Page 136 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind

Chapter 5. Perspective of the teachers – professional development
After these three SpeakTeach lesson series, Florence developed further to maximum SpeakTeach applications (sores 3). During the intervention period, she had already applied the teaching approach in other classes and provided additional data to the researcher (the author). In the data from these other classes, the author and an assessor (p. 12) saw that Florence was working in an increasingly student-driven way (procedure 2). She had even made procedure 1 more adaptive than the maximal application of this procedure in the original teaching method; she let the students choose the final speaking activity themselves at the beginning of the lesson series (with self-evaluation in order to improve the activity). In the new school year, she reported that she was still applying the SpeakTeach method.
Classification 4. Quitter (n=1, See Table 5.1, teacher K)
One teacher fell outside the other three classifications, because he did not innovate on one of the procedures and was not satisfied with his failure to achieve his goal with regard to this procedure. This teacher also reported that he did not apply parts of the new teaching approach. For these reasons, this classification was called quitter.
3
S2 c
o
re 1 0
0123 Procedure 1 Procedure 2 Procedure 3
Teacher Koos
Figure 13: Example of classification 4, Quitter: learning route of teacher Koos (K)
Case description: teacher Koos
In his regular teaching practice, Koos gave classroom feedback and feedback on individuals’ speaking performances while walking around the class. For some speaking activities he gave individual feedback for a grade (procedure 3, score 1). There was no build-up in sequences of speaking activities and no explicit alignment with exercises for improvement of the speaking
134
133