, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Marks, M. J. (2007, April). Influences on preservice teacher socialization: A qualitative
study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive
guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merton, R. K., Reader, G. G., & Kendall, P. L. (Eds). (1957). The student—physician.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. (2004). Michigan community
colleges: Demographic enrollment profile 2003-2004. Retrieved October 25,
2007, from http://www.michigancc.net/data/databook/db03.pdf

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mohr, D. J. (2000). A qualitative analysis of the socialization factors experienced by
induction phase physical education teachers from one university. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Morgan, D. (1996). Learning to be a man: Dilemmas and contradictions of masculine
experience. In C. Luke (Ed.), Feminism and pedagogics of everyday life (pp. 103-
l 15). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Muchisky, D. (n.d.). ATESL at 48: On the eve of accreditation. Retrieved April 22, 2005,
from NAFSA: Association of lntemational Educators Web site:
httpzllwww.nafsa.org/knowledge_community_network.sec/recruitment_admission
s/esl__administration_and_ l /practice_resources_20/program_administration/atesl__
history '

Muchisky, D., & Yates, R. (2004). The authors respond...defending the discipline, field,
and profession. TESOL Quarterly. 38( 1), 134-140.

255

Munthe, E. (2003). Teachers' workplace and professional certainty. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19(8), 801-813.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Postsecondary education chapter, part
1. Retrieved August 25, 2005, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005025

Noddings, N. (1989). Women and evil. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Numrich, C. ( 1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights form diary studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131-153.

Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., et a1. (1999). On the road to
becoming a professor: The graduate student experience. Change, 31(3), 18-27.

O'Banion, T. (Ed.). (1994). Teaching and learning in the community college.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Olson, T., & Einwohner, R. L. (2001). Forming and transforming the teaching self in
different institutional environments: Two teachers' experiences. Teaching
Sociology, 29(4), 403-422.

Paese, P. C., & Flatau, J. P. (1990). Improving criterion process teaching skills during
student teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED322145)

Palmer, P. J. (1997). The heart of a teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching. New
Horizons for Learning. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/character/palmer.htm#author

Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing,
and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perin, D. (2002). The location of developmental education in community colleges: A
discussion of the merits of mainstreaming vs. centralization. Community College
Review, 30(1), 27-44.

Perkins, S. S. (1997). Bridging the gaps: The relationship between teacher preparation
programs in English as a second language and intensive English programs.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, IO.

Perkins, S. S. (1998). Attitudes and actions: Teacher preparation programs in ESL and
IEPs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Sunshine State Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language
classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation.
Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313-326.

Polio, C., & Wilson-Duffy, C. (1998). Teaching ESL in an unfamiliar context:
lntemational students in a North American MA TESOL practicum. TESOL
Journal, 7(4), 24-29.

Population Reference Bureau. (2003). The foreign-bom population: 2000. Retrieved
April 22, 2005, from http://www.prb.org/Source/c2kbr-34.pdf

Porter-Szucs, l. (2007). The need for recent TESOL graduates to speak out on their
master's training. In N. A. Caplan & C. M. Pearson (Eds.), Selected Proceedings
of the 2006 Michigan Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
Conference: All "A”s in the Classroom (pp. 25-34). East Lansing. MI: Michigan
State University.

Porter-Szucs, I. (2008). From the Other Side of the Desk: Recent Master’s TESOL
Graduates Speak from Community College ESL Classrooms. In C. M. Pearson,
K. Losey, & N. A. Caplan (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Michigan
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference: Making
Connections (pp. 55-72). Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University.

Price, M., & Glassman, D. (2007, April 17). The conception, decline, and reemergence of
in loco parentis. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from
http://danny.glassmann.org/docs/inlocoparentis.pdf

Raudenbush, S. W., & Others. (1990). Contextual effects on the self-efiicacy of high
school teachers. (Report No. OERI-G0087C235). Washington: DC: Center for

Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED338590)

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects of the self-
perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150-
167.

Reagan, T. G. (1997). The case for applied linguistics in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 48(3), 185-196.

Reynolds, A., Ross, S. M., & Rakow, J. H. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching
effectiveness, and professional preparation: A comparison of professional
development school and non-professional development school graduates.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 289-303.

Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic
careers for a new generation. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451740)

Richards, D. (1997). Program evaluation in TESOL. Prospect, 12(1), 4-19.

Sachs, G. T., & Others (1994, 1994-00-00). From task description to task enactment:
Teachers' interpretation of language Ieaming tasks. In N. Bird & Others (Eds.),
Annual lntemational Language in Education Conference. Language and Ieaming.
Hong Kong.

Sachs, G. T. (1996, March). Thinking and talking like real teachers: Bridging the gap.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages, Chicago, IL.

Santana-Williamson, E. (2000). Critical pedagogy in TESOL: A review of the literature.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED447700)

Schreiber, J. B., & Moss, C. M. (2002). A Peircean view of teacher beliefs and genuine
doubt. Teaching &. Learning, 17(1), 25-42.

Schulz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A 3-year study
of teacher candidates’ experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (3), 315-
331.

Sehlaoui, A. S. (2001). Developing cross-cultural communicative competence in pre-
service ESL/EFL teachers: A critical perspective. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 14(1), 42-57.

Shkedi, A., & Laron, D. (2004). Between idealism and pragmatism: A case study of
student teachers’ pedagogical development. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(7), 693-711.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 1 l-l7.

Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future
of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present.
Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Stansbury, K., & Long, C. (1992). Assessment component of the California new teacher

project: Framework of knowledge, skills and abilities for beginning teachers in
California. A work in progress. Sacramento: CA: Far West Lab for Educational

258

Research and Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED355192)

Stanton, A. (1996). Reconfiguring teaching and knowing in the college classroom. In N.
R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge,
difference, and power, (pp. 25-50). New York: Basic Books.

Stroot, S. A., & Whipple, C. (2003). Organizational socialization. In S. Silverman & C.
D. Ennis (Eds.), Student Ieaming in physical education, (pp. 339-365).
Champaign-Urbana, IL: Human Kinetics.

Stuart, R. (1996). Understanding difference differently: A Canadian view. In. S. Walters

& L. Manicom (Eds.), Gender in popular education: Methods for empowerment,
(pp. 134-148).

Tedick, D. J ., & Walker, C. L. (1995). From theory to practice: How do we prepare
teachers for second language classrooms? Foreign Language Annals, 28(4), 499-
517.

Thomas, I. (2006). Broadening the cultural frame on recent master's TESOL graduates. In
E. P. Isaac (Ed.), 2006 Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, Extension, and Community Education: Impacting adult learners near
and for (p. 273). St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Enhancing promotion, tenure, and beyond:
Faculty socialization as a cultural process. Association for the Study of Higher
Education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Tigchelaar, A., & Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching
experiences: Implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights
into teacher behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 665-679.

Townsend, B. K., & LaPaglia, N. (2000). Are we marginalized within academe?

Perceptions of two-year college faculty. Community College Review, 28(1), 41-
48.

Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and
undervalued. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Twombly, S. B., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know
and need to know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5-24.

259

Van Maanen, J. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In J.
L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization, (pp. 211-247). New York:
New York University Press.

Vavrus, M. (2001). Successful teacher education programs in the era of reform: An essay
review of studies of excellence in teacher education (3 vols.): Preparation in the
undergraduate years; preparation in a five-year program; preparation at the
graduate level. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 645-651.

Vonk, J. H. C. (1995, April). Conceptualizing novice teachers' professional development:
A base for supervisory interventions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Vuorikoski, M. (2001, April). Constructing personal and professional identity during
teacher education. Paper presented at the European Society for Research on the
Education of Adults (ESREA) Gender Network Conference, Geneva,
Switzerland.

Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Markedness. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness

Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL
Quarterly, 37(1), 135-147.

260