�鶹��Ƶ

Coherence has two meanings that are especially applicable in the language learning classroom– 1) the quality of being logical and consistent, and 2) the quality of forming a unified whole (). Most students desire nothing more than having classes that present content logically and maintain consistency. Being in a state of ongoing change can be disconcerting to students and have a detrimental effect on the learning process. The second meaning is more in line with the learning we hope students will acquire. We hope that what students meet in the classroom each day will come together in the form of language and convey ideas that flow logically, consistently and communicatively, in a nice neat linear package. Unfortunately, this is contrary to the way language is learned. Anyone who has ever tried to learn a language knows that language learning is not a linear activity, so creating logical instruction does not necessarily equate to logical and consistent learning. In fact, we often note that our best lessons were those that “took on a life of their own.” We had a clear plan for the class, but student need and interest took the plan in a different direction. Students learned because they were engaged, but this type of class is contrary to the perceived ideal logic and consistency that as educators we deem invaluable for creating a successful learning environment. So knowing that language learning is dynamic rather than linear, the need to create logical and consistent classes is magnified. Thus, a way to bridge logical and consistent teaching with the more random and chaotic learning process is through reflective teaching. It allows us to look thoughtfully at what is happening in the classroom by reflecting on what we do as educators and how students respond so that we can develop coherence in our delivery and our students’ language acquisition.

Reflective Teaching as Research

Formal research strives to identify and understand the factors that impact learning. It typically uses large numbers of teachers and learners in order to normalize and generalize what happens in the classroom and the language acquisition process. As a result, it may not address what is particular in any one student, class or educator; thus the generalizations obtained from formal research may not be applicable in every class, in every lesson. It does not take any educator long to realize what works in one class may fail in the next. So while formal research is needed for theoretical support, it may not be the best tool for improving the day to day actions that happen in the classroom. Informal research, however, typically takes place inside the classroom. It is completed by only one educator or a small group of educators and focuses on what is particular about a specific group or teacher (Lightbown and Spada, 1994). One type of effective informal research is reflective teaching. We can use reflection to analyze what is happening in our classrooms. We can identify aspects of our own teaching that may need changed, develop a plan for implementing that change, and then monitor the outcomes of these improvement strategies. Reflective teaching can create positive change in ways that no other professional development can match. Research shows that in-service workshops have short-term effects, and rarely cause teachers to truly look at their own teaching (Richards, 2000). Through reflective teaching, we can explore our perceived theoretical beliefs about language learning and teaching, and how it compares with what we actually do in the classroom. Reflective teaching can be especially helpful in improving lesson coherence. By identifying weaknesses in lesson delivery, we can improve the way in which we provide the “big picture” to students, how today’s lesson links to yesterday’s lesson and impacts tomorrow’s lesson. Using effective coherence strategies, we can also show students how their learning applies to course objectives and real world needs.

Identifying Lesson Coherence in Teaching

Reflective teaching can help us identify aspects of our teaching that may impede the coherency needed for unifying language targets and objectives so that student learning is optimized. One often overlooked part of an effective lesson is the opening, transitions, and closure of a lesson, the boundary markers. It is easy to relegate these to the back burner. In fact, we often make decisions about them unconsciously. When we do our pre-lesson planning, we focus on what and how, but not the overall integration of the material. However, this component of a lesson is vital in providing the logic and consistency needed to create a unified whole for students, thus optimizing learning.

Although most educators learn the importance of the opening, transitions and closure in teaching programs and in-service workshops, it is often not seen as a priority in the learning process. Thus, we do them without thinking thoughtfully about how they aid student learning. As a result, students may leave the classroom wondering what they learned and how it is going to help them reach their goals. Taking time to reflect on our classes can help us identify basic instructional components that may have fallen to the wayside. The opening and closure of a lesson are particularly important for developing lesson coherence, maintaining class focus and integrating individual linguistic targets into an integrated whole.

The introduction of a lesson typically takes five minutes, but it has a major influence on how much students learn (Kindswatter, Willen and Ishler, 1988). However, the kind of introduction we do may vary depending on a number of aspects that are particular to a specific course or group of students. In spite of possible variances, Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) note that beginning a lesson with a short review builds lesson coherency because it provides students with the opportunity to learn or check their understanding of previously taught material and allows the teacher to identify and correct misunderstandings or even reteach areas in which students are still struggling. An effective opening should link to the previous lesson, preview the current lesson and capture students’ interest for what is coming next.

Although there are a number of effective closures, one that reinforces what was learned, connects the new to the old, and prepares students for what is coming next brings the day’s lesson into an integrated whole, even when the best laid linear lesson plan is laid to rest in lieu of a more spontaneous lesson plan developed to meet students’ more pressing needs. Taking time to summarize what was covered in the lesson, point out the connections to the previous lesson and how the day’s lesson relates to course goals and real-world needs, as well as link the day’s learning to what will follow is especially effective in developing the coherency that leads to a unified understanding of language.

While there is little formal research on the importance of effective openings in a classroom lesson, McGrath et al. (1992) and Wong-Fillmore (1985) suggest that openings, closings and other boundary markers help students know what to expect and how to prepare for it. In fact, they may be singularly responsible for developing the kind of coherency that ensures successful lessons. In order to improve coherency, it is vital to look closely at what we are doing, take action and evaluate its success through thoughtful reflection. One of the best ways to evaluate our use of these boundary markers is through the reflective teaching so that we can add or subtract needed components to improve lesson coherency.   

Steps to Active Research through Reflective Teaching

When I first began using reflective teaching, I was a young, inexperienced teacher. Fortunately, reflective teaching had become a critical component in teaching programs at that time, and mine was no exception. So it was a strategy I eagerly incorporated. My first step was to record several lessons. I watched what I did and what students did. I have to admit it was incredibly enlightening, and for the most part, it was non-intrusive. The students got used to having a camera set up in the classroom and I grew a lot from the experience. However, finding time to watch the videos, reflect on what happened and then make a plan for improvement was challenging. So eventually, I stopped recording my classes. However, journaling became an invaluable part of my core teaching philosophy, and a cornerstone to my lesson planning. Not only does it allow me to focus on my teaching, but it also encourages me to focus on each student. I notice specific qualities in each student that makes him or her successful as well as what provides challenges. Being aware of each student’s cognitive style also helps me incorporate tasks that meet the needs of multiple learning styles. In my reflection, I note which tasks were effective, which kept students engaged and which failed miserably. This way I can continuously improve and refine my instruction. Additionally, if a student struggles, I have a lot of information at my fingertips that will allow me to adapt a lesson to a student’s learning style without losing sight of the overall objectives.

To be effective in my reflection, I use the following steps: initial reflection, planning, action, observation and reflection. Typically I focus on the success or failure of the instruction itself, but most recently, I have being using my reflection to focus on the aspect of coherence in my teaching, specifically focusing on my openings and closings. During this reflection, I uncovered and resolved a problem with homework. By making better use of boundary markers and adding another layer of information to them, I was able to find a solution that helped students be autonomous and responsible for their own learning.  See the following excerpt from my reflective teaching journal, which has been edited for clarity:

Step 1: Initial Reflection

I am surprised I was actually in auto pilot at the beginning of class. I took attendance and engaged students in small talk. Some students actively participated, while others passively listened. Surprisingly, a couple of the students again interrupted and asked about homework. They said they were confused about where to find it. I have explained it numerous times using the projector and walking them through the paces, so I’m rather puzzled by this. They seemed clear after each ‘instruction’ on Canvas, but now in Week 2, they’re telling me the same thing. I wonder if I am using Canvas differently from other instructors or could these students be using “confusion” as an excuse for not completing homework.

Perhaps what I think is just an initial ‘getting used to using Canvas’ is actually a bigger issue. Perhaps there are problems with coherence. Is my closure adequate for students to understand the homework? Are my instructions clear on how to use Canvas and how to use it to submit assignments? Do I need to add something more at the closure to ensure understanding of the homework? How do I get students to take responsibility for their learning?

Step 2: Planning

During the next class, I am going to add more explicit instruction on doing the homework. Instead of writing the homework on the board beforehand, I’m going to write it more interactively. As I complete a task that has related homework, I’m going to show the students where it is on Canvas and then write the assignment on the board. I’m going to ask students to use a notebook to write down the homework and the due date. At the end of the class, I’ll remind students about homework in the closure as usual, but instead of my restating it, I’ll have students restate it along with the due date and where it can be found on Canvas. I’ll add codes to each item in Canvas so students can see at a glance what they need to do: HW, READ, IN CLASS.

Effectiveness of these strategies should be readily apparent if students successfully complete the homework. I will note any students who continue to have difficulties completing homework on time. If patterns develop, I will look into other possible causes – tech unfamiliarity, confusing instructions, learning difficulties, ruse?

I will implement the strategy for two weeks (four lessons), observe and reflect.

Step 3: Action

At the beginning of class, I told students that I had noticed understanding the homework is causing difficulty. I asked students if any had completed the homework. None had. They said they couldn’t find it. I asked students if they were using their phones or computers and found that most were using the phone app. So I took them to the lab and walked them through the process of finding the homework and had them all complete it and submit it there. Students seemed relieved and happy that they had this new understanding.

At the end of each in-class task, when applicable, I explained the homework, showed where it could be found and wrote it on the whiteboard.

As part of the closure, I had students repeat the homework, due date and where it can be found. By this time, we had gone over the homework so much that the students found my continuous repetition of the homework humorous, but it seemed their understanding of the homework was genuine.

Step 4: Observation

I purposefully followed these steps for two weeks (four lessons). All but one student successfully completed the homework from the first implementation of this strategy.  The first day, students obliged me and took notes on the homework during the class. On the second day using the new strategy, some of the students took notes, but others did not. I believe this is due to a better understanding of where to find the homework and how to submit it. The student who did not complete the homework is a lower level student so I gave him one-to-one instruction on the second day of implementing this strategy. I also reviewed how homework was introduced in the class with him. I am worried that he may become too reliant on me, and stop trying to complete homework independently, at least in my class.

Because the homework is organized similarly each week, on the third day, I tried just writing the homework on the white board as part of the transition from one task to the other and reviewing it in my closure. Students continued to complete and submit the homework on time. The struggling student has not yet completed homework independently.

Step 5: Reflection

Based on these findings, I can see the explicit instruction of homework is initially needed, and taking students to the lab on day 1 or day 2 to familiarize them with Canvas will prove beneficial, especially in any class with a large number of students new to the program.

I also noticed that the addition of the explicit instruction between activities helped students stay more focused during transition periods, and my transitions seem to be more purposeful, showing more relationship between what we just finished, what they need to do to practice it and how it relates to what is coming next.

Further communication with the struggling student revealed that he does not yet have a computer to use at home. Through my time with him in the lab, he is learning to complete homework there. His understanding of where the homework is located and when it is due seems to be improving. So his ability to complete homework on time should improve. I need to continue monitoring him to make sure that he finds ways to overcome the computer challenge and not using it as a crutch.

Although the homework difficulty has been resolved, I want to continue monitoring my introduction, transitions and closure to ensure that I continue to focus on coherence, thereby keeping consistency in the structure of the class even though content may diverge from the plan. This consistency should help students unify what they learn because they will see clear links between what they did in the previous class to what they are doing in the current class, and how it will connect to what will happen in the next class.

Discussion

The excerpts used in this article are from my teaching journal. For the purpose of this article, I edited my reflections for clarity. After 27 years of teaching, I do not always write each step formally or as in depth as provided here. However, I do reflective teaching every day. To do this, I create and print my lesson plan. I use it for taking attendance; thus I can easily keep track of the content of a lesson on a particular day a student is absent. It’s a bit old school, but it makes answering “What did I miss?” easy. I also use this printed lesson plan for writing immediate reflections on the success of the lesson, any problems that arose, any follow up that I need to incorporate in the next class, specific concerns with a student, etc. I do this as it is not always practical to do a full reflection after each class and I do not want to forget anything. Then I use these notes to do a deeper reflection during my lesson planning. This enables me to keep my lessons organized, coherent and unified even though the content of the lessons may change dynamically in spite of my best efforts to teach English linearly.

Conclusion

Using reflective teaching, we can improve specific elements of our teaching, as well as fully discover what we believe is true about teaching and learning. Armed with this knowledge, we can better serve students by providing them with the coherence they need to grow linguistically.

Moreover, reflection is an invaluable tool for professional development. Although most of my reflective teaching in recent years has been solitary, much of the most rewarding reflective teaching has been done as part of an active research project in collaboration with co-workers. During these opportunities, we identified a problem, worked together to actively research what we do in our classes, collaborated in developing an action plan for improvement, shared our observations and through our reflections. We ultimately became better teachers working in tandem to create a better learning environment for every student.

References

Coherence. (n.d.). In Oxford dictionaries online. Retrieved from .

Kindsvatter, R.; Willen, W.; and Ishler, M. (1988). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.

Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1990). An innovative program for primary ESL in Quebec. TESOL Quarterly 28/3: 563-79.

McGrath, I.; Davis, S.; and Mulphin, H. (1992). Lesson beginnings. Edinburgh working papers in applied linguistics No. 3:92-108.

Richards, J. C. (2000). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Rosenshire, B. and Stevens, R. 1986. Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3^rd ed. New York: Macmillan. pp. 376-91.

Stevick, E. W. (1996). Memory, meaning & method, 2^nd edition. Heinle and Heinle Publishers.