ORBIS SCHOLAE

ORBIS SCHOLAE

Orbis scholae je odborný recenzovaný časopis zaměřený na problematiku školního vzdělávání v jeho širších sociokulturních souvislostech. Cílem časopisu je přispět k porozumění školnímu vzdělávání a jeho rozvoji, k řešení problémů praxe a vzdělávací politiky.

ORBIS SCHOLAE, 1–18

Professional Teacher Language: Its Contexts, Functions, and Potential to Further Teachers’ Professionalism

Manuela Schlick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2022.11
zveřejněno: 01. 11. 2022

Abstract

Much attention has been dedicated to the professional development of teachers and how their professional knowledge base is formed in teacher education, but little attention has been paid to the surface level of such measures, that is the professional language used and developed within teacher education. The first part of this article presents a definition of professional teacher language and provides overviews for its contexts and functions in order to conceptualise its role for teachers’ professional development and its potential for teacher education. To further illustrate this potential, a cognitive-linguistic perspective is applied to discuss the relationship of practical teacher knowledge and its verbalisation. This touches on the fundamental question of what proportion and aspects of teachers’ professional knowledge base can be made explicit through language and how language can help to form this knowledge base. The second part contextualises and discusses results from an empirical qualitative study of practitioner teachers’ discussing their practice in a professional learning group. This illustrates one methodological approach to exploring how practitioners verbalise their decision making in practice within professional discourse in a professional learning community.

klíčová slova: professional language; professional development; language teaching; strategic knowledge; PCK

reference (56)

1. Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 175−178. CrossRef

2. Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 347−386). Springer Singapore. CrossRef

3. Borg, S. (2018). Teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (p. 75−91). Routledge. CrossRef

4. Borko, H., Livingston, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teachers' thinking about instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 40−49. CrossRef

5. Bryson, D. (2016). Professional language: Understanding and being understood. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 39(3−4), 158−159. CrossRef

6. Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher Education. Cambridge University Press.

7. Butzkamm, W. (1993). Psycholinguistik des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Francke.

8. Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. Routledge.

9. Cochran, K., DeRuiter, J., & King, R. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263−272. CrossRef

10. Copland, F. M., & Mann, S. (2010). Dialogic talk in the post-observation conference; an investment for reflection. In G. Park, H. P. Widodo, & A. Cirocki (Eds.), Observation of teaching:

11. Bridging theory and practice through research on teaching (pp. 175−191). LINCOM.

12. Copland, F., & Donaghue, H. (2019). Post observation feedback. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 402−416). Routledge. CrossRef

13. Donaghue, H. (2018). Relational work and identity negotiation in critical post observation teacher feedback. Journal of Pragmatics, 135, 101−116. CrossRef

14. Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge. CrossRef

15. Fend, H. (2009). Die sozialen und individuellen Funktionen von Bildungssystemen. In C. Hof et al. (Eds.), Handbuch der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 43−55). Schöningh.

16. Flowerdew, J. (2015). John Swales's approach to pedagogy in genre analysis: A perspective from 25 years on. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 102−12. CrossRef

17. Freeman, D., & Cazden, C. (1991). Learning to talk like a professional: Some pragmatics of foreign language teacher training. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 225−246). University of Illinois.

18. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition. Re-forming professionalism? Open University Press.

19. Fütterer, T., Hoch, E., Stürmer, K., Lachner, A., Fischer, C., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Was bewegt Lehrpersonen während der Schulschließungen? − Eine Analyse der Kommunikation im Twitter- Lehrerzimmer über Chancen und Herausforderungen digitalen Unterrichts. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(2), 443−477. CrossRef

20. Gunnarsson, B.-L. (2009). Professional discourse. Continuum.

21. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606−633. CrossRef

22. Gruber, H., Lehtinen, E., Palonen, T., & Degner, S. (2008). Persons in the shadow: Assessing the social context of high abilities. Psychology Science, 50(2), 237−258.

23. Hedgcock, J. (2002). Toward a socioliterate approach to second language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 299−317. CrossRef

24. Hedgcock, J. S. (2009). Acquiring knowledge of discourse conventions in teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 144−152). Cambridge University Press.

25. Hedgcock, J. S., & Lee, H. (2017). An exploratory study of academic literacy socialization: Building genre awareness in a teacher education program. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 17−28. CrossRef

26. Heine, L., Marx, N., Schädlich, B., & Wilden, E. (2020). Review of doctoral research in language education in Germany (2014−2018). Language Teaching, 53(3), 341−357. CrossRef

27. Helsper, W. (2004). Antinomien, Widersprüche, Paradoxien: Lehrerarbeit − Ein unmögliches Geschäft? Eine strukturtheoretisch-rekonstruktive Perspektive auf das Lehrerhandeln. In B. Koch-Priewe, F.-U. Kolbe, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Grundlagenforschung und mikrodidaktischeReformansätze zur Lehrerbildung (pp. 49−99). Klinkhardt.

28. Helsper, W. (2011). Lehrerprofessionalität − Der strukturtheoretische Professionsansatz zum 17 Lehrberuf. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 149−170). Waxmann.

29. Hodgen, J. (2011). Knowing and identity: A situated theory of mathematics knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 27−42). Springer Netherlands. CrossRef

30. Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 6−29. CrossRef

31. Hüttner, J., Smit, U., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2009). ESP teacher education at the interface of theory and practice: Introducing a model of mediated corpus-based genre analysis. System, 37(1), 99−109. CrossRef

32. Knorr, P. (2015). Kooperative Unterrichtsvorbereitung: Unterrichtsplanungsgespräche in der Ausbildung angehender Englischlehrender. Narr.

33. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., & Baumert, J. (2009). Professionelle Kompetenz von Mathematiklehrkräften: Das COACTIV-Modell. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.), Lehrprofessionalität. Bedingungen, Genese, Wirkungen und ihre Messung (pp. 153−166). Beltz.

34. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press. CrossRef

35. Li, L. (2019). Teacher cognition and teacher expertise. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 335−349). Routledge. CrossRef

36. Loughran, J., & Hamilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2016). International handbook of teacher education. Springer. CrossRef

37. Mason, J. (2008). From concept images to pedagogic structure for a mathematical topic. In C. Rasmussen & M. Carlson (Eds.) Making the connection: research to practice in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 253−272). Mathematical Association of America. CrossRef

38. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173. CrossRef

39. Neuweg, G. H. (2008). Grundlagen der Lehrer/innen/kompetenz. Odgojne Znanosti, 10(1), 13−22.

40. Neuweg, G. H. (2011). Das Wissen der Wissensvermittler. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 451−477). Waxmann.

41. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261−284. CrossRef

42. Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising teachers' mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9−25). Springer Netherlands. CrossRef

43. Pollard, A. (Ed.). (2010). Professionalism and pedagogy: A contemporary opportunity. Institute of Education.

44. Roelcke, T. (2010). Fachsprachen. Erich Schmidt.

45. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotyped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether techers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching & Teacher Education, 27(2), 259−267. CrossRef

46. Shaw, P., & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes. Routledge.

47. Shulman, L. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and its exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3−13). Routledge. CrossRef

48. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4−14. CrossRef

49. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1−22. CrossRef

50. Simons, P., & Ruijters, M. (2004). Learning professionals: Towards an integrated model. In R. Boshulzen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 207−229). Kluwer Academic. CrossRef

51. Swann, M., McIntyre, D., Pell, T., Hargreaves, L., & Cunningham, M. (2010). Teachers' conceptions of teacher professionalism in England in 2003 and 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 549−571. CrossRef

52. Wajnryb, R. (1994). The pragmatics of feedback: A study of mitigation in the supervisory discourse of TESOL teacher educators [PhD thesis]. Macquarie University.

53. Walsh, S., & Mann, S. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education. Routledge. CrossRef

54. Wipperfürth, M. (2008). Kompetenzmodelle: Professionalisierung und Berufsverantwortung als Leitkonzepte für Lehrerbildung. University of Munich.

55. Wipperfürth, M. (2015). Professional vision in Lehrernetzwerken − Berufssprache als ein Weg und ein Ziel von Lehrerprofessionalisierung. Waxmann.

56. Wipperfürth, M. (2016). Sprachlosigkeit in der LehrerInnenbildung? Reflective best practice in dialogue. In F. Klippel (Ed.), Teaching languages − Sprachen lehren (pp. 123−144). Waxmann.

Creative Commons License
Professional Teacher Language: Its Contexts, Functions, and Potential to Further Teachers’ Professionalism is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

230 x 157 mm
vychází: 3 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 150 Kč
ISSN: 1802-4637
E-ISSN: 2336-3177

Ke stažení