Research Question: How can the course materials, in particular the readings,

Participants suggested a variety of ways in which the course materials, and the readings specifically, could be best used. Useful cautions to [a]lways keep an eye on the students’ level, abilities, interest, etc.’ and to [c]hoose texts, which are interesting (even from the students’ point of view) were offered. The latter response appearing to suggest that intrinsic student interest was not considered, at least by them, as significant.

Naturally, some course participants failed to answer the question, and one trainee response expressed their dislike: [to] tell the truth, I didn’t like the course materials, they were just words and not much practice for me.An answer which revealed a common concern, as illustrated below, that the readings were insufficiently practical for many.

In terms of theory and practice course materials:

should be relevant and practical

The approach to using course materials should concentrate on learning about theories and putting them into practice that is [t]o examine how it works in everyday life, in a classroom setting. Corroborating previous evidence, the preference is for transferring them [theories] to practise (even if only talking about it). Again, such comments clearly reflect the strong tendency to rate practice higher than theory, as seen in Research Question 2

The theory – practice balance tips towards keeping it practical and calls for trainers to avoid being over-academic & theoretical and, moreover, to reduce the readings to only the most practical ones.

MN Readings

Surprise, surprise! There is not too much enthusiasm for the Richards and Rodgers chapters (one lone voice!). I'm pleased I used Post-Its to collect this data. I want to make more use of classroom data of this sort, I just need to get myself more…

This entry reveals a phenomenon that comes to characterise my experience teaching methodology over the next three years. The theme of students preferring the inherently practical (in their view) to the theoretical (again in their view) is to recur throughout the data analysis process. As will be seen from questionnaire data, comments on the readings per se are predominantly tinged with the negative.

Various proposals are made as to how thisis to be achieved. One suggestion being a call for close reading and analysis, that is the

[r]eading line-by-line

of course reading materials in order for trainees, and trainer, [t]o know them from the inside out. Similarly there were suggestions to go [into] them deeply even if it takes more time, and get feedback […] or to apply […] a step-by-step approach (top → bottom) and calling attention to different things in texts through, of course, various exercises , then getting feedback on it through a test, oral or written.

However, while there was agreement that close reading was a necessity, there was disagreement as to when it and the subsequent analysis should take place: [t]hey should be carefully read and analysed before using it in class, or […] the whole text can be analysed during class, so that any possible misunderstanding can be cleared. The important point here for the trainer is that there should be some form of feedback on the readings.

The data identifies the great significance of classroom discussion or debate of the readings:

[t]hey need to be discussed thoroughly and from different points of view.

Linked to the point in the preceding section related to the clearing up of misunderstandings, trainees suggest that they discuss difficult points in readings, [and…] also share their opinions/ideas/experience which are related to e.g. classroom management because [b]y [d]iscussing what we read in the articles [… we can] somehow try to demonstrate them through practice. A change of focus in terms of the content of the prescribed readings was also put forward. The trainer should choose articles/readings that

contain rather attitudes, approaches, principles and not facts; a more lively discussion is possible about ways of looking at things than about facts. This reflects some of the findings from Research Question 3 in terms of trainees not having sufficient teaching experience and therefore lacking the ability to understand the content of some of the prescribed readings.

A further contribution refers to the use of standard classroom activities, that is lots of talking […] and exercises and activities to check the understanding. However, the same contribution adds that a text should be authentic. The classroom implications of this for the trainer's approach to the readings are discussed in the following paragraph. There were also suggestions that [t]he teacher trainer should put together a lot of activities [and…] questions to initiate a debate in class about the readings or that the trainer prepare handouts that summarise the content or make notes. Fortunately, the same trainee proposes that the trainer could also have students do them and thus foreshadows the notion that the trainer need not be solely responsible for all the preparation.

Added to such discussion is the proposal that the situations described in the readings be problematised: [b]esides discussions, there should be questions related to the problems that [arose] in the readings or [a]fter reading, we can discuss the main points or the problematic points of readings. An alternative approach puts some of the onus of thinking and preparation on the trainees to [p]repare […] at least two questions or problematic issues from the articles which could be discussed at the first half of the lesson. Alternatively, trainees could [w]rite a short passage about the readings: what did the students like or dislike about the text and why […], and thus explore the emotional side to teaching rather than concentrate solely on content knowledge as is so often the case.

A prescient comment exposes an area of weakness common to many of the course readings, namely that the readings might often represent ideal situations in [the] classroom.

As a consequence, the same trainee suggests that [t]hey are good starting points for what we should take into considerations when teaching and so proposes a method for dealing with some of the prescribed readings in a way that melds theory with practice

Following on from classroom discussion and debate, trainees suggested the use of reading comprehension tasks, for example:

[s]tudents may be asked to write comprehension check questions about the readings.

(Maybe one students for one lesson and the others answer them in pairs)

For the trainer this is a particularly important suggestion: not only does it place the onus of preparation with the trainees, it also springs from the trainees themselves and so provides a very useful example of trainees taking responsibility for their own learning, an attribute of vital importance to all teachers, not least of all for the newly trained teacher.

A conventional approach to comprehension could entail a formula familiar from the teaching of reading (as advocated by some of the course materials): [w]ith pre-reading exercises introducing the topic of the material, then reading for a general idea, discussing unknown words, reading for details and a follow-up exercise concerning the topic or the language of the text. As a trainer of teaching methodology there is little to be said against such a suggested approach; not only does it exemplify real world practice, it also offers trainees an opportunity to experience such practice and so make their own conclusions as to its effectiveness.

Naturally there are those who disagree strongly with prescribed course readings and do not advocate active trainee participation. For some, consideration of the prescribed readings is misplaced: I believe that it is enough that the students read them at home, the emphasis should be on peer-teaching, or practice. Once again, given the dismissal of peer teaching by some trainees this reveals an interesting permutation in regard to the way content is addressed on methodology courses. As with all teaching situations, it is difficult to satisfy all participants at the same time. However, raising this point can be used productively within methodology seminars to alert trainee teachers to just such an eventuality.

For others it is much clearer: [l]ess readings, maybe comprehension check [question]s for the readings (before the class → printed on the photocopy). While this is obviously a less welcome response for the author, it represents a view worthy of consideration in terms of speculating whether prescribed course readings are the only way of providing trainees with input concerning the theory of teaching. There is a call for fewer or more infrequent texts based on the possibility of trainees losing interest and not giving the materials the attention they deserve: [m]aybe not for every lesson… ( after a few weeks we start to feel ‘Oh my God, another paper, let’s read it as quickly as possible…). One reading per two weeks might mean that we can concentrate on them more… As with the previous comment, the trainer should consider hard what implications these responses have for their own practice in the methodology seminar.

Various other permutations were offered by trainees as to how best to exploit the prescribed readings, including the personalisation of texts:

I always try to place readings in personal context (i.e. I imagine that I’m in class and that I try to use the ideas introduced in the texts).

This approach demonstrates the power of trainees using their imagination, something that may not always be utilised to the full at tertiary level given the focus on the logical and rational.

Following on from personalisation comes the suggestion of the multiple uses of texts approach. As with reading comprehension tasks and personalisation, this suggestion reflects common practice for the teaching of reading and has echoes of the 'change the task not the text' approach to the use of authentic reading material. In this instance it would seem that this trainee has also internalised some of the prescribed readings:

One text could be used several times for different types of talks and skills development.

Nevertheless, the same trainee cautions against overuse of the texts, aware of the very real-world consequences of such practice, namely student boredom and lack of interest: one text should not be overused because students can get fed up with it

.