EDITOR: Bartels, Nat
TITLE: Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education
YEAR: 2005
PUBLISHER: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
REVIEWER:
Carolin Fuchs
Hüflegewann 26
77756 Hausach
Tel: 0174/5855224
Fax: 07831/939633
Email: carolin.fuchs@miis.edu
INTRODUCTION
Following the call for action research, reflective teaching, and a case study approach by
applied linguists and teacher educators (e.g., Allright & Bailey 1991; van Lier 2005), the
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition of the University of Minnesota has
organized the International Conference on Language Teacher Education since 1999. (In
contrast, see for example Cornford, who has argued against the superiority of reflective
teaching for teaching or learning based on a lack of empirical evidence, 2002: 231). As a
result of these conferences, international language teacher educators and practicioners from
the field have made valuable contributions focusing on issues such as the knowledge base of
language teaching, the process of language teacher education, the socio-cultural and political
contexts of language teacher education, or language teachers in their roles as intercultural
mediators (see proceedings in Bigelow & Walker 2004; Johnston & Irujo 2001; Tedick 2004).
Since the 1980s, research has increasingly focused on the knowledge base of language
teachers and has included content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum
knowledge, (educational) context knowledge, knowledge of language learners (Shulman
1987). More recently, this knowledge base has been extended to also include the sociocultural contexts within which the activity of language teaching takes place (Freeman &
Johnson 1998). In Germany, various universities have been conducting cooperative language
teacher education projects as part of a new preservice teacher education model (see Legutke,
Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth 2002).
Nat Bartels’s edited volume “Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education,”
which is part of Kluwer’s series on Educational Linguistics, is a collection of 21 case studies
following an action research and a reflective teaching approach. Throughout the different
parts, the recurring key issue is novice teachers’ learning and use of ‘Knowledge about
Language (KAL)’ with regard to SLA, Syntax, Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics, Phonetics and
Phonology, L2 Reading and Writing, Testing, and Content-Based Instruction. These themes
fit within the traditional KAL research tradition, which has focused on linguistic,
psycholinguistic, discourse, communicative, sociolinguistic, or strategic awareness (e.g.,
Wray 1994). The volume is aimed at applied linguists who want to gain insight into how preservice or in-service teachers apply their newly acquired KAL to their own classroom
teaching. The collection is divided up into five parts comprising 23 chapters (of which the
first and the last are written by the editor), a foreword by the editor providing the objectives of
and the background to the book, a chapter-by-chapter overview, and an index at the end.
SYNOPSIS
Part I: Teacher Education and Applied Linguistics
In his introductory chapter “Researching Applied Linguistics in Language Teacher
Education” (Chapter 1), Nat Bartels introduces data collection tools and research methods for
those interested in analyzing the theoretical foundations of the teaching practices in applied
linguistics. In discussing research tools and methods, Bartels presents a total of 20 tables
divided up into three sections which list sample studies from Applied Linguistics and
Educational Research as well as studies from this volume under a separate heading.
The bulk of the chapter (Tables 6 through 15) deals with various reports and introspection
methods such as interviews, Lickert scales and open-ended questionnaires, the Q
methodology, journals, metaphors, teachers’ stories, autobiographies, critical incidents, thinkaloud protocols, stimulated recall, and repertory grids. The author also presents teaching and
teacher education artifacts and discusses various methods of observation and sample studies
of tasks (e.g., problem solving, reaction to stimulus, memory and sorting, concept maps).
In “Using Bulgarian Mini-Lessons in an SLA Course to Improve the KAL of American
ESL Teachers” (Chapter 2), Maria Angelova investigates how mini-lessons in Bulgarian - a
language not spoken by her teacher trainees - may aid in teaching different language learning
theories, concepts, or methods. Upon analysis of the 30 participants’ pre- and post-course
surveys, discussions, and journal reflections, Angelova concludes that the learning experience
proves valuable cognitively, pedagogically, and affectively.
In their contribution “The Impact on Teachers of Language Variation as a Course
Component” (Chapter 3), Corony Edwards & Charles Owen present findings from a study
which focuses on MA TEFL in-service teachers’ reactions to the language variation
component of a sociolinguistics course. Results from responses of 86 students confirm that it
is primarily due to “individual circumstances and interest” how useful or relevant participants
deem different areas of sociolinguistics (57). By the same token, Edwards & Owen note a
division between respondents who view their training as instrumental or as holistic.
The article “Integrating Language Teachers’ Discipline Knowledge in a Language Course”
(Chapter 4) by Joseph M. Cots & Elisabet Arnó attempts to find out whether, and to what
extent, language, linguistics, and teaching are covered and interrelated in an undergraduate
language development course at a Spanish university. Their ethnographic case study focuses
on instructors of two sections of pre-service EFL teachers. Data collection instruments
include transcripts of class sessions and semi-structured interviews with the instructors. Cots
& Arnó conclude that teaching profiles of the two instructors are similar in their interactional
format but different in their teaching of the linguistic system and their cognitive processes.
Part II: Applied Linguistics and Changes in Teachers’ Conceptions, Attitudes and Intentions
Olga S. Villamil & Maria C.M. de Guerrero investigate the impact of intervention in the
construction of theoretical notions of writing and the teaching of L2 writing among MA TESL
students in their article “Constructing Theoretical Notions of L2 Writing Through Metaphor
Conceptualization” (Chapter 5). From a sociocultural perspective, the authors analyze written
discourse such as introspective learning logs of ten subjects through metaphor qualitative
analysis. According to their findings, metaphorical conceptualization fosters examination of
beliefs and practices, the appropriation and internalization of socially shared concepts of
writing, the formulation of teachers’ roles and plans of action, and a deep understanding of the
social context of learning.
In “What’s the Use of Linguistics? Pre-Service English Teachers’ Beliefs towards
Language Use and Variation” (Chapter 6), Salvatore Attardo & Steven Brown look at how
pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language differs depending on pre-service teachers’ prior
exposure to linguistics courses. The results of the authors’ large-scale, quantitative analysis
indicate “that mere exposure to factual data, without any particular critical reflection focused
by the teachers, leads to belief and/or attitude change, in measurable quantities” (99).
Florencia Riegelhaupt & Robert Luis Carrasco report on how specific linguistic training
for teachers of White Mountain Apache children influences teachers’ attitudes and results in
pedagogical modifications in “The Effects of Training in Linguistics on Teaching: K-12
Teachers in White Mountain Apache Schools” (Chapter 7). Data collection tools include
teacher interviews, weekly journal entries, videotapes of the teachers’ classrooms, and
comments from class discussions. The authors highlight a “clear and direct impact of training
in applied linguistics for the teachers involved” (177).
In “What Teachers Say When They Write or Talk about Discourse Analysis” (Chapter 8),
Anna Elizabeth Balocco, Gisele de Carvalho & Tania M.G. Shepherd inform about a corpus
study which investigates how discourse analysis modules might cater for student teachers’
needs compared with the reality of EFL classes in Brazil. The authors use WordSmith Tools
to analyze full-length, naturally-occurring written and spoken data based on a reflection on
open-ended questions. Based on their results, EFL teachers’ initiatives to change the profiles
of their classrooms are limited due to institutional constraints. In addition, “outdated
assumptions about teaching and learning” comprise the hierarchical organization of language
teaching, and teaching linguistic components overrule the sociocultural components (133).
Yi-Hsuan Gloria Lo’s article “Relevance of Knowledge of Second Language Acquisition:
An in-depth case study of a non-native EFL teacher” (Chapter 9) informs about the case of a
non-native MA TESOL participant and her process of developing understanding of SLA, and
the impact of such understanding on her subsequent EFL teaching in Taiwan. Data collection
instruments include daily classroom observations and weekly interviews first in the US
(during her MA program) and then in Taiwan (during her teaching). According to the
author’s findings, the subject has difficulties relating SLA theories to her future teaching
during her course work and is “overwhelmed by the challenges in her EFL context” (153).
Part III: Investigating Teachers’ Knowledge and Knowledge Use through Teacher-Like Tasks
In “Knowledge about Language and the ‘Good Language Teacher’” (Chapter 10), Stephen
Andrews & Arthur McNeill investigate if “Good Language Teachers” possess high levels of
linguistic awareness, and what the characteristics of such language awareness are by
presenting three cases: Two English teachers at the secondary level in Hong Kong, and one
English teacher at the tertiary level in the UK. Data collection tools comprise a language
awareness test on grammar and vocabulary, lesson observations, interviews, and stimulated
recall. Results indicate that characteristics of “Good Language Teachers” include for instance
their willingness and ability to engage with and reflect on language-related issues, selfawareness and a desire for continuous self-improvement of their language awareness.
Martha H. Bigelow & Susan E. Ranney, in their contribution “Pre-Service ESL Teachers’
Knowledge about Language and its Transfer to Lesson Planning” (Chapter 11), explore KAL
transfer for content-based instruction (CBI) in an MA program in Second Language and
Cultures. The authors analyze journals and reflections from 20 novice ESL teachers and
conclude that it is easier for their subjects to use their knowledge of CBI for planning
grammar lessons than it is for them to use their knowledge of grammar to plan CBI-based
lessons. Lastly, the authors make specific suggestions for teacher educators such as the
analyses of texts, tasks, language functions, and the integration of content and language.
Amy E. Gregory’s article “What’s Phonetics Got to Do with Language Teaching?
Investigating Future Teachers’ Use of Knowledge about Phonetics and Phonology” (Chapter
12) presents a study which analyzes the extent to which novice teachers are able to transfer
their newly acquired knowledge of articulatory phonetics and phonology to beginning learners
of Spanish. She collects journal data throughout the semester and answers to an end-of-
semester online reflection activity. Based on her results, the author shows that teachers are
mostly unable to provide correct explanations for their students’ pronunciation problems.
In “Raising Orthographic Awareness of Teachers of Chinese” (Chapter 13), Yun Xiao
investigates the level of novice Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) teachers’ explicit
knowledge of Chinese orthography and their use of such knowledge in instructional decisionmaking. Xiao analyzes data from six graduate students and concludes that novice CFL
teachers are better able to identify simple than complex orthographic errors.
Part IV: Investigating Teachers’ Use of Knowledge about Language When Teaching
Anne Burns & John Knox, in their article “Realisation(s): Systemic-Functional Linguistics
and the Language Classroom” (Chapter 14), present a case study which focuses on how two
in-service teachers enrolled in a Masters grammar class based on systemic-functional
linguistics (SFL) develop their knowledge of SFL through the course, and what kind of
impact this knowledge has on their teaching. Upon having analyzed data from online
discussions, classroom observations, and stimulated recall interviews, the authors infer that
both teachers continuously rely on traditional approaches.
In “Researching the Effectiveness of Professional Development in Pragmatics” (Chapter
15), Lynda Yates & Gillian Wigglesworth report on a study which analyzes three dimensions
of KAL, namely knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular
content. First, a small group of teachers engages in the empirical investigation of both native
and non-native request task performance data, and develop and trial teaching materials. Next,
these materials are used in a workshop for teachers to raise their awareness and provide them
with teaching strategies. Yates & Wigglesworth give an account of positive feedback from
participants in the study but propose a longer series of workshops for future projects to gain
in-depth insight into activities.
Maria Christina Lana Chavez de Castro describes a case study which focuses on how
teachers provide corrective feedback (CF) at the pragmatic level to EFL learners in Brazil in
her contribution “Why Teachers Don’t Use Their Pragmatic Awareness” (Chapter 16). Her
findings indicate that teacher training on pragmatic awareness does not result in teachers
changing their performance with regard to CF due to course lenght and format, or lack of
exposure to pragmatics because of the EFL setting.
In “Teacher Trainees’ Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Primary Curriculum
Requirements in England” (Chapter 17), Jane Hislam & Wasyl Cajkler present four case
studies which focus on the underlying tensions between primary school L1 grammar teaching
in the UK, applied linguistics and the planning of teacher education. The authors investigate
how teacher trainees share their knowledge of grammar with their students during teaching
practice by analyzing classroom observations and stimulated-recall interviews. Based on their
findings, Hislam & Cajkler highlight the importance of a non-linear and non-sequential
approach to teaching grammar and of allowing trainees time to reflect critically and practice.
Clover Jones McKenzie in “Knowledge about Language and Testing” (Chapter 18)
discusses the kind of KAL secondary-level teachers in Jamaica possess and employ with
regard to testing procedures. Subjects include 30 in-service high school teachers. The author
concludes that institutional constraints such as the administration of end-of-year exams may
be responsible for the fact that teachers only use their knowledge about testing for their
regular class assessments but not for formal end-of-year exams.
Part V: The Complexity of Teachers’ Knowledge about Language
In “Experience, Knowledge about Language and Classroom Practice in Teaching
Grammar” (Chapter 19), Simon Borg reports on two separate case studies of EFL teachers in
Hungary and Malta which examine the nature of teachers’ KAL, influences on its
development, and its impact on the teachers’ grammar teaching practices. Borg concludes
that teachers display similarities in their beliefs in the value of explicit work and discovery
learning. By the same token, the cases differ in teachers’ levels of KAL awareness and their
engagement in fostering their awareness, possibly because of teachers’ prior beliefs and
experiences.
In her contribution “Discourse Analysis and Foreign Language Teacher Education”
(Chapter 20), Julie A. Belz analyzes the impact of exposure to expertise in discourse analysis
(DA) on graduate student teachers of German as a foreign language. Her study focuses on
two student teachers and their socio-cultural histories and the socio-institutional contexts.
Data collection instruments include semester-long reaction journals, paricipant observation,
policy documents, published research, and demographic statistics. The author shows how
participants’ belief systems and disciplinary interests influenced the different ways in which
they perceived DA expertise to be relevant to their professional activities.
In “Storytelling into Understanding: Middle School Teachers Work with Text Analysis and
Second Language Reading Pedagogy” (Chapter 21), Amy Cecelia Hazelrigg informs about a
study which examines uses of four in-service teachers’ linguistic approaches to text analysis
in teaching L2 reading strategies. Based on transcriptions of study group discussions, she
concludes that two teachers with different initial profiles do not display significant changes in
their teaching due to the dissimilarity of teacher training activities and their in-class teaching.
Jeff Popko focuses on how MA TESL students apply their knowledge about language to
their ESL teaching contexts in “How MA-TESOL Students Use Knowledge about Language
in Teaching ESL Classes” (Chapter 22). The four case studies presented are part of a
longitudinal research project, and data collection instruments encompass observations,
individual and small-group interviews, questionnaires, and surveys. The author finds that the
four participants display four ways of connecting theory to practice, and of using KAL in their
teaching despite their rather similar preparation in their MA courses.
In “Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education: What We Know” (Chapter 23),
Nat Bartels summarizes the findings of the previous chapters and interprets them by using a
cognitive perspective of knowledge. Lastly, Bartels lists a number of implications for the
teaching of applied linguistics in teacher education programs as well as a call for further
research with respect to issues such as the cognitive aspects of language teaching, the link
between task similarity and knowledge transfer, learning in the applied linguistics classrooms,
possible forms of deliberate practice, the various possibilities of interconnecting teacher
education programs, and the cognitive complexity of uncertain areas of KAL.
CRITIQUE
My critique about this volume encompasses (1) its significance/contribution, (2)
limitations/issues, and (3) future directions/research.
(1) Significance/Contribution
Overall, it seems evident from the many references to other chapters that the editor spent
much effort spreading the chapters among the contributors rather than simply joining together
separate articles into an edited volume. I believe the contributions’ strengths to lie in the
approach of following (pre- and in-service) teachers into their classrooms to conduct the
much-needed research on transferability of what was taught to what they teach. In additon,
the cases are written by an interesting mix of international scholars and professionals from the
US, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Brazil, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica.
(2) Limitations/Issues
Firstly, there appears to be a lack of definition of what the editor means by “provision of
propositional knowledge about language” (411) in his summary of the case studies’ findings
in the last chapter. What kind of knowledge does this entail? How should this knowledge be
provided? Secondly, it is not clear what is meant by “full and consistent transfer of KAL to
L2 teaching” (411) and why this is expected from novice teachers. If one of the findings
indicates that “[w]ell formed KAL does not seem to be necessary to be a superior language
teacher” (411), then why do language teachers have to be able to display KAL fully and
consistently in their classrooms? Unfortunately, not until the last chapter does Bartels pick up
this matter when he rightly points out that “[w]hile language teachers may teach their students
about phrase structure rules or negotiation of meaning, this is not the goal of the teaching or
the content that students should gain, but rather a means for reaching that goal” (418).
With regard to topic and content of the studies, I was somewhat confused by discrepancies
within some of the articles. For example, one of the subjects in Chapter 4 states that she
“prefer[s] to give grammatical explanations rather than get students to talk in pairs for 15
minutes or to write a short composition” (71). According to the interpretation by Cots &
Arnó, this teacher “expresses the belief that this course should deal with grammar contents but
approached from a communicative perspective” (72). In my view, the teacher’s approach
seems to be more teacher-fronted than communicative.
Furthermore, I was bewildered by some rather general claims and subjective statements not
backed by any of the data or reference to existing literature. For instance, Angelova claims
that “[t]he Bulgarian lessons were having an effect not only on the cognitive but also on the
affective development of [her] students” (37) without providing substantive evidence.
Additionally, Villamil & De Guerrero are not specific about how “the social process of
sharing and considering classmates’ metaphors was critical for the students to progress within
their ZPDs” (88). How can we relate participants’ stating that they learn from each other to
progress within their ZPDs? I also disagree with Riegelhaupt & Carrasco’s formulation that
“[...] teachers were naively correcting Apache native speakers of Apache English” (113)
because in my opinion, “naively correcting” is highly judgemental.
Moreover, Balocco, Carvalho & Shepherd appear to make conflicting statements when
they claim that “the written data were produced in a foreign language [English], which in
itself may have been a further constraint to what was said” (132). Yet, the authors fail to
indicate if the excerpts of spoken English data presented had originally been collected in the
participants’ L1 (Portugese).
There also seem to be a misquotation and claim in Gregory’s article:
[R]esponse 2(b) is not quite as good as 2(a), and therefore shows beginning understanding, because
somehow its author had failed to capture that when we talked about ‘older learners’ we were referring
to those just past the supposed critical period, not ‘older’ as in the age of grandparents (210; quotes in
original).
However, when looking closely at the cited excerpts, it shows that response 2(a) uses the
term “older learners” (209) while 2(b) refers to “older students” (210). A rather anecdotal
statement follows: “I do not know a beginner who does not have a problem in this respect so
potentially all participants should have mentioned this issue at some point in their responses”
(217).
Furthermore, I disagree with Lana Chavez De Castro’s statement that “CF [Corrective
Feedback] in Pragmatics will only make sense in an ESL scenario, never in an EFL context”
(290). For her, “exposure” seems to be key for developing interlanguage pragmatics which
can only be achieved by “learning about the target culture by experiencing it (spending some
time in an English-speaking country)” (289). Yet, FL teachers and teacher educators alike
can connect their learners with target-language speaking counterparts by means of (computer)
technology such as the Internet (e.g., Fuchs 2003, 2004; Legutke et al. 2002; Warschauer &
Kern 2000).
In addition, most of the chapters are well grounded in theory but lack a detailed
methodological explication. Even though the editor concedes that due to space limitations it
is not possible “for a complete presentation of various research perspectives or a full
discussion of the task of researching teacher knowledge or each data collection tool” (1), he
also declares that “[e]ach author also provides “insider” information on the advantages and
disadvantages of the research tools they used for investigating questions they have” (back
cover; quotes in original). While most of the studies are explicit about the data collection
instruments used, I was puzzled by the absence of strong methodological bases in Chapters 2,
3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21. It remains unclear which frameworks these authors used for
analyzing their qualitative data. For instance, Edwards & Owen point out that “[a]lthough
self-report is notoriously unrealiable for some purposes, it is perfectly appropriate for a study
that asks for introspection into issues such as relevance of a topic to one’s professional
practice” (45) without backing such claim. Moreover, some of the authors of the chapters
listed do not explicitly state how they code their data (e.g., Gregory; Hazelrigg; Hislam &
Cajkler; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco; Xiao). For example, it is not clear what Hazelrigg means
when pointing out that “ [she] was obligated, as well, by the approach to data [she] was using,
to seek the markers of their [the teachers’] understanding in behavior other than direct
speech” (381) because these markers seem to lack further definition. Additionally, Xiao
mentions that “[f]or the purpose of data analysis, the think-aloud protocols were all
transcribed, coded, and categorized” (226). Although the author states that she codes and
analyzes her data “to gain insights of [teachers’] beliefs and perceptions about the pedagogical
training” and “to explore their performance in error identification and formulation of
corrective and preventive strategies” (226), she does not specify her coding procedures.
Along the same lines, Hislam & Cajkler point out that “structured recall and group interviews
were transcribed and revisited so that [they] could highlight common themes” (301).
Furthermore, other contributors do not clarify why they choose to adapt pre-existing
categories from the literature (e.g., Xiao) or develop their own (e.g., Cots & Arnó; Gregory;
Jones McKenzie). A couple of contributions also contain quotes from their subjects which
remain partially unanalyzed (e.g., Angelova; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco). Conversely, Yates &
Wigglesworth expressly refer to their previous work for “[a] more detailed report of both the
coding system and the results” (266) because their article emerged from an earlier study.
Hence, I believe that the methodological transparency of the studies in these chapters
would greatly benefit from strengthening data analysis procedures by explicitly stating the
reasons for why the authors have chosen certain techniques. There are a variety of qualitative
methods to conduct research in language learning and teaching (see for example, MüllerHartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth 2001; Nunan 1992; Richards 2003). Being explicit about
the research methodologies appears to be crucial since the introductory chapter’s focus is on
the discussion of research methods and tools.
Additionally, I would have welcomed including short biographies of the contributors in
this volume. Another minor point is about proofreading. The collection includes several
stylistic, typographical, and lexical inconsistencies, and misses Appendix 1 in Chapter 21
(365) and Figure 2 in Chapter 9 (139).
(3) Future Direction/Research
To conclude, I would like to stress that this volume presents an important contribution to
the field especially because of those case studies which follow up on whether teachers
actually apply the knowledge they gained in teacher education programs. I strongly advocate
further research in this underexplored area since results of such follow-up studies can feed
back into teacher education programs. Yet, a more thorough definition of KAL may help
validate why language teachers are expected to be able to display KAL fully and consistently
in their classrooms. Hence, there appears to be a need to first refine the existing definition of
KAL as “background knowledge which can be used to create knowledge used for teaching
and to guide deliberate practice activities” (419). Finally, in order to move beyond the micro
level of transferability of KAL within the specific institutional contexts in this book, it may
also be beneficial to contrast the findings with those for example on politics and paradigms by
the American Educational Research Association’s Panel on Research and Teacher Education
(see Cochran-Smith & Zeichner 2005).
REFERENCES
Allwright, Dick & Bailey, Kathy M. (1991), Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Belz, Julie A. (2001), Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work
in network-based language teaching. ReCALL 13: 2, 213-231.
Bigelow, Martha H. & Walker, Constance L. (Eds.) (2004), Creating teacher community:
Research and practice in language teacher education. CARLA Working Paper Series 24:
December 2004.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn & Zeichner, Kenneth M. (Eds.) (2005), Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J. &
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Cornford, Ian R. (2002), Reflective teaching: Empirical research findings and some
implications for teacher education. Journal of Vocational Educational Training 54: 2,
219-235.
Freeman, Donald & Johnson, Karen E. (1998), Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32: 397-417.
Fuchs, Carolin (2003), Negotiating over a distance: The challenges of computer-mediated
communication (CMC) in foreign language teacher education. In Legutke, Michael K. &
Rösler, Dietmar (Eds.) (2003), Fremdsprachenlernen mit digitalen Medien. Beiträge des
Giessener Forschungskolloquiums. Tübingen: Narr, 179-208.
Fuchs, Carolin (2004), A call for technology-based model learning: German-American
telecollaboration in language teacher education. Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education International Conference 1: 3886-3891.
Johnston, Bill & Irujo, Suzanne (Eds.) (2001), Research and practice in language teacher
education: Voices from the field. CARLA Working Paper Series 19: May 2001.
Legutke, Michael K.; Müller-Hartmann, Andreas & Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (2002),
Mediale Lernumgebungen im Schnittfeld von Lehrerausbildung und Lehrerfortbildung. In
Decke-Cornill, Helene & Reichert-Wallrabenstein, Maike (Eds.) (2002), Fremdsprachenunterricht in medialen Lernumgebungen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 81-92.
Müller-Hartmann, Andreas & Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (Eds.) (2001), Qualitative
Forschung im Bereich Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen. Giessener Beiträge zur
Fremdsprachendidaktik. Tübingen: Narr.
Nunan, David (1992), Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Keith (2003), Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Shulman, Lee S. (1987), Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review 57: 1-22.
Tedick, Diane J. (2004), Second language teacher education: International perspectives.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
van Lier, Leo (2005), Case study. In Hinkel, Eli (Ed.) (2005), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 195-208.
Warschauer, Mark & Kern, Richard (Eds.) (2000), Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, David (1994), Literacy and awareness. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton.
About the reviewer:
Carolin Fuchs has recently completed her Ph.D. dissertation, a qualitative analysis of a
German-American computer-mediated communication project in language teacher education.
She holds an MA in TESOL and a Certificate in TFL, and her primary research interests
include synchronous and asynchronous CMC-based language teaching, electronic literacies,
corpus linguistics, sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment, intercultural learning, and
electronic portfolios in language teaching and (language) teacher education.