Nature and Enactment of Tasks for Early English as a Foreign Language Teaching GIESSENER BEITRÄGE ZUR FREMDSPRACHENDIDAKTIK Herausgegeben von Eva Burwitz-Melzer, Wolfgang Hallet, Jürgen Kurtz, Michael Legutke, Hélène Martinez, Franz-Joseph Meißner und Dietmar Rösler Begründet von Lothar Bredella, Herbert Christ und Hans-Eberhard Piepho Constanze Dreßler Nature and Enactment of Tasks for Early English as a Foreign Language Teaching A Collaborative Research Project with Teachers © 2018 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Internet: www.narr.de E-Mail: info@narr.de CPI books GmbH, Leck ISSN 0175-7776 ISBN 978-3-8233-8224-9 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.d nb.de abrufbar. 1 11 1.1 11 1.2 15 1.3 16 1.4 20 2 25 2.1 26 2.1.1 28 2.1.2 31 2.1.3 33 2.2 33 2.2.1 37 2.2.2 38 2.2.3 41 2.2.4 43 2.2.5 46 2.3 46 2.4 58 2.4.1 58 2.4.2 60 2.4.3 63 2.4.4 65 2.4.5 67 2.4.6 69 3 73 3.1 76 3.2 77 3.2.1 78 Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tasks, teachers, their teaching practice and research . . . . . . . Focus and starting point of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An interdiscursive research approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The structure of this book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The German research context and the research project setting Project members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project goals and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaborative research: The project’s approach . . . . . . . . . . . Time constraints: Teachers’ research involvement . . . Building confidence so teachers can voice their ideas . Validation of everyday practice: The search for treasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building a working relationship on trust . . . . . . . . . . . Establishing a ‘safe space’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My involvement in the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical framework and description of the study . . . . . . . Paradigm, methodology and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnographic research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case study research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My original sampling strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From research inquiry to research questions . . . . . . . . Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature . . . . State of the art: TBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modern EFL task concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 81 3.2.3 83 3.2.4 86 3.2.5 88 3.3 91 3.4 94 3.4.1 95 3.4.2 98 3.4.3 99 3.5 101 3.5.1 102 3.5.2 103 3.5.3 105 3.5.4 108 3.5.5 111 3.6 112 3.6.1 113 3.6.2 115 3.7 119 4 121 4.1 122 4.1.1 123 4.1.2 125 4.2 127 4.2.1 132 4.2.2 142 4.2.3 148 4.3 150 Task definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task components and sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task pre-requisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task concepts for the secondary school within the unique German context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TBLT approaches for young learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A task concept for 11+-year-old EFL learners outside of Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A task-supported approach for young EFL learners in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of primary and secondary school task approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall educational goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching aims and approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skill level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textbooks and teaching materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General PS teaching approaches and curricular demands . . . . Development of PS children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curricula used in the project and their tasks features . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts . . . . . . . . . . Description of the study in relation to the first set of research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview form and other forms of data . . . . . . . . . . . . Process of data gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers’ key features of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher educators’ task concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Contents 5 153 5.1 155 5.2 165 5.2.1 168 5.2.2 170 5.3 177 6 179 6.1 181 6.2 192 6.2.1 200 6.2.2 212 6.2.3 220 6.3 227 6.4 233 7 235 7.1 235 7.2 244 8 253 8.1 255 8.2 258 8.2.1 259 8.2.2 262 8.3 264 8.4 265 9 267 9.1 267 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays in a context of story — and / or song-based action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taking a stronger lead in authorship: Imagining story endings and sharing personal stories with others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grade 3 task formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grade 4 task formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks . . . . A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four key practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher A’s teaching practices - Grades 1/ 2 . . . . . . . . Teacher B’s teaching practices - Grades 1/ 2 . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the teachers’ teaching practices: Teacher D - Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The teachers’ task enactments: further examples . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting . . . . eEFL task features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eEFLT tasks and their enactments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-in-reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflecting on the collaborative research: Relationships and knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflecting on my research involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finding a voice as a novice researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re-examining the evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The scope of the study and a personal evaluation of the research process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contents 9.2 271 9.3 274 10 277 11 305 311 313 Reconsidering the aspects that have been investigated and presented and those that offer possible further exploration . . Future steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contents I strongly believe that a research study is a collaborative endeavour and can only be achieved when the researcher is surrounded by a network of guiding senior re‐ searchers, understanding friends, and supporting family members: Thank you all. In my case, I also have to thank my project teachers, my project school boards, students, and their parents for enabling me to conduct this research study. I am especially grateful to all my primary school teachers who opened their classrooms for me. I hope that all people who played a part know how thankful I am for their help. In the following, I will name the most influential people. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my excellent supervisors. I thank Michael K. Legutke for his relentless motivation, his patience, guidance and kind‐ ness. I thank him for letting me explore aspects of this study in more detail and also knowing when and how to bring me back on track, and for his never-ending sup‐ port. I would also like to thank Christopher N. Candlin, who sadly passed away before this book was finished. He made me understand what ‘doing research’ means. He has guided me with his knowledge and patience, and faced me with the challenge to read the books of all the great ethnographers and social scientists. He has considerably shaped this research study and its structure. In addition, I would like to thank all senior researchers in the colloquium: Jürgen Kurtz, Hélène Mar‐ tinez, Eva Burwitz-Melzer as well as all my fellow PhD students for discussing with me my project at various stages over the years. I would also like to thank Dietmar Rösler and the TechAG members for giving me critical feedback. Further, I would like to thank Marita Schocker for providing me with useful insights into TBLT and Martina Möllering who made the co-tutelle possible. I thank my friends and colleagues who have supported me at various stages of this lengthy process. I am especially grateful for Sabine Kollmann’s support, en‐ thusiasm and listening to all my complaints. I would like to thank Gregory J. Poarch for sparking the fire of research and reading the entire study when no one else had time. I thank Kelly Wiechart for her priceless feedback concerning Chapter 6 and Patricia Eck for her critical feedback and endless support. Thanks to all of my library study buddies and friends in various countries: Anne von Rekowski, Simone Beetz, Nora Benitt, N. Jeanette Sauer, Franziska Sperling, Alexander Schwinghammer, Sabrina Bechler, Mareike Haass, Anna Carr, Anika Raka Mifsud, Fabiola Barba Ponce, Vavette Gacasan and Faridah Cabbigat. I thank Dariush Izadi and Mahmud Khan for welcoming me into the group of Chris’ PhD students. A very special thank you to Thomas Ball and family for giving me nu‐ merous IT gadgets to conduct the study with. I especially thank my closest friends and family members for all their support, patience, motivation, and diversions. Last but not least, I thank my parents and sister for their emotional and financial support without which I would not have been able to do the PhD. 1 Some of the voices are based on audio recordings. Those are presented in a transcript style (see Appendix C). 1 Introduction Voice 1 1 You know, I don’t know how it’s done. I don’t plan everything ahead. Some‐ times, I don’t know what kind of task they should do in the end. I just start and we do something and I try to make them speak and then we’ll see where we end up. What is written in the books is just not always how reality is. You can’t pre-plan everything. I have never worked like that. I also think it’s not necessary. It’s important to be close to the children, to know what they find interesting. The most important thing for me is to make them speak ad hoc. I just ask myself, ‘How can I make my children speak? ’, and then you have to value and appreciate what the children offer and help them to speak more. Anna - 2015 This is a translation of one of the comments from a teacher in the research project in which this research study is embedded. It summarises several aspects that are relevant in this research study and thus presents a good starting point because it: (i) illustrates the importance placed on teachers’ opinions in this research project; (ii) indicates the well-known tensions between theoretical and practical insights into teaching; (iii) foreshadows the focus of this study, namely tasks in English as a foreign language teaching (EFLT) in primary schools (PS); and (iv) hints at what is important in early EFLT (eEFLT), namely enabling chil‐ dren to use English as a means of communication. In the following, I explain why these aspects are important, how they are interconnected, and in which sequence I will address them in this book. 1.1 Tasks, teachers, their teaching practice and research Even though task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been widely researched (Samuda & Bygate, 2008), used within the (inter)national EFLT context for dec‐ ades (Candlin & Murphy, 1987; R. Ellis, 2003; Hallet & Legutke, 2013a, 2013b; Keller, 2013; Nunan, 1989, 2013b), and recently proclaimed a valuable teaching approach for teaching (modern foreign languages) in German PS (HKM, 2010, 2011), there is still no agreement on what exactly TBLT in primary schools in‐ volves. A task forms the basic element of TBLT ( J. C. Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and can broadly be defined as an activity in which language is used for executing communicative situations within a meaningful context for learners (Bygate, 1999; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001). This however provides little help for teachers planning tasks for implementation in the early English as a foreign language classroom (eEFLC). Little research has been conducted into the use of pedagogic tasks within eEFLT (Cameron, 2001; Carless, 2002, 2003, 2004; Samuda & Bygate, 2008), yet teachers are now required to use tasks in the eEFLC, and in doing so face problems. This research study investigates the use of learning tasks for the eEFLC. This refers to learners between the ages of 6 to 10 years attending PS Grades 1 to 4 in Germany. In the present study (learning) tasks refer to tasks developed for and used in German eEFLCs that focus on the de‐ velopment of (language) skills of the learners and use English as a means of communication as opposed to tasks used for assessing language skills or second language acquisition research (SLA) (Bygate et al., 2001). More precisely, the focus of this qualitative-explorative collaborative study lies on how tasks may be defined and what aspects are crucial in their enactment. The investigation in this study is based on two assumptions: first, I follow Breen (1987) and others who proclaimed that there is a difference between a the‐ oretical task conceptualisation (task-as-workplan) and its actual implementation (task-in-action) within a classroom setting (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). I agree with Breen (1987) who stated, “(…) the actual task-in-process (…) which generates typ‐ ically diverse learning outcomes, and the quality and efficacy of any task must be traced directly to its use during teaching and learning” (p. 25). This research study will show that the enactment of an eEFL task in the investigated schools involves teachers ‘doing a lesson’ (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005; Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989) within four dimensions related to (i) teachers’ organisational skills in classroom management (Kounin, 2006), creating a posi‐ tive learning environment, and cooperation with students (Kennedy & Kennedy, 1996; Kenny, 1996; Williams & Burden, 1997); (ii) teachers’ teaching practices es‐ tablishing ways in which students can contribute to the overall lesson and task to share their experiences or something personally relevant with classmates and the teacher (Bruner, 1987; Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013; Kohonen, 1992; D. Kolb, 1984); (iii) vocabulary teaching practices that help students build a vocabulary and (iv) learn the discursive practices to use language for communication (Cameron, 2001). Therefore, it seems correct to argue, 12 1 Introduction 2 All quotes in this book are presented in their original emphasis otherwise a change is marked. (…) what matters most is the nature of tasks-in-action in classroom contexts, in in‐ teraction with other pedagogical phenomena. For this to be possible, it is important for research to be able to access pedagogical processes within classroom contexts (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 261) 2 . The second assumption is that eEFL teachers may find it helpful to have the key features of eEFL tasks identified. Further it may be helpful to teachers to know how those features can be enacted in classroom situations. It is as‐ sumed that these features and enactments could function as guidelines for the teachers and their daily teaching routines or provide them with new ideas of how to look at their practices from a new perspective to further reflect upon their teaching. This study is part of a research project funded by a German federal state Ministry of Education (MoE). It is set in a multi-cultural city in central Germany in one of the sixteen federal states. The project setting allowed for a PhD student (myself) position to work as a research assistant under the supervision of a senior researcher. Primary and secondary school teachers from 12 schools (seven primary and five secondary schools), delegates of the MoE and of the city school board (CSB), and the research team collaboratively examined a number of EFLT aspects, one of which was the use of tasks in Grades 1 to 5 (see Chapter 2). The project group met monthly to share different members’ perspectives on eEFL tasks and to gain a better understanding of the different traditions for the the‐ oretical investigation of eEFLT (academic discourse: researchers’ perspective) and practical teaching experience (practical / experienced-based discourse: teachers’ perspective) on tasks. The research project operated under the as‐ sumption that only a group of equals working collaboratively can provide fur‐ ther insight on what a task looks like in eEFLT and how it can be taught (All‐ wright, 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Clarke, 1994; Schön, 1987). It is crucial to examine eEFL tasks from several perspectives (i.e., theoretical and practical). Teachers are meant to follow the curriculum guidelines and start teaching tasks (HKM, 2010, 2011) without necessarily having been trained in TBLT. Zhang (2005, 2007) illustrated that what political guidelines demand of teachers is often not comparable to what teachers actually do in their classrooms. Therefore, simply investigating the theoretical perspective and dismissing the TBLT practices taking place in classrooms will contribute little to a better un‐ derstanding of the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks. The PS curriculum in this federal state offers competence descriptions combined with a few short 13 1.1 Tasks, teachers, their teaching practice and research 3 I use the female pronouns as an umbrella term when referring to people as a general rule in this book that should, however, not exclude the male version. examples to illustrate the task approach, but no clear definition, content illus‐ trations or ready-made materials are provided. Teachers feel frustrated and un‐ supported, and continue teaching eEFL tasks based on their general teaching experience and former education. Hence, it seems not only logical to include the opinions and ideas of teachers who implement the curriculum on a daily basis, but also a duty to learn from the practical insights they have gained (Clarke, 1994). In addition, my personal experiences in teaching eEFL (see Chapter 2) and working with foreign language teachers in Germany and Great Britain also played a role. As my experience and research studies (e.g., Hattie, 2009) show, teachers potentially have a strong influence on students’ learning outcomes. Teachers often (un)consciously decide what and how to teach and how to im‐ plement the curriculum (Adamson, Kwan, & Chan, 2000). During my time teaching eEFL I ‘experimented’ with different teaching methods and styles. My own understanding of these aspects changed due to new experiences and further studies in psychology, education, and didactics. Addi‐ tionally, my observations of other teachers’ lessons influenced my own teaching practice. During university lectures, we discussed curriculum and national standard issues. I then talked about these developments with my colleagues and observed their lessons to get a better understanding of what it meant exactly to teach eEFL. I recognised that the teacher’s understanding was important to how she 3 teaches. When I began working in the project context I re-traced my ex‐ periences, and realised there was no other logical conclusion but for me to focus on teachers’ task concepts. I was further encouraged to include teachers’ un‐ derstanding of tasks as the literature showed teachers’ voices have often been neglected in research in general (Clarke, 1994) and in TBLT in particular (Sa‐ muda & Bygate, 2008). To adequately include teachers’ perspectives the research topic is addressed from an integrated and multi-disciplinary viewpoint with a strong focus on the daily teaching practices of the project teachers. Practice is a term that may be used in various ways and this is reflected in this study. Practice in this study refers to: • …the practical aspects of teaching as opposed to theoretical considera‐ tions about teaching • …the practice of ‘doing something’ in order to become skilled, such as practising language skills (e.g., practising the pronunciation of a word) 14 1 Introduction • …something that “involve[s] repetition of the same or closely similar performance in routines” (Young, 2009, p. 1) (the teachers’ daily teaching routines, general German EFLT practices) that may sometimes refer to: (…) repeat[ing] their own performance (…) [and other times to] a person [that] may perform a practice for the first time in their life but, through direct or indirect observation, the person has knowledge of the history of a practice in their com‐ munity, and it is that history that is extended in practice (Young, 2009, p. 1). • …to Mediated Discourse Analysis (MDA) in which practice is defined in a narrower sense ( Jones & Norris, 2005b), for example, involving bodily movements combined with spoken language (holding up an apple and uttering the word ‘apple’ at the same time). 1.2 Focus and starting point of the study As a consequence of wanting to include teachers’ perspectives, I follow a struc‐ ture guided by Goffman’s (1974) question: “What is it that’s going on here? ” (p. 8). As such, the aim is to investigate tasks, and with it, texts and events, in their localised context. In this empirical study the research project forms the localised context that crucially influenced the overall investigation. It will be honoured by being described first (see Chapter 2). As was pointed out by dif‐ ferent scholars in different fields of research (Bakhtin, 1981; Goffman, 1974; Gumperz, 1992; Malinowski, 1923; Vygotsky, 1978), to understand a situation, the context in which it occurs as well as wider / broader (e.g., societal) influences must be taken into consideration when trying to interpret its meanings. The research project provides the background to this present study. Thus the re‐ search project needs to be described before an analysis of the “focal event“ (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, p. 3); namely eEFL tasks in the project context, can be appropriately undertaken, and the results interpreted and understood. This assumption leads to a specific research design to answer the overall re‐ search questions (see Chapter 2): • What is the nature of eEFL tasks (discussed in Chapters 3, 4 & 7)? and • How are eEFL tasks enacted (discussed in Chapters 5, 6 & 7)? The two overall research questions are addressed in two sets and encompass the investigation of several smaller aspects prior to their results being combined in 15 1.2 Focus and starting point of the study 4 For a detailed illustration of this conceptualisation of ‘doing research’ see Candlin, Crichton and Moore (2017). Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, a reflection on the research study is presented. The scope of this research study lies within the eEFLT context in the project, but as Section 9.2 reveals, the results may be useful for the general eEFLT context of at least this fed‐ eral state. Key features of eEFL tasks are the outcome of this study. Additionally, I will present further insights into the enactment of tasks in eEFLCs. In the following chapters, I have attempted to make explicit the links between the research context and the research approach, research questions, my background, the roles I occu‐ pied in the research project, and the relationships between the other members of the research project and me. A guiding assumption was that texts, especially an empir‐ ical study, are multi-dimensional and heteroglossic (Bakhtin, 1981) constructs of research contexts and problems. Hence researchers need to consider multiple per‐ spectives to form an understanding of the situation in question. To honour the multiple perspectives, the chapters of this thesis are interspersed with ‘voices’ (Bakhtin, 1981) of teachers, researchers, teacher educators as well as my own. Moreover, the chapters deviate from the typical research study structure of pre‐ senting a literature review prior to outlining the context, methodology, and re‐ search questions. 1.3 An interdiscursive research approach The research conceptualisation of this study follows a “multi-perspectived and inter‐ discursive research agenda” (Candlin & Crichton, 2011, p. 9; see also Crichton, 2010) 4 . The notion behind this conceptualisation is that people, namely teachers, making use of standards, curricula, and teaching methods in their everyday life should have a say in future conceptualisations of tasks to share their experiences and insights with re‐ searchers. Then teacher education programs, curricula, and teaching practices in gen‐ eral can be further developed on the basis of teachers’ insights and a better under‐ standing of actual classroom processes can be achieved (Clarke, 1994; Schön, 1987). Likewise, it is assumed that categories and concepts developed outside of teaching practices sometimes fail to hold true in everyday teaching situations. This study investigates the nature and enactment of tasks with an inclusion of the perspectives of teachers. This is compared and contrasted with knowledge gained in other research studies and theoretical task conceptualisations to present a more detailed picture of tasks in classroom settings (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). In addition, the nature of tasks alone does not pre-define the classroom 16 1 Introduction 5 Here, the term refers to Gee’s (2008) understanding of discourse not only including written and spoken texts, but also the context in which the texts emerge and the combination of “saying-doing“ (pp. 2-3). practices of teachers. On the contrary, as the findings of this study show (see Chapters 5, 6 & 7), the teachers’ vocabulary teaching and ‘doing school’ practices (Bloome et al., 2005), in combination with the teachers’ reactions to students’ wishes to actively participate in the classroom discourse and the enablement of students to talk about something personally relevant considerably influences the overall task emergence in eEFLCs. In order to accomplish such a multi-faceted, -layered, and -modal analysis, several aspects of the research design need to be taken into consideration. The most important of these is the ‘ecological validity’ (Cicourel, 2007). It refers to the idea of how: (…) complex organisational activities represented by aggregated data from public and private sources and demographic and sample surveys can be linked to the collection, integration and assessment of temporal samples of observable (and when possible) recordable activities in daily life settings (Cicourel, 2007, p. 736). In this study, the ‘public sources’ are formed by research literature concerning TBLT, eEFLT, and general PS teaching approaches in Germany. They are compared to var‐ ious types of ethnographically collected data (interviews, surveys, observation proto‐ cols, video recordings of eEFLT lessons) in a case study setting (i.e., the specific project context). This, however, forms only one part of the ‘ecological validity’; the public sources and data then need to be connected to discourse 5 that is itself always influ‐ enced by the broader setting as well as “simultaneously influenced by cognitive / emotional processes despite the convenience of only focusing on extracted fragments independently” (Cicourel, 2007, p. 736). As Candlin and Crichton (2011) rightly con‐ cluded, this asks for a research program design that includes [t]extual and semiotic analyses of discursive performances on site; interpretive eth‐ nographic and grounded studies of professional and organisational practices; accu‐ mulated accounts of expertise by ratified members of the communities of practice in question together with first-hand accounts of interpretations of experience by actively involved members (p. 8). The data and findings need to be placed in a certain field, here eEFLT in Ger‐ many. Naturally, a study is to be conducted within a certain timeframe, within a limited amount of pages, and is usually a one-person endeavour. As a conse‐ quence, not all aspects could be adequately addressed and presented here. The present study, however, addresses several aspects and in order to do so the 17 1.3 An interdiscursive research approach overall research program cannot follow one “single methodology, however well grounded and finely applied” (Candlin & Crichton, 2011, p. 8). This is because no single methodology will “match its descriptive, interpretive and explanatory demands” (Candlin & Crichton, 2011, p. 8). Figure 1 below is an adaptation of Candlin and Crichton’s Venn diagram and illustrates the approach applied in this research study. It is supposed to be read in this way: Each of the overlapping circles represents a distinctive but mutually implicating an‐ alytical perspective, all of which are relevant to the investigation of discursive prac‐ tices at a particular site. The mutuality of these perspectives is indicated by their convergence at the centre of the circles. The different perspectives foreground de‐ scriptive, interpretive and explanatory modes of analysis that may be brought to bear in the investigation, and the overlaps between them highlight the interdiscursive na‐ ture of research that seeks to combine these perspectives in the exploration of a par‐ ticular discursive site (…) no perspective is prime. What is central is that all perspec‐ tives are necessary and mutually informing (Candlin & Crichton, 2011, pp. 9-10). My perspective as a researcher: Why did I decide to study this aspect in this specific way? What kind of collaboration between the different project members occurred? Social practice: What are the social roles and relationships e.g. within the project setting, within the sub-groups of the project setting, between myself and my teachers? Social practice Tasks in early EFLT in GER Participants’ perspective Participants’ perspective: How do my participants interpret tasks and task enactments? What do they think about the research project? Semiotic resource perspective Semiotic resource perspective: What tools / techniques did I use in the description of the discursive practices? Social / institutional perspective Social / institutional perspective: What are the localized situations (project / school community of practice) in which the discursive practices under question take place? F. 1: Venn diagram of researching the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks 18 1 Introduction 6 In here, I follow Garfinkel (1964, 1967, 1996) and his ethnomethodology placing a strong focus on the perspective of people who act in the social settings under investigation. The five aspects are addressed and discussed in different sections in the book. Some are highlighted in only certain chapters, others are interspersed throughout, and in particular aspects concerning the social practice can be found in other publications (see Legutke and Dreßler [forthcoming]). The model ad‐ dresses four aspects, namely social practice (see Legutke & Dreßler [forth‐ coming]), semiotic resource perspective (see Chapters 2, 4, 6, 8; Legutke and Dreßler [forthcoming]), participants’ perspectives (‘voices of teachers’ 6 ), and social / institutional perspectives (see Chapters 2 & 5). All four aspects are posi‐ tioned against the backdrop of my own perspective (see Chapter 2, 4, 7 & 8). This decision follows the well-accepted notion that within any research setting the researcher herself is a crucial influencing factor (Chereni, 2014; Cukor-Avila, 2000; Harrison, MacGibbon, & Morton, 2001; Labov, 1994). Consequently, I fre‐ quently use first person singular to take the researcher’s position into account. The reflection upon my position is published in Legutke and Dreßler (forth‐ coming). The Venn diagram poses the focus of an inquiry situated in discursive prac‐ tices, texts, and accounts. I drew on Layder’s (1993) resource map for research to investigate those aspects. The map functions as a strategy to research human action and social organisation on four different interrelated layers, namely “context, setting, situated activity, and self ” (p. 72). It is a model that intertwines different layers of society and research, combining influences on macro (struc‐ tures in society and institutions) and micro (human behaviour and interaction) phenomena. Layder’s (1993) map may also be understood by referring to re‐ search on several layers; that is, the macro layer that shows the power struggles which afford or constrain the overall research (e.g., in this case the ethics board in the MoE and the funding of the MoE) and the micro layer refers to how research participants - here the project members - experience the research en‐ deavour and the kind of roles, positions, and ultimately identities afforded or constrained through their research participation. All of these aspects are rele‐ vant; however, not all of them are analysed in detail because: (1) the focus lies on identifying eEFL task features and eEFL task enactments; and (2) it would go far beyond the scope of any one-person study to investigate all of Layder’s layers. Below, I clarify the aspects investigated and name the chapters in which they can be found. I regard Layder’s (1993) “context” layer as the structural and institutional fac‐ tors influencing the project teachers. The factors refer to the values and tradi‐ 19 1.3 An interdiscursive research approach tions related to eEFLT and PS didactics in Germany (Chapter 3), federal curricula and national standards (see Chapter 3), and what the general public thinks about eEFLT (news). It also refers to teacher education and EFLT regulations in Ger‐ many (see e.g., Section 2.2.4). The second layer “setting”, impacts the project teachers in more immediate terms such as the school institution as their work place, school programs, and school curricula or pedagogical concepts followed by the respective school. It also includes the power struggles within the immediate range institutions. Here, I regard the research project (see Section 2.2) as having an influence on the “setting”. Layder’s (1993) third layer “situated activity” fo‐ cuses on face-to-face situations. It refers to the classroom situation and the project meetings in which interactions between different parties occur (aspects are illustrated in Section 2.2, Chapters 4 & 8). The former type of interactions concerns situations between a teacher and her students (see Chapters 5 & 6), and the latter between teachers, teacher(s) and myself (see Chapter 8 and Legutke & Dreßler [forthcoming]), and teacher(s) and the research team during project meetings or school visits. The fourth layer is “self” and refers to biographical as‐ pects concerning the teachers’ qualifications, and past experiences as former stu‐ dents and as teachers (in R. Scollon and Scollon’s [2004] term historical body). The researchers influence the project significantly and because they are the primary data collectors and interpreters their “selves” play a role. Hence, I provide infor‐ mation on my own experiences and assumptions (see Section 2.3, Chapter 8) to allow the reader to place and evaluate my analysis and interpretation of the data (Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Leininger, 1994; Maxwell, 1992). 1.4 The structure of this book The multi-perspectived and interdiscursive conceptualisation underpinning this research study leads to a non-traditional chapter structure. This is primarily in response to the challenge to not marginalise either context or language, as is often the case in research studies (Crichton, 2010). In this present study I borrow the TBLT concepts of task-as-workplan and task-as-action (Samuda & Bygate, 2008) and add a further aspect, namely task-in-reflection. I coined the last term (task-in-reflection) to indicate the focus on the different reflective and reflexive processes undertaken in this book (see also Legutke and Dreßler [forthcoming] and Dreßler [forthcoming]). Those are reflections on the processes taking place 20 1 Introduction 7 The project group as such functioned as one ‘community of practice’ and the subgroups of the PS teachers and the secondary school teachers and the research team as other ‘communities of practice’ within the overall ‘community of practice’ of practitioners, researchers, and delegates of the CSB and the MoE collaborative investigating tasks. 8 For a reflection of how the members learnt from and with each other and on the col‐ laborative research study see Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming) and Dreßler (forth‐ coming). within the different communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) 7 . In this publication the focus lies on a critical re-consideration of the overall research design and the participants’ views of the present study (see Chapter 8) 8 . Hence, the structure of this book is as follows: Chapter 2 illustrates the back‐ ground of the research study, the methodological and methodical considera‐ tions, and the research questions. Several data collection methods were applied throughout the present study. In turn, I do not discuss all methods in the meth‐ odology section in Chapter 2. Rather, I discuss the respective method only in the chapter in which I primarily use it in combination with the data in that chapter. This is done to illustrate the method and at the same time provide its use in context. As a consequence, Chapter 4 presents information on data types, col‐ lection, and the analysis used to reconstruct teachers’ task concepts. Chapter 6 illustrates the multimodal and MDA approaches applied to the language in ac‐ tion analysis. The additional publications by Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming) and Dreßler (forthcoming) illustrate the methodologies and methods applied to re-examine the interviews and overall collaborative research study to address the crucial notion of reflexivity. Candlin and his colleagues defined it in the following way: One of the important objects of this reflexivity are our modes of practice as re‐ searchers, how we reflect on the relationship between knowledge and practice (knowing ‘what’ and knowing ‘how’), how we reflect both within what we do (in action) and outside what we do (about action) and how we relate as researchers with those with whom we work (Candlin, Crichton & Moore, 2017, pp. 119-120). Under the term “task-as-workplan”, two theoretical task conceptualisations are discussed: those found in the literature (Chapter 3) and teachers’ notions of the nature of tasks (Chapters 4). The two chapters together address the first set of research questions focusing on the nature of eEFL tasks. They assign the two perspectives, theoretical and practical, equal status as proclaimed in this col‐ laborative research project. Chapter 3 discusses the literature and research 21 1.4 The structure of this book 9 This chapter draws on typical literature review styles (Hart, 1998; Ridley, 2012), yet deviates as it also includes project members’ voices to emphasise the collaborative na‐ ture of the research project. within the TBLT, eEFLT, and PS teaching context - all relevant to eEFL tasks 9 . Chapter 4 presents ethnographically gathered data (Fetterman, 2010; Hymes, 1996) within the case study (Duff, 2008; Evers & Van Staa, 2010; Gerring, 2007; Gillham, 2000) forming the basis for further analysis. The data comprises inter‐ view responses, comments made during informal talks and group discussions (Bohnsack, 2004; Flick, 2009) and short written texts produced by project mem‐ bers. The data were analysed and interpreted following Goodwin’s (1994) ‘pro‐ fessional vision’ of coding, highlighting, and producing and articulating repre‐ sentations against a number of different interpretive paradigms and data analysis methods (see also Sarangi and Candlin, [2003]). One of which was Pav‐ lenko’s (2007) five-step approach to interviews. Chapters 5 and 6 borrow the term task-in-action and focus on the second set of research questions related to the enactment of eEFL tasks. Chapter 5 presents a systematic description of the task formats used within the project setting. As made explicit in the analysis, the task format has a relatively small influence on the overall task outcome. Rather, the way in which the task is enacted (i.e., the interplay of four key practices involved in the emergence of a task) provides insight into the overall task outcome. Emergence refers here to the moment in which a theoretical task is enacted, that is, taught within a classroom setting (task-as-action) in a way that English is used as a means of communication. This aspect of enactment is illustrated in Chapter 6. Here, the focal point of the in‐ vestigation is on language in action, making use of different methodological principals such as MDA (Norris & Jones, 2005a; R. Scollon, 1998, 2001, R. Scollon & Scollon, 2003, 2004, 2007; S. W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012), multimodal analysis (Norris, 2004, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a) of gestures, movements and gazes (Bourne & Jewitt, 2003), micro-ethnographic approaches (referring to ‘doing school’ [Bloome et al., 2005, 1989]), the interaction of content and form in com‐ munication (Edwards & Mercer, 2014), and general practices of EFLT, in partic‐ ular, vocabulary teaching for (e)EFL learners (Cameron, 2001; Lee & VanPatten, 2003). The main focus lies on the interaction analysis of modes and draws on Norris’ (2004, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a) research. This analysis offers insights into the moments in which tasks emerge. Chapter 7 summarises and discusses the findings from Chapters 3 to 6 to better understand the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the case study. The key terms for Chapter 8 are reflexivity and reflection (Bolton, 2010). My research involvement, personal assumptions and the quality criteria are sys‐ 22 1 Introduction tematically reconsidered. Chapter 9 presents the results of this study in relation to the research questions. Reflections on the overall conceptualisation of the study are provided. Moreover, I offer possible future research perspectives on eEFL tasks. 23 1.4 The structure of this book 1 The fieldnotes were mainly gathered throughout 2011-2013 and 2015 and constantly revised (Fetterman, 2010). In producing my fieldnotes, I adhered to Emerson, Fetz, and Shaw’s (1995) style and wrote first person accounts that were based on notes on inci‐ dents I had taken throughout the observation and participation phase. At home, I re‐ called experiences and wrote up entire accounts (Emerson et al., 1995, Chapter 3). 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology As previously mentioned, the study was set within a wider research project that significantly influenced the study. The wider research project formed the starting point for this investigation, pre-defined the overall methodology, and triggered the research questions. To separate this case study from the overall research project, the term ‘project’ refers from now on to the overall collabo‐ rative research project. The term ‘study’ refers to the study described in this book. For further information on the overall collaborative project see Dreßler, A. Kolb, Kollmann, and Legutke (2016). This chapter presents information on all four levels of Layder’s (1993) map (see Chapter 1) in relevance to the research questions concerning the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks. Hence, German EFL teacher education is briefly touched upon and the research project, and the theoretical and methodological background are described to provide a better understanding of the complex structure of the research study and to allow for a later evaluation of the research design and results (Fetterman, 2010). Detailed descriptions of the background, research cycle, and analyses allow results to be open to scrutiny (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008; Steinke, 2004). The information presented in this chapter derived from fieldnotes 1 and personal diary entries, audio and video recordings, notes on informal talks with project members, observation protocols, meeting proto‐ cols, project reports, and the project contract, all of which were compiled throughout the project work. 2.1 The German research context and the research project setting The research study was set within an urban area in central Germany where pu‐ pils and teachers from seven primary and five secondary schools, together with a research team, delegates from the CSB and the MoE of the federal state collabo‐ ratively investigated the use of eEFL tasks in primary (Grades 1-4) and early sec‐ ondary school (Grade 5) teaching (Dreßler, 2012b). The core research team com‐ prised a PhD student (myself) and a teacher from a project PS working part-time as project co-ordinator (Anna) under the supervision of a senior research pro‐ fessor affiliated with a local University. The wider research team included sev‐ eral research associates who participated irregularly and worked at different uni‐ versities and colleges across Germany. Figure 2 outlines the history of the project and the parties involved. It gives an overview of the different project schools, the type of school they represent, and when they entered the project. F. 2. Overview of the project schools and their entry times into the project. The project history may broadly be divided into three phases starting with the individual school endeavour, leading to a social movement of sorts as an increasing number of schools across the city commence the teaching of English in Grade 1, and finally the initiative by the CSB and the MoE to introduce a research project. School A is the initiator for teaching English from Grade 1 F. 2: Overview of the project schools that formed part of the data collection and their entry times into the project. 26 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 2 The PS in which the joint lessons had been established before the new regulations were passed in 2009 often tried to continue the joint lessons. As a consequence, approximately half of the task examples recorded in my research study took place in joint lessons. The project history may broadly be divided into three phases starting with the individual school endeavour, leading to a social movement of sorts as an in‐ creasing number of schools across the city commenced the teaching of English in Grade 1, and finally the initiative by the CSB and the MoE to introduce a research project. School A is the initiator for teaching English from Grade 1 onwards. With more and more schools joining over the years, the official re‐ search project was established in school year 2010/ 2011 and finished in school year 2015/ 2016. Notably, the MoE of this federal state made it mandatory for some schools to participate at the request of the CSB. The roots of the project can be traced to parents and teachers from school A who found that the current demographic developments led to a plurilingual city and world. This demo‐ graphic development functioned as a motivation for school A to start teaching EFL from Grade 1 onwards in school year 2004/ 2005. In this BL, eEFL typically starts in Grade 3 (KMK, 2005, 2013) and PS education comprises Grades 1 to 4. The project schools also included special needs pupils (Doose, 2014). Two project schools followed ‘Gemeinsamer Unterricht’ (i.e., joint lessons) (BMAS, n.d.) and, as a consequence, some of the task enactments were filmed in classes in which a mainstream and a special needs teacher worked together on a regular basis 2 . A fundamental influence on the research project was that the MoE of the respective BL sponsored it. The research assistant position was bound to the research project. Hence, the overall research can be termed a form of contract research. The contract defined the research project’s main research setting and focus (i.e., English in Grades 1-5 in the project schools) but did not further specify the topic of this present research study. The project members and the senior researcher had already defined the overall parameters of the research inquiry before my position was established. I joined the project in the middle of the first half of the school year 2010/ 2011. Two project meetings had already been held before I started working. The above-described conditions, together with the origins of the project, considerably influenced the data gathering process as I was only allowed to work with teachers at schools assigned to the project. Typically one teacher per school was appointed to participate in the project. At those schools that joined the project voluntarily or had started it themselves, usually more than one teacher participated. The respective staff body strongly supported the early start and the research project. Schools that were asked to join by the MoE or the CSB 27 2.1 The German research context and the research project setting 3 This behaviour highlights a common issue in school program work or school curriculum work (Adamson, Kwan, & Chan, 2000; Holtappels, 2004). If it is a top-down process initiated by the MoE or CSB, it often fails due to resistance from the staff. Likewise, much can be achieved if it is a bottom-up process and the school focuses on a clear goal (Holtappels, 2004). 4 In 2015, the research team conducted a survey on eEFLT and the research project across the entire English staff body of the seven participating PS. The majority of English teachers termed eEFLT useful; however, at the schools in which the motivation for the project was generally lower, teachers favoured a later start to the teaching of English. The results are in line with informal talks with a few teachers at those schools conducted in 2012 in which they expressed that children should master German and Mathematics before learning English. often lacked the support of staff and thus only the assigned teacher attended the project meetings 3 . Sampling strategies were influenced by the individual school’s original motivation for joining the project (see Section 2.4.5) 4 . 2.1.1 Project members Apart from teachers, the main parties involved in the project were the students. According to information from the project school teachers, pupils from three of the PS (A, C & D) were from families of middle-to-high socio-economic status. The pupils often had a migrant background, typical for urban contexts in Ger‐ many. Pupils from school B were from middle-class families and most of them had a German only background. Pupils from school E were from low-to-middle class families and often had a migrant background or were from low socio-eco‐ nomic status families, some with almost illiterate native German parents. The project involved delegates from the school authorities together with the research team and approximately 25 teachers, as well as other teachers with special in-service training termed regional coordinators. In my study, seven PS teachers in particular played an important role. They were either assigned by their school administrations to participate in the project or voluntarily ex‐ pressed to actively participate in the research project. I worked with each one over a period of at least three years (e.g., project meetings, project conferences, informal observations) if not for the entire project time. The time allocated to the teacher depended on how long the respective teacher participated in the project (e.g., one left for maternity leave, another took a sabbatical, see ethical considerations in Chapter 8). 28 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 5 I purposefully do not connect the teachers to the project schools. Through not disclosing the teachers’ school, the teachers’ anonymity is secured from the project members. Teachers from 5 different schools Anna Ruth Paula Patricia Jenny Gaby Margaret Grade level 1 - 4 1 - 4 1/ 2 1 + 4 1 + 4 1/ 2 + 4 4 Main period of data collec‐ tion 2010 -2015 2010 -2015 2011 -2013 2012, 2013, 2015 2012 -2013 2011 / 2012 2011 - 2013 Interview x x x x x x x Observation x x x x x x x Videos x x x x x x x T. 1: Overview of most important project teachers and data sources. The seven teachers allowed me to observe and interview them, and agreed to be filmed at least for one task enactment (I filmed 18 tasks in total). The table above marks the periods in which the teachers were frequently visited; other observations occurred from time to time before or after the main phases. The teachers decided themselves when I was allowed to visit. Three teachers were at school A; the others were from each of the four remaining PS 5 . Several other teachers at the remaining four schools also allowed me to observe them occa‐ sionally. They made it clear, however, that they did not wish to be filmed and are therefore not included in the table outlining the main data sources (see Sec‐ tion 2.4.5 for details of the sampling method and again in Chapter 5). Figure 3 provides an overview of the research project members, delegates of the CSB and MoE, teachers and the research team: 29 2.1 The German research context and the research project setting 6 For transcription conventions see Appendix C. Research project 2 delegates of the CSB and 1 of the MoE (4 ddifferent people were assigned, each for approximately 1 year) Primary (PS) and secondary school teachers (approximately 20 participated regularly) Research team (senior researcher, myself and the project co-ordinator Anna, 2 researchers from other colleges / universities) and 1 colleague from the local university who joined in 2015 F. 3: Research project members. The project co-ordinator, Anna, obtained a key role. She taught at one of the PS and was assigned to project-related work a day per week. Anna’s assignments included writing meeting protocols and coordinating communication between teachers and researchers, teachers and members of the CSB and MoE, and the school administrations. Apart from her general obligations as project co-ordi‐ nator, Anna’s roles as a teacher and member of the research team provided her with a unique opportunity for insights, learning, and power. During a meeting between Anna and myself, she suddenly remarked on her position 6 : Voice 2 Anna: You know, I really enjoy having the time to read a book concerning teaching or tasks. As a normal teacher you don’t have time for that. It is also very helpful to me to talk with you. Our Thursdays are very valuable. I don’t know how I managed the year without you. We always have great ideas together, even though we sometimes ((laughing)) go off on a tangent. Interviewer (I): ((laughing)) But we always find our way back. We make a great team. 30 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology Anna: Yes, we mutually benefit from each other. ((laughing)) But really, I benefit more from you. I: ((laughing)) Oh no, it’s the other way around Anna - 2013 Anna functioned as the gatekeeper as well as a key informant (Fetterman, 2010; Heigham & Sakui, 2009). She provided easy access to one of the project schools, as she was a staff member. She was widely accepted and respected within her school and her opinion was regarded as valuable. She could easily ask her col‐ leagues whether or not they would allow her to observe or ‘borrow’ their classes to apply tasks. This enabled the research team to collect data and Anna’s col‐ leagues were presented with the opportunity to observe her during teaching and while being filmed. Anna did not have the power to sanction teachers or schools for not following the CSB’s or the MoE’s demands and she found this trying at times. She periodically complained that her emails regarding project issues were ignored or not taken seriously. Despite this being the case, Anna’s standing within the project group was highly important for the overall outcome of the research. She kept in touch with the teachers and emailed them with organisational matters regarding project work. She was regarded as an insider at both her own school and the other schools and she was openly welcomed and trusted as ‘one of them’ (i.e., a teacher). She advanced the research project with her openness towards the re‐ searchers and functioned as a role-model for lifelong learning (BMBF, 2008) and reflection on teaching (Altrichter & Posch, 2007; Schön, 1987). 2.1.2 Project goals and structure The general research aim of the project was directed towards the investigation of teaching English in Grades 1 and 2, as well as during the transition from primary to secondary school in Grades 4 and 5 (Dreßler & A. Kolb, 2015). A special research focus was on the design and implementation of learning tasks in Grades 4 and 5 due to the new state curriculum and its value statement of tasks (HKM, 2011). As the task approach to language teaching and learning in German PS was not previously defined (Dreßler, 2012b), and because using tasks in teaching English in German PS is a new development (HKM, 2010, 2011), the project members also focused attention on how tasks may be defined, developed, used, and evaluated in the PS. A further and parallel line of investigation was the development and use of a test of the four skills with all Grade 4 classes. This 31 2.1 The German research context and the research project setting 7 For a more detailed definition of what ‘doing school’ entails in this book please see Chapter 6. I use the term following Bloome and colleagues’ (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005) definition, but also subsume aspects of learning environment (Williams & Burden, 1997) and teachers’ attitudes (OECD, 2009; Xie, 2014) towards teaching and stu‐ dents (see Section 4.2.2 ‘Haltung’ and Chapters 6 & 7) under this key practice of ‘doing school’. was to shed light on what skills and knowledge the students demonstrated after four years of eEFLT with two lessons a week. There were three formats of meetings in the project setting: yearly two-day project conferences with invited guest speakers to allow for an in-depth inves‐ tigation of aspects all project members found crucial, monthly project meetings, and individual meetings between a teacher and the research team, Anna and I or I alone. Monthly meetings lasted for two hours, each were held and attended by a majority of the project members. Those meetings formed the basis for contin‐ uous discussions, investigations and group building activities. The topics could broadly be grouped into three areas: tasks and their implementation in daily teaching routines, different subareas of teaching eEFL, e.g., storytelling, and general issues that impacted the overall teaching situation relating to classroom management. The procedures for addressing the topics depended on the teach‐ ers’ interests; if the topic was relevant to most of them, then the group focussed on it together. Typically topics relating to additional stress were discipline prob‐ lems, parents-teacher meetings and managing the administrative aspects of teaching and were termed important by all project teachers. The latter two played an important role outside of the teachers’ English lessons and therefore were not specifically addressed within this research project, even though they played a crucial role in terms of how much time teachers had actually left to focus on their lesson planning. Aspects referring to classroom management played an important role in the teachers’ lives; especially those referring to difficulties with disciplining students in need of constant attention. In addition, the topics were important in regards to the overall task enactment as successful classroom management forms the basis of any lesson. They are included in the key teaching practice termed ‘doing school’ 7 (Bloome et al., 2005, 1989) and are further explored in Chapters 6 and 7. In those I illustrate that if teachers unsuccessfully manage classroom processes, the task en‐ actments lose their effectiveness (see Chapters 6 & 7). The project group used classroom observation, teacher shadowing experiences, team teaching experiences, interviews, video recordings, example tasks developed by project members and the research team, and a wide range of teaching materials 32 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology (picture books, textbooks, additional teaching materials, online resources, school curricula) for intensive group work phases, discussions, and reflections. Addition‐ ally, in 2012/ 2013 teacher teams, each consisting of a PS and secondary school teacher, started meeting individually to develop specific bridging tasks to foster a smooth transition from Grade 4 to Grade 5 (Dreßler, A. Kolb, et al., 2016). 2.1.3 Summary The monthly project meetings and yearly project conferences served as the main platforms for the co-production of this research. Anna, as project co-ordinator and in her role as teacher and part of the research team, performed the role of gatekeeper and mediator between teachers and the research team. The MoE as funds provider prescribed the research focus on eEFLT in Grades 1 to 4 and the transition from Grade 4 to Grade 5 with a focus on TBLT. The project was ini‐ tiated in response to a parents-teacher movement asking for eEFLT to prepare children for life in a multicultural and plurilingual society in which English functions as a lingua franca (Gnutzmann, 2004). Following the official ratifica‐ tion of the research project through the MoE and CSB, other schools joined obeying the CSB invitation to the project, and the publicity of the project re‐ sulted in more schools joining voluntarily. The focus of this research study was determined within the guidelines set by the funds provider and on the basis of my own experiences. In my opinion, teachers are the interpreters of political guidelines, curricula, and standards. They put them into practice according to their understanding and professional stance with the help of didactical, pedagogical and methodical theories and concepts, and in accordance to their stress levels. Depending on how much time they can spend on actually planning their lessons after having attended to all the administrative duties such as writing up documentations of their teaching, school program work and parents meetings, to name a few. Therefore, teachers’ understandings of tasks and their implementation in daily teaching routines are important if we want to understand what is happening in classroom situations. 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach This section focuses on the project’s approach to research and addresses the face-to-face interactions between the teachers and researchers (see Layder’s [1993] “situated activity”). It starts with an illustration of the project’s research procedure (see Figure 4) focusing on five defining aspects. 33 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach D Time constraints Building confidence Gaining trust Validation of everyday practice Collaborative research in the project context Safe Space F. 4: Collaborative research approach in the project. The project worked under the assumption that aspects of teaching that could be optimised needed to be jointly discovered and investigated. Only if all parties involved in the research project termed a topic relevant, could change be brought forward. Therefore, at the end of each project year, the teachers were especially encouraged to voice their ideas on what to explore next. They wrote down their ideas and the research team pre-planed the following project year with a focus on the teachers’ topics, e.g., how to give feedback in English to students, how to foster the students’ writing skills, or how to teach reading skills in early Grades. Respecting and accepting each other’s fields of expertise was a prereq‐ uisite to working on an eye to eye level. This entailed that researchers did not teach or present ready-made teaching materials for teachers to implement. Likewise, teachers did not have to engage in genuine research activities that were part of the researcher’s field of expertise such as data collection and anal‐ ysis. Teachers allowed researchers access to their teaching practices to gather data. The data gathering methods were discussed during project meetings and if teachers felt burdened by them, then the researchers made the appropriate changes. The collected data were analysed and interpreted and the findings were then presented and discussed reiteratively with an increase in complexity as 34 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 8 In research with teachers a common concern is to not burden them or enhance their stress level to guarantee a rather smooth and undisturbed teaching practice. These concerns are part of the consideration of research ethics as teachers’ duty is to conduct lessons and teach students. The assumption is that if teachers are made to take on more research responsibilities without a reduction in their teaching responsibilities, or without their explicit wish to do so, they can no longer adequately focus on their tra‐ ditional duties (Barkhuizen, 2009). insights were gained throughout the project phase. This procedure fostered a common understanding of what a task was and how it may be used in the early Grades. This approach helped to keep teachers’ stress levels low 8 . This line of action followed the positions of Clarke (1994) and Schön (1987). Clarke (1994) recommended teachers and researchers worked closely to enrich their common insights into classroom practice. Unlike other research projects in which researchers enter schools and research on teachers with the aim to inform them of university-based knowledge (see Clarke, 1994), in the project all parties sought to share their fields of expertise and above all their experiences with each other. In addition, Schön (1987) argued that depending on one’s po‐ sition and training, one frames problems differently and thus sees different as‐ pects of the issue at hand. This process requires bringing together different as‐ pects of practice derived from different traditions; for example, practical teaching knowledge (teachers’ perspective) and theoretical knowledge about teaching (researchers’ perspectives) and policy knowledge (school authorities’ perspectives) so that a comprehensive picture may be achieved of what actual classroom practices involve. There is a vast number of research approaches on teachers (see e.g., narrative inquiry [Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2014; Clandinin, 2007, 2013; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988, 1990]) and with teachers (see e.g., practitioner research [Allwright & Hanks, 2009]) and how teachers themselves can research their own lessons (see e.g., action research [Burns, 2010; Chris‐ tenson et al., 2002; Hutchinson, 1996], teacher research [Henderson, Meier, Perry, & Stremmel, 2012] and reflective practice [Altrichter & Posch, 2007]). In general, the approaches are now widely accepted and prove to be insightful when theoretical and practical perspectives are combined. What all approaches have in common is that they draw on a naturalistic / qualitative approach. In addition, teachers are actively involved in the process and spend a lot of time working on or producing research data. Teachers are credited as experts and extensively interviewed, produce their own reflective texts (e.g., in narrative inquiry), or act as researchers (in, e.g., action research) in their own lessons. Teachers’ participation and involvement in research is also sometimes regarded 35 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach 9 Different forms of action research are popular in the Northern part of Germany. Nor‐ mally, teachers receive a reduction in responsibilities and are included in data collection and sometimes even in data analysis (Bastian [2006]; Eckert and Fichten [2005]). 10 The funds provider stopped financing the project for more than 12 months due to inner-ministry administrative changes. Even though the MoE always stated its interest in the research project, the PhD student’s position was made redundant for 18.5 months due to financial issues in the MoE. In 2015 the position was re-established. Throughout 2014 the senior researcher had only one student assistant to carry out the research and the project co-ordinator. 11 The aspects were addressed continuously and circularly over the entire project phase. Thus, they cannot always be clearly separated from each other. as empowerment such as in participatory action research (Nunan, 1992, 2013a). However, they all ask the teachers to commit to ‘doing research’ and thus in‐ volve additional time 9 . Time the project teachers felt that should be spent on planning lessons or focusing on the manifold administrative duties. Therefore the research team applied aspects of several approaches, but no approach distinctly. This was done to match the research approach to the specific project context (Flick, 2009). Some aspects needed special consideration and unique solutions; namely the ever changing nature of the project group as new teachers arrived and established teachers left (due to maternity leave, relocation to different schools or school districts etc.). In addition, consideration was given to the different stages of inquiry (from basic approximation to the task concept to own planning of tasks, teaching, and evaluation of tasks), and to the different roles the research team assumed over the duration of the project (from regular observers of lessons to sporadically spending time in the lessons). Furthermore, the unique characteristics of the project required a different research approach. These characteristics included that the project started before the researchers arrived, the PhD student position was established even later, the small number of researchers and research resources 10 , the mandatory participation of some schools through the CSB and the struggles of others to be included. The approach in this project was to provide a ‘safe space’ for teachers and researchers to successfully profit from each other’s experiences and fields of expertise. To establish the ‘safe space’ different aspects of the project need to be considered, namely 11 : • Time constraints • Building confidence • Validation of everyday practice: The search for treasures • Building a working relationship on trust 36 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 12 Schocker and Schocker-von Ditfurth represent the same author. I use Schocker in the text re‐ gardless whether the actual work is published under her former name or her current name. Yet, in the specific reference to the published work, I use the form used by the author. 2.2.1 Time constraints: Teachers’ research involvement Addressing ‘time constraints’ is crucial in research in general; and also when working with teachers more specifically. Aspects that fall under this topic relate to: • Teachers’ workloads • Researchers’ responsibilities to collect ‘rich data’ • Rarely asking teachers to engage in additional activities outside of the project meetings Allwright and Hanks (2009) described this aspect as “quality of life” (pp. 149- 151; 280-282). Quality of life means taking into consideration the issues that influence the lives of those in the classroom in order for successful teaching and learning. During the initial phase of the official project, the teachers felt stressed and often voiced their frustration with the general workload in their daily school lives. This changed throughout the project. The development was probably due to the fact that the researchers placed a unique focus on the collection of ‘rich data’ and felt responsible for it. Voice 3 It takes time to attend the meetings. Time we don’t have. Attending the meetings, that’s two hours more work each month. Margaret - 2011 Now, I feel different. The meetings were very valuable to me. I felt valued. I learnt new things. I am now offering workshops for other teachers showing them what I have been doing over the past decades. I have written articles for teaching magazines. Margaret - 2016 Most research approaches that empower teachers place the responsibility for active data collection or production onto teachers. Other research projects sometimes present rich and detailed narratives by teachers (Ehrenreich, 2004; Johnson, 2007; Liu & Xu, 2011). What is often not taken into consideration, however, is the amount of time that is involved. Teachers need time to do research; they cannot do this on top of their normal teaching load (Müller-Hartmann, Schocker 12 , & Pant, 2013). 37 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach The issue of time constraints was not unique to the project context. It is often outlined in research studies involving teachers that a crucial factor preventing teachers from ‘doing research’ is lack of time (Barkhuizen, 2009). Pressuring the teachers for ‘doing research’ can be translated in treating them as inferiors. The project teachers, though willing to actively take part in the project, could not read literature on their own, keep research diaries, or meet for long narrative inter‐ views. Therefore, the occasions when audio and / or video recordings were made and the teachers shared their ideas with the researchers provided the opportuni‐ ties to discover their ‘voices’ (Bakhtin, 1981). It is the research team’s task to en‐ able the teachers to share their voices and to collect the appropriate data. Anna took care of the invitations for the monthly meetings and sent out minutes a week later to keep all informed. Monthly meeting were strictly two hours long because the MoE and the CSB had instructed the respective head‐ masters and headmistresses to release the teachers from teaching duties in the afternoons of the meetings so that a common time could be found for all project members to meet. In addition, the research team prepared and conducted all project meetings. Teachers did not have to prepare additional readings or written or oral texts for the project meetings in their free time. If teachers were expected to actively engage in producing tasks, teaching materials, or curricula, the yearly project conferences were used. 2.2.2 Building confidence so teachers can voice their ideas Another important aspect that significantly influenced the overall project process and research strategy was helping teachers to gain confidence in their own ideas. This was achieved in three interrelated steps: • Reassuring teachers that their ideas and opinions are valuable • Enabling teachers to talk by providing them with “new words” and con‐ cepts through presentations maintaining a balance between new terms and the teachers’ “words” • Finding a common language for all project members Academic terminology was investigated to establish project concepts in re-ad‐ dressing, for example, eEFLT principles. Here, meanings and different under‐ standings of terms such as lifeworld were investigated during the monthly project meetings. Building confidence and providing the “language” for effective communication among team members is crucial in collaborative research as knowledge and power go hand in hand (Phillips, 2011). If the research team does 38 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology not taken the time to help teachers voice their concerns, the imbalance of power between researchers and teachers will be even larger (Phillips, 2011). The teachers need re-assurance that their ‘voice’ was important. Some project teachers doubted that their perspective was of any relevance to add insights into teaching in general, and to further develop teacher education. Teachers some‐ times felt the need to say something of special value. Gaby gave voice to her insecurities and revealed that she doubted her experiences or own opinions were worth reporting in research: Voice 4 Gaby: What else could I add to this" ((Smiles)) Interviewer (I): Haha Gaby: ((Then she starts speaking in a funny accent)) @Anything, that is to‐ tally beneficial (.) you know, what can also be well quoted@ I: Haha Gaby: @What then is not at all-,naw. Naw, just kidding (.) well, something, something humanitarianly worthy, something that is humanistic, well, the children consequently learn for their future life.@ I: Haha Gaby: Basically, I have already said that, and and ehm and @very responsible, responsible subject because one can ruin a lot if one cannot transmit the fun, naw@ Is just a joke. Naw, well, I have actually chosen this [subject] on pur‐ pose… Gaby - 2012 Most teachers expressed similar doubts often more directly than Gaby did. In this research project, it took five years for the teachers to feel confident to share their ideas with people outside of the project context (see Voice 3 Margaret). The second aspect refers to enabling teachers to talk about their knowledge and understanding, and thus addresses the problem of verbalisation. Often meanings are difficult to share with others: [a]ll of us are only partly able to articulate analyses of our lives and their contexts. (…) The deepest meanings and patterns may not be talked about at all, because they are so fully taken for granted (Hymes, 1996, p. 9). In the view of the senior researcher, teachers were already teaching tasks, but were simply unfamiliar with the terms and were not aware of their task-like aspects of teaching. Consequently, teachers experience difficulties in expressing their knowl‐ 39 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach edge and understanding of how to teach tasks. This problem is described in re‐ search as the inability to express the previously gathered thorough understandings of teaching phenomena in an understandable way, and is referred to as the “problem of communicability” (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, pp. 148-149). Teachers often find it hard to verbalise what happens in classroom situations (Allwright, 2003). To help teachers to verbalise, it is crucial to devise steps that enable them to talk about their ideas and allow them to acquire new words while also preventing them from ‘shut‐ ting up’ and simply incorporating university-based terms. The researchers, on the other hand, need to familiarise themselves with the daily teaching practices of the teachers through observation and participation in order to gain a better under‐ standing of the teachers’ perspectives (Hymes, 1996). This leads to the third aspect, the finding of a common language. This aspect can also be referred to as ‘finding words’. As shown by other researchers, when working with practitioners it is important to use utterances that allow for new perspectives to appear. “Pre-existing analytic labels (…) can be seen as too loaded with values and ideologies, and may not be so helpful to advance collaborative interpretive practise” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 277) Likewise, meanings of labels need to be investigated: The validity of knowledge about persons, families, neighborhoods, schools, and com‐ munities in our country depends upon accurate and adequate knowledge of the mean‐ ings they find and impute to terms, events, persons, and institutions. To an important extent, such meanings cannot be taken for granted as uniform, even within a single city or school district, nor as known in advance (Hymes, 1996, p. 9). Therefore, all project members needed to come to an understanding of what certain concepts meant and how they could be defined. It was thus also crucial to examine the eEFLT principles the teachers learnt during their previous studies at university or at teachers college and compare them with the teachers’ teaching practices. To address the university concepts short presentations were given, practical examples were taken from textbooks, short video clips of teachers using tasks recorded in previous research studies were shown, and two project curricula were developed (Dreßler & Kollmann, 2016; Legutke & Dreßler, 2013). The teachers were asked to bring teaching materials along to project meetings and to present examples of their teaching. Through the initial intro‐ duction to TBLT, teachers gained an understanding of the underlying principles of TBLT and acquired some of the necessary vocabulary to enable them to speak about their classroom routines. Task definitions were not presented, as they are too technical and also may have stopped teachers’ ideas from emerging. 40 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 2.2.3 Validation of everyday practice: The search for treasures This aspect combines four ideas and refers to: • The Goffmanian question about incidents as they happen in the daily teaching practice of the project teachers • How researchers can be enabled to gather insight into the teaching practice • The level of energy teachers require to be able to teach eEFLT • The legacy of the teachers’ experiences at teachers college. Again, the different ideas are interrelated and often difficult to clearly separate. They were continuously addressed throughout the project to minimise stress levels and to also help new teachers entering the project to understand the basic procedures. During every meeting, the teachers were asked to share personal experiences and teaching examples. Through this approach the research team could use the teach‐ ers’ daily teaching practices as a starting point for further investigations. The first idea also emphasises Allwright’s (2003) maxims of placing a particu‐ lar focus on the value of classroom life and the teachers’ perspectives. Goffman (1974) pointed out that participants might define a “current situation” (p. 9) dif‐ ferently. Therefore, it is important to establish and negotiate the frame that is placed around encounters (Goffman, 1974). Apart from sharing one’s perspectives with others, a constructive atmosphere in the project meetings needed to be created. In order to do so, the senior re‐ searcher used positively rather than negatively connoted words (Allwright, 2003). Accordingly, all group members began looking for so called “treasures” in everyone’s daily classroom practices. Teachers were asked to share classroom practices that they found to be special in some way. This was done to firstly validate the teachers’ work and secondly to determine whether the different project members shared, at least to some extent, the same or similar perspec‐ tive(s) of the project situation and of eEFLT. The second idea focused on how the research team could achieve a better understanding of teachers’ daily teaching routines. We visited the classrooms infrequently at first, before collaborating with teachers on areas and issues that they felt worth investigating, such as how to create writing tasks or reading tasks. In this way, a bottom-up research process was set in motion with a focus on teachers’ everyday practices. Teachers were also encouraged to visit each other’s classrooms and to shadow a colleague. Teachers felt their daily teaching was validated and valued, and thus started sharing their materials with the group. The teachers also gradually shared more information and ideas with the researchers. To build trust, observations of teachers were progressively increased in number and extent from once every 41 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach 13 As other authors show, trainee teacher periods are potentially stressful in contexts outside of Germany, too (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). few weeks to observing entire teaching units (Brewer, 2000). In this way, teachers were familiarised with the new situation of being observed during teaching (Legutke & Dreßler, 2013). The third idea addresses aspects of pragmatism as well as the previously dis‐ cussed aspect of “quality of life” (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, pp. 149-151 and 280-282). It refers to the level of energy a teacher needs to teach eEFLT. Teachers often addressed this topic in project meetings and interviews. They all agreed that teaching is exhausting and that eEFLT is no exception. Teaching, especially eEFLT, requires teachers to be constantly present in the actual situation and to actively manage the classroom situation in ‘doing a lesson’ (Bloome et al., 1989) in a certain way ‘to enable the children to speak English’. Gaby described it as “physically exhausting”, Patricia referred to teaching as sometimes “acting like a clown”, and other teachers called it challenging as it involved full body commit‐ ment: gestures, facial expressions, singing songs, and emotionally supporting pu‐ pils in helping them to understand the foreign language and using it as a means of communication. It was commonly believed among the teachers that students were best assisted to speak through visual support (e.g., real objects or ‘flashcards’). All project teachers used ‘flashcards’ that they had to prepare extensively if they ventured away from pre-designed teaching lessons in textbooks. Teachers said that it was impossible to muster up the energy to be fully involved in the classroom situa‐ tion and to also engage in research. Here again, the research team’s focus on daily teaching practices lowered teachers’ stress levels considerably as they were not expected to prepare ‘showcase lessons’ which is a mandatory require‐ ment during training at teachers college. The last idea relates to this aspect. Some teachers had positive experiences during their trainee period; however, most of the project teachers reported neg‐ ative experiences due to their mentors and / or instructors humiliating them (Knoke, 2013; Schultz, 2013) 13 . Even teachers who invited the research team to observe them on a regular basis to have their lessons filmed frequently addressed this aspect, as revealed in the following extracts: 42 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology Voice 5 Ruth: Hi. It is so hot today. We have to see how it goes today. The last period is dismissed today because of the heat. So I prepared a task on ice cream. I hope that is useful for you. It is not very complex and the children don’t have to use a lot of complex sentences and only some prior knowledge based on the topic fruits. I just thought it would be okay and it is nothing special. But I was so busy. I just thought it would be fine as it is. Interviewer (I): I am sure it’s fine. It’s always been fine. I really only wanted to see what you are doing in the first lesson of a new topic in Grade 1. That’s all. Nothing special is needed. I think it’s great that you prepared a topic matching the weather. I’m sure the children will enjoy it. Ruth - 2015 Anna voiced a similar concern: Voice 6 Anna: I am not sure yet, what I will do tomorrow. I have to think about it later. I thought I could already show you what I have in mind. It’s nothing special. But I thought it has to be enough. I don’t have time to prepare some‐ thing special this time, for this. I have to already be there earlier than usual to meet with this lady so that she can set up the video equipment. Anna - 2013 Anna referred to a session in which she was to be video-recorded by a researcher from another university. Even though she knew the researcher, she had been filmed several times by me, and was used to being observed by colleagues, she was still concerned about the quality of the lesson and explained why she did not prepare a ‘showcase lesson’. The extracts show that the teachers remained concerned about being filmed and that it was necessary for the project’s success to habitually reas‐ sure the teachers that the daily teaching routine was the key research interest to validate the teachers’ practices and to build teachers’ confidence. 2.2.4 Building a working relationship on trust Developing trust is a general aspect of fieldwork and needs to be shared between the researchers and the teachers (Brewer, 2000). Trust encompasses many different steps 43 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach within fieldwork: entering the field, collecting data, handling and analysing the data, and finally, publication of the research results. All aspects of the research process involve gaining and keeping the trust of the research partners. In addition, trust is closely related to research ethics (see Chapter 8). It is not a stable category, but “al‐ ways a fragile and momentary accomplishment, subject often to rapid shifts within encounters and over time, and always vulnerable to exigencies” (Candlin & Crichton, 2013b, p. 5) and must be earned. Earning trust in research is achieved similarly as it is in a friendship: It takes time and relies on “honesty, communication, friendliness, openness and confidence-building” (Brewer, 2000, p. 85), and needs to be “communi‐ cate[d] (…) verbally and nonverbally” (Fetterman, 2010, p. 145). As previously mentioned, building trust between teachers and researchers, and among teachers from different schools had been a critical issue throughout the en‐ tire project phase. This was due to the fact that in classroom research trust must be re-gained. Teachers who had negative experiences during their trainee period often initially resisted allowing outsiders to enter their classrooms. This aspect can be compared to the dissolution of expert systems such as the hospital, the police, or housing authority (Allen, 2003). In this project, researchers needed to compensate for the teachers’ lack of trust in research and the university education system and the teachers college practices (Sarand, 2015). In general, the trust building process is time-consuming and involves patience, personal commitment, and openly showing that a researcher is not that different to the teachers. In addition, many teachers had previously participated in research projects and were disillusioned about not receiving feedback from researchers. Anna mentioned that she had filled out many surveys emailed to her by university students in regards to different research projects concerning other subjects or general pedagogical issues: Voice 7 Anna: Often the surveys are quite long. I can understand that not many teachers reply. And then, you do it and often there is no feedback at all or it takes years before they get back and then you have already forgotten about the survey. Anna - 2012 The issue Anna referred to concerns “‘hot’ feedback” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 277). During research with practitioners, it is important to provide them with results close to the time of data collection. This was often hard to do, however. The research team tested all Grade 4 students in 2013 and teachers were frus‐ 44 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology trated that the official results took a few months before being made available, and that the official publication of results took two years (BIG-Kreis, 2015). In addition, during the first project meeting in 2011 the researchers reached an agreement, which was approved by the ethics board of the MoE, with the teachers to follow the principles of ethical research. Part of this agreement en‐ tailed that researchers only entered classrooms after the teachers had agreed, and that recording or filming only took place with the explicit consent of the teacher in question, as well as the parents and headmistresses. It also entailed that participation in the research was voluntary and that non-participation did not result in any disadvantages for the teacher. With these regulations in place and by openly talking about troubling issues, the project members had slowly formed what is sometimes termed a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998), in which certain ways of behaviour (honouring each other’s expertise) were es‐ tablished and mutual respect was mandatory. After two and a half years, video clips of teaching practices filmed in the project schools were used to reflect on the project schools’ classroom practices in meetings with all project members for the first time (Legutke & Dreßler, 2013). Teachers were provided with short video clips of their teaching and were asked to comment on them and to share their individual favourite parts of the video with the group. During the process of data analysis and interpretation, it was also crucial to re-examine the dif‐ ferent relationships between researchers and teachers and to continue to remain trustworthy. As a consequence, results were regularly presented in project meetings and discussed with the teachers to seek their validation of the findings (Rallis & Rossman, 2009). In the final step of the data gathering, teachers were encouraged to create a task according to their task definition. They then used it in their classroom - thereby effecting some change in their classroom practice (see e.g., Benitt [2015]; Kennedy and Kennedy [1996]; R. Scollon [1998]; R. Scollon and Scollon [2004]) - and finally reflected on their task teaching. Project meetings had increasingly become sessions during which members learnt from each other and mutually developed their understanding and experience. Teachers frequently remarked that they found the meetings valuable and helpful and the research team felt welcomed and valued as well. This form of collaboration allows learning from each other. In general fieldwork, researchers can gain the trust of their participants if a valued and reliable member introduces the researcher (Fetterman, 2010). In this study, Anna functioned as such a team member who provided entrance to the field. As outlined above, her role as the project co-ordinator was crucial. The ini‐ tiation through her was helpful, but I also had to prove that I deserved the teach‐ ers’ trust (Fetterman, 2010) when answering their questions about my motivation and qualifications (see 2.3). The next step was to distance myself from Anna and 45 2.2 Collaborative research: The project’s approach to provide for possible observations in other teachers’ lessons (Fetterman, 2010). Even though Anna’s relationships with other team members were good, she nat‐ urally liked some more than others. I needed to establish my own independent relationships with the teachers to gain access to all teachers’ classrooms. 2.2.5 Establishing a ‘safe space’ As illustrated above, the success of a collaborative research endeavour relies on the establishment of a ‘safe space’: Participatory research requires a great willingness on the part of participants to dis‐ close their personal views of the situation, their own opinions and experiences. In ev‐ eryday life, such openness is displayed towards good and trusted friends, but hardly in institutional settings or towards strangers. The fear of being attacked for saying some‐ thing wrong prevents people from expressing their views and opinions, especially when they appear to contradict what the others think (Bergold & Thomas, 2012, para. 12). In this collaborative research project, ‘safe space’ required the coalescence of the different aspects discussed above (Legutke & Dreßler, forthcoming). It was crucial to build such a ‘safe space’ as research inevitably asks for critical ex‐ aminations of the status quo and, as discussed in Chapter 7, also entails a form of evaluation and judgement. In the research project, the teachers were con‐ fronted with the results of this present study through an experienced-based approach as well as a presentation of the findings to understand the results and discuss them (Dreßler & Loumbourdi, 2016). 2.3 My involvement in the project This section reports on my personal experiences and emotional reactions to the research process, and gives insights into my thoughts on how to work with teachers to illustrate my research perspective (see Section 1.3). As shown in Figure 1 (see Section 1.3), the entire research agenda was framed from the re‐ searcher’s perspective; hence, it is vital to present this information before illus‐ trating this study’s theoretical framework. From the moment I entered the re‐ search project, I began to write research diaries (Burgess, 1981) to keep track of my thoughts and relationships towards my research partners. This is important as my emotions inevitably influenced the research process (Ortlipp, 2008). During my time on the project, I came to occupy many different roles (e.g., insider / outsider, confidant, advisor, learner, etc.) as is typical for ethnographic 46 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology and applied linguistics research, and typical for research conducted with equal partners (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). The most prominent of these roles were being a novice researcher due to my university-based assignments and the project job description, and an ‘almost’ teacher colleague given that I had a degree in PS teaching. In addition, I had been working at several schools across Germany and England over the past twelve years, but had yet to obtain the second degree to be a fully qualified teacher. These experiences enabled me to relate partially to the teachers’ daily lives and helped me to understand the teachers’ task ideas and their concerns about the realities of teaching. However, because I was not teaching full-time, I could distance myself from the project teachers and ask questions about procedures and classroom practices. I learnt new aspects about teaching and research and so my roles and my understanding of them changed. The same was true for the way the project teachers regarded me. Over the course of the second year of the project, the teachers had started to view me differently. I was greeted more openly. They inquired about my work and they appeared to regard me as part of the research team. Being a practitioner, they relied on me to quickly cover for them for a few minutes if need be. Over the years of project work, I had formed close working relationships with the project teachers. These relationships allowed me to observe the teachers more regularly. At the same time it made it more difficult to distance myself from them, as I shifted from being a complete outsider to becoming a partial insider. Additionally, the teachers asked me for advice about current trends on how to teach EFL to young pupils. I gave them practical ideas, teaching material, and I always took great care to not judge them or to regard theoretical insights as more valuable than their ideas or practical in‐ sights, even though this was sometimes challenging (Dreßler, 2017). My identification with school, university, teachers, and researchers placed me in a hybrid role. This was simultaneously an advantage and disadvantage. The hybridity permitted me to distance myself from the teachers and to avoid getting too drawn into the world of teaching. On the other hand, the hybridity kept me from fully understanding what was going on in each project school as I was not part of the teaching staff. It was often difficult to be professional as a researcher and yet true and authentic as a person towards the teachers. They frequently wanted to hear my opinion on classroom situations, but I was hesitant because I was more interested in their opinion about the particular situation. I talked to teachers and heard explanations of what they thought. I could then observe their practices with some understanding, seeing similarities and differ‐ ences, and thus was able to further investigate their classroom reality. Being able to relate to both - theory and practice - allowed me to embrace the emic and etic position required in ethnographical research (Boyle, 1994; 47 2.3 My involvement in the project 14 I use accounts in the way Emerson and colleagues (1995) used them, namely, as a final written product of revised fieldnotes systematically describing a situation or an experience. 15 To enhance the reading of my story, the general structure of the account unfolds mostly chronologically, beginning in the morning and ending in the evening of a project day. Since school usually starts around 8 a. m. in Germany and finishes, in early Grades, around 1 p. m. I usually visited project schools in the mornings and then e.g. went to the monthly teacher meetings taking place in the afternoons. As a further means of enhancing the readability, key terms relevant for later chapters are highlighted. 16 With the vignette I also draw on a further strand of qualitative research, namely autoeth‐ nography. For an explanation of the term see for example, Berger and Dreßler (2017); Choi (2017); C. Ellis, Adams, and Bochner (2011); Nunan and Choi (2010). Goulding, 2005; M. Harris, 1976). As Morse (1994, p. 158) stated, emic and etic do not merely refer to insider’s and outsider’s points of view, but also to the observable and experienced difference between what participants say and do. The teachers’ descriptions of their lessons were fairly true to what they really did in their lessons, and differences could mainly be attributed to a divergent understanding of teaching terms. However, the project practice of ‘finding words’ and investigating meanings helped to understand the others’ perspec‐ tives and definitions (see Section 2.2). To illustrate the complexity of the research process and the various roles I embody, I wrote a narrative account 14 “A day in my project setting” 15 following Wenger’s (1998) model. The vignette is a short narrative account of my project obligations, data gathering methods, and provides a characterisation of the gen‐ eral project setting and its work 16 . Accordingly, the events described in this vi‐ gnette did not exactly occur in one day, but happened over the course of the project. The experiences described in the vignette are nonetheless based on ac‐ tual incidents and are only changed to protect the project members’ privacy (e.g., Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). The account shows how I reflected on the project and interpreted the events as part of forming my identity (Bamberg, 2012; Bam‐ berg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Clandinin, 2007; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; C. Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011; Jones & Candlin, 2003) as a research assistant and PhD student. In producing the account the account becomes part of the situation it describes. I use it to attribute meaning and illustrate my understanding of the project situation (Garfinkel, 1967; Have, 2004; Heritage, 1984). The account can be used to make sense of the project. The project data presented later on can be applied to make sense of the account (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970). With the account a crucial part of my researcher’s perspective is illustrated (see Chapter 1). 48 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology Researcher’s Home: “Do I have all the bags? Where is the camera? Tick. Tripod and voice recorder? Tick. My tablet and my phone is …at the bottom of my handbag. Ok.” And off I go to the train station. As I am mentally ticking off the single lessons I will be observing today, the train finally arrives. It’s only a short ride to arrive at my first school a comfortable 25 minutes too early. On the train: This will give me plenty of time to set up the recording devices calmly. I sometimes get nervous, “What if there is something wrong with the SD card or the battery? I only have this chance.” As school reality often prevents me from data gathering due to e.g. field trips or sport matches that sometimes happen on days when English is taught. I am grateful for every single lesson my teachers allow me to video record; allow me to be present at all. While changing from the train to the subway, I ponder about my data gathering. Some of the teachers make me feel uncomfortable as they stress the fact that we are recording the lesson and that the pupils should behave. Others are relaxed about being filmed, and thus, I do not have to worry about each and every single recording session that much. I wonder whether I can use the recordings in which the teachers give special instructions to the pupils for my future analysis at all. I leave the subway and walk to the first school for today. Project school #1 for today: I walk up the staircases to the top floor to reach the desired classroom. The door is open, “Good.” That means that I can set up the camera. I arrange the recording equipment with great care, do a 360 degree turn to record the position of the camera and get a shot of the entire classroom. In-between I start wondering again whether the microphone will be able to portray the sounds appropriately. I sketch the classroom and mark the position of the camera - in the back left corner of the classroom - in my notebook and then I place the voice recorder on the teacher’s desk. This will allow me to film the entire classroom, almost all children, except those who do not want to be filmed; they are in the blind spot. The window front is to my left and so I can make sure that the film quality is good enough to clearly see faces later on. The voice recorder is on the opposite end of the camera and serves as a back up, seeing that I am only recording with one camera today. “Far from ideal that I cannot record the teachers and pupils’ behaviour simultaneously from two perspectives. Then the little light over the door blinks and I get interrupted worrying about my data as the first pupils arrive. I quickly clap into my hands once to mark the recording on both devices. Now I will be able to run the voice recorder and the video camera parallel during my analysis in identifying the clapping sound on both devices. “Where is the teacher? ” The pupils roam through the classroom noisily. I absorb the atmosphere, the pupils, the different smells and noises. I like the smell of this school. The school building is fairly Recording gadgets Data gathering Problems: data gathering Recording setup 49 2.3 My involvement in the project open, with many different staircases leading to the classrooms, and as a consequence, this school is lacking the often sweaty and foul odour that can be found in some other schools. I fill out my observation protocol: school name, teacher’s name, grade, number of boys and girls present today, time, unit topic. As I spoke to the teacher last week, I might get lucky and already know the lesson topic, provided she follows her plan. It is easier for me to concentrate on the situation if I do not have to also wonder what the topic is supposed to be. It might sound strange, but it is not always easy to guess right away. This is the third observation protocol template I am using as I keep constantly revising it. In the beginning, I had one that was divided into preparation, core activity and follow-up, following the task theory for young learners. Soon I discovered that this one did not work for all of my teachers. Some of my teachers have their own individual non-explicit theory of tasks, and thus, they do not follow the theoretical model. Therefore, I changed my observation template to a more open protocol style, in which I simply summarized in as much detail as possible what was going on during the lesson with the overall questions in mind: “What is happening here? Why is it happening? What kind of “task” is used? How is it used and how is it initiated? ” That also did not work for all of my teachers. I was dissatisfied again and so I came up with another one that comprises the previously mentioned categories and three columns, one in which I note down the overall lesson situation, who else is present except the teacher, the pupils and myself - as some classes have special needs teachers present during the English lesson or integration teaching assistants, in some there are also future teachers doing their required internship. In the second column I try to write down the actual lesson events as objectively as possible, and “Oh, boy, that is not easy at times! ” In the third column I comment on the lesson, I copy down blackboard notes and I also reserve it for little memos on what kind of task definition might be hidden behind - if I suddenly feel like I have an insight. Rare occasion, though… And while I fill in the first column, I get a little bit impatient. We are five minutes into the lesson and still no teacher in sight. “Where is Gaby? ” I hope it is not one of those days, when I have to jump in and cover for one of my teachers as they have to attend to organizational matters, such as calling absent children’s parents and inquiring after the child. Then the door opens and there she is hurrying in while rolling her eyes and smiling at me. Then she mouths, “My colleague was late again. I should really talk to him…” while manoeuvring her way around the pupils’ tables and backpacks to the teacher’s desk which stands in front of the blackboard on the left side close to the windows. Gaby has reached the desk and unloads her teaching materials and then she leaves her far too heavy and full bag on the floor next to the desk. She walks to the middle of the blackboard and turns to face the class and says, without waiting for the pupils to settle down, “Good morning, let’s start now.” While she is greeting them, I quickly secure my tablet with the protocol in one of my many bags - not before having pressed the ‘save’ button and then position myself behind the camera and start Protocol 50 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology following the teacher with the focus. I wish I could simultaneously write my protocol and handle the video camera. As always, I am torn apart between filming her in a close up which prevents me from clearly recording the pupils’ reactions and filming the lesson more as a whole. Hence, I keep switching in-between to get as much of the bigger picture as possible while not losing my central point of interest which is how the teacher uses ‘tasks’. Gaby does not have a set teaching routine on which she relies, on the contrary, she is very spontaneous and approaches each topic from a different angle. That makes it hard for me to follow with the camera. Time flies and suddenly the lesson is over and I am already exhausted. I pack up the equipment quickly and then exchange a few words with the teacher. She is very friendly, as always, and we chat a bit while walking out of the classroom. Then we part, she goes on to another lesson and I run back to the subway station to make it on time to my next meeting. It is almost nine and I am supposed to meet my colleague for our weekly working session at her place. I hate to carry around the millions of bags and I catch myself wishing again that my teachers did not all have their few precious English lessons at the same weekday and almost at the same time, so that I could leave the cameras at one school for a few days and film there instead of carrying them back and forth all the time or even split them up so that our student assistant Ramona can film with one while I can simultaneously videotape at a different school with the other. “But well, there is nothing I can do about that…” Walking down the stairs to the platform to record a short post-lesson note on the atmosphere, what puzzled me, what I need to check up on next lesson or what I have to further investigate in the literature in the future. Then the subway arrives and I board it and after a short ride, I get off to go to my colleague’s apartment. Anna’s place: I ring the bell and when she opens the door greeting me with a warm smile and opening her arms wide and says, “Constanze, come in! How are you? ” I just sigh and drop all of my bags at once next to the wardrobe and return the greeting. My colleague Anna walks into the kitchen saying, “Let’s have some coffee first.” I smile and we walk to her living room and sit down behind her huge wooden dining room table. We sip a bit of coffee and I tell her about the bits and pieces that I found interesting, thrilling, shocking or funny. We discuss them. As quite often we get a bit distracted from our first point of our ‘to-do-list’ and start wondering about the different classroom practices and what a “task” is. These little detours, however, have proven to be quite valuable. Often we come up with a new idea. Then she tells me what she has done so far this morning and reads a few emails to me from other project members and we discuss whether to respond or ask the senior researcher for advice. Then, we finally check our ‘to-do-list’: We must finish the new unit on the topic ‘seasons’. Filming Problems: filming Relationship with Anna 51 2.3 My involvement in the project During the first year, we developed task examples that we tried out in project classes and then discussed the task examples and materials in teacher meetings to see what the teachers thought about them. In general, the teachers expressed the need for some task examples and we wanted to offer them to them. However, we were careful to not simply provide them with ready-made materials, but wanted to get their ideas and opinions first. We used task examples from books, from previous research studies conducted by our professor, or examples that we had found during our “treasure hunts” in project classrooms. These “tasks” funnelled into two project curricula, one for Grade 2 and one for Grade 4 - after having them discussed with and adapted to our teachers’ ideas. We quickly realised that most of our teachers did not like to use the task materials. Thus, we changed our approach and offered to develop materials together with the teachers as they became more and more open to us visiting their classrooms on a higher frequency and also started to meet with us for preparation sessions during their free time. We also simply offered to teach a short task example. Nonetheless, this approach was also not favoured by too many teachers. Then a couple of weeks ago, we decided to showcase a teaching unit at one of the schools that is struggling with attracting its teachers to our project. It is technically not our job to motivate teachers to attend our meetings. This is clearly the job of the school’s headmasters and the school authorities, as we only function as the research team. However, we have come to learn that school reality is somewhat different. We have to foster a positive atmosphere within the group and have to provide teachers with guidance on how to create tasks. Additionally, we also have to motivate schools and teachers to be willing to embark on this journey together with us to learn more about how tasks could be defined, used, taught and evaluated in the primary English classroom. It took us quite some time to understand. In the beginning, we thought we would simply learn from each other and work closely together. Anna and I had both thought that the teachers participating in this project attended the meetings because they were interested in finding out more about teaching English in primary school. How wrong of us to assume this. We soon learned that some schools were asked to join the project against the teachers’ wishes, whereas other schools, e.g. Anna’s school, had begun teaching English in Grade 1 on its own many years ago and could now rely on a teaching body strongly supporting the early start. As a consequence, the schools that are strongly supporting the idea of an early start usually delegate a few teachers to the meetings and the schools that had to join the project could usually only send one. This individually motivated teacher then had to constantly justify to her respecting teaching staff why teaching English from Grade 1 onwards is beneficial to pupils. In order to support the teachers at the schools with a lacking motivation in the teaching staff, we decided to visit other teachers’ lessons at those schools to observe. We also offered them team-teaching units or let Anna take over the teaching in one class for a few weeks to lessen their high teaching load. Today, we want to visit a Grade 3 Tasks Engaging teachers in project work Motivating teachers 52 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology and Anna is going to teach a task on ‘seasons’. Due to Anna’s teaching obligations, we can only visit the school once a week and teach one of the two English lessons. The regular English teacher of this class, who always observes Anna’s lessons and usually gets all the materials we develop, teaches the other lesson. In this unit we want to present a basic task example to the teacher who is unfamiliar with the task approach. We also want to see what the pupils can do in Grade 3 at this school, and thus, created a target task in which pupils can find creative solutions according to their own interests and level of language skills. Additionally, we want to use certain teaching materials that we find beneficial as the school lacks appropriate materials, and yet, use as few additional materials as possible. During our initial observation in this class, we noted that the pupils seemed rather shy to speak even though they had had two years of English before. Based on our objectives, we want the children to use prior knowledge that they gained in the years before and deepen their understanding following the ‘spiral curriculum’ that builds on existing knowledge and expands it. We also want to encourage the pupils to become more self-confident in their speaking skills and show the teacher that it is already possible in primary school to conduct the entire lesson in English. We teach the topic ‘seasons’ following the teacher’s wishes. The pupils have to create a poster of their favourite season. Thus they use the language to express their own interests and are creative. Through the familiar topic and mostly familiar lexis they experience scaffolding and guidance. We started the unit two weeks ago with games and songs to refresh the pupils’ vocabulary memory and create a relaxed atmosphere so that we could then teach them some new useful phrases and chunks to adequately prepare them for the follow-up task, i.e. the presentation. Today, it is time for Anna to present her favourite season to the pupils to give them an example of a presentation. Our time is running out and we have not yet designed a poster. So we quickly cut out some pictures and glue them on a piece of cardboard. We re-visit our lesson outline that we developed the day before during an impromptu meeting, and talk everything through again. Then it is time to leave. We pack up and have to remember to also get the two big boxes of picture books we store at her place to bring with us to our monthly teachers meeting later this afternoon. And there will not be any time between the lessons at the next school, the pre-meeting with our professor and our research colleague and the actual teacher meeting to come back and pick them up later. Traffic is slow today, but we left well in time and so there is no need to panic. Project school # 2 for today: Finally, we arrive at the school, park the car, get my recording tools and then walk to the staff room. There, we wait for our project teacher to chat with her shortly and then find the teacher we will be working with today. We ask her how her week has been and exchange a few consolidating remarks about the stressful teaching reality and then enter the classroom a few minutes before the children Teaching aims Task example continued Project meetings 53 2.3 My involvement in the project to set up the camera and gather the materials. The bell rings and I get ready to record. Anna walks into the middle of the classroom and switches the CD player on and starts singing the song about the seasons. The pupils slowly join in; they are still a bit shy. The lesson takes its course and before long Anna gives her example of her favourite season. Then the pupils work individually or in pairs to create their posters about their own favourite season. They work enthusiastically and from time to time a few raise their hands to ask for a spelling of a word or a translation and Anna, the other teacher Ms Limetree, and I walk around helping the children. The camera is positioned right in front of one group table to record the actions of the pupils. Then it is time to clean up and for the goodbye song, as the lesson is almost over. Afterwards we exchange a few words with Ms Limetree who is happy that we present her with a few materials and further teaching ideas. Yet, it is also obvious that she is not too keen on getting actively involved in our project - Anna and I exchange glances and just smile sympathetically at Ms Limetree. Then we tell her what to do in the next lesson, the pupils are asked to finish their posters, before we hurry to the next classroom to observe one of our project teachers, Teacher A, while she is teaching a task on the topic ‘family’ in a younger Grade. She does not like to be filmed and so I simply take out my tablet and fill out my observation protocol. The pupils sit in a circle in the back of the classroom and play games learning phrases to be able to perform a class survey about their families later on as a target task. Time passes by quickly and soon the lesson is over and I feel as if I have not been able to write fast enough to secure everything. But there is no time to revise the protocol immediately and I have to postpone this for later tonight. Now, there is the big lunch break and after that I will be interviewing the teacher and Anna will cover the lesson for her. The three of us walk out of the classroom and Teacher A informs us about her teaching goals for the next lesson and gives us her opinion on her pupils’ success. We reach the staff room and Teacher A brings us some coffee. We sit down and try to do some small talk with the other teachers to get them interested in our project, but we are not successful. As always we receive blank faces or polite remarks at best. I feel a bit frustrated and even though we cannot talk about it, it seems as though Anna shares this feeling. After lunch, Teacher A shortly instructs the pupils and Anna. Then Teacher A and I leave and head to the little “group work” room, but we have no luck. Teacher A’s colleague forgot that we wanted to use the room and there are already a few pupils working on some exercise. “Let’s go to the staff room instead,” Teacher A suggests. When we open the staff room’s door, we find a group of six children working together with the special needs teacher. Teacher A is puzzled asks her colleague why she is not using the special needs room. She is informed that the school photographer is using this one to take pictures of all Grade 4 children individually today and so we are left without a room. I catch myself rolling my eyes in disbelief and annoyance at the chaotic school reality that has yet again ruined my perfect data collection plans. I have to fight Motivating teachers Problems: data gathering Task example continued 54 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology against an upcoming feeling of helplessness. Teacher A proposes to stay in the staff room and sit on the far end of the big group table to get a little bit of privacy. I think, “Oh God, no, that is far from ideal! But what can be done? All rooms are occupied…” and so I agree. Although this prevents me from recording the interview and I have to improvise and take intensive notes instead. I start the interview, and suddenly, I feel extremely nervous, as the situation is not according to what I had planned and I have to work on keeping my emotions in control, so that my teacher does not feel nervous either. But Teacher A is nice and makes it easy for me; she seems to understand my questions and replies willingly. Although, it is apparent that she has not yet made up her mind about what a task is and also does not seem to find it relevant for her teaching to do so in the near future. It is yet evident that my teachers’ daily chores take up all their time and that they seem unable to find any time to thoroughly study the task concept as such. Then finally, the special needs teacher leaves the staff room with her pupils and I can switch on the voice recorder. After about 25 minutes altogether the interview is over and we proceed talking about a teaching unit Teacher A wants to test in the future and she asks for my ideas on how to use the written form appropriately in early Grades as she is not familiar with it, but wants to experiment with it. I think, “Yeah, she wants to try out something new. How thrilling! ” And I start mentally clapping my hands in excitement and try very hard to prevent myself from showing me emotions. I promise her to search for a few practical articles in teaching magazines and send them to her. We then discuss possible lesson structures and sketch an overall unit plan. I have to be careful not to influence her too much, as I am interested in what she thinks is possible and as I do not wish to lecture her, besides this field of research has only recently come into focus; and yet, I have to make sure to take her concerns seriously and answer her questions to remain authentic. Then the bell rings again and I thank Teacher A for her time and her help and tell her, “That was awfully nice of you. I learnt a lot today. Thank you. See you later this afternoon.” I always make a point of thanking the teachers appropriately. I know that in the beginning, many of them were worried about being criticised and anxious about being demeaned by the research team, judging them against higher standards as set by some books and university discourse. Some teachers told me that they had had horrible experiences during their trainee teacher time and were harshly and - as they felt - unfairly treated. Hence, I do my best to not comment in any other way than positive on their lessons in order to maintain a positive working atmosphere - “and anyway, who am I to judge? ” I meet with Anna outside. She smiles at me and I vent about the less than ideal interview situation, while walking to her car to go for a quick lunch. Restaurant: By the time we arrive at the restaurant, we are starving. While discussing the last two lessons and what we have to prepare for the next lesson on ‘seasons’, we Problems: data gathering Researchers and teachers Problems: conflicting roles 55 2.3 My involvement in the project eat. Anna, as assumed correctly, is also a bit down because of the other teachers’ lacking interest in our project. “Sometimes, I feel so annoyed being in this position of a supplicant”, she says. I sigh and nod and offer consolidation. Feeling a bit rested and more energetic again, we drive to the next school. Project School #3 for today: Our boss meets us waving and smiling at us, as usual with the words, “Good day, ladies. How are we doing? How has your day been so far? ” We exchange the greeting and laugh and tell him about our day. Then, we walk to the staff room at this project school. There we ask for our project teacher Nita. A few minutes later the door opens again and Nita comes out with our research colleague. Nita shows us the way to a meeting room and presses a big can of freshly brewed coffee, some mugs and a plate with cookies in our hands. We smile and thank her. While we sit down to quickly recapitulate today’s goals of the teacher meeting and take a quick look at the slide show we prepared the other day, Nita walks around getting the room ready for the other teachers. The meeting will start in an hour. She arranges the tables in a horseshoe and brings more beverages and sweets. As usual, Anna and I will be conducting the primary school teachers’ group work session, whereas our boss and our research colleague will be working with the secondary school teachers. The beginning and end of the meeting, we will hold together with the entire group of project members. Our boss instructs Anna how to open the meeting and I set up the projector and laptop in the mean time. Then the first teachers arrive and we greet them and talk with them, listening to their success stories and complaints about the daily teaching grind and confirm further filming, interviewing or observation sessions. And suddenly, it is time to start the meeting. Two representatives of the CSB have arrived and they open the meeting, before a representative of the MoE follows. Then Anna starts with her introduction. My boss gives a short talk about how to plan tasks focussing on the ‘backward planning’ and then we split the groups. Anna and I stay in the room with the primary school teachers, a member of the city school board, and the member of the Ministry of Education. The secondary school teachers, the rest of the research team, and one of member of the city school board follow Nita to a different room, carrying a few plates of cookies together with cups full of steaming coffee. During this time, Anna and I hastily form a group table and then I welcome my primary school teachers and give them an outline of today’s session. I place the voice recorder in the middle of the table and ask them, as usual, for their permission. They smile and a few laugh and wink at me, by now they are so used to me constantly walking around with recording equipment and do not mind me recording the session. I take out few sheets of paper and I ask them to reflect about the last weeks and on what they want to focus during the upcoming school weeks. After they have written something down, we go round and everyone gets their time to share their feelings and ideas with the group. It is a rather relaxed atmosphere, many smile and recall success stories about how their Problems: conflicting roles Anna’s problem: conflicting roles Data gathering 56 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology approach towards teaching has changed, others share feelings of uncertainty or anger about the teaching load. It has taken more than a year to create such a relaxed atmosphere in which my teachers feel welcome, valued and taken seriously and most of all not judged. Now, all of them are slowly, opening up and share their thoughts with us. I smile and am happy that we have been able to establish such a good working atmosphere, but I can well remember how much energy it has taken the research team to build up trust and how many creative ways Anna and I had to explore, from muffins to cookies and back to fortune cookies baking, all simply to show our teachers that we care about them. We continue the meeting with a few reflections about how to teach English in primary school. I show them a slide show that Anna and I prepared last week on basic objectives for a workshop that we are about to give next week. While creating it we thought, it might also be valuable to our teachers, it might brush up their theoretical knowledge about teaching English to young learners and it might also enable them to adequately talk about their ideas and opinions when they (re-)familiarise themselves with common terms and also get some feedback from them. We start by asking them to name according to their opinion and experience the most important teaching principles. The teachers nod and a few feel immediately obliged to open the discussion others seem to drift off and I think, “Oh no, they are bored. But if they already know it, then why don’t they make use of them in their lessons? ” Then one teacher raises her hand and relates to the task principle and takes out a folder and passes around a task she had apparently done with her class the other week and asks for clarification on whether we would also call her example a task. And suddenly, a warm feeling of relief rushes through me and I think, “Yeah, finally. Finally, they trust us and are willing to thoroughly examine their own teaching styles.” I however refrain from portraying my happiness about her remark and pass the question on to the others, as I do not want to interfere too much with their ideas as I am interested in their opinions and what they find important in coming to a definition of what a task entails. All too soon, the time is up and the secondary school teachers re-enter the room for our last 15 minutes of wrap-up. Our boss closes the session and wishes all of us a good day. Then the teachers are gone and we help Nita clean up before the research team sits down for a few more minutes to summarise and evaluate the meeting. Then we part to head home. It is already late and I feel as if I have run a marathon today. But the day is not over yet, I still have to record a few notes to my phone to make sure not to let them slip away unrecorded. I decide to do this while I am walking to the nearest tram station to go home. Teachers and researchers Teachers and researchers Data gathering 57 2.3 My involvement in the project 17 Creswell (2013) addressed methodological issues, ontological, epistemological, and ax‐ iological. I refrain from also discussing these aspects further due to pragmatic reasons and obvious connections to the paradigmatic level that is further outlined above. How‐ ever, I briefly name my position concerning Creswell’s (2013) three levels. On the on‐ tological level, different perspectives and views are accepted in qualitative research, and accounted for through ‘voice’ in this study. On the second level, evidence is based on a critical examination of the relationship between the project members and myself and the members’ concepts are taken as evidence to be interpreted by myself. On the axiological level, different interpretations are presented throughout this book and per‐ sonal values and beliefs are discussed. They are then reflected upon in the chapters on task-in-reflection. 18 Different definitions of methodology and methods can be found. I will refrain from further discussions of the terms, but for further details see Brewer (2000), Creswell (2013), Denzin and Lincoln (2008), Heigham and Croker (2009). I use methodology and approach interchangeably, not only in connection to the research, but also when it comes to teaching methodology. For a further discussion and detailed analysis of the differences between teaching method and approach see J. C. Richards and Rodgers (2001). 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study In this section, the focus shifts from the description of the project context to the way the project context motivated and guided the methodological investigation and the actual research questions. I explain why aspects of both ethnographic and case study research designs were used within the research framework. As Duranti and Goodwin (1992) illustrated, transparency in research decisions is crucial as various research methodologies exist. As such, the paradigmatic, methodological, and methodical approaches of this study are briefly outlined in order to describe the overall design of the study. The section starts with a brief overview of the methodological and methodical decisions in this study related to the collaborative research endeavour. General aspects of quality are then ad‐ dressed before the research questions and the overall research cycle (Freeman, 2009) are presented. 2.4.1 Paradigm, methodology and method In this research study, paradigm, methodology, and method 17 are defined fol‐ lowing Riazi and Candlin (2014) 18 as they defined the terms clearly: Conceptualising the object of a study and what can be known about it is thus a world‐ view issue (…) Methodology is the conceptual framework that helps researchers to design their study (…) ‘methods’ refers to the use of specific techniques and tools and / or particular procedures in undertaking the research study in question (p. 136). 58 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 19 As with all terms, paradigms are described differently according to the scholar’s main focus. An overview of different paradigms can be found in Cohen, Manion, and Mor‐ rison (2000) Crotty, (1998), Schwandt (2007b). Scholars define constructivism and con‐ structionism differently. For further discussion of the term see Cobern (1993), Guba and Lincoln (1991), Schwandt (2007a). 20 Qualitative research is widely accepted in Applied Linguistics research and within the German didactics research and thus will not be discussed. For further information see Benson, Chik, Gao, Huang, and Wang (2009), Berg (2004), Boyle (1994), Creswell (2013), Evers and Van Staa (2010), Flick, von Kardorff, and Steinke (2004), Glaser and Strauss (1967), Have (2004), Morse (1994). The underlying worldview for this study is that of constructivism / construc‐ tionism (Crotty, 1998), as well as an interpretivist approach (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The main area of interest lies in the teachers’ understandings and enactment of tasks, and in a comparison of the literature and the educators’ understandings as constructed and interpreted by me. Thus, the contextual fea‐ tures need to be explained and outlined in order to understand the approach and results accordingly. The following view of social constructionism from Tusting and Maybin (2007) is employed in this study: Human reality is reproduced and created in the socially and historically specific ac‐ tivities of everyday life, and that broader social structures are constructed in mo‐ ment-to-moment interaction (…) (p. 581). Both constructivism / constructionism views are held in this research as the practitioners’ views are respected and included in the final definition of tasks, and also questioned and considered against findings in the literature repre‐ senting cultural and social understandings of teaching 19 . In addition, the TBLT method itself may be related to a constructivist understanding of learning (Co‐ bern, 1993) as the focus lies on meaningful communication that involves the students actively in applying English. The methodological framework draws on basic qualitative approaches 20 such as ethnographic (see Section 2.4.3), case study (see Section 2.4.4) research and follows the overall strategy of researching with teachers as equal partners. My research study makes use of ethnographic tools such as field observation with observation protocols and extensive fieldnotes. All tools and procedures are common to ethnographic research, regardless of its specific definition (Boyle, 1994; Fetterman, 2010; Hammersley, 2006; van Lier, 1988). In addition, the notes also provide detailed information on language in context to better understand social action (Hymes, 1996; R. Scollon & Scollon, 2007; Tusting & Maybin, 2007). In this attempt, a connection to Malinowski’s (1923, 1935) understanding of ho‐ listic cultural experiences, living among the participants, and providing lan‐ 59 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 21 For a further detailed analysis of the co-construction of the data and an application of concepts such as ‘footing’, ‘positioning’ and ‘voice’ (Ribeiro, 2006), and by re-examining questions of quality (Steinke, 2004) see Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming). guage within context to help understand its relevance to social action can be drawn (Gellner, 1998). Case study research and ethnographic research show similarities in the way research is conducted and in the data gathering methods and can thus be easily combined (Kitchenham, 2010). Several methods were used in the process of data analysis. Some were adapted to fit to the project context, but their adaptation was nonetheless then system‐ atically implemented. The use of the different methods was possible as the para‐ digmatic level of them is comparable. As the methods can only be judged in comparison to the data samples, they will be further explained and discussed in the chapters in which the data analysis and results are outlined. • Chapter 4 focuses on the nature of tasks and illustrates the project teach‐ ers’ concepts through an analysis of their interview responses, informal talks, and researcher notes. The analysis follows an adaptation of Pav‐ lenko’s (2007) five-step-analysis model. • Chapter 6 focuses on the enactment of tasks and illustrates the project teachers’ teaching practices based on analysis of video documents, inter‐ view responses, and comments made by project teachers while watching the videos. The analysis applies mediated discourse analysis (R. Scollon, 2001) and multimodal analysis (Norris, 2004) approaches. • Chapter 8 focuses on task-in-reflection and thus critically examines the research study design, my behaviour and assumptions 21 . 2.4.2 Quality In qualitative research there are a number of aspects that need to be considered to ensure that a study is credible and valid. How these two criteria are achieved in qualitative research depends on the research tradition (Patton, 2002). I decided to follow (Fetterman, 2010). He offered an example in the field of ethnography; it also illustrates the problems of determining sufficient quality criteria which was a struggle in the collaborative setting: [n]o one can be completely sure about the validity of research conclusions, but the ethnographer needs to gather sufficient and sufficiently accurate data to feel con‐ fident about the research findings and to convince others of their accuracy (Fet‐ terman, 2010, p. 9). 60 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 22 This proved a challenge as the study was part of a binationale PhD agreement and the different scientific discourse traditions as well as the different writing traditions only partly overlap. Fetterman’s statement illustrates the idea that in ethnography, what the re‐ searcher observes and reports is deemed valuable, together with experiences the ethnographer gains in participating in situations (Altheide & Johnson, 1994). How to present the observations and events is critical. Some authors state that objective representations and transparency concerning the research decisions are vital, and offer various ways to achieve this outcome (Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Leininger, 1994; Maxwell, 1992; Patton, 2002; Seale, 2003; Silverman & Marvasti, 2008; Steinke, 2004). Also useful to consider is Hammersley’s (1992) position. He narrowed down the quality criteria by questioning the possibility of providing transparency and by reminding us that the level of explanation by the researcher and the reasons she gives for her actions will depend on the reader and must necessarily vary considerably 22 . Regardless, two criteria are important: validity, referring to truthfulness of claims and relevance, referring to the results of a study. Tracing the positions of other well-known authors shows that some favoured quantitative aspects, such as Lincoln and Guba (1985), Mackey and Gass (2005), Wellenreuther (2000). Others, such as Patton (2002) or Leininger (1994), pro‐ posed to find ways unique to qualitative research. Altheide and Johnson (1994), for example, proposed reflexivity. Maxwell (1992) offered yet another idea in drawing on quantitative and qualitative research aspects and proposing validity as the main quality criterion. Seale (2003) stated that discussions about meth‐ odological awareness are the key to finding a solution and moving forward with “(…) intelligence and knowledge of the particular research context, may assist us in moving toward good quality work” (p. 176). I decided to follow Steinke’s (2004) propositions. Bearing in mind the speci‐ fications of this particular case study, it seemed wise to apply criteria that make use of the strengths of qualitative research designs, namely the context-richness. Steinke stated “[a] conclusive discussion of criteria can only be conducted with reference to the respective research questions, method, specific features of the research field and the object of the investigation” (Steinke, 2004, p. 186). She referred to the unique situation of many qualitative studies. Consequently, it makes sense to develop quality criteria that take the specific research situation into account. First, Steinke’s suggestions are outlined, before a discussion of their relevance to my research study is provided. Steinke (2004, pp. 186-190) described the following criteria (list not in the original): 61 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 23 For an illustration of the research ethics see Chapter 8, for example. Hammersley and Traianou’s (2012) position was critically examined. They stated that qualitative research is not only about giving ‘voice’ to teachers, but also interpreting the findings. As such, first and foremost the researcher needs to generate answers and in the second place to see how far participants’ lives are affected by the research. • intersubjective comprehensibility which refers to the documentation of the research process • indication of the research process which refers to the procedure, choice of methodology and methods, transcription guidelines, sampling strategy, and evaluation criteria • empirical foundation which refers to whether codified methods were used, whether the generated theory is data-based, whether communica‐ tive validation was undertaken • limitation which refers to the question of application of the findings • coherence which refers to whether there were any internal contradictions investigated • relevance which refers to whether the study was relevant, made a con‐ tributions or whether the findings are presented in a comprehensible way • reflected subjectivity refers to the researcher’s subjectivity, the relation‐ ship with the research partners or whether the researcher reflected on her behaviour All of the mentioned criteria could not be taken into account in this study, as it was paramount to follow ethical considerations (Rallis & Rossman, 2009). The research participants were promised that the presentation of all data would support anonymity. Thus, including full details from all interviews, lesson pro‐ tocols or videos would counteract the promise of anonymity to project members and allow outsiders familiar with the project setting to identify the project members 23 . As a consequence, not all data collected over the several years is included in the appendix, but examples of different data generated over the years are attached or can be found in the respective chapter. This allows for trans‐ parency, yet not for full inter-subjective comprehensibility. As an alternative solution to this quality criterion, I discussed data samples with several research colleagues to account for inter-subjective comprehensibility on a general level. As becomes obvious in the section on “Case study research”, it is important to account for in-case evidence. This can be achieved with the creation of “(…) narrative accounts [that are] organized around the substantive topics of the case study. Each narrative portion should integrate evidence from different data el‐ ements, which therefore still need to be recorded precisely (…)” (Yin, 1981, p. 62 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 24 The term ethnography is also complex and difficult to define; for further discussion see Boyle (1994), Brewer (2000), Fetterman (2010), Hammersley (1992, 2006). 60). Following the previously developed quality criteria, this section outlines the case study research and sampling strategies, forms of data, and the processes for data gathering. In all three steps, the problems that emerged during the research process concerning the teachers’ task concepts are addressed. Rather than glossing over the difficulties, it is a criterion for quality to present problems and their solutions (Caspari, 2003). 2.4.3 Ethnographic research Ethnography is a wide field with a long tradition in anthropology and various possible definitions coexist (Hymes, 1996). Its most influential aspects include providing an insider’s account and detailed information about a phenomenon in context (Brewer, 2000). Ethnography 24 can broadly be categorised as ‘big’ and ‘little’: the first refers to an all-encompassing view as a basic qualitative ap‐ proach; and the latter to conducting research in the field (Brewer, 2000). Eth‐ nography is now used in several research fields compared to its origins when the ethnographer travelled to foreign countries to investigate unknown tribes to learn more about them (e.g., Malinowski, 1935). Today ethnography is also used for research in the fields of education and sociology to investigate aspects of everyday life within the researcher’s culture (Friebertshäuser et al., 2012). The following definition by Watson-Gegeo (1988) appears to be commonly accepted, even though it is somewhat dated: (…) ethnography is the study of people’s behaviour in naturally occurring, ongoing settings, with a focus on the cultural interpretation of behaviour (…) to provide a description and an interpretive-explanatory account of what people do in a setting (such as a classroom, neighbourhood, or community), the outcome of their interac‐ tions, and the way they understand what they are doing (the meaning interactions have for them) (p. 576). Another aspect that needs to be clarified is the type of ethnographic research used in this study. To investigate the project teachers’ English lessons, I em‐ ployed what is sometimes termed a micro-ethnographic approach (Hammersley, 2006). This approach focuses on the immediate, local context - what Layder (1993) termed “setting”. It also disregards the investigation of the wider societal contexts (e.g., the political and economic influences), what Layder (1993) termed “context”. In addition, it does not consider the teachers’ outside-of-school-lives. 63 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 25 The students are supposed to have two English lessons a week. But as the observations showed, often lessons were cancelled due to other school activities such as field trips, music or theatre events, official school holidays, or due to having time off from school on ac‐ count of excessively hot weather. Thus the overall number of English lessons is by far smaller than one could imagine. The project teachers refer to this as, in Anna’s words, “that’s school reality - it has little to do with what politicians or researchers have in mind“. The main methods I used to collect data to interpret and describe peoples’ be‐ haviours were systematic participation and observation (Brewer, 2000; Fetterman, 2010; Hymes, 1996; Lüders, 2004; Werner & Schoepfle, 1987). In order to systemat‐ ically participate and observe, the ethnographer typically spends an extended amount of time within the ‘culture’ to gain inside experience. In a further step, she also needs to distance herself from the culture and people in order to analyse the research data from an outsider’s perspective. This refers to changes between emic and etic perspectives (Boyle, 1994; M. Harris, 1976). Data are collected over long periods and the fieldnotes, reflections, and re-calls of data are then used to produce longer accounts and descriptions for analysis (Brewer, 2000; Emerson, Fetz, & Shaw, 1995; Fetterman, 2010). The focus lies on the participants’ perspectives (Mackey & Gass, 2005) and the thick description of the culture (Geertz, 1983) involving a de‐ scriptive analysis of an aspect investigating an entire set of features of concern (Mackey & Gass, 2005). Below, I briefly outline key details of the data. Time: I observed the teachers regularly over a period of five years from November 2010 until August 2015 with the exception of my time abroad in 2014. Some teachers invited me to observe every English lesson of them in a year group for a number of weeks or even four months 25 . Others invited me to observe their lessons from time to time throughout the years. Grades: I observed eEFLT in the project schools in Grades 1 through 4 with the majority of the observations in Grade 4 classes. I observed several teachers who taught English to different grade levels, and other teachers who only taught specific year groups, depending on the grade level the school assigned to the respective teacher. Lessons: I observed over 250 lessons by more than 20 teachers. Some teachers did not take actively part in the project, but nonetheless allowed me to ob‐ serve them once or on a few occasions. Observation protocols: I produced over 120 observation protocols and fieldnotes systematically. Not all teachers were comfortable with me taking notes during their lessons and as a result I could not collect systematic ob‐ servation protocols during each observation. 64 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 26 Throughout this book, I draw on these data sets. In different chapters, other data sets form the main part of the analysis; for example, Chapter 4 mainly draws on the inter‐ views, Chapter 6 mainly on the videos. 27 For an in-depth discussion as to whether case studies are mainly in the qualitative paradigm or quantitative paradigm see Hammersley (1992) where he compared case studies to surveys and experiments to define the term in more detail. Task sequences: I filmed over 20 different task sequences implemented by seven teachers. Some of the task sequences are not complete, i.e. due to les‐ sons in different schools at the same time, I could not record the entire task sequence; however, 18 complete task sequences have been recorded. Video and audio recordings: I recorded more than 40 videos of lessons. I also audio-recorded an interview with each of the seven teachers (see Section 2.1.1) and several short informal interviews or conversations. Furthermore, I recorded several project meetings and two discussions 26 . Another aspect of ethnographic research is that it describes rather than initiates change. This is a problematic aspect as participatory forms of research as well as MDA inevitably entail change. Hence, it may appear contradictory to conduct ethnographic research with teachers. However, as other researchers have al‐ ready stated (Cukor-Avila, 2000; Labov, 1994; Layder, 2006), researchers inevi‐ tably influence the situation they research: The aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain these data by systematic observation (Labov, 1972, p. 209). In addition, the researcher’s gender, age, race, and other demographic aspects influence the interview situations and thus the data produced (Cukor-Avila, 2000). Reflections on my influences are shown in Chapter 8. As stated above, the study makes use of ethnographic techniques and focuses on teachers’ con‐ cepts of tasks, but still lays no claim to being called ethnography. Ethnographic research is often combined with case study research (Hammersley, 1992) and this is also the case in my study. 2.4.4 Case study research 27 Case study research is an empirical multi-perspectived investigation of a con‐ temporary phenomenon within its context. Duff (2008) presented a summary of case study research, suggesting “the key recurring principles are: boundedness or singularity, in-depth study, multiple perspectives or triangulation, particu‐ 65 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 28 For an in-depth discussion of mixed-methods research and triangulation in the field of Applied Linguistics see Riazi and Candlin (2014). larity, contextualization, and interpretation“ (p. 23). All of these aspects can be found in this research endeavour. The teachers’ task definitions and enactments were studied in depths from various perspectives. Several data sets were gath‐ ered and were combined and compared to each other to interpret the data. Most of Duff ’s terms can be clearly defined with the exception of the term triangulation ( Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). Hence, I drew on other researchers. In its simplest form, triangulation is defined as “the observation of the research issue from (at least) two different points” (Flick, 2004, p. 178). How these two different perspectives are achieved depends on the research tradition. The American and German research contexts appear to disagree. One focuses on triangulation as a source of validation, the other poses it as a source of com‐ plementary insight (Brake, 2012; Ecarius & Miethe, 2010; Flick, von Kardorff, & Steinke, 2004). In this study, methodological and data type triangulation (Evers & Van Staa, 2010) were used. In particular, Chapter 7 summarises how I com‐ bined and contrasted the different data sets. Moreover, as this research study was designed as multi-layered and multi-dimensional, it is possible to claim it offers “a better and fuller understanding of an issue” (Riazi & Candlin, 2014, p. 160), which is the core criterion for triangulation 28 . In terms of how a ‘case’ is defined, it can be one person, a group of people, or even an institution (Gillham, 2000). Hence, in this research study the entire re‐ search project can be considered as the ‘case’. The case can then be divided into two ‘case studies’; namely the secondary schools group and the PS group. The goal of a case study is to thoroughly investigate a single case - here, in particular, the five PS - to gather information and gain insights that may be generalized to other situations. This aim is often difficult to achieve, as a single case may be too specific for extrapolation (Gerring, 2007). The case study in this research investigation was selected to shed light on the ‘typical’ teaching situation in eEFL classrooms in Germany (Merkens, 2004). It may be argued that being a member of the research project made the schools atypical. However, as the research team agreed with the teachers to investigate the daily teaching routines, it may also be argued that the lessons are represen‐ tative of general eEFL practices in at least the BL in which the research study was set, if not for Germany more broadly. Moreover, the project PS teachers studied at various universities and obtained their teacher qualifications from teacher trainee colleges across Germany. In addition, in some federal states teaching English commences in Grade 1 (MSWNRW, 2008), and in others it 66 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology commences in Grade 3 (HKM, 2010). As a consequence, the claim that the schools represent typical cases appears to be valid, as four of the PS commenced teaching English in Grade 1 and one school commenced instruction in Grade 3 (this school started teaching English in Grade 1 after two years of project participation). 2.4.5 My original sampling strategies Usually, theoretical sampling is applied in qualitative research (Patton, 2002). Sampling strategies help to evaluate the results of a research (Merkens, 2004). In my research study, the decision of who to work with as a research partner was partially pre-determined by the specific contextual features (see Section 2.1). The sampling strategies employed ensure the data gathered represent a variety of factors. Given the nature of the research study influenced the selection of possible research partners, and because I had decided to adhere to ethical considerations to ensure the teachers felt welcomed and respected (see Section 2.3), approaches that looked for ‘best practice’ examples could not be utilised (see e.g., Wohlwend [2011]). Nonetheless, to ensure quality in the selection and collection of data, a different approach was employed: It is through selected sections and segments that we can construct what is typical in a particular case. In this way it becomes apparent that there must be some basic under‐ standing of the case before the events are selected. Here a kind of circle becomes clear that is typical of this sort of sampling. The selection of events for description takes place on the basis of prior knowledge. Then the case is reconstructed (Merkens, 2004, p. 169). From time to time, teachers who did not actively participate in the project allowed me to observe their teaching practices. As a result, I could compare and contrast these observations with the observations of the active project teachers. In addition, because I followed the teachers over many years, the data examples selected for micro-analysis (see Chapters 5 & 6) may also be regarded as constitutive and rep‐ resentative examples of eEFLT teaching practices within the project classes. The focus of my research study was mainly on Grade 4 classes to ensure com‐ parability to the second case study in the project context that focused on teaching EFL in Grade 5 and was undertaken by a researcher who joined the project in 2011. In one of my research study’s PS, however, the assigned teacher was teaching Grades 1/ 2 only. The research team tried but failed to convince other teachers at the school to gain access to Grade 4 lessons. Moreover, the decision was made to not push too hard for data from Grade 4 classes at this school in order to sustain a good and positive working relationship among all project mem‐ bers. In addition, in other schools in which the project teachers also taught 67 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 29 As the analyses in Chapters 5 and 6 shows, this assumption was wrong. The teachers that were teaching in Grades 1/ 2 and 3/ 4 for a longer time use d similar tasks in all Grades. Only the level of complexity, i.e., longer task sequences and naturally more demanding language goals were used in Grades 3/ 4. younger classes, further data were collected for comparison with the Grade1/ 2 example. As the analyses in Chapters 5 and 6 show, the grade level proved irrel‐ evant for the overall enactment of tasks. If at all, the task format used in Grades 1 and 2 compared to Grades 3 and 4 was different (see Chapter 5). Applying Merkens’ (2004) criteria for selecting typical events, the Grade 4 teaching situations were selected according to: • A focus on everyday practice: Teachers were not asked to present specific teaching topics and showcases, as is often the case during the teacher trainee period. • An acceptance of teachers’ time constrains: Researchers followed the teachers’ choices regarding the topic and task format, and the skills they wanted to focus on. When the teachers did not have the time, data col‐ lection had to stop. The decision to focus on Grade 4 in particular was also based on the relative comparability of the task approaches for secondary school learners (Müller-Hart‐ mann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). Questions were addressed such as: • What are the differences between secondary school task concepts and PS task concepts? • What is the overall possible task complexity after four years of teaching and, more precisely, what task complexity is maximally possible? • What are the teachers’ main competencies and how can they be used? This aspect refers to teachers’ familiarity with teaching English in specific Grades. Some teachers were used to teaching English to Grades 1 to 4, whereas other were used to teaching Grades 3 and 4 only and were unsure of how to teach English in Grades 1 and 2. • What are possible connections to research? Some task examples for Grade 4 were already available (Diehr & Frisch, 2008). • What is the project’s internal line of action (The overall project curric‐ ulum development started with Grade 4)? • Is there a difference between teaching eEFLT in Grades 1/ 2 and Grades 3/ 4? The general opinion of the project members was that teaching in Grades 1 and 2 required different tasks than those used in Grades 3 and 4 29 . 68 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology These criteria were applied throughout the entire data-gathering phase. When‐ ever a teacher offered to implement a task in a different Grade, however, the researchers also collected the data. This was done to use the data as a possible contrasting example and because it was part of my role as a research assistant to collect examples from different Grade levels. As the data analysis progressed, it became obvious that a central factor in the enactment of tasks was the way vocabulary was taught and what kind of vocabu‐ lary was taught. This aspect was equally relevant in all Grades and gained im‐ portance in the analysis of one teacher’s lessons in Grade 1/ 2. As a consequence, further data that did not follow the original sampling strategy were collected and examples of teaching practices already filmed for the overall project data were included in my research study. Additional data were collected because I had de‐ cided to follow the concepts I found in the data provided by the teachers. The inductively-gained insights honoured the overall research style to value each other’s perspectives and ideas, and to adhere to general qualitative research para‐ digms that place particular focus on gaining inductive insights based on data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). 2.4.6 From research inquiry to research questions In qualitative research, the formulation of research questions is highly influ‐ enced by the research context and fieldwork. It is generally acknowledged that research questions are constantly re-defined throughout the research process (Freeman, 2009) and this was the case in my empirical study. Authors such as Clarke (1994) or Schön (1987) already argued decades ago that teachers’ practical perspectives are often undervalued and that a combination of two different forms of knowledge (i.e., theoretical and practical) can more accurately lead to solutions to teaching problems. Hence, in this study I wanted to combine and contrast essential theoretical publications on task concepts, general educational theories, approaches to eEFLT, and the overall teaching approaches in the PS with the project teachers’ understandings of tasks. Only when the practitioners’ constructs and the theoretical task definitions are both taken into consideration while identifying key features for eEFL tasks can the results be relevant for both parties (Appel, 2000; Burns, 2010; Sarangi & Candlin, 2003; Schön, 1987). This conceptualisation led to two sets of questions that combine the two per‐ spectives. The first set of research questions focused on the nature of the task (i.e., the theoretical perspective on task-as-workplan). I investigated this by taking two perspectives into consideration, namely academic research and teachers’ experiences. The second set of research questions focused on the prac‐ 69 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 30 Data were analysed circularly. When I joined the research group, I started writing field‐ notes, diaries, and memos whenever something ‘puzzling’ occurred. Puzzling refers here to aspects in which students, typically an entire group of learners, had trouble using English successfully. Usually a number of factors came together: First, this could refer to a specific skill level (e.g., the memorisation of words or dialogue extracts), even though the overall amount was small. Second, other learner groups or classes at other schools showed different behaviours (e.g., learnt and applied double the amount of the former group). Third, even the teacher voiced her concern about student levels (see Section 6.1). tical perspective on task-inaction. I investigated this perspective also from two angles: first I classified the task formats taught by the project teachers, and second, I focused on language in action which involved the separation of dif‐ ferent modes before they were again combined and related to each other. As a consequence, the first set of research questions consisted of two equally important perspectives, namely the theoretical and the practical, and therefore included the localised context (see Chapter 1). They are examined in their own right before the results are related to each other: Research questions set 1: Focus on task-as-workplan The relevant sub-questions are: What concepts relevant to eEFL tasks can be found in the research lit‐ erature (see Chapter 3)? What concepts relevant to eEFL tasks do the project teachers have (see Chapter 4)? These two question lead to the main question: What is the nature of eEFL tasks? / What features do eEFL tasks have (see Chapter 7)? The perspective above only sheds light on the task concept. As previous research shows, however, a task-as-workplan is seldom the same as a task-in-action or task-in-process (Breen, 1987; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). These aspects refer to how students influence the tasks while working on them, and how teachers’ understandings of tasks developed by task researchers or presented in textbooks may change the original task. As a consequence, it seemed valuable from the outset to also include an analysis of classroom action. Throughout the project and during the initial analysis 30 of data, it became increasingly obvious that the way in which a task is enacted is more important than the task-as-workplan. Discussions during project meetings in particular 70 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology made it obvious that teachers defined and enacted terms differently compared to academic discourse. Thus, a second set of research questions focused on how tasks are enacted in classrooms. Research questions set 2: Focus on task-in-action The relevant sub-questions are: What task formats / types do the project teachers use (see Chapter 5)? How do the project teachers teach eEFL tasks (see Chapter 6)? These questions lead to the overarching question: How are eEFL tasks enacted in the project classrooms (see Chapter 7)? In Chapter 7, I draw on a combination of the results from Chapters 3 to 6 to answer the question: In what ways are eEFL tasks enacted? As a first step, the two perspectives on the nature of eEFL tasks were combined and then the key features were compared to the enactment of eEFL tasks in the project class‐ rooms. To adequately understand the results and to provide further insights into the intricate nature of the collaborative setting, I decided to include another set of questions. I term these guiding questions for reflection. Given that the entire research project was based on collaborative research with teachers, and because my research position made it necessary for me to conduct some of the meetings, it seemed wise to include an aspect that focused on reflection on learning about tasks and how they are taught (see Legutke and Dreßler [forthcoming]). In addition, I was not educated in TBLT at university and also had to famili‐ arise myself with the concept. The process of learning about tasks and how they are taught is itself a task. I started teaching tasks at the same time I was reading about tasks and observing how they were taught. The teachers in the project also went through an implicit task cycle to learn about tasks. Thus, it also seemed wise to reflect on this process. The aspect concerning learning about tasks and how they are taught is by no means addressed in the same systematic way as the first two sets of research questions. Rather, it refers to the overall aspect of reflective research (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Copeland, Birmingham, Cruz, & Lewin, 1993; Sarangi & Candlin, 2003; Schön, 1987; Steier, 1991). A thorough reflective investigation on how learning and change was achieved within the collaborative research project is a question for another research study. 71 2.4 Theoretical framework and description of the study 31 For further reference to the topics of teacher development and teacher learning see Benitt (2015), Burns and Richards (2009), Freeman and Johnson (1998). As a consequence, the third set of questions should not be regarded as re‐ search questions, but as a starting point for reflections on my own professional development, teacher development, and learning 31 . The guiding principle of re‐ flection here was change. This led to two forms of reflective processes: Guiding questions on task-in-reflection: Reflection on personal re‐ lationships and the overall research project The relevant sub-questions for this section are: How did we mutually influence each other? What were my assumptions and what was my involvement in the re‐ search project? What kind of overall research procedures was taken and what was its influence on the study (quality criteria)? 72 2 The research context and its influence on the overall research methodology 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature Chapter 3 provides the theoretical perspective concerning the nature of the task concept found in research literature with reference to the project context and the project teachers’ teaching practices. Research into early TBLT (eTBLT) is rare. That which has been conducted focuses on how state curricula are adopted in classroom settings and the problems teachers face with the top-down approach. It appears teachers are criticised for being unmotivated to change their teaching styles to adopt TBLT-like practice (Carless, 2002, 2003, 2004; Chan, 2012; Zhang, 2005, 2007). Research on the aspects of eTBLT has been mostly conducted in Asian contexts. Carless (2002) summarised the TBLT research, stating: Much has been written about definitions of task and the role of tasks in second lan‐ guage acquisition (e.g. Ellis 2000; Skehan 1996), as well as the different stages in task-based lessons (Willis 1996), and task types (e.g. Skehan and Foster 1997). How‐ ever, there is little practical discussion of how tasks are actually implemented in school settings, particularly where conditions may be less than ideal (p. 389). Carless (2002) investigated four issues: “noise / indiscipline, the use of the mother tongue, the extent of pupil involvement, and the role of drawing or colouring ac‐ tivities” (p. 389) that appeared problematic in his context and focused on three teachers and their task teaching. Chan (2012) focused on the enactment of tasks in Hong Kong PS from an analytical perspective. The author developed categories of interest referring to linguistic, cognitive, and interactional demands. Classroom en‐ actments were then compared to these demands. After having analysed different data sets, the researcher presented six dimensions in which the teachers differed in their task enactment. One dimension, for example, was “[s]trategic use of visual support to manage task demands” (Chan, 2012, p. 187). In each dimension the teach‐ ers’ differences and similarities in their enactment were described. The researcher drew several conclusions; most relevant of them is the one that stresses the com‐ plexity of task implementations and that teachers should become more aware of their own teaching. Zhang (2005) investigated the implementation and enactment of tasks and focused on a description and analysis of three teachers’ lessons on a procedural level. All three researchers readily transferred the task concepts from secondary school and focused on a task-in-action analysis that did not consider the complexities of the classroom as a focus on language in action was not included. 1 I observed almost all of the seven PS teachers teaching other subjects in their homeroom classes. Many of them made use of educational theories that encourage children to write their own free texts in German about topics of their choice. They followed a holistic approach in bringing objects to lessons and letting children engage with them actively by touching them, describing their features, and relating them back to their lifeworld experiences. Those approaches may be relevant to the Asian context, but fall short in a German context. This is due to the distinctly different teaching approaches in primary schools compared to those in secondary schools. The so far undertaken research approaches in Germany are similar to the ones described in the Asian context. Common to studies investigating younger learners and tasks (Keßler, 2006) or handbooks for teaching eEFLT (Elsner, 2015) is that they adopt a task approach from secondary school teaching. This ap‐ proach is not questioned and does not investigate the extent to which younger learners need a special task approach. The assumption that TBLT for older learners is appropriate for younger learners is common (Pinter, 2011). There are only two task proposals for younger learners that take the specific eEFLT con‐ text into consideration (Cameron, 2001; Legutke, Müller-Hartmann, & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2009). A collaborative setting in which teachers’ insights and opinions are valued to better understand eTBLT appears not to have yet been conducted at an international level, let alone in the German context. I argue that even though general TBLT research provides a useful starting point for the identification of eEFL task features relevant to the project PS, it is not sufficient enough and it seems unwise to only focus on these aspects. Just as research approaches need to be context-sensitive, so should EFLT approaches and in particular TBLT approaches be context-sensitive (Bax, 2003; Carless, 2012). Consequently, solely focussing on secondary school TBLT approaches does not adequately attend to the specific contextual features present in eEFLT in Germany. EFLT in PS is a relatively new subject and various potential goals have been proclaimed over the last fifteen years. There appears to be general consensus, however, that young language learners need methods and teaching practices different to those implemented at secondary school level. Hence, I take a look at eEFLT traditions in Germany to identify the features they offer that may be relevant for TBLT practices in the project PS. Here, I assume that if eEFL tasks can be related to German eEFLT practices. I assume that it is easier for PS teachers to use eEFL tasks that tie back to previous education and teaching practices. PS teacher education places a particular focus on general education theories. The project PS teachers followed those traditions 1 . Therefore, it is only wise to 74 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 2 For aspects of children’s cognitive development referring to the Swiss educator, Jean Piaget, see the thorough discussion by Nunan (2011) and Pinter (2011). For general SLA / learning theories see De Bot (2005), Lightbown and Spada (2013) Saville-Troike (2012). investigate whether general PS teaching theories also offer features connected to TBLT in order to identify eTBLT features. It may be assumed that task features similar to general PS traditions are already present in teachers’ task under‐ standings and enactments, or could at least be easily included. The task concepts present in curricula used within the project schools also need to be examined to see what task features they propose. Moreover, second language acquisition SLA theories and learning development theories are also relevant in determining eEFL task features. However, I have not specifically devoted a section to these theories as they have been discussed in several standard works used in eEFL teacher education and are often discussed in general TBLT or eEFLT literature 2 . Educational / learning psychology aspects, neuroscientific aspects, and anthro‐ pological aspects related to general PS teaching approaches such as the transi‐ tion from concrete examples to abstract notions are included in the section on general PS teaching. Chapter 3 approximates key features for eEFL tasks derived from a systematic analysis of research literature in the areas previously stated. The theories dis‐ cussed here were selected on the basis of the question of importance for the project context. This was done to adhere to the collaborative nature of the re‐ search project. To outline the theoretical relevance to the project context, I offer comparisons to the project teachers’ eEFLT practices where possible and also present project teachers’ voices (see Chapter 1). This approach combines in‐ sights from research literature and teachers’ experiences and strengthens the ethnographic and case study approach that favours thick description (see Chapter 2). Section 3.1 begins with a brief overview of the aspects of TBLT before nar‐ rowing the focus to modern foreign TBLT approaches (Section 3.2). A brief pre‐ sentation of German-speaking TBLT approaches for secondary schools is then provided (Section 3.3) as they often draw on international modern foreign TBLT approaches and it is important to ensure eTBLT is relatable to general secondary school TBLT in Germany to not further complicate the transition from primary to secondary school. Section 3.4 provides a discussion on eEFL task approaches for young learners. Section 3.5 takes a step backwards to broaden the focus on young learners and task approaches, and offers a look at general eEFLT ap‐ proaches in Germany. Section 3.6 presents a very broad overview of general PS teaching approaches, referring to learning development and teaching theories, and curricula (political influences) relatable to eEFL tasks. The discussion makes 75 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 3 The terms TBLT and task concepts are used interchangeably and as umbrella terms, regardless of the terminology used by the respective researcher, as many researchers seem to use the different terms interchangeably and / or only rarely explicitly define the term they use (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b; Nunan, 2013b). references to previously discussed aspects of TBLT, eEFLT, the curricula, and the project PS teachers’ eEFL task and eEFLT practices. This chapter finishes with a summary of the findings and a list of task features (Section 3.8). 3.1 State of the art: TBLT 3 This section provides a very basic overview and introduction to TBLT. The ob‐ jective is to set the scene for the following sections that provide further detailed discussions of selected TBLT features. In TBLT, language learners are enabled to use their language skills in a productive and communicative way ( J. C. Ri‐ chards & Rodgers, 2001). According to their interests and language level, learners are asked to work on nominated topics in a creative way (Bygate, 1999) to experience real language use (Legutke et al., 2009). For these reasons, and the fact that it is learner-centred ( J. C. Richards & Rodgers, 2001), TBLT presents as a potential teaching approach in German PS as it complies with state regulations on pedagogy and the didactics of PS teaching (KMK, 1994). Moreover, the new additional materials for the curriculum for PS in Hesse explicitly name tasks a valuable teaching approach (HKM, 2011). Notwithstanding the increase in pop‐ ularity of TBLT, the construct itself has not been clearly defined, let alone its main component: the task (Shehadeh, 2005). In general, the terminology con‐ cerning ‘task-’ is rather fuzzy (R. Ellis, 2009; Hallet & Legutke, 2013a). Depending on the researcher or research tradition, several terms are used to refer to task concepts. Indeed, even the general term remains open to discussion with it variously being referred to as “methodologies” (Knight, 2001), “cultures” (Hallet & Legutke, 2013a), “methodological realization” (Nunan, 2013b), “task-based approaches” (Foley, 1991), “task-based instruction” (Skehan, 1996, 1998, 2003; Swan, 2005), “task-based language teaching” (R. Ellis, 2009; Hashemi, Azizinezhad, & Darvishi, 2012), “task-based language learning” (Legutke et al., 2009), “task-based language education” (Van den Branden, 2006a),“task con‐ cepts” (Keller, 2013), “task-based educational approaches” (Candlin, 1993), or “task-supported language learning” (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Dit‐ furth, 2011b) among others. As such, the definition of what a “task” is changes accordingly (Bygate et al., 2001). 76 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 4 Depending on the TBLT methodology, different phases are isolated in which learners’ attention is drawn to grammatical, lexical, or learning strategic aspects of language learning (R. Ellis, 2009). Also, a similar term, “language focus”, is used whenever the students themselves reflect on language and this can occur at different states within the task phase (D. Willis & Willis, 2007). 5 R. Ellis (2003) offered a brief discussion on weak and strong forms of CLT in relevance to task-supported and task-based teaching, as well as syllabus proposals involving tasks in different ways. Because using tasks in eEFLT is a rather new development in Germany (see Chapter 1), I will not discuss these aspects. The curriculum simply states tasks pro‐ viding a useful learning situation (HKM, 2010, 2011). It seems that teachers focus on “in‐ teresting topics” to them (they rarely ask their students what they find interesting) and then start creating tasks on the basis of the topic in reference to the curricular demands regarding competencies the students are to have acquired at the end of Grade 4. Nonetheless, there are a few characteristic features present in most task def‐ initions. A basic definition is that “a task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 11). Hence, the focus lies on meaningful communication and not on form-focused exercises (D. Willis & Willis, 2007). As the emphasis is on meaning, students are prompted to ‘experiment’ with their language skills in order to realise their communicational intention (Legutke et al., 2009). This however does not imply that ungrammatical speech production is furthered (R. Ellis, 2009; Hobbs, 2012). There is a special stage within the task in which students con‐ centrate on grammatical aspects of the target language (D. Willis & Willis, 2007). This stage is termed focus on form 4 . A task can form the core unit of the cur‐ riculum or be used as an aspect in general EFLT with a curriculum that follows a linguistic progression (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). In Germany, task-supported teaching is used. This means that tasks are used within EFLT practices, but do not form the core unit of the curriculum or textbook (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). This is sometimes termed a weak form of communicative language teaching (CLT) (R. Ellis, 2003) 5 . 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts This section provides a broad overview of modern EFL task concepts and how they are used in relation to PS teaching. I outline the most crucial steps of the task development, the most important definitions, and discuss task components, features and pre-requisites, all with reference to eEFLT and eEFL tasks. Many more task aspects could be discussed such as task formats, but there again the diversity is great among scholars. Gap activities (information, reasoning, and opinion gap) that encourage students to talk (Prabhu, 1987) are often named. 77 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 6 I saw two teachers using gap activities: one in the form of playing a game similar to battleships to practice new vocabulary items, and another in the form of spot the dif‐ ference. In none of the other observed lessons teachers used gap activities. 7 As the task concepts used in the project setting are based on the task approaches de‐ veloped for young EFL learners (Legutke, Müller-Hartmann, & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2009) task approaches using tasks as a tool for research or assessment, and not as a core unit of actual teaching practice, will not be discussed in detail. Also other activities that focus on using language in a communicative way, such as asking and answering questions, performing role-plays, solving puzzles, and describing pictures (Nunan, 2004) are often promoted. Task formats can also be grouped according to the processes to which they refer in the language learner (e.g., cognitive) (D. Willis & Willis, 2007) together with the interpersonal, lin‐ guistic, affective, and creative dimensions (Nunan, 2004). The most common formats used within the project context as a core activity were: giving presen‐ tations on a poster or short text, performing a role-play, carrying out interviews, and re-constructing a story (see Chapter 5). Gap activities are rarely used 6 . Modern task concepts (starting from the late 1970s / early 1980s) sometimes offer explicit instructions on the use and implications of tasks (Candlin, 1993; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Tasks in language teaching may be used for many different purposes; for example, “as a curriculum planning tool” (Candlin, 1993, p. 225), “as the basis for classroom action” (Candlin, 1987, p. 5), or as a clearly defined activity used in an experimental setting to produce data to be analysed by a researcher (Bygate et al., 2001) 7 . With different purposes come different definitions and so the components of a task, the teacher and learner roles, and the entire task approach may change. As the field of tasks is so diverse, only a few approaches are touched upon in this book. These tasks are those that bear great significance to eEFLT practices in the project schools. The discussion is structured along a general introduction of the ideas regarding which approaches for secondary school teaching play a role within the research project, as there is not a lot of eEFL task research being carried out in Germany (Dreßler, 2012b, 2012c, 2012a). The general TBLT aspects discussed are: task development, def‐ initions, components and sequence, features, and pre-requisites as I view them as most influential for identifying eEFL task features. 3.2.1 Task development Task-like features can be traced back to (inter-)national education scholars as early as Pestalozzi (1746-1827), Dewey (1859-192), Kilpatrick (1871-1965), Vy‐ gotsky (1896-1934), Freinet (1896-1966), Bruner (1915-2016), and D. Kolb 78 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 8 see (Bruner, 1960, 1986; Dewey, 1966; C. Freinet, 1965; E. Freinet, 1981; Kilpatrick, 1918; D. Kolb, 1984; Pestalozzi, 1801, 1819, 1826, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978). 9 The book and its translation by Candlin gives “a pool of experience” (Candlin, 1981, p. 5) for other teachers to help them to develop CLT programs. (*1939) 8 . They placed great importance on, for instance, the child’s lifeworld and experiences. They proclaimed learner-centeredness and personal interest or so‐ cial interaction and purposeful communication as important for learning. In addition, they focused on the individual child’s development or focused on the usefulness of repeating the same topic yet in a progressively more difficult way at different stages throughout the learning process. Vygotsky stressed the importance of the individual child’s learning develop‐ ment. He termed it zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is defined as: (…) those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions could be termed the buds or flowers of development rather than the "fruits" of development. The actual developmental level characterizes mental development retrospectively, while the zone of proximal development characterizes mental devel‐ opment prospectively (Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 86-87). The ZPD describes the zone between what a person can successfully accomplish on one’s own and what is presently beyond the person’s reach, but can be at‐ tained with the assistance of a more capable other (Bruner, 1986). Cameron (2001) discussed Vygotsky’s learning theory in connection to language learning. She tied the ZPD to her task framework. In addition, Candlin’s (1987) learning, content and action demands relate to the ZPD’s capable other, i.e. a tutor. Van Lier elaborated on Candlin (1987) stating that “[all] three kinds of demands constrain the design and execution of tasks (…)” (Van Lier, 1996, p. 206) and must be matched to the ZPD to allow for successful tasks. Also, Van Lier (1996) ob‐ served the connection between ZPD, scaffolding, and task and emphasised the fact that there are different ZPDs for different learners or for one learner in different areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that a teacher needs to be aware of her students’ individual skill and knowledge levels. Achieving this awareness, however, may be difficult for teachers. Modern EFL task concepts were originally used in the American context to cater to the needs of adult EFL learners who struggled to cope with daily activities within the CLT context such as ordering meals in restaurants, buying tickets for the movies, or answering questions in job interviews (Cameron, 2001; Nunan 1989; Ri‐ chards & Rodgers, 2001). In Germany, the task development is connected to a pub‐ lication that focuses on CLT (BAG, 1978; Candlin, 1981) 9 . It may also be related to a 79 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 10 Also see van Lier (1996) on authenticity. 11 These problems are discussed in more detail in the section on the interview results and in Chapters 4 and 7. The discussion refers to letting learners acquire a collective class vocabulary or an individual vocabulary. broader development in the British context (Breen & Candlin, 1980; Canale & Swain, 1980), both of which call for particular CLT applications (Hallet & Legutke, 2013a). CLT places the learners at the centre of classroom interactions. In Germany, ‘project work’ with a particular focus on communication and tasks was applied in schools to foster language learning. The focus was on learners in the unique classroom setting learning the use of the language for the outside world (Hallet & Legutke, 2013a). Piepho (1981) proposed aspects relevant for language learning. They show significance for modern task concepts, namely that learners’ motivation for the communicative intent is crucial, and success is measured against the original intention of the meaning that the student wants to communicate. Only in a later step should success be measured against lin‐ guistic correctness. Within CLT, tasks are used to prepare learners for real-world activities. Pre‐ vious forms of language teaching did not adequately match classroom proce‐ dures to real-world activities (Cameron, 2001). CLT focuses on the learners and their needs to communicate their intended meanings and “(...) to use language instrumentally to get things done” (Candlin, 1987, p. 6). As such, it applies ac‐ tivities that have real-world resemblance (Nunan, 1993). The concept of the real world refers to origins of EFL tasks in the CLT approach in which adult learners were unable to communicate in common daily encounters such as going to the doctor (Nunan, 1993). Role-plays simulating a situation at a doctor’s clinic during classroom activities were included in EFL classes because it was de‐ manded that language learning should become more closely related to the real world of the language learners. Trying to embed real world experiences into young EFL learners’ classroom settings is more difficult. Legutke and colleagues (2009) referred to the fact that children like playing and that activities in the classroom should be created in a way that allows them to experiment and play with language. In turn, through the children’s involvement in the games, the artificiality of a classroom situation decreases 10 . Throughout the research project the task topics became increasingly connected to the ‘real world’ of the young EFL learners because the teachers started to focus on their students individual interests. The difficulty was to re‐ gard the class as comprised of many individuals with different interests and yet to keep the preparation for the lesson manageable and pragmatic 11 . This meant 80 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 12 ‘ Pets’ is a topic that is included in all teaching materials within the project PS as it is assumed that it is a topic of interest to the students. that instead of simply talking about pets 12 in a wider sense, children were enabled to talk about their individual pet. If they did not have a pet, they were asked to describe their dream pet or any other aspect related to the topic that was inter‐ esting for the respective student. 3.2.2 Task definitions Disparate definitions of a task can be found in the literature (Bygate et al., 2001). One of the early and often-cited definitions of task comes from Long, who related tasks to an active undertaking in one’s free time or work (Long, 1985), making no direct link to a language classroom. Van den Branden’s (2006b) definition, on the other hand, involved language use, but still omited the institutional learning and teaching background: “A task is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language” (p. 4). A further example that narrows the focus onto a pedagogical language learning context is Nunan’s (2004) definition: (…) a pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in compre‐ hending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their atten‐ tion is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form (p. 4). As can be seen, this definition is rather complex and formal compared to the ones shared before. When comparing the different definitions, it becomes obvious that tasks place a focus on active engagement with a topic by a person trying to achieve a specific goal, and that this also holds true for young learners. However, Nunan’s definition (1989, 2004) is only a starting point for the eEFL classroom. This is be‐ cause young learners need, for example, a lot of scaffolding by the teacher to ex‐ press their intentional meaning so that an interaction in the target language be‐ comes possible. Furthermore, teaching young learners in PS is different to teaching older learners (Cameron, 2001). The explicit teaching of grammar does not yet play a role and teachers still shy away from addressing linguistic aspects even if they occur naturally within a lesson (see, e.g., Chapters 4 and 7). The contextual issues are not the only problems to illustrate the difficulty of defining tasks, as Candlin pointed out (1987). He emphasised that a task definition should be clear enough to be easily applied to a specific classroom situation. With this, it must necessarily also be broad enough to be adaptable. This further compli‐ 81 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 13 Some project teachers’ enactments showed that due to their inability to change their teaching agenda flexibly, critical incidents arase. The teachers mentioned in informal talks that it were difficult for them to allow students to work on individual vocabulary fields. The teachers found it difficult to ensure that there were enough dictionaries, suitable access to computers, or to provide students with highly individualized mate‐ rials. The first two aspects are not always met by the teaching context (e.g., limited school resources and no computers in the classrooms or no computer lab in every school). The latter refers to the teachers’ time constraints and their level of exhaustion. cates the general problem of not having a clear-cut definition of tasks and what the specific task approach involves. Candlin (1987) proposed the following definition: One of the differentiated, sequencable, problem-posing activities involving learners and teachers in some joint selection from a range of varied cognitive and communi‐ cative procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu (p. 10). This definition, however, does not solve the problem of how to define tasks as it emphasises the importance of the learning context in which the task is enacted between the teacher and the learners. It does not provide further dimensions to which teachers could return when trying to teach tasks in their classrooms. It also points to the interaction between the teacher and the learners in the selec‐ tion of a task or at least a topic. Though the underlying idea is favourable, it can be assumed that in order to achieve such flexibility, the teacher needs to possess a number of competencies or skills. These are, for instance, planning compe‐ tence, language skills, and a positive and appreciative attitude towards the learners 13 . As later chapters show, those demands are often difficult for the teachers to meet (see task enactment of ‘doing school’ Chapters 6 & 7). Samuda and Bygate (2008) proposed a different task definition. It is similar to R. Ellis’ (2003) definition that offers a number of “critical features”, namely task as a workplan, the focus on meaning, a real-world processing of language use, the engagement of one to four language skills, the involvement of cognitive functions, and that the task has a clear communicative outcome. Samuda and Bygate (2008) related to R. Ellis’ (e.g., 2009) second language research back‐ ground, even though they emphasised that a task is a holistic pedagogical ac‐ tivity: A task is a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-lin‐ guistic outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or product or both (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 69). This definition is broad enough to fit into the eEFL classroom, yet it does not provide detailed enough guidance for teachers. In summarising the diverse def‐ 82 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 14 For further discussion of different task contexts see Bygate and colleagues (2001), Sa‐ muda and Bygate (2008). As the focus in this book lies on task concepts in the German PS context, tasks used in SLA contexts will not be taken into consideration. initions of a task it becomes evident that the preferred definition depends on the researcher and the context, and whether the task is within a classroom or outside of it (Bygate et al., 2001). In addition, as Candlin (1987) showed, task definitions depend on the actual classroom situation and teaching practice. This makes it even more difficult to define tasks as narrowly as needed and yet as openly as possible to apply it to the situation in question. Thus, this book presents a list of key features of eEFL tasks for an application in eEFL classrooms in the project schools in Germany. When several EFL task definitions are analysed, it is evident there are a number of features that may be termed basic requirements to call an activity a task. The widely cited example of a minimalist task definition is “[a] task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 11) 14 . Even though this definition is useful in determining what a task is, it does not offer detailed information for practitioners. When considering a task for implementation in a classroom, other specifications are required to provide teachers with greater support in deter‐ mining, for example, how tasks should be enacted or how students need to be instructed or what other aspects of teaching the task need to be taken into con‐ sideration. Candlin (1987) suggested a list of characteristic features. He offered input (data used by the learners and teachers), questions concerning the roles of participants, classroom arrangements referring to the setting, actions under‐ taken while working on the task, monitoring, outcomes as in the task goals, and feedback in form of a task evaluation to help teachers select a task and ensure a task-matching enactment. These features are useful, yet too theoretical for the project teachers. They do not match their training and are difficult to translate for them into their actual teaching practice or when implementing tasks. 3.2.3 Task components and sequence Similar to the definitional problem, there are also several different ideas of what elements form the key components of a task. Early suggestions refer to aspects teachers need to take into consideration for their planning, namely “content, student, materials, goals, activities and social community” (Shavelson & Stern, 1981, p. 478). Nunan (2004) drew on several authors to form his minimalistic task specifications: “goals, input, procedures, teacher and learner roles, setting” (p. 47). In the German speaking context, scholars Müller-Hartmann & Schocker 83 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts (2011b) proposed that task features should focus on how learning and language use can be achieved, and based their ideas on Samuda and Bygate’s (2008) con‐ ceptualisation of tasks within the field of “mediated language use, language processing and, through this, learning“ (p. 80). These scholars placed the task within classroom situations influenced by the teacher, school or curriculum, and the learner’s language use and learning (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Other influ‐ ences are the task input, instructions, conditions, processes, and the product all of which affect the overall task teaching situation. Placing the task within its wider context, as I argued at the beginning of the chapter, is the key to eEFL task approaches. What these contextual features are, however, is not yet clear. Within the German-speaking context for general TBLT approaches, repre‐ sented by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (2011a), the above stated aspects are not sufficient. The authors additionally attributed a crucial influence to the general learning environment as differentiated by Van den Branden’s research group (Van den Branden, Van Gorp, & Verhelst, 2007). The Belgium research group included aspects such as atmosphere, tasks, and support systems (Dev‐ lieger & Goossens, 2007). The researchers further define “powerful learning en‐ vironment“ factors that relating to a “positive and safe climate, meaningful, rel‐ evant tasks, interactional support” (Devlieger & Goossens, p. 97). This description, however, was still not detailed enough for Müller-Hartmann and his colleagues (Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). They added Breen’s (1987) terms “task-as-workplan“ and “task-in-action“ which highlight the unforeseeable out‐ comes or developments of a task while it is enacted by students. In addition, they pointed to Van den Branden and colleagues’ (2007) potentially motivating task features (content), or Breen’s (1987) survival and achievement orientation. They also drew on the notion of free choice of language forms ( J. Willis, 1996) and clearly defined the outcomes of a task as communicative (R. Ellis, 2003). The aspects mentioned here may be categorised on the basis of their relevance to the enactment of tasks. The atmosphere in a classroom and the interaction be‐ tween students and teacher, and students and students can only be observed during a teaching situation. To summarise this paragraph and also to foreshadow this study’s results, contextual features related to a positive learning environ‐ ment also play an important role within the project PS (see Chapter 6 & 7 on the key feature of ‘doing school’). Closely related to the nature and enactment of a task is the way it is se‐ quenced. Here, the convergence among the different task advocates is much higher. In general, the different TBLT advocates important for the research project’s eEFL task understanding(s) agree on a basic tripartite approach. The 84 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature first phase involves pre-tasks to prepare the students for the second step: the target task or main activity (D. Willis & Willis, 2007). Post-tasks form the last step in which students focus on the grammatical features that played a role in the target task (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). To elabo‐ rate, the first phase involves the preparation of the contentand language of the task to enable the learners to master the second step (i.e., the core activity or main task). During the first step, the activation of the learners’ world knowledge takes place as they familiarise themselves with or the teacher introduces to them the relevant vocabulary and possible language chunks / phrases in preparation for the following activities (D. Willis & Willis, 2007). The students are informed about the target task, and engage in planning and possibly the completion of a similar task to learn relevant features to successfully complete the later target task (R. Ellis, 2003). During this preparation phase, the learners will also engage in exercises or activities such as “classifying words, odd one out, matching phrases to pictures, or mind-maps” ( J. Willis, 1996, pp.43-44). This is to activate relevant knowledge and language features regarded as useful for the target task. Depending on the task definition being applied, the task itself or the topic will be discussed and negotiated by the teacher and the students and among the students themselves. The second phase comprises of the target task or main activity. Nunan (2004) also offered the term “task-proper-phase” (p. 128). Depending on the author, the teacher or the students independently structure the target task (Nunan, 2004), or it follows a clearly defined task cycle (J. Willis, 1996). Secondary school students typically complete a task cycle that involves the actual task activity, a planning phase, and a report phase (J. Willis, 1996). During the planning phase the stu‐ dents reflect on their target task and plan a report on their findings as well as their procedure. The teacher offers language support. The students then prepare the report, with some groups called upon to present their final product. The en‐ tire task cycle may finish with a comparison of how other groups or possibly native speakers performed in the same target task (J. Willis, 1996). This approach is rather dogmatic, assigning specific features to specific steps in the task cycle. Other authors are more flexible in their approaches (e.g., Legutke, 1997). The last phase is the so-termed ‘language focus’ (previous term) or ‘focus on form’ (newer term). Originally language focus was used. Then focus on form be‐ came popular. Now, the two terms refer to different aspects of a meta-processes on language. Language focus is now referred to as “learners (…) thinking about language in general terms as the need arises, not about specific forms identified by the teacher” (D. Willis & Willis, 2007, p. 116). This stage may sometimes occur at different times during an entire task sequence. The other term, focus on form 85 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 15 For an overview of some of the different perspectives see Biebighäuser, Zibelius, and Schmidt (2012). (i) (ii) is the final stage in the task sequence in which learners’ attention is drawn to grammatical or structural aspects relevant to the target task. This is more teacher-led than the phase termed language focus. Again, J. Willis (1996), and D. Willis and Willis (2007) followed a rather strict approach. Other authors were more flexible as to when the different phases could appear within a task se‐ quence, or they even proposed a different sequencing approach altogether (Nunan, 1998, 2004). To conclude, the more flexible approaches appear to be fol‐ lowed in eEFL tasks literature (see Section 3.5.3) as well as in the project context. 3.2.4 Task features Of key importance are task features in the project context as they help translating the abstract notions and demands proposed by the curriculum into practice. Sev‐ eral authors, particularly those who work with teachers in in-service or pre-service institutions, discuss task features in relation to their value for use in the language classroom (Candlin, 1987; Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2006, 2011a, 2011b, 2013, Nunan, 1989, 2004). Other authors propose task features for specific target learners (Cameron, 2001; Legutke et al., 2009), specific purposes (Legutke & Thomas, 1991), or as a critical assessment of task features (Piepho, 2003) 15 . Four suggestions are briefly outlined below as they are all of value to the German eEFLT context. Legutke and Thomas (1991) investigated tasks and isolated seven features in relation to communicative tasks. The criteria are: context and topicality, awareness (channelling learners’ perceptions), prior knowledge and pre‐ requisites for learning, self-determination and selective authenticity (learners as active agents with self-discovery), motivation (resistance), language learner needs and discoursal outcomes, and, process relevance (see Legutke & Thomas, 1991, pp. 49-64). Here learners are positioned as active agents and the teacher is required to cater to their needs by allowing them to work with materials in a challenging, yet positive way. The aim is thus to enhance self-awareness and allow the learners to find ‘their place’ in the institutionalised learning environment. Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (2011a, 2011b) offer several criteria drawn from different research studies focusing on tasks, motivation or interac‐ tion. The German researchers proposed several basic features of a ‘good’ language learning task. These features refer to motivational aspects that 86 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature (iii) promote the active involvement of learners, the complexity of tasks (dif‐ ferent skills) that allows for an individual focus and connection to the lifeworld, the inbuilt form-focused phase, and the interaction with phases of individual and co-operative problem-solving tasks (Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011a, 2011b). The authors also placed a par‐ ticular focus on the development of competencies matching the new po‐ litical standard orientation endorsed by the MoEs in Germany. The com‐ petencies refer back to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). Competency development is embedded in the features of a positive learning environment (see Section 3.2.3). In this book, the focus on a positive learning environment for the use of tasks is discussed in relation to ‘doing school’ (see Chapters 6 & 7). However, not all of Müller-Hartmann and Schocker’s (2011a, 2011b, 2013) task fea‐ tures are relevant for eEFL tasks as is discussed in Chapter 7 (see key feature referring to focus on form). Nunan (2004) proposed seven TBLT features: “scaffolding, task depend‐ ency, recycling, active learning, integration, reproduction to creation, and reflection” (pp. 35-37). When considering the features collectively, it be‐ comes obvious that many different features are intricately combined and interact in such a way that a successful TBLT implementation becomes possible. The seven principles appear to be important not only for the secondary school context, but also for young learners (see Chapter 5). In this project context, some PS teachers embedded the task within other eEFLT principles related to Nunan’s (2004) task dependency; that is, “[w]ithin a lesson, one task should grow out of, and build upon, the ones that have gone before” (p. 35). The teachers may even go one step further and make sure that within a task sequence, each lesson builds upon prior knowledge learnt at different stages throughout the children’s English acquisition (see Chapter 5). Nunan’s (2004) fourth principle emphasised the fact that the “teacher-focused work should not dominate class time” (p. 37). As the micro-analysis of the PS teachers’ lessons showed, this is different in the project schools (see Chapter 5, 6 & 7). The project teachers functioned as language role-models and provided the new vocabulary and discursive patterns relevant to master the target task to the pupils. Only during the phases in which the students work on the creation of their core task products is the teacher-focused time limited. In addition, Nunan’s (2004) principle of reflection cannot be found in the project classes. How‐ ever, the neighbouring BL demands reflective practices at the end of each lesson and this appears a valuable aspect to include (QUA-LiS NRW, 2015). 87 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 16 Piepho refered in this context to scenarios and tasks. Because scenarios can be seen as complex and long tasks, his conditions can be directly transferred to working with tasks. He stated that in scenarios “(…) thematic complexes are dissolved in action-based im‐ pulses and as appropriate in tasks (…) in which active oral as well as written utterances are required (…) which lead to the ability to better understand and use the meaning and relevance of language and content“ (Piepho, 2003, p. 42, translated from German). See also Legutke and Thomas (1991) for project work and scenarios. (iv) Piepho (2003) postulated that a few conditions must be met to work within a TBLT framework 16 . According to the author, it is important to follow the SMART principle. This means tasks should be “significant, mean‐ ingful, achievable, relevant and time-related” (Piepho, 2003, p. 81; 107). His demands are comparable to aspects of eEFL tasks (see Section 3.5). Tasks need to match the learners’ needs and biographies; motivate learners and help them to reflect; make sense to learners; be worthwhile and attainable for different learner types and levels; be relevant for the content, tasks and discourse modes; foster language and skill growth in the future; and be successfully completed within a certain timeframe (Piepho, 2003). In summary, tasks need to be relevant and meaningful, and foster not only lan‐ guage growth, but also the further development of learners. It is hoped that they motivate learners and offer the opportunity of language use in meaningful con‐ texts to communicate with others about personally important and relevant things. They should also offer learners a chance to reflect on their learning. The full potential of the task can only be achieved when it is enacted properly. This enactment involves several different agents (teacher and learners), certain ma‐ terial or a specific approach to materials, and a specific learning environment, all of which are addressed below. 3.2.5 Task pre-requisites As the discussion in the previous sections has shown, in order to exhaust the possibilities tasks offer, the teacher needs to be able to orchestrate the different learning processes and learning phases appropriately. In addition she needs to guide the learners in their use of suitable learning materials and needs to create stimulating learning environments. Also the wider teaching and learning con‐ text related to, the classroom atmosphere, teacher and learner roles, the general teaching philosophy, as well as the task setting, needs to be taken into consid‐ eration. These requirements may be viewed and presented from several different perspectives. Here the focus is on the competencies a teacher should possess to 88 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature successfully implement a task. Again, depending on the advocate, slightly dif‐ ferent roles and functions may be identified. A summary of the most important features is given here, and in Chapter 5 more insight into the enactment of tasks in the research project is given. In general, TBLT learners are meant “to be adaptable, creative, inventive and most of all independent” (Nunan, 1989, p. 81). Richards and Rodgers (2001) suggested a student within a TBLT context be a “group participant, monitor, risk-taker and innovator” and that a TBLT teacher needs to be a “selector and sequencer of tasks” (pp. 235-236). Furthermore, D. Willis and Willis (2007) asserted that a TBLT teacher also be the “leader and organizer of discussion, manager of group / pair work, facilitator, motivator, language ‘knower’ and adviser and language teacher” (pp. 149-151). With the understanding that learners need to be active, a different teacher role is necessarily expected. Teachers need to be able to step back and allow learners to become responsible for their learning, and to decide on topics that are interesting to them. This is combined with the teacher’s ability to be open and to avoid lec‐ turing, which are key aspects related to open forms of teaching (Wallrabenstein, 2001). However, the project teachers appeared to struggle with the learner roles required by TBLT. Often they seemed to hold onto the power and only allowed the students to decide on specific aspects of a certain ‘favourite’ topic that the teacher had previously decided. The teachers explained that this was the case because it was difficult to accommodate the learners’ choices as the learners did not have the vo‐ cabulary present and therefore needed the teacher’s assistance. Paula therefore limited her students’ choice to a pre-defined selection she decided on based on which vocabulary items the teaching material she used offered. Voice 8 Paula is talking about the selection of vocabulary items on the topic clothes: They cannot learn too many words, so I typically choose about four to eight words. There are so many items, I cannot open the topic to the children, as they hardly know any words. I usually decide on those words that are typical for them depending on the season I teach the topic to make sure to include the ‘lifeworld’ aspect. That is really important. I also bring a suitcase of clothes with me for them to try on. Paula - 2012 I assume the learner and teacher roles favoured by a teacher are linked to her understanding of learning and SLA theories. Depending on what kind of learning 89 3.2 Modern EFL task concepts 17 For an overview of learning theories such as behaviourism, innatism, and constructivism see, for example, De Bot (2005) or Lightbown and Spada (2013). 18 Also see Garton, Copland, and Burns (2011) for further insights in global EFLT practices. They also found out that tasks are used for young learners. 19 Also see Larsen-Freeman (2008); Legutke and Thomas (1991, p. 19); J. C. Richards and Rodgers (2001) for a more detailed illustration. theory the teacher (implicitly) holds, or what notion of language learning the teacher has, the structure of the lessons may change 17 . Currently, the academic literature favours the idea of active learners and sometimes connects this to the view of human beings as multi-layered. As Tudor (2001) stated: We can no longer assume that our students are ‘simply’ students, nor that they are bundles of discrete variables. They are complex human beings who bring with them to the classroom their own individual personality as it is at a given point in time, and this influences how they interact with what we do as teachers (p. 14). Related to the notion of complex human beings is Devlieger and Goossens’ (2007) understanding of complex learning situations. The authors developed an observational tool for task-like classroom practices of teachers and emphasised the following areas: safe classroom climate that is translated into classroom design and arrangement, classroom management, well-being, language climate, meaningful tasks are operationalized as objective, motivation and commitment to the learning process, language input and output, organisational format, and interactional support as in mediation, construction, negotiation of meaning, and differentiation (Devlieger and Goossens, 2007). Another possible connection may be drawn to modern motivation theories (Williams & Burden, 1997), particularly those directly related to language learning (Dörnyei, 1994, 2001, 2005; Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013). Williams and Burden (1997) focused on a constructivist perspective and the creation of a positive learning environment and tasks. Dörnyei (2013) fo‐ cused on the learners’ development of a positive self-image and a vision of what kind of language learner and user she wants to be. Both aspects are important for tasks in the project PS 18 . In summary: In TBLT, learners are seen as: active agents, responsible for their de‐ velopment, human beings with opinions, rights, needs and emotions. Teachers are seen as: mentors, creating a positive classroom environment, facilitating a positive learning situation, choosing adequate tasks, respecting students’ wishes and needs, providing support and challenges, assessing students development, and reflecting one’s teaching. These factors are dependent on the culture of learning present in a classroom 19 . For some project teachers it was difficult to adopt such a teacher role. 90 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 20 A further research group focussing on tasks is lead by Keller and Bender (2012). They do not seem to postulate their own task typology, but rather present task examples taken from a range of subjects. They illustrate the overall value of tasks in teaching and also draw a connection to competencies and ‘Bildung’ like Hallet (2013). As their main focus is on an overall task approach to teaching, and also on teacher training, they are not discussed here, as they also play no role within the project setting. 21 Here again, a distinct classification is still missing (R. Ellis, 2003). 3.3 Task concepts for the secondary school within the unique German context Within the German speaking context there are two main approaches to tasks for teaching EFL at secondary school level. The first approach was developed by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013; Müller-Hart‐ mann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2006, 2008, 2011a, 2011b, 2013) and Legutke (Legutke, 1997, 2006; Legutke & Thiel, 1983; Legutke & Thomas, 1991) has al‐ ready been briefly discussed. The second approach was developed by Hallet (Hallet, 2011, 2013; Hallet & Krämer, 2012) 20 . Within the first group, the main focus is on secondary school teaching, even though they proposed the only book within the German context using tasks in PS teaching. Hallet’s main area of interest is almost exclusively secondary school teaching, though it is stated that his approach may also be used for younger students. This statement, however, seems rather questionable as the expectation of what younger learners should achieve seems rather demanding, let alone what teachers need to be able to do to facilitate such a learning situation (further discussion see below). What both German approaches have in common is that they use typical task formats for secondary school in general. The typical tasks have, for example, information gaps or opinion gaps (R. Ellis, 2003) 21 . In addition, they sometimes refer to J. Willis’ (1996) six task formats: “listing, ordering and sorting, com‐ paring, problem solving, sharing personal experiences, and creative tasks” (pp. 26-28). However, her task formats only form a part of a task cycle or sequence and do not count as a whole or target task in itself according to the German approaches. Both German approaches demand tasks be more than a one-di‐ mensional learning activity. Instead, tasks should involve one or more language skills and foster cognitive development (Hallet, 2011). From J. Willis’ (1996) list of task formats only the last entry (creative task) bears a connection to German 91 3.3 Task concepts for the secondary school within the unique German context 22 As the project also cooperated with lecturers at a near-by university where TBLT was also taught, university students studying EFLT were sent to project schools to spend their internship learning from project teachers. They also informed the project teachers about the university’s approach to TBLT and taught some task-like lessons. The lecturer informed me during informal talks that they used Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (2011b), D. Willis and Willis (2007), and J. Willis (1996). 23 I translated the Hallet quotes on task concepts from German to English. researchers’ understanding of tasks 22 as it is the only task format that offers activities ( J. Willis, 1996). Both German understandings of tasks present features specific to the German context; for example, they refer to German textbooks or German curricula. Hallet (2011) in particular claimed to have further developed the task approach, matching not only to the German context in general in terms of didactics and teaching practices (see Chapter 1), but also by connecting tasks to new developments in the European Union such as the focus on outcomes and competencies (Council of Europe, 2001; HKM, 2010). The most important works within the project setting were those by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013; Müller-Hart‐ mann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). Their first book was taken as a starting point for the use of tasks in Grade 5 as the authors developed their book spe‐ cifically for the German context. They also provided task examples related to textbooks used in Germany that make tasks accessible and manageable for teachers with different competency and experience levels. Additionally, they offered a systematic step-by-step guide for how to use the tasks in teaching. The two researchers also followed the previously mentioned tripartite task sequence (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b). The latest book by Müller-Hartmann and colleagues (2013) includes several videos of different teachers across Germany showing task-like classroom prac‐ tices with a focus on intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and provide example lessons on different students’ skills and competencies. It has also been used in the project context as a medium for discussions on task process aspects. The project members used the videos during the fifth project year in particular to discuss basic teaching principles such as scaffolding, learning environment, and enactment of tasks in relevance to the findings of this book. Because Müller-Hart‐ mann and Schocker’s (2011b) textbook and ICC approach has been discussed in Section 3.2.4 already, I will now focus on the suggestions by Hallet (2011). Hallet (e.g., 2013) 23 developed the complex competency task with particular connection to the genuine German ‘Bildungskonzept’ (“bildungs-concept”). His task approach cannot clearly be differentiated from other task approaches, yet 92 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature the overall focus appears to be on problem-solving and the development of competencies within a complex skill set. Hallet (2013) wrote: A complex competency task is more than just a normal task: It also defines a clear learner result, organizes the learning and working processes on the way to the finished product and provides the necessary materials, models, explanations and support. Moreover, the focus lies on controversial topics and content as it is present in the lifeworld of the 21 st century und therefore asks for genuine problem-solving strategies (p. 2, researcher translation). This definition appears to be in line with other newer task definitions such as that provided by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker (2011a, 2011b, Müller-Hart‐ mann et al., 2013) discussed above. Hallet (2011) proposed several core aspects to his genuine complex task: • Shows the complexity of competencies and is complex in task nature • Asks students to use problem-solving strategies • Focuses on communicative competences and additionally addresses life‐ world problems and offers a model for solving the problems • Involves content, (inter)cultural affective and interactional as well as per‐ sonal development • Aims at discursive competences • Forms a framework for the use of other activities which lead to the suc‐ cessful completion of the complex task • Asks learners, where possible, to be self-directed • Functions not only as a task, but also as a learning arrangement and learning environment • Operates with the overall complex goal of communicative and socio-cul‐ tural problem-solving development at mind • Asks for a different view of learners (i.e., learners first and foremost as subjects with a cultural identity, habits and different life practices). This array of goals and orientations is then summarised by Hallet (2011) as: [the genuine complex task] generally aims at the negotiation of relevant and mean‐ ingful content and problem areas in discursive and interactional forms, which re‐ semble lifeworld, related discourses or are immediately connected to them (p. 172, researcher translation). In summary, Hallet’s task approach focuses on the new competency orientation and offers possible task examples for older learners. Though he claims his complex task may be used for younger learners (and an example for Grade 5 is provided by 93 3.3 Task concepts for the secondary school within the unique German context Kieweg [2013]), it appears questionable as to whether it may be used at the PS level. When comparing the project teachers’ tasks to Hallet’s definition, it becomes obvious that the teachers do not include problem-solving, communicative, and socio-cultural discourse level skills and competencies as demanded by him. For one, this could be due to their teacher education that did not provide them with prac‐ tical translations of those concepts. It could, however, also be due to their students’ cognitive development and the limited amount of English lessons in PS teaching. Often teachers focus on picture books as they are more motivational to this age group. In addition, participation in societal practices appears to be a rather far-fetched aim for seven-year old children and is often dealt with in cross-curric‐ ular teaching aspects encompassing subjects like Sciences and German. 3.4 TBLT approaches for young learners As stated above, there appear to be only two TBLT approaches for young learners that provide a general outline of how to use tasks within eEFLT: Ca‐ meron’s (2001) approach in a non-German context, and Legutke, Müller-Hart‐ mann and Schocker’s (2009) approach in a German context. Cameron (2001) refers to tasks as a means for learning a language, whereas Legutke and collea‐ gues offer an approach that places the task as the central metaphor in language teaching (A. Kolb, 2008; Legutke et al., 2009; Schocker, 2015). There are, however, several smaller contributions from other authors, but they do not offer a distinct task concept. Rather, they refer to secondary school task approaches or use them without questioning their relevance to eEFLT (Elsner, 2015; Keßler, 2006), unlike Williams and Burden (1997) who emphasised that tasks for children need to consider not only meaning, but also proposed: A communicative approach to language teaching has yielded a set of techniques such as information-gap exercises, which entail the use of meaningful language, that is, lan‐ guage that conveys meaning. However, such activities do not necessarily contain pur‐ pose to a child, such as an educational purpose, or enjoyment (such as reading a story), or achieving an end that is personally important to the child; nor do they necessarily belong within a child’s world. Purpose, then, entails the concept of personal relevance. Examples for such non-linguistic purposes might be to find out about the world, to find out about people, to express opinions, to study a topic such as how plants grow, to enjoy books, to sing songs, to play a game, to act in a play, or to make a puppet (p. 180). This point appears to be of crucial relevance in the PS classroom (see Sections 3.5 & 3.6). It may be connected to the state curricula’s demands for teaching 94 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature young learners (HKM, 2010, 2011, KMK, 1994, 2013, MSWNRW, n.d., 2008) (see Section 3.6.2), to the task’s enactments, and to general educational theories. The ideas may also be connected to an aspect that appears to have only played a part in TBLT approaches, that is, the notion that human beings share their experi‐ ences in the form of stories. As Connelly and Clandinin (1990) stated, “(…) humans are storytelling or‐ ganisms who, individually and socially, lead storied lives” (p. 2). This follows Bruner’s (1987) description of ‘lived time’ in the form of a narrative. Hence, the inclusion of general eEFLT principles that demand the use of stories, songs, rhymes, and games (Böttger, 2005, 2012; Elsner, 2010; Legutke et al., 2009; Schmid-Schönbein, 2008), in combination with the child’s personal interests, may be viewed as very useful for eEFL tasks. These considerations are similar to what other researchers term: “Creative tasks are those in which learners have the freedom to use whatever language they have at their disposal to get their message across” (Nunan, 2011, Chapter 5 Position 1248). In the next sections, Cameron’s (2001) concept is discussed first in relation to the German context, before the approach by Legutke and colleagues (2009) is analysed. 3.4.1 A task concept for 11+-year-old EFL learners outside of Germany Cameron (2001) clearly stated that her aim is not to present a clear-cut defi‐ nition, but rather to outline features necessary for tasks for young EFL learners. She outlined a task called “Hani’s Weekend” (Cameron, 2001, p. 22) for 11 year-old learners in Oman who had been learning English for more than three years. This is already a notable difference to the German context as EFLT starts in the project schools in Grade 1. After three years, the project pupils will be 8-9-year-olds (see Chapter 2) and hence their cognitive development is still behind that of the learners to whom Cameron (2001) refered in her example. The activity she described focuses on practising the past tense in using a grid describing Hani’s weekend (Cameron, 2001). The learners were asked to describe the pictures presented in the grid forming grammatically correct sentences using phrases such as ‘on Thursday’. The activity itself is an activity that will not be found in a German eEFLT context as past tense is usually taught in Grade 5 (HKM, n.d.). Moreover, explicit grammar teaching is not part of the PS curriculum (see Section 3.6.2). For the next step, Cameron (2001) provided a rather detailed analysis of pos‐ sible task demands. These are challenges that present themselves to the learner while working on the activity. She also analysed possible task supports. These 95 3.4 TBLT approaches for young learners are supporting features accessible to the learner while working on task. She listed “cognitive, language, interactional, metalinguistic, involvement and phys‐ ical demands” (Cameron, 2001, p. 25), all of which need to be taken into consid‐ eration when designing tasks for learners of all ages. The demands refer to dif‐ ferent teaching aspects in general which ask for a high competence in assessment, classroom management, and a positive teacher-student relation‐ ship, alongside the general EFLT principles and skills required of a teacher. The fact that at different stages during a task sequence an aspect of the sequence may change from being a challenge to being a support system is also problematic (Legutke et al., 2009). This asks for adequate exercise phases during which lan‐ guage chunks and phrases are trained. Cameron (2001) described this tension as a “dynamic relationship“ (p. 26). The difficulty lies in the correct assessment of a lear‐ ner’s acute stage on all levels (cognitive, linguistic, interactional, metalinguistic, in‐ volvement and physical), and suitable anticipation of the next level so that de‐ mands and support fit learners’ needs while also challenging them to further develop. Often teachers find it difficult to match their demands and supports. This, however, is very important as in “[t]he difference between demands and support [lies] the space for growth and produces opportunities for learning” (Cameron, 2001, p. 27). This aspect can be related to Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD. Teaching tasks to young EFL learners in particular requires appropriate de‐ mands and supports to help students be active learners using the language in meaningful ways. If they are not supported adequately, they lack the ability to manipulate the foreign language so that meaningful and personally relevant ut‐ terances are produced. Due to the general developmental stage of the students, teachers cannot rely on students’ personal support systems such as asking the students to work with dictionaries on their own at home. Without adequate sup‐ port, students might feel frustrated. If, on the other hand, the students are too sheltered and not challenged to a suitable extent by the task, then valuable learning opportunities are wasted and it may lead to feelings of boredom in the students. All PS teachers reported that they experienced difficulties trying to ad‐ equately provide support to the students (for an example, see Section 7.2). As stated in Chapter 1, the lack of theoretical guidelines and the limited training in TBLT during teacher pre-service courses increase the difficulty for teachers to understand the nature of tasks and their enactment. Other re‐ searchers have also noticed this. As Kumaravadivelu (2007) implicated, teacher training for TBLT approaches is still insufficient. When it comes to factors in‐ fluencing the overall TBLT introduction to a state’s teaching practices, often the lack of TBLT or general teaching skills (e.g., language proficiency of the 96 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature teachers) affect a successful adoption (Kumaravadivelu, 2007; Zhang, 2007). Ca‐ meron (2001) presented the first step towards a solution: Classroom tasks for children learning a foreign language have coherence and unity for learners (from topic, activity and / or outcome); have meaning and purpose for learners; have clear language learning goals [for teachers]; have a beginning and an end; involve the learners actively (p. 31). However, some features that have particular relevance appear to be missing. Within the project setting, the children reported that they liked their PS English lessons (as stated in informal talks with me during and after the lesson obser‐ vations). What is worth noting is that children may become demotivated if they are not taken seriously and if they cannot participate in topic choice or discus‐ sions about personally relevant subjects. During several lesson observations across different classes and with different teachers, I noted that children voiced their frustrations if they could not personally connect to the lesson topic. The following example based on an observation protocol illustrates this point: Mini-Vignette 1, teacher C One teacher wanted her students to talk about their favourite animals. When the students asked for rather exotic animals for which they would have needed further help in providing language structures and vocabulary, the teacher de‐ cided not to allow the students to include them. Instead, the students were asked to choose from the range of animals presented. This resulted in com‐ plaints from the students during the lesson. One student prepared an entirely different poster of his favourite animal with his parents’ help at home. Comment: In the task reflection sequence, the teacher concluded that she would not disregard the students’ interests again, even though this put her into a difficult situation as she wanted her class to have a big collective and widely shared class vocabulary and did not care for a student’s individual vocabulary. She explained that she would have to re-think her approach. She wanted the students to have rather detailed knowledge of the animals (characteristics, where they lived, etc.). In limiting the selection, it was possible for her to provide such detailed information (She had produced several worksheets illustrating what animals eat, can do, where they live). In not limiting the students choice, she would have to decrease her expectations regarding the detailed description of the animals, something she was not happy with (for further information on vocabu‐ lary see Chapter 4.3, Section 5.2.2 and Section 6.2.3). 97 3.4 TBLT approaches for young learners 24 A. Kolb (2008) also presented a critical assessment of the potential to use tasks in PS. She stated that often a task-based approach is regarded as difficult in eEFLT because young children cannot work independently on tasks. Another argument she re-traced is the as‐ sumption that real world tasks cannot be used with PS children as their connection to Eng‐ lish outside of the classroom is rather limited compared to adults or older learners who may need English for example in order to go on vacation or for career development (A. Kolb, 2008). These findings raise the question as to why Cameron (2001) did not propose a task feature catering for the students’ personal interests. On the procedural level, the general task sequence in Cameron’s (2001) ap‐ proach is divided into three steps: “preparation - core activity - follow up” (p. 32). This is a feature that both the task approaches by Cameron (2001) and Le‐ gutke et al. (2009) agree on. The first step of the task procedure prepares the pupils for the core activity and supplies them with the language features nec‐ essary to successfully complete the core task. These include vocabulary and sentence chunks. In the core phase, the successful completion of the activity itself takes place. The follow-up phase represents the presentation of the core material, and feedback and / or reflection on one’s own learning development (Cameron, 2001; Legutke et al., 2009). All teachers, when teaching tasks in the project context, used a three-step approach (see Chapter 5). 3.4.2 A task-supported approach for young EFL learners in Germany The researchers of the German eEFL task approach 24 drew on the work of Nunan (2004) and J. Willis (1996) and recommended following Cameron’s (2001) task se‐ quencing (Legutke et al., 2009). Here, tasks are recommended as a useful teaching approach for eEFL and the entire concept of how eEFL should be taught is centred on the task concept. In turn, the German researchers offer more than just task fea‐ tures, but a full outline of eEFLT for application in the German context. Further‐ more, they do not provide a specific task definition for the early years (i.e., Grades 1-4), but closely follow the features provided by Cameron (2001). Throughout the book as well as in other publications, the German researchers offered several task examples. One task, for instance, is based on the picture book “The very hungry caterpillar” by Carle (2002). The authors also offered instruc‐ tions on how task might be used within the eEFLC in Germany (Legutke et al., 2009). Some of the tasks are taken from classroom observations and video-re‐ cordings (Legutke et al., 2009). Another example, “the fashion show” is widely known in Germany and is also referred to in the curriculum’s additional mate‐ 98 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 25 For an explanation of TPR see Asher (2003). 26 See Chapter 6 for crucial features that influence the enactment of tasks. Also, for a discussion of whether a task is used or an activity with task potential in such a way that it resembled a mere exercise see Chapter 7. rials (HKM, 2011). The scholars drew on aspects related to motivation and the creation of a positive learning environment. They also outlined several functions of the classroom for how language may be used, learnt, practised and applied to contexts outside of the classroom (Legutke et al., 2009). Legutke and colleagues refered to the aspects of classroom atmosphere as: “Properties and functions of media; Focus on the language classroom”; “Managing classroom processes”; and “Assessing and fostering learner development” (Legutke et al., 2009, Chapters 4, 9, 12). Therefore, it may be argued that the overall learning atmosphere and or‐ ganisational procedures are of key relevance in this eEFL task approach. In her newest article, Schocker (2015) also emphasised the importance of in‐ cluding children’s personal interests in tasks. In placing tasks at the core of eEFLT, Legutke and colleagues stressed the fact that teaching tasks requires a thorough knowledge of TBLT and all other aspects relevant to teaching young learners such as teaching the four skills, storytelling, intercultural communica‐ tion, and new Media, Total Physical Response (TPR) 25 . Although the authors do not state this explicitly, it may be assumed they believe eEFL tasks require teaching mastery in all other eEFLT fields in order to carry out the tasks suc‐ cessfully. Even though both eEFL task approaches (i.e., the non-German and the German one) offer theoretical outlines of the task features and how to use tasks as a basis for eEFL teaching, they do not offer empirical data on task enactments. They also do not offer a precise task definition for young learners based on theoretical and empirical investigation. 3.4.3 Comparison of primary and secondary school task approaches Cameron stressed the fact that tasks should be coherent. Instead of focusing on criteria, it was important to her to understand how the different aspects played together (2001), which I agree with. Simply because a specific task format has been chosen - for example, a role-play - does not guarantee successful language learning will take place (see Chapters 5-7). It is the interplay between the effi‐ cient “(…) plan[ning], implement[ation] and evaluat[ion]” (Cameron, 2001, p. 31) of different aspects of any teaching situation and in particular of a task that need to be considered to achieve a tasks’ full potential 26 . Here, aspects con‐ cerning the learning environment (see Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013) and pow‐ 99 3.4 TBLT approaches for young learners 27 Ruth, for example, commented during her interview that she used storytelling with her Grade 1 class. She described how after the story “Johnny Appleside”, the children should ask each other what kind of apples they liked. In order to facilitate the learning expe‐ rience, Ruth brought different apple varieties with her to class and the children were then asked to taste them and after that decide on their favourite. Jenny used a similar approach in her beginners’ class. When she taught fruits, she brought bananas, apples, and oranges to the lesson, as well as a blindfold. The children were blindfolded and then had to eat a piece of fruit and guess its name. erful language learning situations (Devlieger & Goossens, 2007) appear to be relatable. Cameron’s (2001) opinion and the opinions of other previously stated researchers (e.g., Candlin, 1987) on the factors influencing task enactment have already illustrated that the present task definitions are not detailed enough to help practitioners in their enactment of tasks. In addition, Cameron’ (2001) task features do not mention the importance of considering the students’ personal interests (relevant in the project eEFLT lessons) or their personal development (see Section 3.3). Further, her example of ‘Hani’s weekend’ seems to resemble more closely activities used with older learners than tasks focusing on mean‐ ingful communication. Nonetheless, her concept is a useful starting point for further elaboration. In regards to task sequences, the first step in a tripartite task sequence for young learners is similar to those for older learners. A significant difference to the young learners’ task structure however, may be observed in the core activity. The young learners work on a specific activity and receive help and feedback from the teacher (e.g., the production of a short text on their favourite animal). They do not follow the rather complex task cycle conceptualised by J. Willis (1996) or Nunan (2004). The core phase for younger learners offers them time to produce their final task product along with opportunities to ask the teacher for new words to support their task product creation. The last part, termed post-task for older learners and follow-up for young learners, is also different. At the PS level, this step is replaced by a reflection or general feedback phase because explicit grammar instruction does not play a role (HKM, 2010), as already stated several times. Within the project context, the teachers only used this phase to present the products of the target task and to provide feedback to students. In other BL, teachers are required to include a reflective phase (QUA-LiS NRW, 2015). In reference to task features, Legutke and Thomas’ (1991) aspects also relate to young learners. However, within PS settings teacher initiated phases still play the central role. Learner-centred teaching methods remain relatively uncommon (Waschk, 2008). Legutke and Thomas’ (1991) overall holistic view of learning is a key aspect of eEFLT learning and was observed in many project teachers’ lessons 27 . 100 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 28 Only Patricia occasionally asked the students to work in groups to create, for example, a role-play or develop an impromptu mini narration to a picture story. 29 For an example of a task and an outline of task demands and support in the German context, see Dreßler (2012a). Many features of Müller-Hartmann and colleagues’ (Müller-Hartmann et al., 2013; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2006, 2011a, 2011b) secondary school approaches also relate to the eEFLC. Three aspects, however, appear to be problematic for the eEFLC: the form-focused phase; intercultural competence (ICC), and interaction with individual and co-operative problem-solving phases (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011a; 2011b). The interaction fea‐ ture as well as the ICC feature does not appear to play a crucial role in most of the project teachers’ classroom. Almost all tasks observed had a clear individual focus and did not involve cooperative or group work at all 28 . This is noteworthy, as secondary school tasks often include group or at least partner work. In the project schools sometimes even those aspects that normally require partner or group work (interview situation or a role-play) were sometimes practised in circle time with all students repeating the teacher’s example (see Section 6.2.1). Scaffolding is crucial for eEFL tasks (see Nunan [2004]) and is often difficult for the project teachers to master. Likewise, Nunan’s (2004) feature on task de‐ pendency is a common aspect of PS teaching and may be related to Cameron’s (2001) task approach 29 . Nunan’s (2004) principle number 5 outlines the integra‐ tion of all language learning areas: form, function, and meaning. This may be connected to the previously discussed aspect of focus on form and Cameron’s (2001) task example referring to past tense, and therefore is irrelevant for current eEFL tasks in the project schools. 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany This section provides an overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany. This aspect is divided into five sections: the first section briefly summarises the goals of eEFLT in Germany (3.5.1). Section 3.5.2 briefly introduces the teaching aims and approaches to eEFLT in Germany and is followed by Section 3.5.3 that focuses on skills and how they are taught. Section 3.5.4 introduces the key principles of eEFLT and shows those on which the project teachers agreed. In the last section, a number of the textbooks and teaching materials used in the project schools are presented (see Section 3.5.5). This section briefly summarises the trends in 101 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany 30 For more details with a different focus on the history of eEFLT approaches in Germany, see Dausend (2014) and Demircioglu (2008). It is important to bear in mind that pilot studies were conducted in the 70s and 80s (Gompf, 1975, 1980) that are rather detailed. eEFLT that have played a role over the past 20 years 30 . It can be assumed that the project teachers have all come into contact with some or all of them as part of their teacher education. eEFLT approaches took root from 1995 onwards (Demircioglu, 2008) and with them many guide books were subsequently pub‐ lished on how to teach EFL to young learners (Börner, Engel, & Groot-Wilken, 2013; Böttger, 2005, 2012; Doyé, 2005; Edelhoff, 2003; Elsner, 2010, 2015; Klippel, 2000; Legutke et al., 2009; Mindt & Schlüter, 2003, 2007; Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). Overall, several divergent beliefs emerged in the literature on eEFLT that may be classified as: general educational goals of eEFLT, teaching aims, ap‐ proaches to eEFLT, skills, and key features of eEFLT. 3.5.1 Overall educational goals eEFLT was initially termed an “oasis” (Klippel, 2000, p. 21) because it was taught either as an elective subject or as part of the regular school curric‐ ulum, but without the provision of grades. Thus, it had a different focus to today’s orientation in teaching objectives and aims on standards and compe‐ tencies (HKM, 2010; Roos, 2006). In general, there were several broad trends (Demircioglu, 2008). One had a meetingor community-oriented language learning focus that fostered positive attitudes towards foreign languages. One focused on bilingual or contentand language-integrated learning with its different forms up to full immersion (in private schools) (Bechler, 2014). An‐ other one was a systematic approach that demanded vocabulary and struc‐ tural progression (Gompf, 1980). Lastly, one was a mixture of the first and last form with a particular focus on holistic learning and a progression towards communicatively beneficial phrases (Vollmuth, 2004). The overarching educational goal of eEFLT was nonetheless to acquire a “positive mind-set” (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008, p. 51) for learning foreign lan‐ guages. This demand still plays a role in the project teachers’ concepts of eEFLT and in general eEFLT didactics. It is today also connected to the CE‐ FR’s demand for a multilingual Europe (Council of Europe, 2001). Gaby’s un‐ derlying reasons for teaching EFL at primary level adhere to this goal. During an interview she stated: 102 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature Voice 9 (…) I find it absolutely great and thrilling to be responsible for the fact that children come into contact with a language that is not their mother tongue, but with a language I believe to be able to allow them if they can speak it, that is, to come into contact with people from anywhere in the world (…) it is really a language in which people can come into contact (…) Gaby - 2013 As can be seen in the extract above, the concept of coming into contact with other people and other cultures and allowing cultural exchange is important. How this may be acquired is discussed in the next section. Today, the goal of eEFLT is to enable children to communicate and use English ( Jäger, 2012). 3.5.2 Teaching aims and approaches eEFLT is meant to be “(…) relevant, interesting, comprehensible and experi‐ ence-based” (Mindt & Schlüter, 2007, p. 26 researcher translation), though tasks are not mentioned explicitly. In general, the demands remain on creating and sustaining motivated foreign language learners, fostering oral communication skills, and focusing on knowledge about and positive attitudes towards other cultures (Böttger, 2005; Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). Additional goals postulated for eEFLT in Germany focus on topics that are relevant to children and a level of spontaneity is regarded as important by way of allowing for the inclusion of topics into lessons when they arise (Böttger, 2005). In addition, language is meant to be taught in contextand activity-oriented ways so that learners may absorb the language through actions as well as in a functional way (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). eEFLT should also be child-appro‐ priate. What child-like or child-adequate teaching means remains unclear (Ku‐ banek-German, 2001). It also appears to be hard to define (Hilligus & Rinkens, 2006; Kubanek-German, 2001; Mayer, 2009; Rosenberger, 2005). Researchers and teachers often assumed that they know what children find interesting rather than asking the learners directly. Pinter and Zandian (2014) showed that re‐ search still does not take the children’s perspective into consideration, let alone involve them actively in the research process. This is crucial, as Brügelmann already stated in 2006 that children experience things differently to the way adults assume they do. Thus, demands for a child-like eEFLT approach are dif‐ ficult to grasp. 103 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany Other researchers (e.g., Mindt & Schlüter, 2003) also emphasised age ap‐ propriateness for eEFLT, referring to aspects such as playfulness and mate‐ rials that are fascinating and that allow for holistic teaching. They drew a connection to songs and rhymes as well as action. Legutke and colleagues (2009) referred to findings from research studies into EFLT and correspond‐ ingly emphasised as important: motivation, the positive factors of learning in groups, the transferability of strategies from first language acquisition to second or foreign language acquisition, reflection on own learning, and the inclusion of reading and writing skills. To conclude, it appears that the guide‐ books for eEFLT agree on holistic learning that is action oriented and the use of language as genuine features of eEFLT. In terms of the approach level, in eEFLT books activities were outlined that seem to resemble tasks such as being a tourist asking for directions in a for‐ eign city, and activities such as storytelling. These activities are also pro‐ moted to foster listening skills (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). Even performing theatrical plays based on picture books or storybooks were proposed (Böttger, 2005). Simulations and role-plays were mentioned as playful activities (Mindt & Schlüter, 2007; Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). It was emphasized that person‐ ally relevant topics such as talking about one’s favourite animal was impor‐ tant (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). Yet, Schmid-Schönbein (2008) drew no con‐ ceptual difference in the approach level between activities such as playing “Bingo” or performing a role-play. Child-centred eEFLT learning has been proclaimed for years even though it is hard to define. Moreover, it is often not clear what child-centeredness means exactly or how the concept can be trans‐ lated onto the procedural level. Additionally, TBLT approaches are not discussed except by way of a brief reference in relation to the active involvement of the children. TBLT ap‐ proaches are briefly mentioned in Kubanek-German (2003), but in connection to language awareness and intercultural learning. This is because she placed the focus of TBLT approaches on aspects of discovery and the fact that con‐ tent should be made self-accessible (Kubanek-German, 2003). In other teaching handbook or eEFLT materials, there appears to be no explicit mention of task-based teaching. When comparing eEFLT to EFLT at the secondary school level, it becomes obvious that there is a big difference in the approach level, namely in relation to the child-centeredness, playfulness, and the non-pro‐ gression in (explicit) grammar teaching. These aspects are abandoned in Grade 5 (Kubanek-German, 2001, 2003). 104 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 3.5.3 Skill level In EFLCs in the past, listening and speaking skills were regarded as most im‐ portant (HKM, 1995; Klippel, 2000), whereas reading and writing skills were neglected. Listening preceded speaking, and speaking was to be taught following the natural progression from imitation via reproduction to free production. Drese (2007) and Diehr and Frisch (2008) illustrated the four-phase model from imitation via partial reproduction, and reproduction to production. In this model students are confronted with chants, rhymes, and phrases that are at first di‐ rectly imitated, then recalled during later lessons. Over time, the phrasal struc‐ tures and chunks are increasingly applied more freely when using the foreign language as a means of communication. Overall, it is obvious that a focus on reproduction was emphasised (Böttger, 2005) and that listening was regarded as the predominant skill. This was pri‐ marily because it was feared that students would be overstrained if speaking was made a necessity, especially during the early weeks of learning English (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008). After allowing the students to adjust to the foreign language, speaking skills were then to be acquired. Only recently a particular focus on reading, writing, and also speech production in terms of communica‐ tion-oriented forms has become popular. Research studies in the German context (Börner, 2006; Groot-Wilken, 2009; Keßler, 2009; Wilden, Porsch, & Ritter, 2013) revealed that speaking was often reduced to the imitation or reproduction level due to the teachers’ focus on nouns and their disregard of teaching verbs nec‐ essary for sentence production. The overall goal is now to achieve an A1 level with a particular focus on speaking and listening skills (Mayer, 2009). Following the inclusion of English language instruction as a compulsory subject in the PS curriculum (KMK, 2005), the objectives and teaching goals of language instruction not only changed but also the methodology and di‐ dactical approaches. In addition, other skills have started to play a more im‐ portant role. These are the inclusion of the written form and a more progres‐ sive use of grammatical forms needed by the students (Diehr & Rymarczyk, 2010; Elsner, 2010; Frisch, 2013; Kuhn, 2006; Legutke et al., 2009). In a number of research studies, the potential benefits of a stronger reading and writing focus in eEFLT have been outlined (Diehr & Rymarczyk, 2010; Frisch, 2013). Ideas from those studies were incorporated into the project context and project teachers’ agreed to experiment with using the written forms in Grades 1 and 2 according to their confidence level. Some project teachers started using the written form in Grade 1, others in Grade 2. 105 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany 31 Based on an interview with Ruth. 32 The “word monster” is based on Reilly and Ward (2011) class monster (p.36). As Ruth commented, she started using the written form in Grade 2, but some‐ times also used a few words in Grade 1 31 . Ruth views language learning as a progression from a particular focus on listening and speaking skills in Grades 1 and 2, with only a few words and phrases in the written form, to greater inclusion of the written form with more reading activities and writing tasks in Grades 3 and 4. Anna described her approach towards the inclusion of words as follows: Voice 10 I have made use of the word monster and I started in my Grade 1 with three words, good, bad and okay. The children loved it. Now, we feed it every lesson with a few words from every topic that are similar to German words or that children already are familiar with. Anna - 2012 Image 2 Anna’s word monster F. 5: Anna’s ‘Word Monster’ for the topic clothes. 32 Anna introduced the written form of a few words in each topic in a three-step approach: (i) matching the picture to the word, putting the word into the word monster’s head. (ii) In the following lesson the words must be correctly read again to be placed into the word monster’s tummy. (iii) In the next lesson, after the students have correctly read and remembered the words again, they will be taken out of the tummy and new words can be learnt. During her interview, Patricia illustrated another example of how the written forms are used: 106 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 33 These statements are based on informal talks with the teacher throughout the project. For aspects on focus and form in the enactment of tasks see Chapter 7. Voice 11 At Christmas, I did the same {children draw a picture of their presents} and then I also did it with Christmas presents and Christmas pictures, well, and different things and then always like this, for example, I printed words such as »star« and »tree« and so forth on little mmh cards and then they were glued next to the pictures. That was the first time in Grade 2 that first words and writing were adadded into my lessons. Patricia - 2012 These experiences are in line with the shift from (almost) no use of written forms in eEFLT in Germany to a more open approach towards reading and writing in EFLT in PS. Studies show that the use of written forms may be rather beneficial (Diehr & Frisch, 2010, 2011; Diehr & Rymarczyk, 2010). However, how often the forms are used is not clearly outlined. In general, it is assumed that the use of written forms has a positive effect on other areas of language learning (Börner & Frisch, 2013; Duscha, 2007). Furthermore, state curricula also propose the use of simple written forms (HKM, 2010; MSWNRW, n.d., 2008). Additionally, the use of vocabulary and grammar has increasingly been ac‐ cepted. Although children initially learnt mostly about nouns, a greater focus was placed on teaching phrases and chunks (e.g., wh-questions, as well as “Have you got…? ”and “Do you like…? ” questions) over the last years to enable learners to produce sentences and interact communicatively (Diehr & Kötter, 2013; Legutke et al., 2009). It was advised that grammar teaching be focused on the aspects that are often produced by children such as plurals. Here, the crite‐ rion of relevance to the students’ language production was raised (Elsner, 2010; Kuhn, 2006; Mindt & Schlüter, 2007). The focus is still on the use of grammar and not on the explicit knowledge of the rules (Legutke et al., 2009). Keßler and colleagues asked for the teaching of grammar to be connected to aspects of the learners’ language to ensure it be most beneficial (Keßler & Lenzing, 2008). In the project setting, only one teacher claimed to teach grammatical aspects ex‐ plicitly and regularly, stating that she viewed it as her duty to adequately prepare the children for the transition from primary to secondary school 33 . 107 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany Voice 12 (…) or a different thing with mediation, I have sentence fragments, ehm something like “sentence construction sights“ and then the sentences get correctly formed in English (2), yes, well, the word order of the English sen‐ tence is something I also include always, ehm these are so smaller things, (…) well you create little cards yourself and then you have to stand in the correct order, blue is for the subject, red and so on, and this is simply the other way around in English (…) Margaret - 2013 3.5.4 Key features Depending on the advocate, different key features for eEFLT may be isolated. In the initial stages of eEFLT, Klippel outlined “an alphabet of PS-/ childlike for‐ eign language teaching” (2000, Chapter 5 researcher translation). Rück (2004) and Sambanis (2007) provided similar principles of eEFLT. Rück (2004) defined four basic features and three further features of relevance: input, variational repetition, playfulness, movements, integration, written procedure, and pro‐ gression. Input (i.e., new vocabulary) is the underlying feature for language learning and is introduced by the teacher, for instance, in an interactional mini role-play with a hand puppet. The students are then asked to respond physically with movements matching the vocabulary field in order to contextualise the meanings of the words and to offer the possibility of implicit language rule formation (Rück, 2004). Rück (2004) also referred to the ‘silent period’ (see Schmid-Schönbein, 2008) and claimed that through rich input the introduction of new words and their pronunciation might be fostered. Rich input might help the students to later pronounce the words. Additionally, mispronunciations might be “unobtrusively corrected“ (Rück, 2004, p. 200 researcher translation) as the word is pronounced several times by the teacher during the rich context phase, i.e. when the target word is used in several different situations / sentences (e.g., It is a dog. A dog can run fast. I have got a dog. My dog likes playing with a ball.). Input is pre‐ sented using various techniques with the help of rhythmic chants or songs, or the use of visual aids and other forms of games to sustain motivation in the learners. Both principles refer to the teacher as a language role model and thus demand that she speak as much English as possible. Rück’s (2004) third principle referred to the playfulness of teaching, namely the teacher’s ability to play with the hand puppet or use mimes and movements (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The 108 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 34 Chapters 5-7 show that the creation of a rich learning situation is crucial for the overall task emergence. 35 (Bäumer, Bluhm, Scholz, & Schäfer, n.d.). 36 However, it is important to bear in mind that even though the teachers agreed on terms, as the analysis of interviews, observation protocols and field diary notes showed, their personal understandings and definitions of the key terms were sometimes divergent. fourth principle proposed by Rück (2004) referred to the children’s active en‐ gagement in movements with TPR aspects, for example, or by concentrating on the enhancement of breathing techniques. It is important to bear in mind that all actions are used as a speaking or interaction opportunity such as the question as to whether the students are tired and need to stand up, open the window, and take deep breaths. Rück’s (2004) features refer to the integration of English into other subjects (CLIL), the use of the written form after the pronunciation is secured, and the progression of language skills rather than an explicit teaching of grammatical elements to foster a grammatical progression. These principles are thus com‐ parable to Klippel’s (2000) ABC of eEFLT, for example. However, Klippel appears to propose a greater focus on the students’ actual speech production, whereas Rück’s features focus more on providing a rich and meaningful learning situa‐ tion to understand or reproduce the target language. This is because he does not explicitly refer to the guided instruction of speaking skills 34 . Sambanis (2007) investigated the principle of co-active teaching and learning and referred to three didactical principles: interpersonal relations, child-ade‐ quate handling, and the progression from listening to speaking through the use of language. Her first principle referred to a rich experience-based approach connected to task-like features, the second to holistic learning that is also a feature of task-approaches, and the third principle to “the communicative-in‐ teractional progression in the target language” (p. 164 researcher translation). The features identified by Sambanis are relatable to those used in the project context and have task-similarity, but do not identify a difference at the concep‐ tual level between exercises or tasks. To conclude, what all authors have in common is a focus on the learners’ needs and on active engagement via playful and motivating activities. The last group of key features (Schäfer, n.d.) are of special relevance to the project as they refer to teaching materials (Little Early Bird and Early Bird) 35 used in the project. These key features have been the underlying basis for eEFLT features that the PS teachers agreed on 36 . The research team in collaboration with the teachers selected the key features. They are often similar or identical 109 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany to other key features proposed by Klippel (2001) or Legutke and colleagues (2009), for example. The key features are drawn from Schäfer (n.d.): • English as means of communication in eEFL • the use of routines to provide structure and guidance for children, espe‐ cially for weaker learners (same opening routine every lesson) • the connection to the individual child’s lifeworld, experiences, and interests • a progression from listening to speaking and in the development of speaking production both with the help of scaffolding, movements, gestures, songs and rhymes, TPR, revision and spiral curriculum, using different senses, the var‐ ious classroom functions and holistic learning, storytelling • feedback and self-reflection • tasks • teacher’s willingness to reflect on one’s own teaching and embrace the lifelong learning metaphor. As with all teaching approaches and objectives, if the key features are singled out, their effectiveness is questionable. However, when they are considered together they create a powerful learning environment (Devlieger & Goossens, 2007). The intricate interplay between the features and, above all, the teacher’s positive atti‐ tude towards learning, teaching, and her students creates a learning environment that allows students to experiment with language (see Sections 3.2.5 and 3.4.2). Children may experience learning difficulties if their general human needs are not adequately met at home and / or at school. As such, the teacher needs to provide a secure and safe learning environment (Williams & Burden, 1997). Almost all of Nunan’s (2004) TBLT features may be connected to the general eEFLT features. The author refers in his task dependency feature to the pro‐ gression from receptive-to-productive and reproductive-to-creative language use. This is important in the German context (Drese, 2007; Dreßler, 2012c). An‐ other principle proposed by Nunan (2004) is that of recycling previously learnt items. This may be connected to Bruner’s (1960) spiral curriculum. Active learning is a general task principle that is particularly important in PS. Active not only means children make active use of language to communicate, but also engage in activities and movements to learn vocabulary and to develop a better understanding (Dreßler, A. Kolb, et al., 2016). Nunan’s (2004) sixth principle focused on creation and may be connected to Drese’s (2007) highest level of production. This was also a goal of eEFLT within the project schools. Nunan’s (2004) last principle - reflection - is an integrative part of the task cycle ( J. Willis, 1996), but is often neglected in the project teach‐ ers’ classrooms. This is due to time constraints and the understanding that port‐ 110 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 37 To name the most common ones in the project schools: Ehlers, 2013; Gerngross, Puchta, & Becker, 2013. folio work, for example, is only useful if the homeroom teacher also uses it as a general teaching principle. In general, portfolio work is widely approved within the German eEFLT context (A. Kolb, 2007). Hence, it may be concluded that almost all of Nunan’s (2004) TBLT principles are relevant to eEFL tasks or eEFLT. The next section briefly explores the most important teaching materials used within the project setting to determine the type of eEFL task approach they promote, if at all. 3.5.5 Textbooks and teaching materials Within the project setting, many different textbooks were used. Some schools had developed their own materials. They were a compilation of different songs, rhymes, and stories about different topics suitable for Grades 1 and 2. From Grade 3 onwards, teachers often combined their own teaching materials with other textbooks they liked. The textbooks used at the different PS all included task elements 37 . Some had a more explicit task-based approach than others, but all textbooks offered different task formats such as role-plays, presentations, and mini-interviews. However, the textbooks rarely followed a task-based approach, and thus provided no explicit task instructions or instructions for the task enactment. Another common fea‐ ture among all project PS was that none employed a textbook only procedure. This meant that even though a textbook had been selected for the school to pro‐ vide basic teaching materials, all teachers claimed to also use additional materials from various different textbooks, colleagues’ materials, the Internet, or eEFLT magazines and journals. The textbooks played a rather limited role within the project setting as almost all of the tasks shown to me by the teachers used a mix‐ ture of material from several textbooks to reflect the class level and cater to the students’ needs. The textbooks offered several task formats, but only those based on the “Early Bird materials” (Schäfer, n.d.) were process oriented and provided teachers with an overall task-like teaching approach. During the project meetings, two examples of teaching materials were dis‐ cussed (Diehr & Frisch, 2008; Gerngross & Puchta, 1996). The first example refers to stories that could be easily enacted through body movements following the TPR approach (Asher, 2003) that matched the spoken text. These action stories were regarded as appropriate activities for Grades 1 and 2. When the students engaged in the re-telling / re-enacting of the story to their classmates, they 111 3.5 Overview of eEFLT approaches in Germany 38 For further information on how the understanding of eEFL tasks changed throughout the project phase, see (Dreßler, A. Kolb, Kollmann, and Legutke (2016). shared their understanding of the story and communicated with the help of movements. The second example refers to the speaking activities used for oral assessment (Diehr & Frisch, 2008). It is important to note that the teaching ideas provided by Diehr and Frisch (2008) were originally used by the project group. However, the teachers’ un‐ derstanding of what a task was, changed throughout the project. When taking a closer look at the teachers’ tasks, it became evident that almost all tasks in Grade 4 referred to personal wishes, feelings, and the ideas of the students (e.g., favourite animal, dream job, dream house, favourite book, favourite place, fin‐ ishing a storybook, my bike, our storybook, or our fairy tale theatre 38 ); yet the ways in which project teachers translated those into actual teaching situations were quite diverse (see Chapters 5-7). Although the speaking activities in the Diehr and Frisch (2008) book were engaging, fostered speaking skills, and pro‐ vided teachers with a clear guideline for assessment, they lacked a strong student focus and did not leave room for the students’ personal interpretations of a task. This might be due to their emphasis on assessment and diagnostic skills. 3.6 General PS teaching approaches and curricular demands This section offers information on the academic discourse (Section 3.6.1) on general PS teaching based on research literature and the political discourse (Section 3.6.2) on general PS teaching as stated in the curricula. Common PS didactics in Germany focus on the children, their developmental stages, and recommendations from the Secretaries of Education and Cultural Affairs across all BL. In Germany, PS education is the only stage at which all children, regard‐ less of their skills and abilities, are taught together (Hellmich & Kiper, 2006). Thus teachers are asked to cater to all children’s needs and use differentiation and scaffolding together with playful activities (Glöckel, 2000). Teachers are also required to teach holistically by focusing on the children and their lifeworld (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 1974, 2000). General PS didactics asks to recognise and than consider the heterogeneous school reality when planning lessons. Developmental psychology research shows that children at the beginning of PS may vary considerably in their developmental stage (Oerter, 2008). As a con‐ sequence, the basic cultural techniques such as reading, writing, and calculating, as well as all other aspects are to be taught in a child-centred way. The curric‐ 112 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature ulum demands the use of learning environments and tasks that are cognitively challenging for students, are neither too open nor too closed, are related to aspects close to the lifeworld of the students, allow the students to approach the topic differently and at various levels of engagement, and allow learners to be responsible for their learning, decide on goals, and develop a meaningful un‐ derstanding of the content to be learnt (HKM, 2011). These aspects all relate to the previously mentioned aspect of child-likeness or child-appropriateness and its vague definition. 3.6.1 Development of PS children The development of PS children may be investigated from several different per‐ spectives, three of which have been selected for their relevance to tasks and learning in general, namely (i) learning psychology aspects, (ii) neuroscientific aspects, and (iii) anthropological aspects. (i) From a learning psychology perspective, children are expected to learn how to work and encode systems of symbols such as mathematical and alpha‐ betical symbols. They are expected to progress from concrete experiences as incidents of learning to more abstract processes that foster “thinking on a mental level” (Holodynski & Schiefele, 2008, p. 16 researcher translation). Another de‐ mand the authors outline for PS teaching is that children are required to sys‐ tematically structure their knowledge. Research into learning psychology / de‐ velopment defines learning as an active process in which knowledge is constructed. This process is based on the provision of a situation with concrete learning material and is supposed to be an individual self-regulatory process during which the learners work with the content to be learnt. It is simultane‐ ously a social process in which other people play an important role. Consequently, Holodynski and Schiefele (2008) demanded that “(…) primary school guides this constructive, situational and individual learning process of the students through a specific organisation of the individual learning action and learning materials” (p. 18 researcher translation). The authors explained that learning and memory are connected and emphasised that learning needs to be personally relevant with the help of different senses and emotions to store con‐ tent. The authors also illustrated three different forms of learning: enactive, iconic, and symbolic. The three forms refer to learning within a situation with, for example, concrete materials. These are objects, such as soft toys or building blocks. On the next level, iconic representations, such as visual aids are used. Finally, on the highest level, symbolic representations such as text or mathe‐ matical symbols are utilized. The highest level is obviously the most difficult for 113 3.6 General PS teaching approaches and curricular demands PS children. A general demand of PS teaching is the so-termed action orientation (‘Handlungsorientierung’). In the field of learning psychology, action orientation is related to the first basic step of enactive and iconic learning (Holodynski & Schiefele, 2008). All of the aspects are highly relevant to eEFL tasks and their enactment and it is important for PS teachers to use the three levels to assist students to learn, for example, the meanings of a word (see Chapter 5-7). (ii) From a neuroscientific perspective, brain plasticity plays a crucial role in forming a connection to an environment. The environment needs to match the children’s needs and cater to their wishes to allow the child to feel in a safe and secure space (Schäfers & Teuchert-Noodt, 2008). The use of motoric skills such as drawing, arts and crafts, or climbing, and running and shouting, as well as active engagement and self-guided learning are not only beneficial for the child’s general development, but also for the development of emotions and associated talents. The authors claimed it is particularly crucial during the early develop‐ mental stages that: The learning content must be meaningful for a child. Things should be used that allow for action-based emotionally relevant experiences within complex contexts and not within arrangements that are bereft of content and meaning. Mental overand under-load unfavourably influence the interacting subsystems of the maturing brain (Schäfers & Teuchert-Noodt, 2008, p. 39 researcher translation). As the quote shows, general TBLT demands are connected to the students’ stages of brain developmental. The same may be concluded for the learning psycho‐ logical aspects of action-orientation, concrete, enactive, and iconic forms of learning. (iii) Another aspect of learning presented by N. Kluge (2008) is heterogeneity. The author stated that many teachers view classes and learner groups as ho‐ mogenous, and that this is erroneous in two ways: first, biology shows that no human being is completely identical to another. Second, human beings have the personal right in modern life to be recognised for their individuality. As a con‐ sequence, N. Kluge (2008) concluded that schools and therefore teachers need to accept heterogeneity as a reality among student groups and with this “accept the child as an equal subject and a serious co-creator of directed learning pro‐ cesses“ (pp. 47-48 researcher translation). These understandings are convergent with demands that focus on the child’s individual development and postulate the appreciation and support of the child (Bartnitzky, 2008). They are also rel‐ evant in general eEFLT (Legutke et al., 2009; Nunan, 2011) and eEFL task ap‐ proaches (see Sections 3.1-3.4). 114 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature In education theories and curricula, often general competencies are addressed as an all-encompassing goal. That is, they are not restricted to one subject, but are set as a goal for all subjects (Glöckel, 2000; Hellmich & Kiper, 2006). For instance, the Secretaries of Education and Cultural Affairs of all BL demand that the overall general development of the child’s personality needs to be enhanced and in doing so a basis is laid for all future learning (KMK, 1994, p. 2). Also, a child should be helped to develop a (positive) self-concept (Billmann-Mahecha & Tiedemann, 2008). In addition, general PS didactics focus on the provision of basic learning skills to all children. As a consequence, teaching is child-centred and has to cater to the individual needs and abilities of children through matching strategies (Glöckel, 2000). Slogans such as ‘from the child’s perspec‐ tive’ have become the overall goal of modern PS education since the 1980s (Ofenbach, 2001). Education should focus “(…) on the child’s perspective, his development, his welfare and his needs, on his individuality and interests” (Ofenbach, 2001, p. 35 researcher translation). Education stands for the integra‐ tion of different personality traits of individual learners. Additionally, the goal of general PS teaching is the overall development of a “mature and responsible citizen of a democratic community” (Glöckel, 2000, p. 342 researcher translation) using an age-appropriate approach. When comparing the general PS approaches to TBLT and general eEFLT, it is evident that all are learner-centred. In addition, all focus on the lifeworld of the students, and on a general development within a positive environment. All approaches proclaim the personal development of the learner, use experiences and holistic learning, and foster self-reflection and self-responsibility for learning. In addition, in general PS teaching tasks are proclaimed as useful (Stern & Hardy, 2011). Thus, the assumption made at the beginning of the research project that PS EFL teachers were teaching tasks within their daily teaching routines still holds true (see Section 2.2.3). Hence, it may be deduced from the discussion here that eEFLT and eEFL task approaches can easily be connected to general PS teaching principles in Germany. Therefore, it makes sense to in‐ clude these aspects in the eEFL task features (see Chapter 7). Particular focus should be placed on the previously discussed aspect of the student’s personal interest. This appears to be undervalued in Cameron’s (2001) TBLT approach, but may be found in several project teachers’ task enactments. 3.6.2 Curricula used in the project and their tasks features Before taking a closer look at project relevant curricula, it is worth summarising the paper edited by the Secretaries of Education and Cultural Affairs of all BL (‘Kultus‐ 115 3.6 General PS teaching approaches and curricular demands 39 Different recommendations have been issued over the past 20 years (KMK, 1994, 2013). The recommendations have developed from a paragraph in the 1994 version to an entire docu‐ ment with the sole focus on early FLT in 2013. The advice presented in the 1994 paragraph has been further specified, but the directive appears to be the same in the 2013 paper. ministerkonferenz’). Even though the specific BL’s approach to eEFLT varies, the overall goals are required to match the following criteria 39 : foreign languages are to be taught in a way that children experience other cultures (KMK, 1994), and also act in and engage with diversity of cultures and languages in their lifeworld both in‐ side and outside of their country (KMK, 2013). In addition, it is stated that eEFLT has its own didactics and way of teaching with key features that follow a game-ori‐ ented approach reliant on differentiated teaching and student participation (KMK, 1994). The approach is experience-based and also allows for a discovery-based and test-based approach. Moreover, training and language is used to acquire knowl‐ edge, skills, and abilities that cater for communicative situations in the foreign lan‐ guage (KMK, 2013). Additionally, it is stated that the basic teaching approaches and content areas from other PS subjects are related to eFLT. Furthermore, there are no grades given (KMK, 1994), but rather verbal evaluations (KMK, 2013). In all BL, eEFLT principles focus on using English as a means for communication and in‐ struction, teaching is action-oriented and presents authentic language learning sit‐ uations, the priority lies on oral language use with the help of writing and reading. Teaching fosters a creative use of language, promotes functional error / mistake tolerance - fluency before accuracy, a communicative progression, enables lan‐ guage reflection, differentiation, and a connection to the existing multilingualism in the learners’ group and is holistic (KMK, 2005). Normally, eEFLT starts in Grade 3 in the BL in which the project was set. The core competencies of the curriculum are: communicative competence; listening, viewing and reading skills; speaking, writing and mediation skills; transcultural competence; language learning competence; and competence development within the context of other subjects (HKM, 2010). The main focus lies on being able to meaningfully communicate with others. Explicit knowledge on structural skills is not required of the learners, but rather they “acquire vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, caption and intonation only to the extent as they serve communicative purposes” (HKM, 2010, p. 14 researcher translation). The cur‐ riculum’s focus is on listening and speaking skills, and writing and reading skills are of secondary concern. Here, the project teachers go beyond those demands. They often implement tasks in which several skills are used and in which writing or reading skills move beyond the basic reproductive level (see Chapter 5). Fur‐ thermore, the curriculum states that students demonstrate listening compre‐ hension through body movements and nonverbal acts, in a holistic way. 116 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature The core content areas of the curriculum are divided into three topics: personal living environment (“Me and the others”); public-societal living environment (“Me and the society”); and cultural living environment (“Me and the world”). Nonethe‐ less, it is notable that all of the topics operate with a dichotomous conceptualisation of students. The curriculum content areas follow general competencies develop‐ ment and refer to the CEFR’s “can-do-statements” (Council of Europe, 2001). Addi‐ tionally, the levels to be achieved at the end of two years of teaching EFL (Grade 4) are contrasted to those that are to be attained after 4 years (i.e., at the end of Grade 6). In summary, these are the competencies that children are expected to have ach‐ ieved by the end of Grade 4 (HKM, 2010, pp. 23-27): Listening / lis‐ tening-viewing competencies Children are able to recognize easy utterances from their basic knowledge areas and are able to under‐ stand basic information. However, this is only the case if the communication partner speaks slowly, clearly, stops frequently, and uses a fair amount of known vo‐ cabulary and repeats the utterance if necessary. Readingunderstanding competencies Learners are able to read and understand familiar words or very easy and short texts based on familiar sentences. Speaking competencies Students are able to utter short, isolated, and previ‐ ously taught structures concerning familiar items, themselves, or other people. Writing competencies Learners are able to copy previously phonologically learnt words and sentences and are able to create short texts based on a model. Mediation competencies They are able to express the (gist) content of short and clearly structured listening situations or texts in German. Transcultural competencies Students are aware of cultural specifics of the target countries and are able to describe these in German. Further, they can name similarities and differences between the cultures. Language learning competencies Students are open towards learning foreign languages. T. 2: Competencies Grade 4 HKM 2010. Additionally, the MoE provides guidelines for teaching eEFL. The tasks are pre‐ sented as useful learning and teaching approaches (see Chapter 1) and the task 117 3.6 General PS teaching approaches and curricular demands materials are illustrated in detail (HKM, 2011). In these guidelines, Legutke’s “The fashion show” is illustrated (see Section 3.4.2). The schools in the project’s home state are required to develop their in-school curriculum for different subjects on a rather concrete level based on the federal state curriculum (HKM, 2010). The project schools consequently needed to de‐ velopment a curriculum. The development of such a school-based, here project-based curriculum, however, seems rather difficult and requires a high level of teacher competence for two reasons: school size and teacher qualifica‐ tion. Depending on the general school size and the significance the subject has within the respective staff body, the number of English teachers at a school varies considerably (i.e., in some schools, there are several English teachers, whereas in others there is only one). Furthermore, even though most project teachers have some type of qualification in eEFLT (or are currently participating in an in-service training program), not all teachers have studied the subject thoroughly at a tertiary education institution. Thus, not all teachers are familiar with the overall teaching approaches valued in the academic discourse. Nor do they know how to translate the rather abstract competence and content area descriptions into concrete teaching approaches in a way that matches the cur‐ riculum’s requirement: “(…) the key components of the core curriculum are made realisable and are merged in such a way over a long time in the classroom so that competencies can be cumulatively developed” (HKM, 2010, pp. 6-7 re‐ searcher translation). Within the project, two of the five PS developed their English curriculum and continuously revised it by comparing it to different state curricula and the project curricula. The other schools were in the process of developing their own curriculum when they joined the project. The project curricula were developed collaboratively with the project mem‐ bers, but the form of collaboration changed over time. In the beginning, the research team analysed state curricula of this BL and of a neighbouring BL in which eEFLT started in Grade 1. This was because it not only offered greater detail and teaching suggestions for eEFLT, but also guidance for Grades 1/ 2. Furthermore, the detailed descriptions could be linked to teaching materials, textbooks, and tasks already used within the project schools. Several task ideas were tried in project school classes to determine whether they would match the students’ skills and whether the teachers found them appropriate. The project coordinator usually taught the tasks and the respective English teacher observed the lesson, and then briefly commented on the lesson and the task during an informal conversation after class. A provisional curriculum for Grade 4 was then presented at the first project conference in 2011 and thoroughly discussed with all project members present. Primary and secondary school teachers discussed 118 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 40 For further information on the development of the project curricula, see Dreßler and Kollmann (2016). the possibilities and relevance of the curriculum and its tasks, and adaptations were made if necessary. The curriculum for Grade 2 was developed similarly, with the only difference being that some tasks were developed with the teachers directly. This was done to further involve the teachers in research and to make sure the teachers’ ideas and voices were heard 40 . 3.7 Summary Based on the systematic literature analysis in regards to the case study, along with illustrations referring to the project teachers’ classroom practices, I iden‐ tified the following key features for eEFL tasks within the German PS context. They are not presented in a chronological way as many of the aspects can be related to general TBLT, eEFLT, PS teaching, and the pedagogical task concepts. A task has three stages: preparation, core, and follow-up. It: • …is learner-centred, is based on meaningful experiences and personal interests of the students and has a particular connection to their life‐ world. • …is an activity in which language is used naturally for carrying out communicative situations within a meaningful context for learners. • …triggers / furthers personal development on several levels (cognitive, educational, personal, emotional) and active engagement within a pos‐ itive learning environment. • …helps students to learn more independently, in a self-directed way (personal interest, learner-centeredness), and allows for different pos‐ sible solutions, and as such prescribes different learner (e.g., students need to become responsible for their learning) and teacher (is a moti‐ vator and facilitator) roles compared to traditional roles defining the learners as rather passive. • …involves critical thinking and reflection, problem-solving, and par‐ ticipating within societal discourses. • …involves students in the negotiation of meaning / using the language as a means of communication with others in group work / partner work with information gap activities, for example. 119 3.7 Summary • …makes use of general educational principals in eEFLT und general primary school teaching: spiral curriculum, repetition, routines, exer‐ cises, and transfer activities, progress from teaching on a concrete to an abstract level in accordance with the children’s cognitive develop‐ ment. • …focuses on meaning before accuracy. • …offers a meaningful experience and includes personal interests to foster motivation. • …draws on Cameron’s (2001) features: ▸ have coherence and unity for the learner, ▸ have clear language learning goals, ▸ have a beginning and an end. The above listed key features for possible eEFL tasks clearly demonstrate that within general teaching approaches and educational theories, an orientation on learners is commonly proposed. Thus, eEFL tasks translate the overall peda‐ gogical and educational goals of fostering children’s personal development into action. Several educators have proclaimed that active engagement and interests seem to be necessary for the child’s development (see Sections 3.2 & 3.6). This affirms the general focus on the human being and general PS teaching ap‐ proaches that also require the development of the child and not only the lan‐ guage skills. When looking at TBLT approaches for younger learners, concrete experiences, a focus on meaningful and purposeful aspects, and a positive learning environment are emphasised (Williams & Burden, 1997). In addition, taking the children’s cognitive development into consideration makes it obvious that learning needs to be holistic, offers explanations on all kinds of levels from concrete object to abstract symbols, such as a written word. Whether or not to include all features discussed is debatable, especially when comparing them to the project teachers’ teaching practices. Some project teachers appeared to shy away from including written forms or structural as‐ pects. They did not use group tasks, activities that triggered a negotiation of meaning, and they did not allow the children to organise their learning inde‐ pendently. The discussion in this chapter showed that it is wise to look beyond TBLT practices for secondary school students as PS children in Germany are supposed to learn differently. 120 3 Task-as-workplan: Focus on task concepts present in the literature 1 In different research traditions different verbs are used when describing the process in which the researcher is in the field to acquire knowledge in form of data to answer re‐ search questions. Depending on the overall research frame, different verbs are possible. For example, Strauss and Corbin (1990) use “discover”; whereas Charmaz (2006) prefers “con‐ struct”. The overall research frame of this study is outlined in Chapter 1. In this study, the verb choice does not imply a specific theoretical frame other than outlined in Chapter 1. 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts The focus on tasks shifts from a theoretical perspective (Chapter 3) based on research literature to an empirical perspective based on the project teachers’ understandings. In turn, new key features gained from empirical data (inter‐ views, informal talks, and teachers’ short written statements) are presented. Giving teachers the opportunity to share their knowledge and understanding of tasks is crucial in the project context and forms an imperative in this chapter. The argument that teachers have to be educated may be raised, given teachers are without detailed guidance (curriculum) and training (teacher education) in relation to TBLT. This, however, would be misleading as teachers can offer in‐ sights into eEFL task teaching practices that the academic discourse cannot foresee. Teachers are implementing tasks with the help of textbooks and own materials in order to adhere to the curriculum standards for PS. As Chapter 3 showed, the general teaching approaches in PS may easily be connected to TBLT features. Therefore, it may be assumed that teachers have at least an implicit understanding of tasks and that they may have used task-like activities for many years. Indeed, including teachers’ opinions is not only valuable, it is also crucial as they are the only ones who can predict whether or not the theoretical eEFL task understanding can be adequately put into action within a normal teaching load of about 29 lessons a week. Thus, neglecting teachers’ experiences may lead to a construct that may not be feasible in school reality. Chapter 4 presents the empirically developed task features based on data that I had collected over a period of five years 1 . I analysed the data with an adaptation of Pavlenko’s (2007) five-step analysis of autobiographic narratives. The analysis was combined with concepts such as “footing”, (Goffman, 1981) “voice” (Bakhtin, 1981), and “positioning” (Davies & Harré, 1990) to give teachers a voice (Legutke & Dreßler, forthcoming). The different steps in the analysis are explored using one teacher’s interview response and additional data collected on this teacher. 2 I am not interested in identifying how the project group came to an understanding of the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks as a whole in this present study. My focus lies on task features present in the project PS and how those features are enacted. The findings of this present study were presented to the project teachers in several meetings. The project teachers did not voice any disagreements with the here presented under‐ standings of the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks. Therefore, it can be assumed that even though an individual teacher might define the one or the other task feature dif‐ ferently, and also enact it differently, she still seemed to agree with the overall features of eEFL tasks. The enactment of eEFL tasks was discussed in the monthly meetings with an experience-based approach (Dreßler & Loumbourdi, 2016) and the project teachers agreed that an enactment following teacher B’s example is favourable. The task concepts illustrated in this chapter are a construct created by myself from the various voices of the several project members. The teachers worked in groups and held group discussions on task concepts. In addition, it can be as‐ sumed that the project group functioned as a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) and the PS teachers formed another community of practice within this bigger community. However, it appears that the individual teacher implemented the tasks according to her own conceptual understanding at the time the video recordings took place. The individual understandings of eEFL tasks were un‐ doubtedly influenced by the project members as well as by the respective school culture, but it was not necessarily congruent with the general task concept de‐ rived from an analysis of the different project members’ concepts. This, however, should not be regarded as an issue as the focus lies on identifying possible eEFL task features and not on the project group’s task construction 2 . Chapter 4 starts with a review of the set of research questions relevant for this section, before the research design and data collection processes are illustrated (Section 4.1). Section 4.2 presents an illustration of the analysis applied, along with the results. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings (see Section 4.3). 4.1 Description of the study in relation to the first set of research questions Each contact I had with the teachers was a potential opportunity to gather data. It is highly impractical, however, and very stressful to record data every time a meeting occurs. Also, it would have disrupted natural conversations and situa‐ tions in which trust was built. Building trust was a necessary step to reduce the teachers’ fear of being ridiculed or losing face (Goffman, 1967). As such, it forms the basis of professional encounters as it can be assumed that people tend to behave more naturally around those they trust (Candlin & Crichton, 2013a). 122 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts 3 As a consequence, some of the teachers’ voices are based on transcriptions of audio or video recordings and follow a transcription style adapted from the Documentary Method (Nohl, 2006, p. 123). Others are based on notes taken in face-to-face situations immediately after informal talks or statements the teachers wrote down themselves and thus do not follow a transcription guideline. In interview situations, I sometimes refer to notes taken in other situations. I also informed the teachers about them to clarify whether I accurately noted statements down. I offered the teachers to read their tran‐ scripts and also listen to their recorded interviews, but they declined. Some said that they disliked hearing their own voice. Trust building also reduces risks and allows for assumptions about another per‐ son’s behaviour (Candlin & Crichton, 2013b). Thus, I decided to collect data in two ways using both a formal and informal approach. Formal data collection in this study refers to the observation or video-re‐ cording of lessons. The form depended on the willingness of the teacher to be filmed as well as pragmatic reasons (such as whether the video camera was available). In addition, interviews were held and group discussions organised during the annual conferences were conducted as part of the formal data col‐ lection process. Informal data collection refers to the many face-to-face talks with teachers during walks from one classroom to another, during recess, or on train rides. Useful information was either noted down in a research diary or saved as short speech memos after the event 3 . The data collected via these formal and informal methods underpin the anal‐ ysis of the teachers’ task concepts. As such, the data collection focused on the teacher’s personal level of comfort (i.e., interviews were conducted whenever the teachers felt ready to talk about tasks). Additionally, short informal talks were sometimes recorded at the end or the beginning of a lesson, whenever the teacher decided to comment on her teaching, and when the process of recording did not disrupt the conversation. The formal interviews were arranged in ad‐ vance to ensure they could be conducted in a quiet setting (e.g., after school). 4.1.1 Interview form and other forms of data In general, the interviews in this study were conducted to gain an understanding of the teachers’ ideas about tasks. This follows Kvale’s (1996) assumption that “[t]he purpose of a qualitative research interview (…) as obtaining qualitative descriptions of the life world of the subject with respect to interpretation of their meaning“ (p. 124). The format of the research interview can vary considerably depending on the purpose of the interview or the scientific research tradition in which it was originally developed (Kvale, 1996). 123 4.1 Description of the study in relation to the first set of research questions Because I only interviewed teachers when they felt ready, the interviews were conducted over several months (some interviews took place in 2012, some in 2013). I found that this approach was the only logical way to interview the teachers. It is often outlined in research that teachers demonstrate difficulties communicating their knowledge and insights (Allwright, 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Hence urging them to be interviewed would not have yielded rich data. The issue of par‐ ticipant ‘readiness’ appears to be common in research with teachers (Allwright, 2003). Allwright mentioned that teachers with whom he worked had at times dem‐ onstrated problems believing that they did anything worth talking about (see Sec‐ tions 8.1). The reluctance to talk about teaching, as Allwright (2003) refers to it, was also regularly observed in this research study. Additionally, it was crucial to adhere to the principle of creating a ‘safe space’ and this meant not further burdening the project teachers. As a consequence, the half-standardised format (Berg, 2004) - also referred to as the partly standardised format (Flick, 2006) or the guideline-based format (Hopf, 2004) was used. Although the name may vary, all authors describe an interview format that is adaptable to the individual interview situation and which follows specific parameters considered appropriate in each interview situation. The aim of a qualitative interview is two-fold: to cater to the individual situation, and to ensure each interview is com‐ parable to others conducted in the study (Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1976). Achieving this aim is supported through the use of an interview guideline. In turn, a set of questions is developed and asked during all interviews (Flick, 2006). Teachers were most willing to talk about their teaching when they had a specific topic in mind, for which they wanted to get further help or materials from the re‐ search group. As a consequence, the interview questions were varied slightly to match the specific context of the teaching topic or project phase. A maxim of qual‐ itative research is to analyse data continuously rather than waiting until after the data collection is finished (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Fetterman, 2010; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Aspects emerged in relation to specific teacher’s lessons and this al‐ lowed me to include them in the interviews if they needed clarification. However, all teachers were asked about their ideas on how to teach eEFL and the types of activities they used in their lessons to allow for comparison. To conclude, the interview format employed in this research study is best de‐ fined as a qualitative interview as all interviews were conducted in person and open-ended questions were asked (Lamnek, 1989). An implicit question focussing on the teachers’ task concept forms the underlying topic present in all interviews. 124 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts 4 Other scholars asserted that it is important to not press interview partners for information and to create a positive atmosphere (Gorden, 1998). 5 For a good discussion of issues related to co-construction, for example, see Applied Linguistics Issue 32, 1, February 2011 (e.g., Mann, 2011). See Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming) for questions of co-construction and how far the interviewee and inter‐ viewer influenced each other. Addressing this question implicitly rather than directly asking the teachers for a task definition ensured that the teachers felt relaxed and valued rather than tested 4 . 4.1.2 Process of data gathering The interview situation as such presents itself as a highly sensitive social inter‐ action. Generally, interviewers are advised to allow interviewees to talk without interruption and to respond in minimal or so termed interactionally neutral ways such as nodding (Kvale, 1996). This perception appears to have changed, as outlined by (K. Richards, 2011). Even minimal responses can significantly influence the interview dynamic. In essence, every interview, whether or not it was what I intended, may be regarded as a co-construction of meaning between the teacher and myself 5 . As a consequence, it may be assumed that there is no such thing as a neutral or ‘perfect’ interview. However, some interviews in this study were conducted with relatively little disturbance, whereas the same could not be said for others. Rather than examine an interview in which the locality, atmosphere, and outcome were to my satisfaction, I have decided to present two interview sit‐ uations (see Vignette 1 and Appendix B) that may be described as less favourable. With this approach, however, Goffman’s precaution against losing one’s face was considered. Goffman (1967) outlined that in every interview or personal encounter there is always the possibility of hurting the other person’s feelings. This outcome of course needed to be prevented in this study to allow for a positive atmosphere and the continuation of the overall research project. Fur‐ thermore, in every situation, particularly in this research setting, an interview, or even an informal talk, always poses the possibility of losing face to the speakers involved (Goffman, 1967). Thus, it risks exposing teachers or myself as incompetent. The interviews were sometimes difficult to conduct as personal feelings be‐ tween the teacher and me that had formed over a long time during the research project could not be dismissed completely during the interview (see Gorden, 1998). At other times, the teacher did not adhere to the previously formed agree‐ 125 4.1 Description of the study in relation to the first set of research questions 6 I do not offer an analysis of characteristic features of group discussions (for an inves‐ tigation see Berg [2004]) as the group discussions were only used to look for further aspects the teachers had not named in their interviews. Aspects referring to discourse analysis investigating who agreed with whom on what would be no doubt very inter‐ esting (see Wohlwend [2007] for an example), but were not of relevance to me in de‐ termining eEFL task features. ments concerning filming or visits for observation, this led to frustration on my side. As other researchers state, [f]rom the perspective of the researcher, one of the compromises they must be pre‐ pared to make if they work in authentic sites is to remain aware that the research agenda is likely to be far less important, and certainly less immediate, to teachers than it is to researchers (Gibbons, 2006, p. 83). The reality of the ‘authentic site’ made it sometimes difficult to operate from a neutral or positive standpoint. Such feelings are a natural part of any interview situation and due to the collaborative research settings, the relationships between the teachers and me changed over time, and in my opinion always to the better. To gain a deeper understanding oft he project group’s task concept, I decided to also tape two group discussions at the annual conferences and to also ask the teachers to write down a short task definition anonymously. Only PS teachers were present during the first group discussion and they shared their personal understandings of what a task was for them. I had made it clear that the conver‐ sation would be recorded, but that this was a rather informal situation. At the end of the discussion, Anna spontaneously suggested that each teacher should take down a few notes on what a task was simply in order to save it and possibly refer back to it at a later time. This proved to be a very valuable action as it allowed me to compare the task definitions at two different times of the project. Primary and secondary school project teachers were present during the second discussion (took place in 2015) and they exchanged their ideas about task concepts with each other 6 . Due to time constraints during the annual conference, the PS teachers could not meet separately during the discussion phase. This, however, provided insights into the differences and similarities between the primary and the secondary school teachers. It demonstrated their struggles with when or how to employ tasks in their lessons. Here again, the teachers were required to write down their task definition, but this time before the group dis‐ cussion took place. Then, based on their definitions, they entered into a discus‐ sion with all project members on which eEFL task characteristics seemed to be important for Grades 1 to 5. As a further prompt, the following task definition by Van den Branden (2006b) was projected onto the wall: “A task is an activity 126 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language“ (p. 4). The teachers said that they agreed with the definition and then illustrated their understanding in more detail. The last aspect that needs to be addressed is the question of what kind of data the informal talks and interviews produced. As the interviews were qualitative in essence, they allowed the teachers to produce short narrative episodes (e.g., a short description or explanation of a teaching activity). The episodes had a beginning and end, often told events chronologically, and sometimes evaluated the described event or lesson extract. Thus, they can be summarised under Labov and Waletzky’s (1967) narrative definition. Even the interviews or interview parts that do not match the presented criteria may be subsumed under Labov’s (1997) newer narrative definition. He states that narratives are a special kind of text form that are important in many if not all kinds of conversations describing past experiences (Labov, 1997). This is in line with other scholars’ common as‐ sumption that all thinking and making sense of the world is done through nar‐ ratives (Bruner, 1986, 1987). Another term often present when working with short narratives is “small stories” (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; De Fina, Schiffrin, & Bamberg, 2006; Schiffrin, De Fina, & Nylund, 2010). Small stories are defined as: an alternative approach to big story narrative research that takes “narratives-in-inter‐ action,” i.e. the way stories surface in everyday conversation (small stories), as the locus where identities are continuously practiced and tested out (Bamberg, 2012, p. 6). A key focus in this line of research is identity construction. Although identity is not the primary research focus in this research study, it is worth taking a closer look at the identity constructs of the interviewee and interviewer with regards to the validity of the research findings. Here, questions concerning the mutual impact on each other’s task concepts need to be asked. The next section focuses on the analysis of the data concerning the teachers’ task concepts. 4.2 Analysis After careful consideration and examination of the data obtained during the research process, I decided to follow Pavlenko’s (2007) approach on autobio‐ graphic narratives. Even though the data in this study cannot be termed auto‐ biographic narratives - as the teachers mostly illustrated short episodes of their teaching - the five-step approach that takes into consideration the transcription method and analysis of the language choice, content, context, and form of the 127 4.2 Analysis data provided a useful starting point. Pavlenko paid attention to the special nature of her interviews, that is, multilingual interviews, and allowed this to be part of her analysis. This strategy is also relevant to this study. Because I spent several years with the teachers (observing their lessons, conducting project meetings with them, and visiting them at school festivals), the interviews are necessarily only “moments of talk” (Goffman, 1981, p. 31). Moreover, the dif‐ ferent relationships formed with the teachers, which obviously influenced the interviews, had to be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, Pavlenko’s (2007) five steps were combined with “footing” (Goffman, 1981), “voice” (Bakhtin, 1981; Park-Fuller, 1986), and “positioning” (Davies & Harré, 1990; Harré, Moghaddam, Cairnie, Rothbart, & Sabat, 2009). The three concepts were particularly helpful in this study as they revealed the researcher’s contextual perspective. As Ribeiro (2006) explicated: “(…) one may examine par‐ ticipants’ subtle shifts of alignment (footing), or their strategic interactional moves (positioning), or how they make their agency (voice) salient in a con‐ versation” (pp. 49- 50). These aspects are important as they show the different roles the teacher and I attributed to each other within the interview situation. It also provides a more detailed understanding of the situation and the interac‐ tion, as well as the different emotions involved (Ribeiro, 2006). Above all, it allows the teachers’ “voices” to be clearly heard when analysing how far we mutually influenced each other (see Chapter 8). Pavlenko’s (2007) five steps are adapted and form the following six steps of the interview data analysis process deployed in my study: • Transcription of the oral texts: here I noted verbal and paraverbal features fol‐ lowing a transcription style that is similar to the Documentary Method (Nohl, 2006, p. 123), yet with further features to match the data (see Appendix C). • Enriching the data: here different macro and micro influences in the text were identified and further explained. This refers to ideas, lessons, ma‐ terials, and situations teachers refer to during interviews that may be enlightened and further illustrated, and thus better understood with the help of other data sources. For example, comparing and contrasting the interview response with the observation protocols, lesson videos, or re‐ search diary entries. This step functioned as the first step to a “thicker” description. This is a common approach in ethnographic analysis (Geertz, 1983) to make the data richer. • Enlarging the data: because personal feelings and relationships between the teachers and me played an important role in the project, I decided to make my own position towards the respective teacher as transparent as possible. I did this in order to expose a potential bias and offer the possi‐ 128 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts 7 In the field of teacher thinking, it is assumed that “the power of beliefs is drawn from previous episodes or events and that teachers are influenced by ‘guiding images’ from past events that create ‘intuitive screens’ through which new information is filtered” (Ryan, 2004, p. 611). Hence, it seemed wise to specifically look for attitudes in the in‐ terviews to follow another quality criterion for alternative explanations. 8 Unlike Tripp’s (2012) definition of typical moments that become critical through ana‐ lytic analysis. bility for inter-subjective comprehensibility (Steinke, 2004). Here, a chro‐ nological development of a task understanding and participation in the project of the respective teacher from my perspective is given. This step presents a first convergence towards aspects of “positioning” (Harré et al., 2009). Within the interviews, the teachers and I positioned each other and this positioning was influenced by the overall project involvement of the teacher (on my side) and the thereby formed relationship between the teacher and me. Sometimes the development was addressed in the inter‐ views to receive a form of communicative validation (Heigham & Sakui, 2009). Questions like the following were sometimes addressed: How has the teacher learnt about tasks? • Thematic analysis: in this step the texts were coded following an open approach similar to the first step in Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The texts were read several times and words or sentences were coded, and then grouped into larger topics. In a second step, I also looked for attitudes / beliefs 7 , then, of course, for implicit or explicit task defini‐ tions, problems, and challenges teachers named in the interviews, because problems and challenges are connected to possible critical moments 8 (see Chapters 6-7) in which learning occurred. When a different kind of un‐ derstanding, or simply a change of teaching style became apparent, it was also included. In a next step, the interviews were compared and contrasted to each other and against topics that had emerged from the analysis of the lesson protocols. As a further line of analysis, I looked for story ele‐ ments (Bamberg, 2012; Labov, 1997) within the interviews. Here “mini-stories” (i.e., short episodes that illustrated teachers’ ideas, teaching situations, and teachers’ behaviours) that presented a beginning and end were identified and sequentially analysed. This was to come to a better understanding of the defining feature of the teacher’s “mini-story” on a specific aspect (in the example analysis, see “context of vocabulary in‐ troduction”). The so developed feature was then compared to other teach‐ ers’ understandings of the same feature, if possible. 129 4.2 Analysis 9 I drew on other authors who applied these aspects in their analysis of texts. For a detailed description of positioning and roles, see Bosančić (2014). For a good application of the three concepts of ‘footing, positioning and voice’, see Ribeiro (2006). For a comparison of Goffman and Harré, see (Marinova, 2004). A full and detailed analysis of these aspects in the interviews conducted during the field phase has not been attempted. This would have gone far beyond the scope of this present study. The goal of including these con‐ cepts is for a reflection on how the project members influenced each other and how the seemingly opposing concepts of theory and practice have been covertly or overtly ad‐ dressed. The publication of those aspects can be found in Legutke and Dreßler (forth‐ coming). • Formal analysis: here a linguistic analysis was employed. I looked at the ‘text’ type, the positioning of the teacher by herself and by me, and what kind of overall structure the text followed. The text was investigated fol‐ lowing questions such as: What roles are assigned to the interviewer and to the interviewee? I drew on Goffman’s (1981) ‘footing’ and Harré’s ‘po‐ sitioning’ (Davies & Harré, 1990; Harré et al., 2009) 9 . • Focussing on the bigger picture: the different findings from the several data sources (teacher interviews, group discussions, and written notes) as well as the other teachers’ understandings were compared and contrasted to come to a more detailed understanding of what eEFL task features are present within the project group. This was undertaken to present a construct of the type of features an eEFL task could have in the project schools. The analysis of data was not a linear process, but rather circular in that I went back and forth between the steps comparing and contrasting the different as‐ pects. The data was listened to and read through several times to take memos (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) before a more detailed and systematic analysis was undertaken following the steps outlined above. Also, while applying the steps, Goffman’s “Frame Analysis” (Goffman, 1974) which investigates how people experience their world(s) was kept in mind “(…) to learn about the way we take it that our world hangs together” (p. 440). Goffman (1974) revealed the impor‐ tance of context to meaning making in the following extract: It is obvious that a given appearance can on different occasions have different mean‐ ings. He who cleans off his dinner plate can be seen as starved, polite, gluttonous, or frugal. But usually the context, as we say, rules out wrong interpretations and rules in the right one (pp. 440-441). Therefore, steps 2 and 3 of the analysis process in which the interview responses are positioned within the wider project context are also desirable. Additionally, as (Raab, 2008) summarised, Goffman is interested in what kind of expectations 130 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts (i) (ii) people have of action and practice, what requirements are needed for actions, and what kind of experience people have gained in dealing with rules and norms of life and society. These aspects were also important to this research study. In trying to understand the expectations of teachers and in also taking a closer look at their actions, task concepts can be illustrated and thus form a part of steps 2 to 4. Several features were thus identified and further developed (i.e., made richer and thicker to densify the features). Teachers named and identified several dif‐ ferent features in their interviews, written statements, and informal talks. Thus, I had to select a number of features to further investigate and compare to the enactment level and consequently neglected other features as is usually the case in qualitative research (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). The selection was based on three considerations: (i) frequency with which the feature was addressed across the project group members, (ii) the relevance of the features compared to the the‐ oretically developed task features, and (iii) the importance of the feature in the cross-comparison with the teachers’ lessons. The first aspect of frequency refers to generalization. It is assumed that if several project teachers refer to a concept, even though they were at dif‐ ferent schools and were not familiar with their colleagues’ lessons, it may be a feature that is of some relevance to general eEFLT and possibly also to eEFL tasks. Comparable to this is the lack of reference to a common feature in the teachers’ statements, or if a feature was only highly advo‐ cated by a minority of teachers. The absence may be compared to general qualitative approaches such as “waving the red flag” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 70) in Grounded Theory. The second criterion of relevance refers to the task concept. TBLT ap‐ proaches have been used over the last 40 years and as such several key TBLT features are commonly known and could be observed in the teachers’ les‐ sons. In addition, as argued in Chapter 3, PS teaching approaches are rather similar to aspects relevant to TBLT and common in the teachers’ lessons. Thus, if the teachers referred to a common TBLT feature, I did not include it in Section 4.3 as they were congruent with the theoretical features. 131 4.2 Analysis 10 Here, of course, it is important to note that the researcher’s individual understanding, biography, and personality, as well as knowledge of the lifeworld under investigation (here the project) plays a substantial role in identifying topics or concepts. As a conse‐ quence, a reflection on the researcher’s assumptions is necessary in qualitative research (see Chapter 8). Another step that ensures other perspectives are considered is obtaining feedback from other researchers. I presented my data in the research colloquium at both of my universities and also asked another qualitative researcher for feedback on my analysis. She analysed a portion of my interviews and observation protocols and I then compared her analysis with mine. The presentations in the research colloquia as well as the discussions with the other qualitative researcher were very helpful and beneficial; my fellow colleagues’ interpretations and understandings helped sharpen the concepts and helped me in finding a voice as a novice researcher. (iii) The last criterion (i.e., the cross-comparison of the findings) is a common element of ethnographic research as the analysis is seen as perpetual. Data is analysed against the backdrop of one’s assumptions and in comparison to other participants’ understandings of the same data / events. While in the field, an ethnographic researcher takes notes and writes memos and tries to “thicken aspects” by looking at them from different perspectives with different data sets. In addition, talking about the aspects with dif‐ ferent project members and a constant reflection on topics and assump‐ tions that present themselves are common steps in ethnographic research to discover patterns 10 . Furthermore, the cross-comparison also serves as an aspect of triangulation (Riazi & Candlin, 2014). 4.2.1 Illustration of the analysis In this section, the results of the analysis are presented. The interviews show different mini-stories and with this different task foci. The results are presented in two ways: first, an example analysis of one aspect is given, and second, the other aspects found in the analysis are summarised in Table 3 accompanied with a short discussion. The interviews represented individual teachers’ notions on the task concept. Sometimes those notions are shared across the group of teachers; other times, they were only shared by a few. The teachers’ individual understandings were compared to each other to see whether several teachers agreed on a feature or at least named the same feature. The first part illustrates the researcher’s management of the data and honours Steinke’s (2004) quality criteria of transparency. Because I am bilingual, the analysis of the interviews was sometimes done in English and other times in German. Data analysis is a long and difficult process and as such I decided to not place any further restrictions on myself in terms of language choice. I used 132 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts whichever language felt most natural in the process of the data analysis. One interview is taken as an example analysis, and one mini-story that focuses on the concept of ‘context’ is discussed in detail, in order to understand the data analysis process. The selected interview is that of teacher A. It was selected for two reasons: first, it is representative of the often difficult interview situations I encountered (see Vignette 1), and second, it offers cross-comparison as several teachers addressed ‘context’ in their “moments of talk” (Goffman, 1981, p. 131). As an example, the key feature of “context” is illustrated in greater detail. “Con‐ text” stands for several theoretical task features such as lifeworld / experience, grammar aspects, and the general call for meaningful communication for ex‐ ample. The several steps in the analysis process are described below. Teacher A’s task concept Step 1: Transcribing the data The interviews were transcribed following basic transcription rules taken from Nohl (2006, p. 123) and aspects such as e.g., >> << were added signalling words in English (see Appendix C). I decided to use this transcription rule as it includes paralinguistic aspects and allows to mark pauses, intonation changes and offers to note done possible other meaning changing remarks, such as laughing. The boxes mark important ideas as well as linguistic information. What kind of sen‐ tence is the teacher using? Is it an explanation or illustration? The highlighted sentence illustrates where the first mini-story starts. 133 4.2 Analysis Paula zum Thema „Lernaufgaben“/ Gespräch im Lehrerzimmer im Anschluss an die Planungssitzung zur Einheit „Food“. 2012 1 I: Ja, also du weißt ja, wir haben die Gemeinschaft 1 der Forschenden, deshalb is uns wichtig, dass wir 2 eure Expertenmeinung mal @hören@ 3 Paula: @jaa@ 4 I: @und@ ich würde das natürlich auch gern 5 aufzeichnen, wenn das für dich ok is. 6 P: ja, ja is in Ordnung 7 I: ja wunderbar (.) und ähm, ja (.) mich würde 8 interessieren eigentlich, worauf du mmh Wert 9 legst, wenn du Englisch in der ersten und zweiten 10 Klasse unterrichtest (.) also inhaltliche Aspekte (.) 11 P: Also ich leg ganz viel Wert darauf, dass die 12 Kinde: r neues Vokabular imme: r in einen Kontext 13 integrieren (.) das heißt also des, was wir lernen 14 mh wird natürlich, erstmal, Stück für Stück 15 eingeübt, du hast es ja bei mir schon gesehen im 16 Unterricht 17 I: / / mhh/ / 18 P: also, dass die Kinder ähh also ich spreche vor, 19 sie sprechen nach, dann werden einzige einzelne 20 Übungen und ähh Spiele dazu gemacht und 21 später soll dann das, was gelernte wurde, immer 22 in einen Kontext integriert werden, also in eine 23 Phrasenstruktur, die bekannt is, ähm wie zum 24 Beispiel also eine ganz einfache ist dann einfach, 25 Paula zum Thema „Lernaufgaben“/ Gespräch im Lehrerzimmer im Anschluss an die Planungssitzung zur Einheit „Food“. 2012 2 ähh dass die Kinder=den Namen ihres Nachbarn 26 nennen und sagen >>touch the<< so und so 27 >>please<<. und ähm das geht dann reihum und 28 dass natürlich auch bei mir jedes Kind spricht, 29 aber nicht so: und das ist auch noch nie 30 vorgekommen, dass sich da ein Kind irgendwie 31 geschämt hätte oder so was oder nich nich äh äh 32 sprechen wollte, sondern dass einfach, dass es 33 klar ist, es geht einfach reihum und jeder kommt 34 dran und jeder muss muss sprechen in der Stunde 35 und und jeder macht das so gut er kann, und das 36 wird so unauffällig ein bisschen verbessert, und 37 bei einzelnen Kindern vielleicht auch einfach mal 38 stehen gelassen, je nach dem auf was für nem 39 Lernstand sie sind. Und das ist mir halt ganz ganz 40 wichtig, dass immer wieder Sätze, vollständige 41 Sätze, gesprochen werden(.) von Anfang an. (3) 42 I: °Warum" [kannst du das ein bisschen 43 erläutern" 44 P: [kja, weil ich einfach] denk, ähm wenn nur 45 einzelne Wörter, also wir antworten ja so hm, auch 46 im Deutschen nicht einfach nur mit einzelnen 47 Wörtern. 48 I: / / mmh/ / 49 Zeile 12 Orientierung: context Z. 19 Wiederholung: kein Kontext! Z. 28-30… Rechtfertigung: reihum Z. 34 Repetition: Satz ist Kontext: „richtiges Wort gebrauchen, aber nicht Kontext im Sinne von ‚Ich erzähle eine Geschichte‘“ Z. 45 Anfang der Mini- Erzählung F. 6: Extract of transcript. 134 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts Step 2: Enriching the data Additional data resources were analysed and then a short account of the situa‐ tion and issues that arose in the interview was produced. This was to illustrate the concepts mentioned by the teacher. In the case of teacher A, she refers to her specific teaching situation. She teaches a mixed age group. During the in‐ terview the textbook she used was also briefly discussed. Unfortunately, we were interrupted during the interview. The staff room in which the interview was conducted had to be used by a small group and their teacher. So I could not record the full interview. Therefore, the part in which she talked about the text‐ book is not included in the transcript. F. 7: Extract of fieldnotes. The notes were then compared to other forms of data on the specific situation or aspect referred to by the teacher such are possible video documents, student materials, student products and photos, and speech memos. This process reflects the first basic step in ethnographic analysis (Fetterman, 2010; Friebertshäuser et al., 2012; Friebertshäuser, Richter, & Boller, 2010). All of these types of data formed the basis of an account of the situation and the general school context. 135 4.2 Analysis F. 8: Account with additional information. Step 3: Enlarging the data In this step the data was enlarged. This meant that possible problems, influences, and events from the project work were taken into consideration. I combined the different kinds of information I had gathered and included pictures of the used teaching materials. Extract from the account with additional information: Teacher A and Anna once had a disagreement about attendance at the meet‐ ings. Anna felt that teacher A had not regularly attended the meetings and asked her whether she could ensure that at least one teacher from her school could make sure to come to the session. Anna felt that collaboration with this school was often hard to achieve (…). It turned out that teacher A had regu‐ larly attended, yet the research team had not noticed her presence. When reflecting on this false impression, it became obvious that although the school always fulfilled the project wishes, it only did so after Anna had begged them several times, or reminded them, or filed the administrative work necessary for them. Thus, the lack of own engagement was what seemed to have led to the false impression of absence (…). Meetings with the school headmistress were also rather frustrating in particular for me as it became quite obvious that her focus was on a different subject and not on English. For me, it was difficult to understand why she participated in the 136 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts project so unwillingly and without supporting her teachers. Anna explained to me that the political influences and “normal” school life were sometimes not favourable and that schools were meant to follow those political guidelines re‐ gardless of their own pedagogical teaching philosophies. Though the explana‐ tion made sense, it was hard for me to sympathise and to understand. My per‐ sonal impression of the school was that of a lack of investment and passion. The teachers did what they were asked to do, but there was no spirit (…) Obviously, the relationship between teacher A and me is less than ideal. Al‐ though I think that we do get on and we have never had an argument or disagreement, we are definitely not close. I like her, she is always polite, but at the same time I cannot form a connection with her. Teacher A seems to feel isolated at her school as she is the only teacher working in the project. She tells me that when she came to the school, all the other teachers did not approve of the idea of teaching English from Grade 1 onwards, nor did they like another pedagogic concept that the school was asked to implement (…) Both new approaches were passed down to the school via the city school board and the school was expected to fulfil the board’s wishes. Teacher A was thus made responsible for English as well as the other pedagogical concept (…) She says she doesn’t mind and she claims to enjoy teaching English; yet, she has never approached the research team or other project teachers with her own ideas. (…) Though I have tried to not judge and keep my personal opinion out of the relationship, it does undoubtedly influence the personal relationship in an implicit way. It is hard to obtain data from this school and all my personal investment seems in vain. Offers for team teaching, encour‐ aging other English teachers to join, or simply observing other teachers are not directly turned down, but come to nothing. Other teachers do not reply to emails, they do not attend the meetings even after personal invitation, and whenever I visit the school and spend time in the staff room, I am ignored or politely listened to and smiled at, but it is obvious that there is nothing going to come out of it. I am often a bit frustrated by the school as it is obvious that I am not welcome there. I am tolerated at best. Sometimes, teachers complain when they see me and I ask to take children out of other classes to test them in English (6 students from each Grade 4 class were tested in speaking skills). Step 4: Thematically analysing the data In order to communicate successfully and efficiently, it is of great importance to have the same or at least share one’s own definition of situations with the inter‐ locutor (Raab, 2008). The definitions of situations - or rather teaching practices - are crucial in this research study to understand the teacher’s task concepts. With 137 4.2 Analysis different definitions, teachers interpret tasks in different ways. Therefore, as‐ pects that were addressed by the teacher when talking about their teaching prac‐ tices needed to be systematically analysed to come to an understanding of the teacher’s task features. Teacher A’s interview context was crucial: Voice 13 Well, for me it is crucial that children integrate new vocabulary always into a context (.) Teacher A After this first statement about the importance of context, different comparable ideas about context taken from other teachers or the theoretical task features are possible (e.g., lifeworld as a contextualisation in PS teaching). However, when examining teacher A’s interview response line by line it became obvious that for her, context referred to a different aspect: Voice 14 (…) and then later, the previously learnt needs to be integrated into a context, so into a phrasal structure, which is known, ehm, for example, well, a very simple one is, ehm that the children utter the name of their neighbour and say >> touch the << this and that >>please<<. Teacher A Analysing her mini-story on “context” sequentially, it became obvious that for her “context” referred to a sentence context. When teaching new words she did so with reference to a “context”. This appears to be important for two reasons: Voice 15 Teacher A: If only single words, well, we answer, you know, hm also in German not simply only with one word Interviewer (I): / / Mmh/ / Teacher A: And I simply think, this ability to remember is considerably higher I: / / Mmh/ / Teacher A: If it is integrated into a context 138 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts First, compared to German communication, it appears to teacher A unnatural to answer with single words. Second, to her, the “context” helps the children to better remember the words. She goes on to say that it is also a “context” as the children repeat the teacher’s dialogue phrases one after the other: Student A repeats “Touch the basketball, please.” Student B touches the pictures and then proceeds to give an order to Student C: “Touch the tennis racket, please” and so on and so forth until the order arrives again at the teacher. This description illustrates teacher A’s understanding of “context” and dialogue. Children communicate from the first day onwards in a speech utterance (“Touch the x…”) - body movement format (Student x touches a picture). It also places her into a potentially difficult situation in relation to her own understanding. She states that all children have to speak. This may be viewed as potentially not conforming to eEFLT as the children’s “silent period” (Schmid-Schönbein, 2008) may be violated. Thus, she explains and justifies her approach as follows: Voice 16 (…) naturally every child has to speak, but not like this and it has never hap‐ pened before, as if a child was ashamed or something like that uh uh that it didn’t want to speak, it is more like, it’s obvious and everyone knows it, ev‐ eryone is asked in turn during the lesson and everyone has to speak and ev‐ eryone does it as best as he can and then it gets unremarkably corrected, and for some children it will be left uncommented depending on their skills level. Teacher A The primary speaking action children perform in this sequence is repeating / reproducing the teachers’ speech. Vocabulary is taught in a phrasal context. Other teachers have broader context definitions. For example, teacher B’s con‐ text definition refers to the children’s relations to their individual liveworld experience. Voice 17 And I, I have to think about beforehand what it is that could be really inter‐ esting for them (.) Yes (.) Well, what is there, what is it for them, I don’t know, for example, they draw in English in Grade 1 a snowman and >>My Snowman<< (.) And then, they are able to say something about their own [snowman] with their very limited language skills, yes (.) Teacher B 139 4.2 Analysis It becomes obvious that for teacher B, context is inevitably linked to the student’s interests. Another teacher offers yet a different possible context definition. She introduced new words using a story. She asks the students to close their eyes and relax, and then starts to describe to them a picture of a zoo. She also draws a picture of the zoo on the blackboard. Then she invites the students to name the different things they imagine in their zoo. This is to include the words in the vocabulary field and into the picture on the blackboard. The students are then asked to draw their own picture of a zoo in their textbook, to copy the words from the blackboard, and to give a mini-presentation at the beginning of the next lesson on their zoo picture. This presents the first step towards the new topic related to a picture book set in a zoo. Here, the students are actively en‐ gaged in the creation of their own vocabulary field in the first step, and in the second step a picture book is used for story-telling so that the words are also included in a content-rich context. Ruth offers yet another possible context def‐ inition: Voice 18 Ruth: Uhh, well, I find that the teaching changes in general from {Grades} 1 to 2 (…) one also starts to simply include the written form, not in the way that they really write it, but that they match a picture to the word (…) or, well, I have also done small role-plays, this airplane situation, I have done this with Grade 2 (.) in this they order drinks, on the airplane, on their way to London. That was the topic Interviewer (I): Aha Ruth: To have drinks. I: I see, okay. Ruth: And then there was an airplane situation, the stewardess walks around and asks “What would you like to drink"” and then uh the children reply “A coke please"” or something like “Here you are, thank you” 2) well, that was the dialogue the children used and they also performed that properly Here, two possible context examples can be found: First, context with a stronger connection to formal aspects of language, namely a picture-word connection (teacher A). Second, context stands for presenting words in a content-rich sit‐ uation in which the students are also meant to make use of their experience with the help of a holistic learning approach. 140 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts Step 5: Formally analysing the data This step is discussed and presented in Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming). It can also be seen in teacher A’s interview. She started explaining herself and her choices for teaching in a certain way. The fact that she started to further explain her teaching style implicitly draws attention to the different roles and posi‐ tioning of the teacher and me. Obviously, she felt the need to justify her teaching practices. This may be due to the fact that I am assigned the role of knowing about possible disagreements on her teaching practice in the academic dis‐ course. Step 6: Focussing on the bigger picture This step comprised an analysis and comparison of all possible aspects of “con‐ text in terms of vocabulary teaching” in the teachers’ statements. As can be seen from the various examples, the teachers define “context” differently. Teacher A defines “context” as a phrasal structure, in a grammatical sense, and does not relate this to content. She appears to only define it in this way. In step 2, the data is enriched with other information on teacher A’s task understandings. Here an observation protocol is used. It becomes obvious that she only relates “context” to a phrasal structure when taking a look at a vocabulary introduction sequence in an observation protocol on one of her lessons: Overall description: The topic is “At the doctor’s” (…) children and teacher sit in a circle. In the middle are pictures of different body parts and illnesses relating to them, for example throat + sore throat. During the vocabulary introduction, a student raises her hand and offers in‐ formation in German about how she feels. Now, teacher A smiles at the stu‐ dent and says in a soft voice: “Thank you. Not now. You can tell me that later during the break”. All teachers’ interview responses were compared and contrasted to try to de‐ termine how they defined “context”. What can be concluded from the analysis is that “context” can broadly be related to two different aspects: structural (grammatical, linguistic) and content-related. In the former aspect, “context” is mainly provided on a structural meta-level, namely a sentence structure, for example (in connection to a visual aid: “How do you feel, today? ” “Bad. I have a sore throat.”), or a written form in relation to a visual form (picture or realia). In the latter aspect, “context” is mainly provided through a story, either in the form of an imaginary situation (e.g. zoo) and a picture book, or through a 141 4.2 Analysis role-play. Here the illustration is provided through a situative experience (i.e., children imagine the picture of a zoo or they imagine being in an airplane). Both offer direct contextual information on a concrete level. For example, teacher A decided to provide topics that have a particular con‐ nection to the children’s general lifeworld (e.g., focusing on topics that are part of the children’s everyday life such as “going shopping”). A different teacher offered another example. She wondered about the students’ genuine interests. Together with her colleague, they worked with “thematic folders”. At the be‐ ginning of the process to determine a new topic, the children were asked to mention topics of interest. Then, in a further step, they were asked to provide possible questions of investigation. After a democratic vote, the new topic was chosen and used across as many different subjects as possible. Two other project teachers provided yet another example as they introduced “context” in the form of CLIL aspects using topics in several different subjects. Thus, it can be con‐ cluded that “context” plays an important role in the project PS teachers’ teaching situations and in their definitions of task. In the teachers’ written statements, they used words such as “natural lan‐ guage use” within a “rich and meaningful context”, “natural interest”, “use what they have learnt within a context / situation”, and “new aspects are integrated in previously learnt contexts (e.g., specific phrases)”. These statements and the analysis of the teachers’ interview responses clearly show that “context” is di‐ vergently defined. It appears that the teacher favours either the structural or the content-rich way of providing “context”. Only Ruth explicitly referred to both forms. When looking at the observation protocols and videos it became clear that one form almost always predominates the general teaching style of a teacher. Thus, it can be concluded that a key feature is “context” and that it can be either related to an abstract or a concrete level. Further analysis of the en‐ actment level (i.e., what the particular understanding of context possibly entails) is thus crucial. 4.2.2 Teachers’ key features of tasks Table 3 shows the key features named by the project teachers along with their possible explications. Several teachers named all illustrated features and it can thus be concluded that they played an especially crucial role in the project group’s understanding of task. The first column names the key features isolated in the teachers’ statements. The second column poses a question related to the key features. The third column presents the parameters teachers used to explain the key feature. The fourth column presents a possible further line of analysis 142 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts for the subsequent chapters. It is important to bear in mind that some key fea‐ tures were not as clearly defined and discussed as “context”. In those cases, the observation protocols and informal talks, speech memos, and fieldnotes became highly relevant. This is the case for the “vocabulary” feature, for example. Key feature Related questions Under‐ standing Possible further focus that was not addressed by the teachers Context How are, for example, new words or topics con‐ textualized? Abstract (grammatical context)/ concrete level (story, song, holistic ap‐ proach) In relation to micro-level (ab‐ stract / concrete), meso-level (target task), or macro-level (the communicative at‐ tempt)? Vocabu‐ lary Is the focus on a big col‐ lective word field, a word field provided by the teacher or teaching mate‐ rials, or a word field gen‐ erated individually by the respective student? Collective class vocabulary / individual stu‐ dent vocabu‐ lary Interaction What kinds of interaction can be found and how are they initiated? Student - teacher / teacher - stu‐ dent / student - stu‐ dent Do teachers facili‐ tate phases for ne‐ gotiation of meaning? Func‐ tions of the EFLC Which functions of the EFLC are made use of? These features can be re‐ lated to Legutke et al. (2009). They assigned sev‐ eral functions to the lan‐ guage teaching classroom, for example, students can experiment with language, study language aspects, or enact a play. Language: Training centre versus simulation versus experi‐ mentation The function that opens the classroom to come into contact with authentic Eng‐ lish language use through, for ex‐ ample, post crossing is underrepresented in the PS classrooms in the project. Transparency Who decides about the topics to work on? Students? Teacher? Pro‐ 143 4.2 Analysis vided by text‐ book / teaching materials or general topic being taught in other subjects? Scaf‐ folding How do I balance de‐ mands and supports? Collective vs. individual? High demands vs. facilitating success and un‐ derstanding for everyone? Assessment Motiva‐ tion Who is responsible for motivation? Students? Topic / mate‐ rial? Teacher? Child-like and play‐ fulness? Involving the students in the topic choice? T. 3: Teachers’ task features. Some terms from the table have been combined to form a core feature. Below, I will elaborate on the terms from Table 3 as well as on the previously discussed feature ‘attitude’. This feature was not included in the table as one teacher only mentioned it. Seven key task features Vocabulary This core feature is formed out of context and vocabulary. Mostly, the project teachers taught vocabulary following the general EFLT approach (Legutke et al., 2009); presentation of the pronunciation before the written form is intro‐ duced. The way they provided vocabulary instruction differed from teacher to teacher. Some introduced words in a holistic way, whereas others focused mainly on speaking the words. Every PS teacher, however, used visual aids. The con‐ ceptual realisation of vocabulary was either accomplished with a particular focus on a big collective class vocabulary to be mastered by all children, or on a big individual vocabulary field to be learnt by using the words to communicate with others about personally relevant topics. External or internal factors deter‐ mined the types of words that were learnt by the students. In the first case, the teacher or the material decided which words to study, whereas in the second case, the children determined together with the teacher, or alone, the types of words that needed to be studied. Responding to individual needs often led to a 144 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts 11 Aspects of this can also be related to Kierepka (2008) and her example for how to involve students to use language in a creative and meaningful way. pragmatic and communicative use of words rather than to extensive study pe‐ riods in which students were trained to read, write, and pronounce words for the sake of memorising words and structures correctly. The teachers also created word webs with their students to provide further contextualisation. The teachers did not talk about how they taught vocabulary, but rather what kind they should teach and how they should decide what vocabulary to teach. Interaction In the interviews, the teachers addressed this feature more implicitly, by de‐ scribing what they did with the students and how they did it. Here, the obser‐ vation protocols offered further insights. All teachers supported the following forms of interaction: teacher-student, student-teacher (the directive comes from the person first listed), and student-student. Often teachers initiated the interaction with questions and students provided answers. Also commonly used was a student giving a presentation to the class. Student - student interaction was often initiated by the teacher asking the students to carry out small surveys, for example. What is noteworthy is the fact that only two teachers used forms of negotiation of meaning activities when asking the students to create (small) theatrical plays in groups or create a collective storybook. However, the students spoke more German than English during those phases. Other than that, a rather common form was individual work and thus little interaction occurred during these phases other than students asking the teacher or other students for help to find words. Partner work was often used to train language features working on exercises or playing a game. The different functions of the EFLC This feature draws on Legutke and colleagues (2009) term different functions of the EFLC to subsume several aspects (e.g., experimenting with language and practising new words) mentioned by the teachers under a core category. The functions of EFLC were often touched upon by the teachers in their statements in terms of what kind of activities they favoured or in their ‘small stories’ (Bam‐ berg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) about teaching situations. Often the training centre was described, but also the simulation in forms of role-plays, for example. Experimentation with language 11 was also supported in the form of letting stu‐ dents guess words during silent reading activities, or write their own short texts, which were then corrected by the teacher during the lesson. The teacher would walk around the classroom and help students in formulating sentences or 145 4.2 Analysis 12 After all interviews had been analysed and the feature of scaffolding had been formed, I presented my results to the teachers in a project meeting and we addressed aspects of scaffolding following Cameron (2001) and Thürmann (2010, 2013). quickly proofread students’ texts. What is interesting is that the classroom as a window to the world was often not used as it was regarded as too time-con‐ suming and often difficult to facilitate by the teachers. Transparency Transparency was often implicitly addressed when teachers explained their current teaching topic or what was next planned. Only one teacher actually assisted students to decide on the new topic. All other teachers decided on the topic, either because it was used in a different subject, provided in the textbook, or because the teacher herself found the topic interesting and motivating. One teacher strongly believed that students do not really care or cannot even re‐ member the overall topic of a unit in general. Scaffolding 12 Scaffolding was regarded as a collective variable influencing the children’s learning. Only two teachers explicitly named different students and their skills when creating or choosing activities. Several teachers voiced insecurities when it came to adequately matching their teaching to their learners, and wondered whether they overstrained their students. One teacher appeared to subcon‐ sciously underestimate the students’ levels, as she spoke of simplifying activities almost throughout the entire interview. The teachers were interested in scaf‐ folding and seemed relatively unexperienced in how to best help their students. Yet only one teacher appeared to work with observation protocols to help her diagnose her students’ level. Motivation This key feature was addressed extensively in the group discussions with the secondary school teachers and almost every secondary school teacher addressed this feature. The PS teachers touched upon this topic rather implicitly when they remarked on whether their students liked or had fun during activities. The sec‐ ondary school teachers saw motivation more as an external variable that needed to be at least fostered if not created by the teachers. They also wondered about which activities would be best for motivating the students. None of the teachers remarked on the possibility of actually asking the students about their wishes or involving them actively in the process to decide upon the new teaching unit. 146 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts Attitude/ ‘Haltung’ Another aspect raised and strongly argued about over several project years by one and sometimes a minority of project teachers was the teacher’s general attitude or teaching philosophy. Anna is an advocate of this aspect and defined it as follows: Voice 19 Well, I think something like the attitude, to take it seriously what children offer, isn’t it. And to think something along the lines, what could be really interesting for them {the students} Characteristics of tasks: expect an attitude of the teacher… Anna In other project meetings and meetings with the researcher group, she also ex‐ plicated her opinion. She claimed that her opinion was based on her teacher education as a special needs teacher. She commented: Voice 20 Well, I don’t know it either. But I really think the attitude of the teacher is crucial. As I always say, you can do so much with the children if you have a good relationship with them. Same goes for the inclusion discussion. That’s a mockery. As if inclusion could work when you simply provide different worksheets. It’s the teacher’s attitude that counts. Take children seriously and be spontaneous if something arises in your lesson, then you should be willing to pick this up. I hadn’t planned this picture book task the way it turned out. But I was willing to go along with the children’s idea. Anna During a project meeting, “attitude” got more clearly defined by a representative of the MoE who stated that for her it was important to allow children to make mistakes and not to create a teaching situation that is preferably mistake-free. She posited that mistakes provide an opportunity for further learning. Anna supported this definition strongly. In comparison with the observation protocols or the video records, this aspect can also be connected to what Kohonen (1992) describes as an important part of teaching: teachers need to help students to feel success in using the language to communicate. Furthermore, as Kennedy and Kennedy (1996) stated, the teacher’s attitude influences the teaching situation 147 4.2 Analysis 13 From time to time, guest speakers gave presentations on eEFLT aspects in a monthly project meeting or during the yearly project conference. considerably. Other researchers also refer to the importance of teachers’ atti‐ tudes towards, relationships with, and knowledge of their learners (Deng & Carless, 2010; Howes & Ritchie, 2002; Schaer, 2012; Shome & Natarajan, 2013; Van Lier, 1996). Anna’s attitude feature can be compared to what other re‐ searchers describe as this: Any attempt to implement an experiential syllabus requires a change in classroom perspectives. From a teacher’s point of view the focus now is on getting pupils and learners to become participants and to start saying what they want to say. While, from a participants point of view, the focus shifts from memorization and “banking” to a need to speak out, and ultimately to define, plan, carry-out and report back on pieces of work (Kenny, 1996, p. 454). Even though only three teachers referred to “attitude” as a feature in their written statements, I decided to include this aspect as it appeared relatable to the general PS and eEFLT approaches and further literature explicated similar aspects. As a consequence, I isolated seven key features in the teachers’ statements on tasks / eEFLT aspects. The next section very briefly outlines task aspects raised by teacher educators during interviews or informal talks 13 . I decided to also include teacher educators’ opinions on tasks when they offered different aspects compared to those raised by the teachers, and if those aspects mentioned by the teacher educators could be found in the teachers’ teaching practices. 4.2.3 Teacher educators’ task concepts Following the preliminary analysis of the observation protocols and teacher inter‐ views, it became obvious that the project school teachers named features that may be found in German eEFLT and PS literature as well as others that were not explicitly highlighted in literature. Additionally, after the preliminary analysis of the videos, memos, and critical incidents (for further explanation of the critical incidents (CI), see e.g., Sections 5.2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.2), the following critical situations were identified: • Difficulties in learning vocabulary: for example, children are not able to remember simple words after intensive vocabulary practice, but can sud‐ denly remember a complex sentence structure (see Chapter 6). • Grammatical aspects usually taught in higher Grades emerge within the lessons: for example, children repeatedly use a German phrase referring 148 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts to “whether” in reported speech structures and the teacher does not com‐ ment on it. • Teachers do not include their students in the topic decisions: children have no say in the topics covered in the lessons. It can only be speculated about the reasons for these situations: Difficulties in learning vocabulary may relate to the aspect of “personal interest” discussed in Chapter 3. The words may possibly not be relevant and meaningful to the stu‐ dents, unlike the complex sentence. The complex sentence structure, on the other hand, enabled the children to communicate with each other. The second example refers to the concept of not teaching grammar (see Section 3.5.3). The last aspects can be viewed as a general TBLT feature when taking the demand for learner-centeredness or the connection to the “lifeworld” seriously. As several guest speakers were invited throughout the years, it also seemed wise to include their opinions when presented. Further, I decided to also inter‐ view a teacher educator that was familiar with the research project, eEFLT, and TBLT to possibly get further ideas. The teacher educator named all the aspects stated above, but further emphasised the following two aspects: focus on form and students’ interests: Voice 21 Yes, well, transparency from the beginning onwards, you have to include the children into the topic choice (2) I find that also important in PS, even if they [children] don’t say anything, if they say no, that’s okay (1), then I simply have a better feeling (1). Then I say, okay, let’s try and if you come up with something later, just raise your hand and then the atmosphere (2) yes, and then, it is also very important that they are not afraid (…) in the phases in which it {focus on form} develops naturally or if one as I outlined with the example of the word web before if the vocabulary is pro‐ duced and then everything imaginable is hanging there and also a lot of wrong words and wrongly assigned and then as a teacher one look looks at and says “So, now look now you have said that well, now look how you’ve done that” (2) so that you really make them realize you all can already say that. You all can say and now look at how we’ve done that and how other’s have done that and then I really examine the words and say “Okay, you have talked about that” (.) and I do that in German, you know, (2) and correct it Teacher educator 149 4.2 Analysis During an informal talk with another teacher educator, the same two features were mentioned and advocated. She mentioned examples of teaching materials or ap‐ proaches that enabled these aspects, for example, working with scenarios (Piepho, 2003). I decided to include those aspects as critical incidents that could be related to those that were found in the data across the group of PS teachers. Therefore, it made sense to further bear the features in mind when looking at the videos. The features previously isolated are taken into consideration in the following steps of analysis in this study. For example, in the detailed analysis of the videos, I also looked for the features stated here. Motivation related aspects could be found in CIs, when students voiced their frustration with the task topic (see Chapters 5-7 for the video analysis). 4.3 Summary The project teachers and the teacher educators mentioned the following aspects: • Vocabulary: The teachers wonder whether all students need to know all words or only those relevant to them. Then perhaps some students learn words that are of importance to them and others learn other words. Yet another option is to focus on a class vocabulary. So the teacher needs to decided whether to allow students to learn an indi‐ vidualised vocabulary versus a class vocabulary. • Interaction: refers to what kinds of interaction were used and who initiated them • Different functions of the EFLC: refers to practising the language and using it creatively • Transparency: refers to whether the teachers inform the students of the goals of the teaching unit. That is, tell them at the beginning what the target task is. • Scaffolding: refers to how the teachers help the whole class to learn English, only a few focus on individual students • Motivation: is a topic that is of central and explicit concern for the secondary school teachers (group discussion 2013) and the PS teachers refer to it only in terms of ‘fun’ (i.e., they wonder whether their stu‐ dents have fun learning English). • Teacher’s attitude/ ‘Haltung’ towards the students: refers to the way the teacher views and treats the students. This aspect now falls under the key practice of ‘doing school’. 150 4 Task-as-workplan: Focus on project teachers’ task concepts • Focus on form: refers to an explicit teaching of structures and phrases at a level the cognitive development of the students can process. The students need those structures to accomplish the target task. • Students’ personal interests: refers to actively asking the students to decide which topic should be taught next or which aspects of a topic should be focused on. In their interviews, the teachers related to general PS teaching, eEFLT, and basic TBLT features discussed in Chapter 3 and therefore not explicitly men‐ tioned in this chapter. Those aspects (e.g., scaffolding) form general task as‐ pects and can be found in eEFL task approaches (see Cameron 2001). Further examples are a strong focus on meaning and the child’s lifeworld. More in‐ teresting are those features the teachers named, but that are not commonly raised in TBLT or eEFLT discussions. Additionally, those features were the prominent ones in the teachers’ interviews. The teachers did not refer to structural aspects or to students’ personally relevant aspects. The failure to mention the first feature is not surprising because eEFLT practices in Germany (see Section 3.5) do not advocate the teaching of explicit structural phenomena in PS. However, it is rather surprising that none of the teachers mentioned the second aspects related to the student’s personal interests. First of all, some of the teachers included the student’s personal in‐ terests at least partly in their teaching in every task sequence observed; they asked the students about their favourite aspect of a topic. Second, it is a common principle in PS teaching (see Section 3.6). It was also surprising that only one teacher determines together with her students the lesson topics in general, all other teachers simply decide themselves what topics to teach. Overall, it can be concluded that the teachers refer to task aspects that are not as abstract as those found in academic literature. The teachers’ task features focus on questions that arise when teaching, such as: How can students with a very limited vocabulary be put into the position to use English as a means of communication? How can students be taught those words relevant for them to talk about their favourite aspect of a topic? 151 4.3 Summary 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 Research shows tasks undergo a considerable change when implemented in the classroom (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). This is because different factors (e.g., students’ interpretations of the task-as-workplan) influence the overall task outcome (Breen, 1987). Moreover, tasks are “(…) in interaction with other pedagogical phenomena“ (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 261) that affect the overall task sequence and product. The authors also point out that there is an “(…) intricacy of the relationships between phases of the task-as-workplan and phases of the task-in-process” (2008, p. 13). Therefore, it seems wise to inves‐ tigate not only the theoretical features of eEFL tasks, but also the actual ap‐ plication of tasks in eEFLT alongside other pedagogical phenomena in the project schools. Consequently, this chapter presents task formats, task se‐ quences, and the teaching phases applied when teaching tasks to provide a more detailed picture of what tasks in action in eEFLT look like. This chapter is the first of three that addresses the second set of research questions con‐ cerning the task enactment in the project PS classrooms. The analysis of the eEFL tasks was based on the systematic comparison of observation protocols, videos, and fieldnotes. Analytic memos, based on ‘puz‐ zling’ situations, served as the starting point for further investigations. Here, ‘puzzling’ referred to situations the project teachers or I observed and that they or I termed noteworthy. Those situations demonstrated ‘best practice’ or ‘worst practice’, or were relevant to the teacher for other reasons, such as the students needed further support and the teacher was unsure about how to provide it. In one Grade 1 class students were asking each other questions and answered those in full sentences. In another Grade 1 class students could barely remember question structures, such as ‘What’s your name? ’. The teachers could not explain the differences, as the students came from similar socio-economic backgrounds and the teachers described and structured their tasks in similar ways. These ‘puzzling’ situations can also be termed critical incidents. CIs can be defined differently (Angelides, 2001; Göbel, 2003; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2011; Tripp, 2012). In this study, CIs were situations that could be connected to an element of “(…) “surprise”, which is the stimulus for reflection for the creation of a critical incident” (Angelides, 2001, p. 431). Angelides describes CIs as “(…) rather (…) minor incidents, small everyday events that happen in every school and in every classroom. Their criticality is based on the justification, the sig‐ 1 During the analysis of the videos, it became obvious that the differences between how tasks were taught in Grades 1/ 2 and Grades 3/ 4 were not as diverse as originally assumed (see Section 2.4.5). As a consequence, I decided to also include examples from the earlier Grades in the analysis following sections and chapters. nificance, and the meaning given to them” (p. 431). The CIs discussed in this chapter were observed situations that were subsequently compared and con‐ trasted on an analytical level in relation to teaching styles, task formats, and eEFLT practices. In later chapters, the critical situations function as a starting point for a micro-analysis to ascertain a deeper understanding of the teachers’ practices on an action level. To understand the processes unfolding in a classroom situation, the overall analysis followed a two-step-approach: (1) all observation protocols (for ex‐ ample, see Appendix A) were screened and videos were used to identify the different task formats implemented by the project teachers (e.g., role-plays, presentations, interviews). One aspect for consideration was that a “(…) task also involves a number of different phases” (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 14) that are structured differently depending on whether the task design (task-as-workplan) or the actual task implementation in a classroom situation (task-as-process) is examined (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Consequently, (2) the task formats needed to be allocated into different teaching phases. This was accomplished with an analysis of the observation protocols and videos. Notes were taken regarding the types of phases and their length (e.g., greeting, rou‐ tinized revisions of previous topics, vocabulary introduction, core activity, presentation of results, and storytelling). This chapter briefly illustrates the task formats implemented by project teachers teaching in Grades 1/ 2 (see Section 5.1). Section 5.2 provides examples from Grades 3/ 4. The chapter ends with a summary (see Section 5.3). I under‐ stand task formats not in the sense of specific sequences or tasks such as problem-solving, sorting, or information gap activities. I classified the task for‐ mats according to a) their outcomes and products, such as mini-presentations, interviews, or stories and b) to the teachers’ teaching foci, i.e. ‘making students speak’ or ‘making students understand’. I employed this systematization because the project teachers did not use typical task formats. I combined this classifica‐ tion with a focus on the project teachers’ general teaching and task arrange‐ ments. In this way, I was able to show the different teaching phases the teachers typically used when teaching tasks 1 . 154 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 2 In Appendix D, there is a list of picture books used within the project schools. 3 Here practice refers to the educational research tradition concerned with school cul‐ ture in which a specific ‘culture’ is imagined, reproduced, and transformed in a school that facilitates and constrains certain practices and habitus (Helsper, 2008). Some of the project schools form clearly identifiable ‘communities of practice’ in general and in English specifically with regularly held English teacher meetings. At the conferences, teaching practices, topics, methods, and other aspects of eEFLT are discussed and collectively agreed on so that all teachers at a school share a similar overall attitude towards teaching eEFLT. 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays in a context of story — and / or song-based action The project teachers observed teaching Grades 1 and 2 used monologic and dialogic task formats such as mini-presentations, mini-interviews, role-plays, and dialogues. The thematic focus varied considerably; some teachers wanted the students to focus on personally relevant aspects of the overall topic. Therefore, students worked on topics titled “My monster”, “My favourite ice cream”, “My favourite kind of sport”, “My Christmas tree”. Others concen‐ trated on reconstructions of the plotline of picture books 2 or on a topic rele‐ vant to the students’ living word, such as “Hobbies” (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 1993). It became obvious that different schools demonstrated a certain identifiable type of eEFLT practice 3 , or rather that at different schools English teachers tended to fall into one category. The project teachers of Grades 1 and 2 focused on introducing English in a playful way. They wanted to prepare and motivate the students for future lan‐ guage learning and to become more tolerant towards other cultures and lan‐ guages. The general goal was on helping students to speak English. The teachers, however, defined ‘speaking’ in various ways. For some, ‘speaking’ involved rather spontaneous utterances by the students with the teacher’s support. For others students were to produce something of personal relevance and utter it spontaneously in English, if possible alone. The extract below illustrates this definition of speaking: Voice 22 (…) I find it always very good when children present something that they have (…) created. (…) I do this (…) in Grade 1 in the form of, for example, presenting their Christmas tree or in Grade 2 when they (…) have created their monster and describe how many arms, (…) legs it has. I find things like that always quite good because they then actually practice presenting (…) 155 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays and (…) they also simultaneously practice speaking or free spontaneous speaking in the foreign language. I find that very important and those inter‐ views (…), well, that’s what I actually do on many topics. They interview each other and also (…) use the interview for something else. Ruth - 2011 Yet another percentage referred to ‘speaking’ when students reproduced lan‐ guage in closed activities. Hereby students’ utterances were guided and heavily pre-defined by the teacher. The teacher used several exercises and games in which the students practised the words and possible sentence chunks in struc‐ tured and closed ways (e.g., matching games, repeat if it’s true, point to, etc.). In these games, there was no direct connection to the individual student’s in‐ terests or lifeworld. For instance, if the topic was “Sports” the teacher provided the students with information on a number of different kinds of sport, but did not necessarily ask for the students’ individual favourites. If it was included in the variety presented, then the students were lucky. Furthermore, for a minority of the project teachers, the primary focus was on making sure the students ‘understood’. This led to a rather limited number of examples of chunks or phrases and with this too few opportunities in which the students were able to practice longer utterances in English. Even though all teachers used a task format mentioned above, the way in which they structured their teaching phases was quite different. Two teaching practices were identi‐ fied. To further highlight the differences, a closer look at some students’ exam‐ ples is taken below. Some teachers placed the main focus on an experience - a story-based and holistic task approach with a particular connection to the students’ lifeworld (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 1993) in relation to a rich content-based context. The starting point for these task sequences was often a picture book or a song performed by the students. The lessons were structured with rather short teaching phase in‐ tervals framed by routinized lesson openings and endings that allowed the stu‐ dents to ‘experiment’ with language (Legutke et al., 2009). The regular openings consisted of a greeting exchanged between the students and the teacher and then a revision of the previously learnt topics in a routinized way. This was mostly done using a question and answer structure. Students either recalled previously learnt questions about their favourite animal, age, telephone number, colour, hobby etc. or they chose a flash card on which a question was written. The student in charge posed the question and called upon another student to answer the question, who was then next in line to ask a different classmate. The lessons ended with ‘saying goodbye to each other’ and sometimes with a song. 156 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 Often the lessons were interspersed with songs, raps, or action-stories that sometimes had a direct connection to the task sequence topic. Songs also simply catered for the students’ needs to move (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 2000; HKM, 1995) as is evidenced in the situation described in an observation protocol below: Anna: “I think you are tired today. OK, let’s sing a song to wake you up. Which song from our list do you want to sing? ” Children raise their hands and Anna calls upon a few. After a few songs have been mentioned Anna calls for a vote and they decide on a song. Anna walks back to the teacher’s table at the front of the classroom next to the windows and the black board and starts rummaging through her bag to retrieve the CD with the song on it. It was often difficult to clearly separate the teaching phases in the task se‐ quences. This was because they blended into each other and students worked independently on their task products and would individually ask the teacher for new words, for example. In general, vocabulary teaching phases, the ap‐ plication of the new words and structures occurred in oral riddles or picture descriptions (What can you see on the picture? ). They were always con‐ nected to the subsequent core activity. Other forms were interview situations in which the students asked each other about their likes and dislikes (Do you like green apples? Do you like red apples, etc.). This allowed the students to talk about something personally relevant and meaningful such as their fa‐ vourite apple variety, sport, their Christmas tree, or what kind of animal they could see when following a picture book structure (e.g., Brown bear, brown bear what do you see? [Martin & Carle, 2008]). In tasks that led the students to share something personally relevant, a second vocabulary-teaching phase was identified. This phase, however, was often in‐ dividualised and only offered when the students needed it to successfully com‐ plete the task. Hence, sometimes the second vocabulary introduction took place during the core activity phase when students were working on their individual task product. In creating the picture of their Christmas tree, for example, the students raised their hand and asked the teacher for words or phrases when they wanted to describe an item on their Christmas tree that had not yet been intro‐ duced. This phase then ran parallel to the core activity phase, but was very short as it concerned only the introduction of the words in question. The students mostly asked for words by offering their equivalent in German. The teacher then translated it or provided a paraphrase that was repeated up to three or four times 157 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays 4 This is usually only the case in the classes in which the teacher also introduces words and phrases in the oral and written form through the use of the “Word Monster“, for example (see Chapter 3.5.3), or spider webs to collect words. 5 During one monthly meeting, we discussed aspects of my results and I told them that I had found that they rarely used partner or group work. The teachers then commented and explained why. This refers to what Sarangi and Candlin (2003) call providing “hot feedback“ (p. 277). That is, sharing insights with the teachers regularly throughout the project and not only at the end or after the project is finished. so that the student could listen to the correct pronunciation. On occasions the teacher also wrote the word on the blackboard or on the student’s worksheet if she expressed the wish to write it down 4 . The core activities as such were structured more freely and allowed students to individualise their products. They often worked on their own during the core phase. Only seldom did teachers initiate pair or group work. When asked 5 for reasons, the project teachers agreed that it was difficult to ensure that students spoke English during those phases, which was the teachers’ primary goal. In the final stage of the task, the follow-up, the student applied the newly introduced individual words and phrases when presenting the product to classmates. No‐ tably, sometimes the students were not able to remember the word or the pro‐ nunciation correctly, and while giving the mini-presentation, they turned to the teacher for help. Then the teacher whispered the word to the student who then repeated it loudly for the others to hear. Below are a number of task examples implemented by the project teachers that followed this teaching practice. The first example is a description of a teaching situation by Ruth: Voice 23 I used the story Johnny Appleseed that is taken from Storytime [textbook] and uh there they have to ask each other, right? And the question was “do you like green apples, do you like red apples, do you like yellow apples” and “do you like (2) what else is there “brown” (1) no, I can’t remember, but in any case, they ask for apple varieties and we tried them, well, I brought dif‐ ferent apple varieties with me and they should just taste them and try and (1) so that’s what we did and uh, yes Ruth - 2013 Ruth then asked the students to carry out a mini-interview during which they walked around the classroom and asked each other to find out what their re‐ 158 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 6 Students walk around to music, when the music stops they find a partner and mime, for example, a sport type and the partner has to guess and name it; or use the question and answer just learnt and interview each other. 7 This is a piece of paper that is folded like an accordion and is used as a mini-book with typically eight pages. This mini-book re-constructs the picture book’s plot with a simplified picture of the plot on each page. Sometimes, depending on the Grade, with a simple sen‐ tence of the plot (typically in Grade 2). The children can then colour in six pages and create two pages on their own. In the final presentation, the students show their ‘Leporello’ to their classmates pointing to the picture and reading out the sentences or re-calling the plot of the story by heart and presenting their own two pages as their individualised part as well. spective preferences were. The students then compared the different interview results to identify which type of apple was most often named. In general, the teachers who followed this teaching practice used rhymes, action stories, songs, and raps to involve the students holistically. This also allowed them to practice the vocabulary more freely in games such as Simon says, stop-dance 6 or with the help of riddles and picture description (see Asher, 2003) to prepare them for the subsequent core activities. The task formats used by the teachers were mostly presentations in the form of a ‘Leporello’ 7 based on a picture book. Other presentations used filled-out worksheet in the students’ notebooks when a topic was taught that had not been introduced using a story-based approach or a small poster when the topic, for example, was connected to a song, rhyme, or rap. How‐ ever, the final results could vary according to the individual student’s wish as some teachers allowed them to choose the type of presentation themselves. Typically, in Grade 1 the students started with a simple sentence such as: Voice 24 They say “On my Christmas tree, there is…” and then they simply name three words. Sometimes they don’t even remember the sentence. Patricia Alternatively, if they re-constructed a picture book they for example named the animals they saw in it (Martin and Carle [2008]). The presentation as such was usually not practised, but presented in a spontaneous manner. The teachers using the ‘spontaneous presentation strategy’ explained that they wanted their students to know that it was, in Patricia’s words, “nothing special, nothing to worry about”. Sometimes, the students even remained at their desk and did not go to the front, which made it less formal. The student below presents her fa‐ vourite ice cream while sitting at her desk. 159 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays F. 9: Grade 1 student giving a mini-presentation about her favourite ice cream (Ruth, July 2015). In Grade 2, the students started to prepare their presentations on more individualised topics such as their favourite type of sport. During the presentation, they would, for example, describe the sports gear, the sports equipment, the location (indoor / out‐ door), and whether they had a partner, were part of a team, or did it alone. The Grade 2 students also practised giving the presentation according to previously defined guidelines, for instance speaking loudly, pointing to the notebook, and looking at the class. In preparation for the mini-presentation, the students formed groups of four and presented their work to each other. As such, they became familiar with the presenta‐ tion before formally giving it in front of the entire class. F. 10: Grade 2 student giving a presentation on her favourite type of sport (Anna, April 2015). 160 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 8 (Donaldson & Scheffler, 2003) Another example is the presentation of a ‘Leporello’ based on the picture book “The snail and the whale” (Donaldson & Scheffler, 2003). In this example, the student read simplified sentences and drew a matching picture. The students were also required to write down two sentences individually and draw matching pic‐ tures. They received help from the teacher and were allowed to use their note‐ books that included sentence beginnings related to previous topics and tasks. F. 11: Grade 2 student presenting her ‘Leporello’ on "The snail and the whale" 8 (Anna, July 2015). When considering the classic tripartite task setup suggested by Cameron (2001), the tasks used by the project teachers might be described in the following way: preparation stage in which the topic was introduced and practised, a core ac‐ tivity in which the students briefly worked independently on preparing a task product (e.g., a mini-role-play, a poster, or a ‘Leporello’), and a follow-up stage in which the students presented their work. This basic task sequence was then supplemented with songs whenever the teacher felt it was appropriate. Fur‐ thermore, questions and answers at the beginning of each lesson were used to revise the previously taught topics. The tasks were therefore embedded into general PS teaching approaches and eEFLT practices common in Germany. As outlined in Chapter 3, a general eEFLT lesson should include a routinized be‐ ginning and end of a lesson. 161 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays F. 12: Elaborate task sequence within a story-based approach with a focus on spontaneous speaking activities. A minority of project teachers, on the other hand, placed particular focus on long vocabulary teaching phases that aimed to support students to understand as much as possible. This was sometimes within an experience-based approach. The teachers fo‐ cusing on making the students understand, typically used different topics as the starting point to establishing a particular connection to the students’ lifeworld - as required in general PS teaching (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 1993). They brought flashcards or objects to school matching the topic in question. The lessons as such were routinized with familiar exercises or offered rotation work with different games and opportuni‐ ties to, for example, taste food (on a table with different kinds of fruit) when the topic allowed for it. This offered an experience-based approach and let the children engage directly with the objects in question. The teachers also stated that they wanted the learners to have fun. So they picked little rhymes or songs that were learnt by heart. Voice 25 It’s important that the students have a good time when they start learning English. In Grades 1 and 2 I do things differently. I usually tell them fairy tales in Grades 1 and 2 or we learn little rhymes and songs together. Do you know the teddy bear, teddy bear turn around rhyme? Gaby - 2013 162 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 Usually, the lessons started with a greeting, but then immediately continued with the topic in question. The teachers did not include any form of revision of previously learnt topics, rhymes, raps, or songs that might have offered addi‐ tional word material. The teaching phases were rather clear-cut and easy to separate and identify. Typically, students’ work was scaffolded. Students worked alone and independently periodically. In addition, the teaching phases were longer and focused on the practice of new vocabulary in a close context, such as a sentence structure (e.g., “What is it? It’s a…”). The core activity was rather closed. After the introduction of the core activity it was prepared and then di‐ rectly performed (e.g., a role-play, interview, or a poem presentation). F. 13: Basic task in Grade 1 and 2 with a focus on understanding and repeating. An example following in this category is Paula’s task on fruits and vegetables. The students practised the words with activities, for example a matching game. The students then practised the interview situation with the teacher and with each other, before starting the core activity. At this stage the students walked around the classroom and interviewed each other on which fruit or vegetable they liked or disliked. In the follow-up activity the teacher asked for a show of hands to determine the favourite fruit and vegetable. 163 5.1 Mini-presentations, -interviews, and -role-plays 9 For another example in a Grade 1 class see teacher XX in Appendix A. F. 14: Mini-interview used in Grade 1 (Paula, March & April 2012). I observed a different example that illustrates this approach in Gaby’s second Grade class. The students learnt the teddy bear rhyme together. The teacher stood in front of the class and presented the rhyme with matching movements while speaking it (preparation). The children were then invited to join in using TPR while the teacher spoke the rhyme and made the movements. After a few repetitions, the children were asked to speak along (core activity). In the last step, a child came to the front and performed the rhyme on her own 9 . The distinctiveness of each teaching practice, here referred to as basic or elaborate task sequence, is mostly apparent in the different implementations of the teaching phases and in the varying abstraction levels at which new topics were introduced by the teachers. Teachers who used a story-based approach introduced new words on the enactive level before moving on to the icono‐ graphic, and finally, the symbolic level. They also presented new words within a context. The other group of teachers started at a rather abstract level, for example, by simply uttering a new word in a context-free way. Sometimes, those teachers uttered the word and then provided a translation. However, they often did not move on to the word’s symbolic representation, that is, the written form (Holodynski & Schiefele, 2008). This difference in the teaching approaches de‐ creased in Grades 3 and 4 as the teachers placed greater cognitive demands on the students because they were older. Songs and rhymes were used to a lesser degree within the task sequences as is shown in the next section. 164 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship: Imagining story endings and sharing personal stories with others Ten teachers of Grades 3 and / or 4 were observed with the majority of them teaching Grade 4. Five teachers were shadowed regularly (Ruth, Jenny, Margaret, Gaby, Patricia and Anna). These teachers’ lessons were also occasionally video-re‐ corded. I observed the other four teachers (Ms Limetree, Ms Petersen, Teresa, and Helen) only on a few occasions and documented the visits with observation proto‐ cols and fieldnotes. No video-recordings were made. It was apparent that the group of Grade 3 and Grade 4 teachers were much more homogenous in terms of teaching practices compared to the Grade 1 and Grade 2 teachers. Although some of the Grade 3 and Grade 4 teachers (Anna, Ruth, and Jenny) also taught in Grades 1 and 2. Teachers who placed a particular focus on a storyand experience-based approach when introducing topics on an enactive level (Holodynski & Schiefele, 2008) in Grades 1 and 2 began to teach with a greater analytical and symbolical approach (Holodynski & Schiefele, 2008) in Grades 3 and 4. The differences between the teachers remained noticeable, but they mostly man‐ ifested themselves in the divergent practices of the teaching phases. In general, the differences between the teachers’ practices were hard to describe without under‐ taking a micro-analysis that focused on language in action (see Chapter 6). Similar to the teachers teaching in Grades 1 and 2, the teachers teaching in Grades 3 and 4 used monologic and dialogic task formats. In Grades 3 and 4, the sequences were, however, much longer and were sometimes referred to as “projects” by the project teachers. Those projects encompassed several weeks. The task formats used were mostly presentations of either personally relevant aspects of the overall topic (e.g., “My dream house”, “My favourite animal”, “My favourite picture book”, “My favourite place”, “My bike”, and “Collecting things: I collect…” etc.), the reconstruction of the plot of a picture book or story intro‐ duced by the teacher, or writing an ending to a story. The topics derived from the students’ lifeworld (Bäuml-Roßnagl, 1993) and placed greater focus on writing and reading skills in the core activity. The follow-up activity remained a form of oral presentation (e.g., reading the story to the class or giving a presentation). Following the presentation, the stu‐ dents generally received feedback in English from the teacher and often also from their classmates. In Grades 1 and 2 the teachers demonstrated a difference in relation to whether the teaching phases were clearly separable or were blending into each other. This difference was less obvious in Grades 3 and 4 due to the fact that all Grade 3 and Grade 4 teachers allowed the students to work on their own (i.e., more freely) at some point in the task sequences. Whether 165 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship 10 Froggy plays soccer (London & McDonough, 2000). this was due to the students’ age or increased skill level is unclear. It could be that teachers assumed that students could understand English better due to their cognitive development. Another possible explanation might be attributed to the fact that the teacher with the strongest non-story-based approach was only teaching in the early Grades and not in Grades 3 and 4. The following section describes the typical task sequence for the majority of the Grade 4 teachers. The tasks in Grade 4 were longer and consisted of several smaller tasks within an overall target task. As such, the students normally pre‐ pared several smaller products that led to the preparation of the final product. Thus, it might be argued that the students passed through a general preparation phase that led to a core activity to be presented (C Follow-up) and which func‐ tioned as another preparation phase on a higher level, so to say, for the final product (D Core activity). This, in turn, finally led to the “E Follow-up” that marked the end of the overall task sequence. What was interesting to note is that Anna also used this kind of structure with her Grade 2 students when teaching “Sports”. All of her other observed task sequences for Grades 1 and 2 followed those described in Figure 12. Her explanation for the different structure was: Voice 26 Well, you know. I really couldn’t decide what I wanted the students to do in the end, so I just started doing the topic and asked the students what kind of sports they liked and then we worked. In-between I thought I could read a book to them about Froggy [a picture book 10 ], I know that this will take to them and it will give me some time to think about what I want them to do in the end. Anna - 2015 Figure 15 represents an upwardly pointed arrow to show the gradual increase in the skill level. This was crucial to the students otherwise they would not have been able to successfully complete the target task. This figure also illustrates the interplay between task demand and task support (Cameron, 2001). At the be‐ ginning of a task, products the students have to prepare can be termed demands. Later on, at a higher level of the same task sequence, the products first seen as demands, then function as further support for the overall target task. 166 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 7 Presentation of pre-core activity, less formal style (children stay at their place) 4 Practicing words / sentences (some teachers) 3 Introducing phrases / chunks (some teachers) 2 Vocabulary introduction (oral) 1 Sometimes, activation of prior knowledge A Preparation 13 Sometimes also: portfolio entry 12 Sometimes: Feedback 11 Presentation of students’ products 6 Preparation of pre-core activity (e.g. poster of favourite place) 5 Teacher example of pre-core activity or discussion of (pre-) core activity C Follow-up B Core activity 10 Asking for / learning new individual words 9 Students prepare their final products 8 Final products are explained and / or a teacher example is presented E Follow-up D Core activity Task Sequence in Grade 4 F. 15: Typical task sequences in Grade 4. Although task sequences for Grade 4 and how much they should increase in com‐ plexity were not discussed during the project meetings, all of the project teachers appeared to find this the natural task sequence and complexity level for Grade 4 classes. Whenever the Grade 4 teachers were observed, they mostly presented tasks that followed this structure. However, after having taught such a rather elaborate sequence, the teachers would then often continue with a shorter task sequence fol‐ lowing the one shown in Figures 14/ or 15 for Grades 1 and 2 (depending on their preferences). The focus of such a short task sequence would be on the production of a rather “lengthy” (roughly one page) written text (e.g., about “My dream house”, “Collecting things: I collect …”, “Wolves”). The differences between the teachers following Figure 13 or Figure 14 became obvious in an analysis of the way the teachers structured and enacted the respective teaching phases. In Grade 3, the task sequences were often similar to those used in Grades 1 and 2 (Figures 13 and 13 depending on the teacher). However, all teachers’ teaching practices were less holistic and involved writing and reading skills. Additionally, all teachers showing tasks in higher grades remained true to their general teaching practices identified in Grades 1 and 2. In the next section, two Grade 3 tasks are briefly described before two Grade 4 tasks are illustrated. 167 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship 5.2.1 Grade 3 task formats I will briefly illustrate two different Task examples from 3 rd Grade classes. Both ex‐ amples took place at the early stages of the project work during with I was familiar‐ ising myself with the teachers and they with me. At this stage I only collected the data that they offered me willingly. Students’ examples were not gathered at this time. Ruth The first example illustrates a task focusing on the topic “Seasons”. It was a revision of the topic that had been taught in Grade 2. In this example here, the topic is investigated on a higher level according to the principles of the spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960). “Seasons” was part of the school’s selection of English topics for Grades 1 and 2 and the teacher implemented it during one of the first lessons following the summer vacation. It was a ‘one-lesson-only-task’ and as such it was short and to the point. The aim, according to the teacher, was to revise “Seasons” and to prepare the students for further writing and reading activities of greater importance in Grades 3 and 4. An extract from the obser‐ vation protocol is presented below. Mini-Vignette 2, Ruth, Grade 3, August 29th 2011 The students sit on their seats and look at the teacher. She stands in the middle of the classroom and looks around the room. She smiles and holds a small bag in her hands and explains the task to the students while walking around offering each pair the bag to take out a card. “OK, boys and girls, you work with a partner. I want you to pick a card and read the name of the month quietly (She puts her right index finger to her lips). Don’t show your card to other children (She shakes her head and moves her right index finger from left to the right in front of her. She walks back to the teacher’s desk in the front of the room and puts the empty bag there.). Don’t tell other children your month. You have to prepare a quiz with your partner (She raises her eyebrows. She takes a worksheet and holds it up.). You have to draw a picture in here (points with her right index finger to the little box on the top half of the worksheet). And you have to cut out a few sentences about your month. And you can write down a few sentences about your month with a partner.” The task sequence encompassed the preparation stage in which the students re-called the months of the year and the seasons in speaking a rhyme together with the teacher. The teacher then presented a quiz as an example to the stu‐ dents. Below is a short extract from an observation protocol: 168 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 Voice 27 OK, boys and girls. I’ve got a quiz for you. Listen and guess. It is very cold and snow falls. You can build a snowman. It’s in the beginning of the year. Ruth - 2011 A student identified the correct month, stating January. Then the teacher together with the children brainstormed sentences that the students could use when cre‐ ating their own riddle. After this phase, the students started working on their own quizzes. This marked the starting point for the core activity during which the stu‐ dents worked independently. They used the small worksheet below and read through the sentences the teacher had prepared for them as task support. Some students began to put the sentences in the correct order to match the seasons. A few students raised their hands and asked the teacher for other words they wanted to use. The teacher walked around the classroom to help the students. After about 15 minutes of engaging with the worksheets the students started their presentations, which signalled the follow-up phase. The teacher thanked the individual student after each presentation and provided brief feedback to the learner. F. 16: Worksheets: sample sentences and empty worksheet for students’ core activity. 169 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship 11 See Erdmann (2006). Anna The present example is from her Grade 3 class at the beginning of the first semester (October 2011). Anna wanted to try a CLIL topic. The students had just talked about autumn and hedgehogs in Sciences and so Anna decided to use a story about hedgehogs (Haase, 2011) from a German eEFLT magazine. The final product was a ‘Leporello’ that the students then presented to each other. The preparation stage started with a short revision of prior knowledge of hedgehogs. Anna introduced new words to the students and they practised them together. The core activity phase was started with a listening comprehension. The learners listened to a recorded story about hedgehogs. During the next step, the students received a worksheet comprising pictures from the story and they were required to put them in order. The students started producing their ‘Leporellos’ with pictures and simple sentences provided by the magazine. The follow-up activity was the presentation of some of the ‘Leporellos’. As the above two examples show, the task sequences were rather simple, but involved reading skills and writings skills on a higher level than was used in Grades 1 and 2. In the first example, the students had to read and use sentences or write sentences on their own. In the second example, the students learnt technical terms such as hibernation. 5.2.2 Grade 4 task formats In this section I briefly present two different task sequences. One was ob‐ served in a Grade 4 class that started learning English in Grade 3 only. The other one was observed in a Grade 4 class that started learning English in Grade 1. In a final step, I compare the presented examples to other task se‐ quences and outline a CI that shows that tasks need to be investigated in more detail to understand their enactment. Jenny Her class started learning English in Grade 3. Jenny’s aim was to increase the students’ reading skills. As a consequence, we looked for short and easy books that could be read by the students 11 . The task sequence was very complex and encompassed several weeks. The sequence was taught for almost three months with a short break in-between in which a different topic was taught that had no connection to this picture book topic. The overall target task was to present “My favourite book” to the class. Jenny’s 4th Graders were a very diverse and het‐ erogeneous group of all levels, such as special needs children, mainstream, gifted 170 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 children, and native speakers of English. To cater for all groups, Jenny decided to introduce three picture books to the class using storytelling. Each book was taught in an individual task sequence consisting of several lessons. The reading level increased from book to book. Figure 18 uses the following abbreviations: P = preparation, C = core activity, F-u= follow-up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verall task sequence for “My favourite book”. The overall topic started with the creation of mind-maps to themes that would be relevant in the picture books. Jenny decided to do this because she had asked herself: Voice 28 (…) How can I start this now? How can I prepare them that they don’t have to read a real book now (…) I started looking at the vocabulary the children would need and that were actually all things that we had done before uhm based on the topic, on the field of topics, well, only very little what I haven’t done uhm what I haven’t done yet or also a few things that are not that well remembered, you know, the numbers, how they are written, that isn’t that 171 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship well established in this class. We haven’t done that yet, we have neglected that a bit in the beginning uhm and also with time, but otherwise, the other topics were all quite established and known (…) that took a while, the children were totally motivated and they also did that very brilliantly, brilliantly, well there was much established uhm Jenny - 2013 Figure 18 below shows one of the mind maps for re-calling all the animal names Jenny’s students had learnt in previous lessons. F. 18: Mind maps of topics relevant for the picture books. Each preparation stage concerning a picture book started with an introduc‐ tion and practice of relevant words, as well as using different strategies of “how to understand words” that led to, for example, working with a dic‐ tionary or closely examining words for their stems and guessing their meaning. Then Jenny continued with a storytelling phase in which she told the story to the class with the help of pictures. The core activity marked the reading of the story texts in pairs for the first book and on their own or in pairs according to the students’ wishes for book number 2 and 3. Jenny struc‐ tured the core activities slightly differently each time to make it more diffi‐ cult and interesting for the students. For the first book, the children had to only read one page of the picture book and then match it to the correct pic‐ ture. The follow-up stage consisted of different groups of children presenting their text with the matching picture. In the later task sequences for books 172 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 number 2 and 3, the individual child had to read more pages and finally the entire book and match the texts to the pictures. The preparation stages were still storytelling. The core activities consisted of the production of ‘Leporel‐ los’. In the follow-up stages the learners’ results were verified. The last task sequence that built up to the overall target task formed a prep‐ aration phase in which Jenny introduced words and phrases concerning the presentation of the favourite book. Phrases included information on, for in‐ stance, the author, title and main characters. The students then prepared a new kind of product in the core activity. They produced, in Jenny’s words, “little bags filled with information about their favourite book”. In sandwich paper bags, the learners collected different questions and the matching answer to give a short book presentation. The follow-up formed the presentation of a few of the child‐ ren’s favourite books with the help of the questions and answers. In the overall task sequence, Jenny catered for the different children’s needs in offering them either more difficult books (native speakers) or allowing them to work in pairs or re-read the first book instead of going on and working on a different one (special needs children). She placed a particular focus on motivating the children and making sure that they understood. In her words: Voice 29 Storytelling is good good fun for me and for them (…) with lots of movements and action because it helps children to learn and remember (…) I felt that we needed to revise the vocabulary beforehand so that they understand what is happening in the books. Jenny - 2013 173 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship Ruth Her task sequence focused on the topic “My favourite place”. E$R5',$-5'$(-7-$5'&$ -%+)',%-N$(6"+%$%5'2&$ 4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'-$ $ D$T+%5$=&'-',%-$%': %-$ "4$"%5'&$<521)&',N-$ 4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'-$ $ U$/ %+)',%-$+-'$%5'$<521)&',N-$': (; =1'$%': %-$ (-$-+=="&%$$ $ S$/ %+)',%-$$<&'(%'$($="-%'&$(6"+%$%5'2&$ 4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'$V=2<%+&'$(,)$%': %W$ $ F$P': %$-'--2",9$T+%5$2,%&")+<'-$4'#$<5+,7-$ ; (%<52,3$%5'$-%+)',%-N$4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'-$ X$R5'$%5&''$#2"'&-$(&'$ &'()$"+%$ $ Y$A2,2-5')$="-%'&-$(&'$ )2-=1(0').$-%+)',%-$ #(17$(&"+,)$%5'$&""; $ (,)$<5""-'$%5'2&$ 4(I"+&2%'$="-%'&$ Z$["&1)$; (=$%"$; (%<5$="-%<(&)-$%"$<"+,%&2'-$ $ \$/ %+)',%-$&'<'2I'$="-%<(&)-$4&"; $(11$"I'&$%5'$ #"&1)$#2%5$"%5'&-N$4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'-$ D]$/ %+)',%-$ &'()$="-%<(&)-$ ",$%5'2&$"#,$$ DD$/ %+)',%-$=&'-',%$ %5'2&$="-%<(&)$%"$%5'$ "%5'&-$2,$^'&; (,$ DF$8521)&',$(&'$(-7')$%"$ 6&2,3$($="-%<(&)$%"$ -<5""1$$ $ DE$R0=2<(1$(-='<%-$"4$($ ="-%<(&)$(&'$)2-<+--')$ DU$R5'0$(1-"$; (7'$+-'$"4$"%5'&$%0=2<(1$ ="-%<(&)$%"=2<-9$2,%&")+<2,3$%5'; -'1I'-? $ %(172,3$(6"+%$%5'$#'(%5'&? $%5'2&$5"; '$%"#,? $ '%<J$$ DS$/ %+)',%-$+-'$%5'2&$4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'$="-%'&-$ (-$($-+=="&%$%"$#&2%'$($="-%<(&)$(6"+%$%5'2&$ 4(I"+&2%'$=1(<'$ DX$@"-%<(&)-$ (&'$; (21')$$ $ DY$Q$4'#$ -%+)',%-$ =&'-',%$%5'2&$ ="-%<(&)-$ @&'=(&(%2",$ 8"&'$(<%2I2%0$$ A"11"#B+=$ D$T+%5$=&'-',%-$%': %-$ $$$$$$$$/ %(&%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$/ %(&%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ R(&3'%$%(-7$ DY$Q$4'#$ ="-%<(&)$(&'$)2-<+--')$ X$R5'$%5&''$#2"'&-$(&'$ \$/ %+)',%-$&'<'2I'$="-%<(&)-$4&"; $(11$"I'&$%5'$ F. 19: Task sequence for the overall target task: “My favourite place”. The final product, a written postcard, was gradually developed through several steps. In the first preparation stage, Ruth introduced the topic, then she provided the children with necessary vocabulary to create their own posters about their favourite places. While the children were writing their texts, she walked around the class and helped those who wanted to know further words or needed help in formulating sentences. In the follow-up stage, the students’ products were displayed and while the students walked around and read the different posters, Ruth turned on a CD with classical music, so that the children relaxed and took time to look at the individual posters and did not chat with each other. The most popular three posters were then presented. The next stage, another preparation 174 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 12 With the help of a website called “postcrossing“ (Magalh-es, 2004), Ruth and I received many postcards written by other English (native) speakers about their favourite places. The website allows for free registration and is a postcard penpal site. A registered user A receives an address of another registered user B randomly and through looking at this user’s profile (B), one (A) can determine this user’s (B) preferences for postcard motives and topics to write about. A postcard preferably according to the registered user’s wishes (B) is written and mailed. As soon as the recipient (B) receives the postcard and registers it on the website, A can then ask for more addresses to send postcards to and is then also eligible to receive postcards from other users. This website provides a great opportunity to use English as a means of communication with other people from all over the world. The students were thrilled to receive and write real postcards. This website allows for easy penpalships as the postcards are usually no direct swaps as is often the case with exchange programs. Thus, users do not enter any moral agreement in having to send postcards regularly. Rather, whenever time allows, postcards can be sent and thus new ones received. For further information, see Dreßler (2012d). stage, introduced the postcards to the children. The postcards came from people all over the world and showed other people’s favourite places 12 . The students and Ruth sat on the floor in a circle in front of the blackboard. In the middle there were the postcards with their front facing up. Ruth introduced a riddle to the students, she described the front of one postcard and the students then had to guess which one it was. Then, the student who found the correct postcard con‐ tinued and described one to her classmates. Ruth continued this phase with an in‐ troduction to reading strategies. The students read their postcards and later on pre‐ sented the postcard’s content in German. The next stage, which led to the overall target task of writing a postcard about one’s favourite place, formed the core. The students used their posters and also added further information, such as a greeting and farewell formula and also wrote something about themselves. This phase made use of the former demand, the poster, which is now used as a support for the text production. The overall task sequence ended here with an implicit follow-up, which was the sending off of the postcards by the teacher. Teacher C Looking at the task sequences in Grades 3 and 4, it appears that the teachers had a rather homogenous view on what tasks were and how they should be taught. Yet, when comparing the different classes to each other and comparing analytic memos of especially high language levels of students or especially low language levels, it immediately suggested itself that there had to be further differences between the teachers. Those needed to be investigated in more detail. CIs formed starting points for this fine-grained analysis. In the CIs students demanded different tasks or rather tried to change the task sequences. The extract is from an observation protocol in the second lesson on a new topic “Your dream house and your dream rooms”: 175 5.2 Taking a stronger lead in authorship Voice 30 Teacher C: Ok, these are our rooms. Now, choose one of the rooms, only of the: : se rooms. Choose one which one you: like to describe (1) the most. Yes" It’s not your favourite room, but which one would you like to describe most" Ja" Which you like to describe. And ask your partner. What room do you like to describe" I: : : want to describe the (2) living room. And you, what do you want to describe" Just ask your partner, find out in one minute which do you want to describe" Student 1 in German: Darf man auch was anderes wählen, auch andere Möbel" {Can I choose something different, some other furniture"} Teacher C: No, just one of these. Student 1: O: kay. Student 2 in German: Och Mann! Aber wenn ich weiß wie die Räume und Sachen heißen" {Oh bummer! But what if I know how the rooms and things are called"} Teacher C: Only one of these. There are so many possible rooms and pieces of furniture, we have hundreds and hundreds of pieces of furniture I cannot put a: : ll of them here. Now we have just these, okay" So, go ahead. What is your favourite room and which do you like to describe" Teacher C Here, the students asked for being taken seriously (see Chapter 6 on ‘doing school’ and ‘providing space for students to communicate’). In the first lesson, the teacher had introduced the new topic. She had told the students that they would be talking about their dream house. Then she had proceeded in intro‐ ducing a number of rooms and pieces of furniture. The children on the other hand had had other pieces of furniture and rooms they wanted to create on their mind. Also, they seemed to have let their imagination run wild. The teacher, however, missed this opportunity as illustrated above. The students continu‐ ously complained about this throughout the task sequence. The teacher reflected on the task sequence afterwards. She came to the conclusion that if she had to do this task sequence again, she would try to include the students’ wishes. In a later group discussion, it became obvious to her and other teachers that within the community of practice (Wenger, 1998) of PS teachers, different understand‐ ings of how to involve students were present. When contrasting those analytic memos with other aspects of teaching more differences between the teachers became obvious. In the analysis I looked for how the different teachers used social form and locality (e.g., the students form 176 5 Task-in-action: Focus on task formats in Grades 1-4 a circle in front of the blackboard), what kind of interaction types (e.g., there is no pair work, only teacher-student talk or teacher initiated talk between stu‐ dents) they initiated, what kind of scaffolding they provided, and what kind of vocabulary teaching practices they used. Some teachers included a basic focus on form (e.g., illustrating when to use the ‘a’ versus ‘an’ article); others used a variety of the properties of the classroom (e.g., use postcards for a communica‐ tive exchange with outside-of-the-classroom-English speakers). 5.3 Summary The analysis showed that task formats in Grades 1 and 2 were different from those used in Grades 3 and 4. In the early Grades, tasks were less complex and typically focused on one task. Typical task formats used in Grades 1 and 2 were mini-presentations, -interviews, and role-plays. In Grades 3 and 4, smaller tasks were often combined and led to one overall target task. The variety of task formats was larger as the focus of the task sequence was wider. Students pro‐ duced their own texts and then presented them either in reading them to their classmates or using the written texts as an aid for a presentation. Typical task formats in Grades 3 and 4 were presentations of own texts, a re-construction of a picture book, or posters on something that was termed “favourite” or “dream” (see Dreßler, Kollmann, and Legutke [2016] for further examples). In addition, there were differences between the groups of teachers. The project teachers working in Grades 1 and 2 typically fell into two groups: some teachers embedded the task sequence within routines, songs, rhymes, and stories that periodically had a connection to the overall topic of the task sequence. Others taught the task sequence without combining it with other activities such as a routinized question round in the beginning of each lesson, songs, or chants. In Grades 3 and 4, the differences between the teachers were smaller. Here, almost all teachers focused on the task sequence and its topic and offered no other activities unless they were directly connected to the overall task topic. However, the difference in using routinized lesson openings was still present (i.e., not all teachers used them) and some teachers started with the lesson topic immediately after the greeting. In general, the task sequences in Grades 3 and 4 were more elaborate with smaller tasks that built up to an overall target task with a final product that used the products of the smaller tasks taught in the overall target task sequence. 177 5.3 Summary 1 The names of the four key practices draw on different authors (for ‘doing school’ see Bloome et al. [2005]; Bloome et al. [1989], for vocabulary practices see Cameron [2001]), yet are not congruent with their original meaning as they include all smaller practices observed and identified in the teachers’ classrooms. This means that for the teachers, their attitudes that can be implicitly seen in their teaching practices, for example, hin‐ dering children to talk about something of personal relevance or that are explicitly stated in their interviews and influence their overall way of conducting a lesson, also fall under ‘doing school’. However, not all vocabulary teaching aspects described by Cameron (2001) can be found in the teachers’ eEFLCs. I borrowed the names as the aspects de‐ scribed by those authors could often be found in my data and because I wanted names that could be easily understood by the teachers when discussing my findings with them. 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks As I have already shown in Chapter 5, the formal structure of a task alone with its three stages does not adequately describe the teachers’ practices. Only a de‐ tailed examination of how the task is enacted will provide insight into the actions taking place in a lesson in which eEFL tasks are used. The analysis in this chapter identifies four key practices, namely ‘doing school’, ‘providing space for learners to communicate’, ‘building a vocabulary’, and ‘teaching the spoken language’ that describe the teachers’ task enactments. F. 20: The four key practices relevant for the emergence of an eEFL task 1 . (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) The first key practice, ‘doing school’, combines, for example, aspects of classroom management, teaching atmosphere and learning environment, and teacher attitudes towards teaching and learners. The second practice, ‘providing space for learners to communicate’, refers to aspects that implicitly relate to teacher and learner roles and addresses the question: Who decides upon the lesson structure and topic of the task se‐ quence? This is related to the question regarding how far the teacher views the lesson as a joint interplay between the teacher’s and students’ interests in a topic, and the general education theories that stress the importance of connecting learning needs to the children’s experiences and interests. The third key practice, ‘building a vocabulary’, and the fourth practice, ‘teaching the spoken language’, refer to the teach‐ er’s understanding of how vocabulary and discursive practices of spoken language are taught in eEFLT. The initial relationship of those four key practices presented moments for fur‐ ther research into the way the project teachers enacted tasks. They allow only for a detailed description of the enactment of tasks. No qualitative statement of the task or its enactment can be undertaken with them. However, the four key practices are crucial for the understanding of when a task emerges. The four key practices were identified through a micro-analysis of the teach‐ ers’ lessons. In looking at teachers’ actions and language in detail, small practices were recognised. Mapping the smaller practices together and then looking for a meta-level description created the four key practices. One smaller practice that is regularly used across the project teachers’ group is that of ‘presenting an object and naming it’ in an attempt to teach a new word to the learners. This practice, together with other practices such as ‘pointing to an object on the floor with a pointing stick + pronouncing the word twice’, is then combined to the overall key practice of ‘building a vocabulary’. The other three key practices have been formed using a similar process. In a later step, the four key practices have been analysed for their analytical relevance. This is possible, as they present moments in which teachers make task-relevant decisions and, depending on what the teacher decides and what kind of smaller practices she employs, a different task emerges or the task emergence is constrained (see Chapter 7). 180 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis The analytical processes used for sharpening the focus of task enactment made use of several theoretical underpinnings and methodologies or methodological frameworks. I drew on MDA (e.g. R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004) and Norris’ mul‐ timodal interaction research (Norris, 2004, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a). The theoretical underpinnings of MDA are: wide-ranging and deeply interdisciplinary in orientation, with roots in at least the following frameworks: interactional sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, anthro‐ pological linguistics or the ethnography of communication, critical discourse analysis, practice theory, mediated action and activity theory, social semiotics, multimodal dis‐ course analysis, (…) (S.W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012, p. 69) Thus, MDA is often combined with other forms of analysis to gain further in‐ sight into complex phenomena and operations on the general premise developed by Wittgenstein (2009) of using ‘language as a toolbox’ (p. 9). That is, words can have different meanings in different situations and the way social actors make use of them is a creative process (Jones & Norris, 2005a). Furthermore, practice is a key term in MDA. R. Scollon (2001) stated that practice is an action that included a historical aspect. Norris referred to this and further stated that “When focusing our attention on practice, we simultaneously focus our attention on actions that social actors take“ (Norris, 2012b, p. 222). In addition with a focus on […] the mediated action as unit of analysis, we can view language as just one mode of communication that is present among other modes, without language necessarily being primary. Of course, by taking the mediated action as the unit of analysis, and by decentralizing language, we actually open up a new field, namely multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2011a, p. 24). My assumption was that in solely looking at one mode, i.e. language, I would ignore the complexity of a teaching situation. In a teaching situation, many different actions are taking place and many different actors are making use of several modes at one moment in time. The diagram below provides a schematic illustration of the different steps taken. Ethnographic data was used for the analysis. The video recordings of the lessons form the main data sources. The ethnographic data collection process started with the overarching Goffmanian (1974) question that formed the basis for my entire research study: “What is it 181 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis 2 Whether or not the activity the teacher used is indeed a task or not is discussed in Chapter 7. that’s going on here? ” (p. 8). For example, what is going on in the classrooms while teachers are enacting tasks 2 ? What is it that’s going on in the classrooms while teachers are teaching tasks? Steps 1 2 3 Examined videos & fieldnotes Watched videos with teachers’ task features in mind Looked at analytic memos & CIs In what kind of teaching practices does the teacher engage? Mainly based on Scollon & Scollon (2003, 2004,2007) MDA Differences & similarities between the teachers Detailed analysis of two videos then Cross-comparison of all videos Mainly based on Norris (2004, 2011a, 2011b, 2012) Multi-modal analysis CIs F. 21: Illustration of the analysis Illustrating the analysis The first step was to examine the videos and fieldnotes according to content (e.g., teaching topics), task format, general atmosphere, and the type of teaching situation (e.g., vocabulary presentation), as well as to determine a sequence of events. The second step was to commence the overall analysis by watching the videos with the core features of teachers’ concepts from Chapter 4 in mind. Thus, I was taking notes while screening the videos for the scenes in which the aspects named by the teachers such as vocabulary, interaction, functions of the class‐ room, transparency and motivation, scaffolding, and ‘Haltung’ (attitudes) as well as focus on form could be found. For the third step, I included the analytic memos I had produced from the beginning of the project phase onwards as part of my ethnographic fieldwork. I cross-referenced them with the CIs I had identified or 182 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 3 I will refrain from using the anonymised names in this chapter as I vouched to treat the teachers with respect and protect them against criticism. In using the names, other project teachers may be able to recognise the teacher described. As the situations, how‐ ever, happened in the safe environment between the teacher and me, I cannot exploit the teachers’ trust and illustrate the examples in a way that allows other project teachers to guess the teacher in question. For a discussion of ethical considerations, see Chapter 8 and Legutke & Dreßler (forthcoming). that the teachers had pointed out to me (see Chapter 5) in my fieldnotes and observation protocols. Then, I started looking for CIs in my videos. My notes on the video recording sessions formed the starting point of this process. Mini-Vi‐ gnette 3 below is an example of a CI. This mini-vignette will be further explained and used for the data analysis in Section 6.2.1: Mini-Vignette 3, teacher A 3 It is Monday morning, the first lesson in Grade 2. The students sit in a circle with the teacher. In the middle of the circle there are a number of soft toy pets. The teacher holds a pointing stick in her hand and points to one of the toys on the floor. She utters the word and signals the children to repeat after her. The children sit quietly and only speak after the teacher has told them to do so. The sound of the word “dog” uttered by the teacher hangs in the air and within the blink of an eye later the children utter “dog”. The teacher moves her hand with the pointing stick to the next soft toy on the floor and whispers “cat”, and the children repeat immediately with a whisper “cat”. The teaching continues and eight words are taught in this way (for a detailed illustration of the situation see Mini-Vignette 4), moving from one-word-sen‐ tences to mechanical drills “What is it? It’s a dog.” being introduced by the teacher and imitated by the students, to playing a memory game with a partner at the students’ table, to coming back into the circle to reproduce the words in a one-word-sentence after a silent impulse with the pointing stick by the teacher. Finally, the teacher introduces a mini-role-play in the same way and then allows the children to repeat immediately: Speaker A: Hello. Speaker B: Hello. Speaker A: Can I have the rabbit, please? Speaker B: Here you are. Speaker A: Thank you. 183 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis Then, each student performs the mini-role-play twice. In total the mini-role play is performed roughly 40 times. Every student performs both roles, the person asking for a pet and the person handing the pet. When everyone has performed, the teacher praises the students and tells them to go back to their seats and get ready for the following lesson, which is Art. The teacher featured in the above vignette told me after the lesson that she was quite pleased with the students’ role-play performance, but that she was surprised how poorly the students could remember the eight pet words even though they were rather easy. While observing the lesson, I found four inci‐ dents to be puzzling and after the recording I took notes and jotted down a question in my research diary: How come the students can use the question now, but during the lesson it looked as if their level was rather low? During the analysis, with the help of the video recording, I started mapping out the CIs and counted a total of four critical situations within a 90 minutes lesson. These were: • When the teacher introduced the memory game, students protested and shouted out in a whining voice: “Oh no”, several times. The teacher ig‐ nored them and told one of the noisiest pupils to come to the middle of the circle to introduce the game with her. The lesson continued in the above-described way. • During the follow-up phase in which the students performed the dialogue, Child A stopped after having performed speaker A and asked the teacher whether he can perform a different dialogue. The teacher brushed him off by saying, “Later, later” and was making a declining hand movement with her right hand. The teaching situation went on. • Child B performed the dialogue twice and on her way back to her chair in the circle she turned to the teacher and asked the teacher if she had pets at home. Again, the teacher brushed the student off and said, “Not now.” The lesson continued and in the end the teacher praised the children and told them that English was over and that they had to get ready for Art. 184 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 4 Using English as a means of communication outside of the English lesson could be counted as a success. However, the goal of an English lesson should also be to allow students to experience this transformative event inside the lesson to help all students to bring their intended meaning across and to ensure that all students regardless of their level of English skills can successfully apply English to communicate with others about something personally purposeful and meaningful (for a discussion, see Section 7.2). • The students went back to their tables and a few turned to each other and said: “Can I have the ‘Malkasten’ [paintbox], please? ” The children gig‐ gled and passed each other their paintboxes. I was surprised that the students, who struggled to remember the word ‘budgie’, could suddenly remember the rather long phrase (Can I have the xxx, please? ) and use it in a communicative way. For me, this moment in which English was used as a means of communication marks a transformative event. The students demonstrated an understanding that they could use English as a means for communication and to achieve a particular outcome - here, to get their paint‐ boxes. This situation should be the goal of every lesson or at least of every task sequence according to my understanding of eEFLT (see Chapters 3, 7 & 8). That this transformative event happened only outside of the lesson reiterates the criticality of this teacher’s teaching practice. The situation described here is only an example; in other teachers’ lessons, similar situations arose in which the respective teacher constrained the use of English for communicative purposes. In some cases, students used English at home with their parents to create a poster, for example, about their favourite aspect of a topic that the teacher de‐ clined to introduce or scaffold during the lesson 4 . Likewise, many situations were observed in which the moments of using English as a means of communication occurred inside a lesson. To further in‐ vestigate when and how those moments emerged in which English was used for communication, it seemed wise to investigate the many differences and simi‐ larities between the teachers’ practices (see Section 6.2). I cross-compared those teachers who could be placed at the opposite ends of a continuum looking at localities (e.g., Where in the classroom do teachers do what? ), interaction pat‐ terns (e.g., Who initiates the talk: teacher and / or students? Is there any stu‐ dent-student interaction? ), formats of tasks (see Chapter 5), and the different levels of English in the different classes (based on notes in the observation pro‐ tocols, a comparison of student materials and / or teachers’ statements). Aspects 185 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis 5 All Grade 4 classes were tested in 2013. They took part in the German-wide test (BIG-Kreis, 2015). The research group decided to not compare the different schools to each other to ensure a positive learning environment among the group of project PS teachers. of locality and interaction proved irrelevant and aspects referring to students’ English skills seemed difficult to investigate without applying proper tests 5 . The next major step of the analysis drew on MDA (LeVine, R. Scollon, Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, & Georgetown University, 2004; R. Scollon, 1998, 2001, 2005a, R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, 2007; S. W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012). The underlying notion is that by only paying attention to texts a full understanding of a situation is constrained. Instead, the action forms the starting point to investigate the role of texts by “pay[ing] attention to texts as they are used to mediate the real-time concrete actions of agents in actual social interactions” (S.W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012, p. 66). The focus here lies on the actions the teachers undertake in teaching tasks in combination with texts (spoken and possibly written). MDA allows for a critical examination of those actions. MDA helps to slow down language in action as the different modes happening at the same time are noted down and systematically investi‐ gated in a form of microanalysis. The aspects of mediated action that refer back to mediation (Vygotsky, 1978) play a central role. People use cultural tools as a “(…) means for carrying out mental [language, memory strategies, etc.] and physical (…)” (Hagstrom, 2000, p. 136) actions. For Vygotsky, “cultural” implies a practice that is shared by a group, which here, for example, is the community of practice in a certain project school, the project group, but also the individual teacher with her English class (Hagstrom, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). The use of these tools can transform one’s life because a certain practice is formed or generated. Those tools and their power of, for example, supporting or hindering the understanding of the meaning of new words were investigated. In some cases, the use of a tool could be considered arbitrary. In other situations, the same tool in combination with the same object of interest, but at a different stage in the overall task sequence, appeared beneficial. In this book, those tools are, for example, the use of a “pointing stick” to point to a soft toy dog on the floor in order to direct the students’ gaze to the object of interest while at the same time the teacher utters the name of the object “dog”. In this study, the use of a mediated tool such as language or the pointing stick generates a certain type of future language user. The way in which people in‐ teract with mediated tools, for instance, can be seen as something that is em‐ bodied, covert, and only implicitly known to the people themselves (R. Scollon, 186 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 2001). The way teachers use the pointing stick, a book, or raise their eyebrows, for example, is not always explicit to them. Mediational means have both inherent affordances and constraints: they enable cer‐ tain actions better than others, and, to be useful, their usage needs to have been in‐ ternalized at some point in the life cycle of the individuals (S. W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012b, p. 70). All teaching situations make use of meditational means, and the previous anal‐ ysis has already uncovered differences between the project teachers using the same task formats and yet teaching tasks in another way. Therefore, an analysis that focuses on micro-units and aspects needed to be undertaken to understand the specific meditational means and the way they have been applied to help or hinder pupils to use English as a means of communication. In addition, applying MDA helps to focus on the mediated actions as the unit of analysis: (…) is a way of positioning the focus at a point that is neither the individual (the social actor) nor the society (the mediational means) but the point at which these are brought concretely into engagement (R. Scollon, 2005b, p. 20). This means that I focused on the moment the teacher took actions with the pointing stick. This approach allows for an investigation in a moment of time in one specific project classroom of how “dog”, for example, is used in connection with the move‐ ment of a pointing stick to direct the students’ gazes. It also allows to take into consideration what kind of future practice is likely to emerge from this action (R. Scollon, 2005b). “In this view discourse is not just the action, not just the language; it is the bit of language as it is used in taking an action” (R. Scollon, 2005b, p. 20). Both the language and the action occurring in the lesson are important to relate to each other. As Norris pointed out within a teaching situation, within an interaction, there are several modes (e.g. the spoken language, gesture, pos‐ ture, and proxemcis) always present (Norris, 2011b). She referred to this as modal configurations and stated that those “(…) change continuously within real-time actions” (Norris, 2011b, p. 134). Further, the practices of teaching eEFLT and the practices of teaching tasks are different. A description on the teachers’ teaching practices that looks at the discourses in place, the historical bodies of the agents and the interaction order is needed (R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004). The social action investigated in the overlap of these three cycles is the focus of an investigation; it shows “(…) how and why certain social practices and activities (the latter defined as the sequence of an action) are performed and how discourse functions as a tool for producing and reproducing social actors” (Izadi, 2015, p. 62). 187 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis In MDA, a set of steps, namely engaging, navigating, and changing (R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p. 153) allows the researcher to zoom in on the nexus of practice. In my study, the nexus of practice forms the moment in which English is used as a means of communication within a task framework. R. Scollon and Scollon (2004), the two main authors and researchers of MDA, defined the process as follows: Our interest as ethnographers is in social action and so for us a nexus analysis is the mapping of semiotic cycles of people, discourses, places, and mediational means involved in the social actions we are studying. We will use the term ‘nexus of practice’ to focus on the point at which historical trajectories of people, places, discourses, ideas, and objects come together to enable some action which in itself alters those historical trajectories in some way as those trajectories emanate from this moment of social action (p. viii). This quote can be tied back to the CIs described above. Each CI poses as a trans‐ formative event. Here, the different moments in which children are hindered to use English as a means of communication will most likely influence their later social actions in using English, or at least in performing in future language classes, if the students are repeatedly constrained to use English in a commu‐ nicative and purposeful way. Likewise, the moment that occurred outside of the lesson, in which English was used for communicative purposes, could have similar influential powers. In my analysis, I considered these critical moments in relation to the four key practices described previously. The critical moments are connected to the key practices to further describe the social action that is happening in the respective moment in time. In addition, the critical moments grouped into the four key practices foreshadow the learners’ future English usage and through this pose a starting point for a discussion of what type of task enactment is favourable in eEFLT when eEFL tasks are supposed to be used and the goal lies on enabling students to use English as a means of communi‐ cation within a lesson (for a discussion see Chapter 7). In my study, the following steps have been applied in the nexus analysis. • I further investigated CIs (formed a starting point for detailed analysis to find key practices) and vocabulary teaching practices as they show the biggest differences among the teachers. • I looked for transformative events with affordances or constraints for using English as a means of communication given this is a goal of eEFLT (see Section 3.5). • I identified key practices by examining how teachers use meditational means and where and how they do this. For example, ‘doing school’ in‐ volved ringing a bell to silence the children and drawing their attention to the teacher. In ‘providing space to communicate (about something of 188 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 6 Key practices were identified in overlapping one teacher’s individual practices with other teachers’ practices. personal relevance)’ the teacher turned to the students to ask them about their favourite things. She then allowed the students to share “small sto‐ ries” (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Georgakopoulou, 2006, 2007) about their favourite animal in German before helping the students to say something about their favourite animal in English. In looking at vocabu‐ lary teaching aspects - ‘building a vocabulary’ and ‘teaching the spoken language (discursive practices)’ - I identified the different teachers’ usages of a pointing stick, and flashcards as well as body movements, gestures and facial expressions to constrain or afford the learning of new words and phrases. • I also used questions to identify the key practices and their relationships to each other: What do the teacher’s individual key practices consist of ? How do the key practices interact so that a task emergence is constrained or afforded? What kind of smaller practices form the respective key prac‐ tice 6 ? How do the key practices interact to constrain or afford the overall emergence of a task? When looking for a nexus of practice of eEFL tasks and when using English as a means of communication I was not simply looking for actions. Rather, I was looking for “(…) a network of fixed practices” (R. Scollon, 2001, p. 147) that is emerging together with different smaller practices in various frequencies in different settings. Typically, the nexus of practice portrays “(…) an aggregation over time, not an analytical structure” (R. Scollon, 2001, p. 148). Here, however, it seemed wise to compare the different teachers against each other. This com‐ parison showed that every teacher’s task teaching practice evolved around, or rather between, the interplay of the four key practices. Different teachers might have different smaller practices that together from the teaching practice of ‘doing school’. For instance in one teacher’s practice ‘calling a child’ may happen more often than ‘asking the group to be quiet’, or in another teacher’s classroom ‘doing something in circle time’ may never happen, whereas in her colleague’s classroom it may happen during every lesson. Thus, the nexus of practice of ‘doing school’ consists of different smaller practices. Together the smaller practices of an individual teacher form a nexus of practice for the teacher in question. In turn, all project PS teachers’ nexuses were compared and contrasted. The different teachers’ nexuses in this study collectively formed the nexus of ‘doing school’ in the project. 189 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis 7 See Norris (2004, 2011b, 2011a, 2012a). 8 For a detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between a semiotic theory approach (e.g., Kress, 2009) and an MDA approach (R. Scollon, 2001) see Norris (2012a, especially 2012b). I drew on both approaches. I followed Norris (2012b), as my goal is to understand the teaching practices of the project teachers teaching tasks within an eEFLT classroom in order to help them and future eEFLT teachers teach tasks in a way that English is used as a means of communication. Hence, in a first analysis each teacher’s practice was analysed individually starting with two teachers who showed the biggest differences in their teaching practices. In the next step, the different teachers’ practices of ‘doing school’ were mapped together, thus an analytical step was taken. The first step aimed at a detailed description only: What becomes the nexus of practice is the repeated linkage of practices over time. The identity of mediated discourse analysis, in that sense, is emergent in time through this history of linkages, not an objectivized set of either connections or of procedures (R. Scollon, 2001, p. 167). Another process in the overall analysis of the videos was the stronger inclusion of ethnographic data. Here aspects such as the school building, the decorations on the walls in the classrooms, and “(…) the way the teacher words his explan‐ ations and instructions” (S.W. Scollon & De Saint-Georges, 2012, p. 72) were taken into consideration in order to see which of these actions constrained or afforded the emergence of a task in an eEFLT project classroom in Germany. The focus was on the specific action in a specific site of engagement in a specific moment in time. The specific action is the task and the specific site of engage‐ ment is the project classroom. In order to shed more light on the affordances and constraints of a certain teaching practice for the emergence of tasks, MDA is combined with a multi‐ modal analysis. This process emerges from the work of several authors and their focus on gaze, posture, and movements, as well as focus of attention and higher and lower levels of action 7 , or rather what action / s is / are in the foreground, midground, background of a social actor in performing a social action (Bourne & Jewitt, 2003; Norris, 2004). As other scholars have pointed out (Norris, 2004; R. Scollon, 2005b), an action often contains an array of other actions on lower / higher levels. Thus, in general I follow Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis (2001) who explain that 8 : When teachers speak they nearly always simultaneously deploy other semiotic re‐ sources for meaning-making. Teachers often use gesture alongside their speech to draw attention to images and other elements within the classroom as references. 190 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks Likewise, writing deploys visual graphological and typographical semiotics. We have shown that in the multimodal environment of the science classroom the meaning of what is spoken or written does not reside purely in language, but in the complex interweaving between the linguistic, visual and actional resources which teachers and students draw on in their communication (p. 58). Closely connected to this aspect is a further investigation and refinement of the site of engagement. Here, I follow Norris’ (2011a) definition of site of engagement as a: (…) real-time window opened through the intersection of social practice(s) and media‐ tional means that makes that lower (or higher) level action the focal point of attention of the relevant participants, and radiates from there encompassing the intersection of practices and mediational means that make those loweror higher-level actions the less focused or un-focused points of attention of the relevant participants (p. 45). She combined the site of engagement with actions on different levels and argued that all actions in combination with the language used need to be taken into con‐ sideration to understand what is happening (Norris, 2011a). She showed that “(…) the visual mode of gestures can take up a hierarchically equal or a super-ordinate position in addition to the commonly understood sub-ordinate position in relation to the mode of spoken language” (Norris, 2011b, p. 129). She explained that […] each communicative mode - with its affordances and constraints, such as gesture, spoken or print - can be divided into many smaller systems of representation and they can also be looked at as being part of much lager systems of representation (Norris, 2011b, p. 131). In addition, to understand and clearly describe the discourses, aspects such as eEFLT, PS pedagogy, TBTL (see Chapter 3), and the project group’s assumptions (see Chapter 4) need to be taken into consideration. As such, they function as the general backdrop against which the teachers’ teaching practices are described. I draw on literature in this chapter only to help me adequately describe observable practices, not to further discuss and evaluate the teachers’ practices. In the fol‐ lowing section, the key practices are described in more detail, offering an illustra‐ tion of the relationship between analytical steps and results. A discussion and eval‐ uation of the results, as indicated previously, can be found in Chapter 7. 191 6.1 A multi-faceted and multimodal analysis 6.2 Four key practices The above-described analysis led to the following four key practices, which are also briefly defined in Table 4 below: • ‘Doing school’ • ‘Providing space to communicate (about something of personal relevance)’ • ‘Building a vocabulary’ • ‘Teaching the spoken language (discursive practices)’ The key practices could have been developed from each video; however, the several smaller practices that together form a key practice differ from teacher to teacher, even though there is sometimes an overlap between the teachers. The respective key practice has been generated from the overlap of the different teachers’ individual key practice. The following video samples have been used for the analysis: • Grades 1 & 2 → five task sequences comprising one to several videos (from three teachers) • Grades 3 & 4 → 13 task sequences comprising one to several videos (from six teachers) The analysis started with two video sequences of teachers showing obvious differ‐ ences in task format and general teaching practices. In addition, the CIs in the video sequences presented two extreme cases (Patton, 2002). I decided to start with Grades 1/ 2, because the students are beginners and are much more dependent on the teach‐ er’s teaching practices than students in higher grades. Both teacher A and teacher B were selected for microanalysis because they present the most extreme cases within the group of project teachers across all PS Grades. At the same time, they are also rather homogeneous in the overall structure of the task sequences (i.e., the task sequences each lasted for two lessons). The first video example used for a detailed analysis shows teacher A teaching in Grades 1/ 2 (see critical incident in 6.1). She had described a problematic sit‐ uation to me and I observed the illustrated critical aspects. The second video example used to contrast and compare shows teacher B also teaching in Grades 1/ 2. The topics are both taken from the lifeworld of the students, but teacher A does not connect the topic to the students’ individual lifeworld in contrast to teacher B. teacher A uses the basic task sequence and teacher B uses the elaborate task sequence (see Chapter 5). Even though there are striking differences between the practices of the teachers, they can both be grouped into the four key practices outlined in Table 192 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 4 below. Furthermore, they function as an illustration of the relevance of the four key practices for the emergence of tasks. In addition, the different analytical steps can be very well illustrated using these two teachers as they use a multitude of smaller practices. Other teachers do not always use as many smaller practices as the two selected. Lastly, I chose these two teachers as illustrative examples because they present divergent demonstrations of my original assumption (see original sampling strategies in Section 2.4.5). At the beginning of this research project the research team assumed that the tasks used in Grade 3/ 4 would be rather different to those used in Grades 1/ 2. As my analysis of the videos has shown, this is not the case. Although the task formats are simpler in Grades 1/ 2 compared to Grades 3/ 4, the way teachers enact tasks is similar for all four Grades. Hence, the four key practices are relevant for all PS Grades. In Table 4, I show aspects of the analysis and present detailed results of various teachers’ practices to illustrate their differences and similarities. Regardless of the English level of the students, certain practices can be observed in all Grades. For example, introducing ‘a meaning of a word’ or ‘the pronunciation of a word’ was observed in Grades 1 and 2 as well as in Grades 3 and 4. The way in which the words or their pronunciation was introduced, however, varied at times. The table below provides an overview of the results. A detailed description of one analysis is provided further into this chapter to illustrate the analytic processes. 193 6.2 Four key practices Key practices/ dimensions ‘Doing school’ procedures that con‐ stitute a lesson ‘Provide space for students’ to commu‐ nicate’ about something per‐ sonally relevant ‘Building a vocabu‐ lary’ understanding word’s and their meaning ‘Teaching the spoken language’ language use for communicative pur‐ poses (discursive ele‐ ments) Video analysis The way of conducting lessons influences the overall learning and teaching environment and task sequence. Teachers have different foci of attention. Some only follow their own agenda and do not no‐ tice the students’ subtle shifts in their attention. 2 groups of teachers in the project: holistic approach: uses words in different con‐ texts; uses various in‐ teractive activities imitative approach: words are introduced in narrow context; words are practised in drills; focus on correct lan‐ guage 3 groups of teachers in the project: Group a) → new words are used with songs, stories, phrases and chunks in a variety of activities Group b) → new words are used in a limited grammatical structure, well-practised exercises Group c) → used new words in new contexts such as songs, stories, but does not offer scaf‐ folds or exercises in which the phrases / chunks are practised in meaningful contexts Positive influences Well managed class‐ room Solid eEFLT knowledge Teachers who focus on their high level agenda and still notice their students’ foci → in‐ Group a) → communi‐ cative situation; experi‐ ment with language Group a) → students use English as a means of communication 194 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks clude what students find relevant and want to talk about Use students’ interests as a starting point for further communication → provide necessary scaffolds to use English Group b) → tasks are enacted as exercises, no real communicative value Group b) → students use English as means of communication outside of the lessons Group c) → students cannot communicate as they lack practice, but are able to under‐ stand and follow com‐ plex stories Negative influences Low classroom man‐ agement skills → all teaching activities are fruitless Limited knowledge of eEFLT → little active involvement of stu‐ dents Only focus on own agenda → students voice their disappoint‐ ment frequently Term a topic favourite / dream and then only stick to textbook vo‐ cabulary → students complain and disrupt the lesson Smaller prac‐ tices subsumed under the key practices refer to aspects such as (Bloome et al., 2005, 1989; Kounin, 2006; Williams & Burden, 1997) (Cameron, 2001; Le‐ gutke et al., 2009; Pinter, 2006) (Bruner, 1960; Bruner & Watson, 1983; Ca‐ meron, 2001; Lee & VanPatten, 2003; Le‐ gutke et al., 2009; Pinter, 2006, 2011) T. 4: The four key practices. 195 6.2 Four key practices The detailed analysis involves the distinct description of several modes, texts, and surroundings in relation to the several steps of the analysis. As such, a microanalysis was only conducted for six teachers in the first instance. I started with the two videos of teacher A and described all texts together with gestures, facial expressions, and movements of the teacher and the students. I also inves‐ tigated the meditational means and the text in relevance to what kind of lan‐ guage was used, for example, mechanical drills (see Lee & VanPatten, 2003, p. 54 and p. 121): What is it? It’s a dog. What is it? It’s a cat. What is it? It’s a rabbit etc. In addition, I investigated the teacher’s sentences to determine whether she offers a rich immersion into the target language or only uses a limited variety of words and sentences. The tables below show fractions of the analysis. The second step of the anal‐ ysis involved focus on the students and their responses as well as their attempts to initiate interaction. I conducted a detailed gaze study to determine the stu‐ dents’ foci of attention, following other researchers who all take gaze and head movement into consideration (Bourne & Jewitt, 2003; Lancaster, 2001, p. 20; Pennings et al., 2014; Van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001). Norris (2004) summarised the analyst’s interpretive influence well: Besides our ability to perceive other people’s gaze and observe the reaction to a specific gaze by others, the simultaneous use of other modes helps the analyst make sense of gaze in interaction (p. 38). The combination of different modes helps to interpret and analyse the teacher’s and students’ behaviours and “(…) the distance of a gesture, the intonational range of voice, the direction and length of a gaze are all treated as part of meaning making” (Bourne & Jewitt, 2003, p. 65). The key practices here are clearly described for three teachers in Grades 1/ 2 and three teachers in Grades 3/ 4. The teachers with the biggest differences in their teaching practices were selected in order to contrast and compare these differences as a form of “(…) purposeful sampling (…) selecting information-rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). When selecting the six examples, I considered the examples that presented critical moments in which students demonstrated a high level of English skills, those in which the students’ level was rather low, lessons in which the students showed interest or even stated that they liked the lesson, and those in which students voiced their frustration. 196 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 9 Sampling strategies are often defined or named differently depending on the researcher. Other sampling options include theoretical sampling (R. Scollon, 2001), and purposive sampling (Berg, 2004; Silverman & Marvasti, 2008), for example. Nonetheless, even though the names may be different, the ideas behind them are rather similar. I chose Patton (2002) as I found his definitions insightful and detailed. 10 One school is not represented in the microanalysis as the teacher from this school had severe problems with classroom management and all her other teaching practices where significantly limited by the difficulties she experienced in trying to draw the students’ attention to her. 11 This is a general qualitative process and aspects of thickening the data can be found in eth‐ nographic studies (Fetterman, 2010) as well as in Grounded Theory, for example, here spe‐ cifically in the step of selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1997). Hence extreme cases as well as ‘best’ and ‘worst’ practice cases (see my as‐ sumptions in Section 8.3.1) were used (Patton, 2002) 9 . In addition, I used task examples from six different teachers to include teachers from four different project schools 10 . The videos of the remaining task sequences have been screened for practices that were not present in the other teachers’ analyses. Consequently, the school and teachers neglected in the de‐ tailed analysis have been examined in this step. It needs to be mentioned, none‐ theless, that due to this screening process it is possible that some smaller prac‐ tices by the respective teacher have not been detected. Although this sampling may be considered a disadvantage, I would argue that the overall focus of this chapter lies on determining the moments, or rather key prac‐ tices that are crucial for the emergence of a task. It is not the focus of this present study to present a detailed case study analysis of the individual teacher’s teaching practices. Additionally, I am not interested in trying to identify teacher types. The research focus is on the enactment of tasks and with this my interest lies in identi‐ fying aspects or rather moments in eEFLT that have a crucial influence on the overall task sequence. My sampling is thus relevant to answer my research ques‐ tions and is commonly applied in qualitative research (Patton, 2002). The key practices can be found in all 18 task sequences and appear to influence the overall emergence of a task in all sequences. The detailed analysis of six teach‐ ers’ task sequences appears sufficient. I compared and contrasted the different mi‐ croanalyses of the six teachers and formed core or key categories including other ethnographic data (e.g., interviews, fieldnotes, observation protocols, and memos) to thicken the key practices 11 . This is an analytical step that appears to go further than what R. Scollon describes in one of his first MDA studies. That is, he refers to the nexus analysis of an analysis in which a cluster of smaller practices is described that happen in the context of a defining practice (2001). 197 6.2 Four key practices Table 5 provides information on the general transcription data such as date, topic of the lesson, grade, teacher etc. were noted. Also, teacher action, teacher talk, student talk, and student action were transcribed in great detail. In addition to these aspects, general teaching and TBLT aspects were considered, such as: • What student talk does the teacher initiate (does she ask a rhetorical question, a “real” question, etc.)? • How do the students respond to the teacher’s request (do they attempt to answer the question, do they ignore it, possibly not understand it, etc.)? • Where does the focus of attention lie (i.e., do the children’s postures in‐ dicate they are, for example, looking in the teacher’s direction)? What about their gaze? Are they sitting in a school-appropriate way (i.e., re‐ laxed and with their body turned towards the teacher) or are they slowly gliding down from the chair? • What is the locality (i.e., where does the action take place)? In the front of the classroom, in the back, outside of the classroom? • What kind of social form / seating arrangement is used and which modes of interaction are chosen (e.g., circle time, semi-circle / horseshoe, tables in a row, teacher asks students and they answer, students ask students, etc.)? • How ‘visible’ is the task (i.e., when does the teacher introduce it)? Do the children know what the final product will be? Can I, as an observer, guess the target task? • What type of interaction does the teacher initiate? • What kind of mediated tools does she use? When and how does she use them? Do they afford or constrain, for example, the understanding of a word? Together Table 5 and Mini-Vignette 4 illustrate the main aspects used for the transcription of language in action and the overall teaching situation. The mini-fragments are used to illustrate teacher A’s classroom practices as well as the several modes that were taken into consideration in the analysis. 198 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks T. 5: Aspects I focused on in the analysis of the teachers’ teaching practices. 199 6.2 Four key practices 6.2.1 Teacher A’s teaching practices - Grades 1/ 2 Mini-Vignette 4 - same situation as in Mini-Vignette 3, teacher A The teacher uses the basic form (see Figure 13). The topic “pets” is practised in an imitation activity. The overall target task is per‐ forming a role-play in which the children ask for an object. The teaching continues and eight words are taught in this way: Using a meditational means, the pointing stick, to point to a soft pet on the floor, she utters its name “budgie”. The children immediately repeat, “budgie”. The teacher repeats this process of uttering “budgie” and letting the students imitate the word about 25 times in row. When looking at the students it be‐ comes obvious that many stop paying attention between the fifth and eighth time of repetition. The individual student’s gaze wanders off to the camera, or to other students, or to their own clothes. Some start slightly gliding off their chairs and one boy places his hands over his ears. Some stop repeating and sit absent-mindedly looking at the middle of the circle. Others move their lips, but look at the camera. The teacher nonetheless keeps repeating this almost rhythmic process looking at the soft toy in the middle of the circle. From time to time she glances around the circle and when one of the children is also displaying a form of noise distraction such as trying to talk to another child, she instructs the student to be quiet. She then starts another activity: She points with the pointing stick to a pet and says: “What is it? It’s a dog.” She practices each pet in this form and then passes the stick on to the student to her left side. The student continues with the question structure while pointing to a pet on the floor and the neighbour to her left answers in form of the pre‐ defined sentence structure, before applying the question structure herself. 200 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 201 6.2 Four key practices 202 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 203 6.2 Four key practices T. 6: Teacher A’s teaching practices 204 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks The relationship between the results and the data is outlined below Multimodal analysis When applying Norris’ (2004) analysis of different levels of action and focused attention, it became obvious that several processes were happening at the same time and that the teacher paid attention to the different actions with varying degrees of attention. One may assume that the teacher was possibly highly aware of the action of ‘doing vocabulary teaching’ and ‘managing the classroom in terms of not allowing any noise distraction’. However, it appeared that she paid little attention to the students’ individual levels of attention / focus, as the students’ gazes wondered off and she did not instruct them to pay attention to where she pointed the stick (depending on the word, students started looking in different directions on average between the eighth and tenth time). Looking at the students’ and teacher’s simultaneous actions (see above), it became obvious that the way in which vocabulary was taught may have con‐ strained the overall task emergence. The children were prevented from directly interacting with the object - the soft pets - in the middle of the circle. They only interacted with them through the use of the meditational means: the pointing stick. In the first instance, the stick functioned as an affordance for directing the students’ gazes to the object while naming it, whereas in the second instance in which the students used the stick, it functioned as a constraint. A holistic ap‐ proach to PS teaching requires the provision for students to touch things directly to potentially enhance their level of engagement (e.g., emotionally). Also, the teacher then offered a sentence structure forming a mechanical drill. Practising the phrase: “What is it? It’s a …” instead of practising the new words in a mean‐ ingful way. The children again focused on other things and paid little attention to the drill exercise. Thus, it can be assumed that as the students focused on something else. Therefore, they may experience difficulties remembering the words for different types of pets in the future. Critical incident and motive analysis The situation continues and after a while the teacher tells the students that they are going to play a game in pairs. A wave of dislike moves through the group of students, in louder and quieter waves children utter simultaneously or with a slight time delay “Oh no - oh no - oh no”. 205 6.2 Four key practices The transcript of the situation reads as follows: Voice 31 Teacher A: Now boys and girls, I’ve got a memory for you. Students: Oh no. Teacher A: You’re going to play with your partner. Students: Oh no. Teacher A: [Let’s play this at first one time together] Students: [no (unintelligible)] Teacher A: shhhhh Students: (unintelligible) No (unintelligible) (One of the boys is the loudest; he then gets called up to introduce the game with the teacher). Teacher A: Boy {name}, come to the middle (3) (prepares memory game) (unintelligible) Okay, I start. (3) Okay, Let’s see (unintelligible) how it works. Dog. In this situation the children signalled their disapproval towards the suggested activity. Several reasons for this may be assumed: • The activity is too similar to what they have been doing previously. They play the memory game in the same way they have practised the words before, by uttering the phrases (formerly, while the pointing stick was directed at a new object; now, when the student or teacher turns over a memory card): What is it? It’s a dog. Repetition of the activity and uttered phrase follows, only substituted by the new word naming the new picture on the second memory card. It is then the second player’s turn. Same phrases and actions are employed. • Children can no longer bear to say the words. Some of the words have been practised more intensely than others (e.g., The teacher uttered “budgie” 25 times in a row and it was then immediately imitated by the students, so they uttered “budgie” also 25 times in a row during the first activity in which the word “budgie” was being introduced. Then, “budgie” was uttered numerous times during other activities (such as, “What is it? It’s a budgie”.) or during an activity with a pointing stick. The teacher pointed the stick back and forth between two objects - soft toy budgie and soft toy hamster - on the floor). • They dislike the game as such. • They already know the instructions by heart and do not need an addi‐ tional explanation of how to play the game. 206 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks The ideas I listed above only illustrate possible explanations that offer another step in a nexus analysis called motive analysis. “Differences in motive statements are fruitful places to search in a discourse analysis for ways in which to influence the nexus of practice” (R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p. 11). The focus lies on “What could have been done differently? ” and not on “What is the factual reason? ” Change could now be initiated by speculating with the teachers about the stu‐ dents’ motives for not paying attention (Legutke & Dreßler, forthcoming). Due to the overall project setting an immediate focus on changing the teach‐ ers’ teaching practice was not possible. Instead the teachers received a short video clip on a DVD of their teaching and were asked to select a minute or two to watch and discuss it together with the other teachers in a project meeting. Teacher A selected a part of the vocabulary practice to watch. She wanted to learn about different ways of teaching new words. She asked the other teachers for help. ‘Doing school’ and ‘Providing space to communicate’ This extract also illustrates aspects of ‘doing school’ and ‘providing space for students to communicate about something personally relevant’. The teacher appeared to follow her own agenda and belief in what ‘doing school’ implies. It seemed that a cooperation between the teacher and the students was not seen as ‘doing school’ by her. She brushed off the students several times when they asked for changes. Her classroom management was a routinized way of turn taking (e.g., with the help of the pointing stick) and functioned in a way that asked for students to be quiet and to only repeat what had already been practised several times. It also illustrates that the teacher appeared to be unwilling or possibly unable to notice teaching opportunities for mixing up the routine, that is, including students’ ideas or wishes and helping them to use English as a means of communication. Here, it may have been fruitful to introduce a different game such as stop dance in which children walk around while the music is playing and then find and ask a partner: “Do you like dogs? ” when the music stops (can be substituted with any other pet word). Another possibility would have been to play bingo. These two games also allow for an increase in student-student speaking time and to practise the new words. The first alternative also includes basic aspects of sharing one’s identity with others, which is a common aspect of life and can also be seen as mo‐ tivational (Bruner, 1987; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013). ‘Building a vocabulary’ The way new words are introduced and practised is further analysed and shown in a diagram below. The thicker lines show the smaller practices that I consis‐ tently saw while observing teacher A’s lessons. I used my other ethnographic 207 6.2 Four key practices data (e.g. observation protocols, fieldnotes and analytic memos) for the identi‐ fication of clusters. The thinner lines show practices I periodically observed during this teacher’s lessons. The arrows match the descriptive text (presenta‐ tion of object + naming object) to the respective line (thick diagonal line). F. 22: Teacher A’s nexus of ‘Building a vocabulary’ (see R. Scollon, 2001, p. 149. The main way the teacher taught the meaning of a new word was through the ‘presentation of an object / flashcard + naming the object’. This technique was varied from time to time such as also using a pointing stick in directing the students’ gazes, then naming the object, and letting the students’ repeat it as a group. No further body movements, gestures, or facial expressions were pro‐ vided other than the visual impulse at this stage. In a second phase, teacher A used different voices and pitches (e.g., whispering) when uttering the respective word. She also used facial expressions. For instance, when uttering “hamster” she opened her eyes in a demonstrative way portraying the emotion of perhaps being startled (i.e., eyes are wide open, rather big, and slow lip movements while whispering the word slower than her usual speaking pace). The facial expres‐ sions here matched the voice / pitch, but offered no further explanatory features for the meaning of the word in question. 208 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks ‘Teaching the spoken language’ When examining the last key practice of ‘teaching the spoken language’, it ap‐ peared that the teacher’s language use played a role, particularly the way she in‐ troduced phrases and chunks and whether a rich learning environment was pre‐ sented. I also drew on R. Scollon & Scollon (see 2004, p. 14) discourses in place in examining the classroom setting. First, it became obvious that there were not any of the students’ products from former English sequences displayed in the class‐ room. Indeed, there were no posters showing other English aspects, nor was there an “English corner” or a little library in the classroom. In addition, the task se‐ quence focused on the topic pets, and offered no further context-based information taken from a song or story, for instance. The students were learning a rather complex dialogue that was presented by the teacher and immediately repeated by the students. The students then enacted the dialogue in the exact same way, varying it only by changing the name of the spe‐ cific pet for which they asked. Thus, the ‘learning a spoken language’ nexus can be described as ‘saying a dialogue line + making a minimal body movement’, ‘teacher utters line + students immediately repeat’ (Hello. - Hello. - Can I have the ham‐ ster, please? - Here you are. - Thank you. (see Mini-Vignette in Section 6.1), ‘saying a question sequence + pointing the stick to a pet on the floor’ and ‘looking to the pointing stick’s top + saying an answer sequence’ (What is it? - It’s a budgie.) In the entire task sequence, these were the only two phrases and chunks that the stu‐ dents repeatedly heard and uttered. With regard to the teacher’s language, it became obvious that she mostly used one-word sentences to name an object. Even when she interacted with the students she spoke very little and used repetitive language chunks such as question-answer routines (What is it? - It’s a …; I have something here. - This is the budgie; And the last one for today is this here; It’s not the x, it’s the y.), dialogue sentences (Hello - hello. Can I have the hamster, please? - Here you are. Thank you. - Thank you.), praising the children (Okay; good; perfect; very good boys and girls; you did a very, very good job.), asking for a re-call of newly learnt words at the beginning of the second lesson (Let’s see what you remember? And, do you remember this one? ), sig‐ nalling that she missed something (What was this? ; I can’t hear you. Louder, loud.), asking students to be quiet (Stop it.), giving instructions (Altogether; I say the word and you repeat it, Okay? ; Go on.; You speak alone, I’m quiet. Again, I say the word and you repeat it. Now, I need two children to help.; Who could help to put the things into the basket? Put it in here.), correcting students (uhm, yes, maybe; that’s good, but we say x.), and a general teaching commentary (Let’s put it over here.). The greatest variation in the teacher’s language was observed at the beginning of the first lesson of this task sequence. This is when she introduced the new topic 209 6.2 Four key practices (see transcript above) and began to present the new object (in other task sequences flashcards) by asking the students to guess the word: Have you heard about this / Have you heard it? Have you got an idea? What could it be? In addition, there was variation when she introduced the memory game (see transcript above; “You play with your partner. You say: touch the X.; It’s your turn.”). The examples listed here are the utterances except for the one-word topic sentences (pets, and the other words from the other task sequences I observed). During the other task sequences, teacher A used similar language variety and vocabulary range as shown here apart from during the dialogue pattern when she used the respective task talk (e.g., Do you like x? Yes / No). She spoke in mostly short sentences, a few at a time. The majority of her utterances were one-word names for an object along with a few standard sentences and questions that were often one or two sentences long. The next step of the analysis involved mapping the different discourse cycles (R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p. 27ff). A nexus analysis involves looking at different dis‐ course cycles. This entails looking at the discourses, actions and practices being used in a site of engagement now, in the historical body of a person as well as antici‐ pating future discourses. R. Scollon & Scollon (2004) illustrated an example: If the teacher uses a sequence of discourse and actions to hand a paper back to a stu‐ dent, that set of actions might be transformed into discourse when a student tells an‐ other on: ‘You know, Dr Scollon always hands us our papers back personally.’ That spoken discourse might again become transformed into historical body when that stu‐ dent becomes a teacher and begins teaching her own classes and adopts this practice with her students (or equally if she avoids doing that because of this example) (p. 28). In my data, it is evident that there is considerable overlap between the key prac‐ tice of ‘building a vocabulary’ and ‘teaching the spoken language’. In both prac‐ tices, the smaller practice of ‘saying + repeating’ takes place. In ‘building a vo‐ cabulary’, ‘saying + repeating’ takes place when the teacher presents an object and utters its name. In ‘teaching the spoken language’, ‘saying + repeating’ occurs in connection to the presentation of a new phrase “Can I have the dog, please? ” There is also an overlap between ‘doing school’ and ‘providing space for learners to communicate’. Here the overlap refers to practices related to giving or not giving the floor to students. The teacher gives the floor to students in a ritualised way, one after the other (What is it? - It’s a cat.; dialogue structure). The analysis drew on R. Scollon & Scollon’s (2004, p. 13f) term interaction order that they in turn had borrowed from Goffman (1983). The interaction order refers to the social relationships between the actors. 210 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 12 See the different steps for ‘teaching the spoken language’ (imitation - reproduction - partial re‐ production and production) described by Drese (2007). This interaction order consists of the current, ongoing, ratified (but also >contested and denied) set of social relationships we take up and try to maintain with the other people who are in our presence (R. Scollon & Scollon, 2003, p. 16). The way in which the teacher defined the social relationships constrained the task enactment. On the one hand, she allowed the students to speak. On the other hand, it prevented the students from initiating a form of interaction as they could not raise their hands. Raising their hands to signal to talk about something is a practice that occurred only at limited times in this teacher’s English lessons. The teacher’s class‐ room management functioned in a way that endorsed certain kinds of social practice (e.g., school means being quiet) and so talking is allowed only in narrowly pre-de‐ fined ways. This way of teaching seems to potentially influence the students’ future English language learner identity. If a practice happens repeatedly over time in a cer‐ tain way, it has an influence on the future historical bodies of the participants in this action (R. Scollon, 2001, 2005b; R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004). In what why this practice might influence the students is not clear. Future research with a focus on this partic‐ ular aspect of MDA needs to be conducted to determine possible relationships be‐ tween a teacher’s practices and the learners’ future EFL learner identities. Students learnt that ‘doing school’ meant repeating things correctly. They could not share anything personal as their personal aspects had not been previously introduced and repetitively practised. This also had consequences for ‘teaching the spoken lan‐ guage’. It may be assumed that this rigid way of using English, mostly in the form of reproduction 12 , will also influence the students’ future English use. When comparing the many smaller practices and grouping them together to form the four key practices (an‐ alytical step), and then asking for affordances or constraints of the task emergence, it was evident that the task emerged outside of the classroom when children asked each other for their paintbox (see detailed description of CIs in Section 6.1). Teacher A’s comments on her teaching stating that she lacked knowledge of different ways to introduce vocabulary. In a project meeting she said: Voice 32 When I watched the video sequence I thought I could use a greater variety of activities for vocabulary teaching and practice. But I don’t really know how else to do it in a way that the children can practise and repeat the words as many times as they need. Teacher A 211 6.2 Four key practices The other teachers then offered examples from their lessons such as TPR activ‐ ities or quizzes and picture descriptions to use the words in a variety of contexts. Further examples were addressed in the future initiation of change aspects in the remaining project phase. To further illustrate the key practices, examples of other teachers’ teaching practices are briefly provided below, before a final summary outlines the four key practices and the task emergence. 6.2.2 Teacher B’s teaching practices - Grades 1/ 2 To set the scene, I start with a description of the teaching situation drawn from my fieldnotes and the videos. Mini-Vignette 5, teacher B Situation: Teacher B is sitting on a chair facing the second Graders who sit opposite of her in a semi-circle. All children are able to see the teacher and the teaching mate‐ rials. Teacher B is teaching a picture book to the children called “Mr Wolf’s Pan‐ cakes” (Fearnley, 2001). The children look at her and the book intently and listen while she is introducing a few words before she starts to read out the beginning of the book. The children seem to enjoy it as they smile and all look in the direc‐ tion of the teacher and the book. Manner of teaching: She speaks calmly and in a voice that makes use of different pitches. She uses in‐ tonation to stress words, mark questions, as well as modality. She almost whispers when she calls up a student and when she praises them she almost coos. When teacher B asks a question, she leans forward and smiles to the children and brings the book closer to them. She decreases the proximity between herself and the chil‐ dren, and with it, the book and the children as she leans forward holding the book in her hands, slightly stretching her arms so that the children can touch the cover. She moves the book from her left side to the right side to allow the children sitting in a semi-circle to get a better look at the cover. She continues doing this with flashcards of the story’s characters. When she describes the characters or asks questions about the characters’ appearances, she moves them around from left to right for all children to see and possibly touch, and when she is done with a char‐ acter, she puts it on the floor in front of her. 212 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 213 6.2 Four key practices T. 7: Teacher B’s teaching practices 214 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks Figure 23 illustrates some of the described movements of the teacher. Norris (2004) suggested video captures be included to outline proxemics, posture, ges‐ ture, head movement, and gaze. This, however, was not possible due to ethical considerations. The teachers did not feel comfortable with me including video captures of them in a publication. As such, the drawing below has to suffice. F. 23: Teacher B teaching “Mr Wolf ’s Pancakes”. Mini-Vignette 6, teacher B Nature of movement: Some of her movements are, for example, of deictic nature. When she wants to signal to a child that it is the child’s turn to speak, she combines her almost cooing and whispering elongated “Ye: : s” with an upward raising, nodding her head (horizontal movement up and down) and at the same time raising her eyebrows. She smiles and slightly opens her mouth. The teacher fully engaged in the action of teaching words and directing the students’ focused attention. 215 6.2 Four key practices Mini-Vignette 7, teacher B Difficult words: When there are words that she suspects to be difficult, or when she notices that only very few children raise their hands to answer a question, she also illustrates the word’s meaning with an additional movement and gesture. When explaining ‘buttons’, for instance, she uses her right hand and points to imaginary ‘buttons’ on herself from her chest downwards. When she ex‐ plains ‘basket’, she uses her right hand to symbolically grab a basket’s handle and bends her arm and slightly moves the bent arm up and down to act as if she was carrying something, while not uttering the word carrying. Before and after the ‘pantomime’, she also points with her right index finger to the basket in the picture to help the students understand the word. She then checks whether the students understand her by asking them about the colour of the basket (Can you see the basket? - A few students nod their heads. - What colour is the basket? - Student: Brown. - Yes, very good. It’s brown.) Here, the teacher made use of several modes in ‘presenting an object on a flash‐ card + naming it’ while ‘simultaneously further explaining it with movements’. This was before she went on to ask the students to ‘further describe its proper‐ ties’, returning to a previously learnt topic such as colours. Mini-Vignette 8, teacher B Directing the focus of attention: When she notices that a child is shifting the focus of attention to something else, something other than her higher-level action, she moves the book closer to the child. This movement decreases the proximity. This grabs the child’s attention and re-directs it to her own foreground action. Thus, it may be assumed that the teacher managed several different higher-level actions in the foreground and / or mid-ground. The modal density was high. Norris (2004) stated that “[m]odal density refers to the modal intensity and / or the modal complexity through which a higher-level action is constructed” (p. 79). In the next step of the illustration, I turned to the verbal utterances of the teacher and the students while still keeping the context in mind. Questions such as the following were asked in order to understand the unfolding teaching situation: • What kind of meditational means did the teacher use? 216 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks She mostly used the book, the flashcards, and her body. • Did the meditational means afford or constrain the understanding of a word and its meanings? I would argue that the way the teacher used the meditational means afforded the understanding of meaning. She made sure that all students could see the objects. She moved them around. She enabled some of the students to touch them. She moved closer to the students to possibly direct their attention towards her and the objects. She also used pantomime as a way to teach the meaning of a word. While presenting the visual impulse of the basket on the flashcard, she added another layer to the meaning by illustrating what you could do with a basket (i.e., carry it). Here she may have also used the word, but it is possible she thought it was too difficult for the students. It may be argued that teacher B offered a bodily mne‐ monic device for the word basket (see Sambanis and Speck [2010]). • Were the meditational means used according to the overall PS principles (e.g., were children allowed to learn holistically)? Students were invited to closely look at the pictures, use their prior knowledge to describe some of their properties, and were periodically allowed to touch the object on the flashcard. In a later teaching phase of this task sequence, the teacher used an action rhyme with the students. The students worked with her to perform the rhyme while listening to it on a CD and also while speaking along with the CD. They performed cooking a pancake. • Did the children focus on the higher-level and foreground actions the teacher wanted them to focus on? The children repeatedly looked in the direction of the teacher and the teaching materials. Whenever the teacher noticed any kind of shift in an individual stu‐ dent’s level of focus, regardless of noisy chatter or gaze shift, the teacher in‐ structed the students either verbally (“Shhh”) or through the above described body movement to focus back on her own teaching focus. It has to be remembered that the described situations also provided insight into the other key practices. Here, assumptions about her way of ‘doing school’ can be drawn. Being quiet was not enough; the students also had to pay attention to what teacher B was doing. Her understanding of ‘doing vocabulary teaching’ appears to be different to the understanding demonstrated by teacher A. Teacher B wanted the children to engage with the teaching materials. For teacher B, the nexus of practice may be illustrated in a different way. To better understand this teacher’s ‘building a vocabulary’ practice, an extract of 217 6.2 Four key practices the talk of the teacher and the students is provided to illustrate how the teacher tries to involve the students as well as to include their prior knowledge. Voice 33 Teacher B: Yes, that’s right, and there are other characters, in the book, I’m going to show you who is in the book (3) Now, in Mister Wolf ’s book, of course, we have (3) who is it" °Yes° Girl (G) 2: Mar. Wolf. Teacher B: Yes, that’s Mister Wolf, yes. (4) What colour is his trousers, or his pants" (2) G3: Yellow" Teacher B: Yes, his pants, are yellow, ne" Okay" A: : nd hi: s jacket" (2) What colour is his jacket" Boy (B) 2: Blue. Teacher B: Yes, blue a: : nd" B2: White. Teacher B: Ye: s (2) Blue with white spots. Okay. Okay" So, I put him here (2) Okay. And then we ha: : ve (4) this animal (2) What is it" (2) °Yes, what is it"° (Name of a student). G4: Uh (2) um (2) a hen Teacher B: That’s right. Very good. It’s a hen. And it is called, Chicken Licken. That’s his name, ne" (2) This is Chicken Licken (2) Can you see Chicken Licken" (2) A few children together: yyes, yes. The underlined examples show how the teacher tried to include the students’ prior knowledge when talking about the main character’s clothes. She used this opportunity to also offer a potentially new ‘colour’ description: “Blue with white spots”. It appears as if she was consistently connecting new words with previ‐ ously learnt ones to further build a vocabulary. She also started by asking the students to point to the words she had introduced, before she tried to engage them in speaking. She then asked for words she was sure the students already knew while she kept uttering the new words in other contexts (i.e., in sentences that further illustrated the meaning of the new words). Even though it appeared that she was not concerned with the word level in this phase, she did not ask the students to speak in full sentences. While speaking she used her whole body (gestures and movements) to help illustrate the meaning of words. For example, when describing ‘wee’ she made a hand movement lowering the palm of her 218 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 13 A list of different picture books is provided in Appendix D. right hand to the floor while simultaneously elongating the word ‘small’ to emphasise that this is the word in question. Voice 34 Teacher B: Okay. (3) So (2) Okay. Then we ha: ve somebody (3) oh, this (3) It’s a wee, and he’s called Wee Willy Winky (2) ne" (2) It’s a little Wee, with a funny hat (2) ne" And a sma: : : : ll person. Sma: : ll, little Wee. Okay. So, what colour is uhm his door" Can you say that, his door" °Ye: : s"° Boy (B) 3: Red" Teacher B: Uh: : : his, uh what’s red" What what is red" (4) °Ye: : s° B4: The door is yellow. Here, boy number 4 answered in a full sentence that he had not previously heard in this context (i.e., it is not a repetition). Hence, in this instance he partially produced a sentence on his own. The students probably knew the sentence structure. They may have come across it in stories, songs, and chants, and the teacher had used the basic sentence structure in different ways in the previous minutes (e.g., It’s a hen.). When the teacher asked the question, the boy seemed to be able to produce the correct sentence structure. When looking at the teach‐ er’s language use, it can be said that, in general, she used a wider variety of words and sentences while introducing the new words. She then went on to read aloud a picture book 13 in which a multitude of other discursive patterns were presented to the students. The teacher commented on her own video example and my analysis of her teaching saying: Voice 35 Haha. Really? You know, I do this all implicitly. All I ask myself is how can I help the students to speak in English. And then I just start teaching and see what happens. I wasn’t aware that I bend forward to draw the student’s at‐ tention on me. I make sure to use a lot of body movements when I speak to help the students understand what I say. But in general, I believe it’s best to just talk as much English as possible to them. You know, give them language immersion. It is a bit odd, but also very helpful to see oneself on video. Teacher B 219 6.2 Four key practices From teacher B’s comments above, it can be concluded that she was not aware of her embodied actions. Her focus of attention to let the students speak became obvious. When looking at her lessons she also became critical and stated that she thought she needed to provide weaker students with more structure to “provide them with an anchor”. 6.2.3 Comparison of the teachers’ teaching practices: Teacher D - Grade 4 To provide another example for creative use of new words and to illustrate the relevance of the four key practices across Grades 1 to 4, an example from teacher D’s lesson with a Grade 4 class is described below. This example, as with all examples in this chapter, can be used to explain several key practices as it pro‐ vides information about the teacher’s understanding of ‘doing school’. The ex‐ tract shows that teacher D allowed a student to call other students while playing a game and performing in the typical teacher-students interaction structure: initiation-response-feedback (Hall, 1997; Wells, 1993). Mini-Vignette 9, teacher D A boy stands in front of the blackboard and holds one of the 14 ‘flashcards’ on the blackboard concerning ‘jobs / professions’. The rest of the class is sup‐ posed to guess which flashcard the student has chosen. They do this by raising their hands and asking questions after the boy has called upon them. The stu‐ dents are using the other new words (e.g., wooden spoon for a chef) of this task sequence in an already known question structure (Do you need…? ): F. 24: Guessing game. 220 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks Voice 36, teacher D Student (S) 1: Do you need a wooden spoon" S in front of the blackboard: No, I don’t. S2: Do you need a overall" S in front of the blackboard: No, I don’t. S3: Do you need a syringe" S in front of the blackboard: No, I don’t. ((A few students squeak, S3 uses a German swearword. All students look into the direction of the boy and many raise their hands. It seems as if the students’ focus lies on their classmate and the guessing game they are playing. The teacher stands at the side and gives the floor to a student-student interaction, mirroring the normal teacher-student interaction.)) S4: Do you need a helmet" S in front of the blackboard: No, I don’t (laughing). S5: Do you need a white coat" ((A few students squeak again; one screams “ah, ah, ich weiß e- [I know it]” while waving his raised hand emphatically. One says in German ,“Uh, now, what is it? ”. The boy picks a different student than the one emphatically waving his hand.)) S6: Do you need a white coat. (Awww, one in German,) “We just had this question.” S in front of the blackboard: No ((laughing)) ((Others squeak and a few start almost jumping up from their seats trying to be next to ask a question.)) S7: Do you need a comb" (Squeaking and screaming of joy from a few students in the back of the class‐ room. S in front of the blackboard: Yes. ((Other students take down their hands.)) S7: Do you - Teacher D: Are you (.) are you a S7: Are you a: : : (.) hairdresser" S in front of the blackboard: Ja. {yes} ((A few students applaud.)) Teacher D: Good. Good job. Well done. If you like it you can come and pick another card. ((Student stands up and walks to the front of the classroom, other students walks back to his seat.)) 221 6.2 Four key practices In this sequence, teacher D allowed the students to practise a phrase that they would need for their poster presentation at the end of the task sequence. How‐ ever, there, they were supposed to use it in a different person. She explained that she wanted the students to revise and practise the vocabulary in order to prepare them step-by-step for the production of a poster presentation about their favourite job. In addition, she also wanted the students to use different grammatical structures. The teacher used many other forms of ‘practising the written forms of words’ such as ‘doing a word search puzzle’. Students worked in teams to create a word search puzzle, which they then exchanged with an‐ other team, each team tried to solve the other’s puzzle. The pictures below show two examples of ‘building a vocabulary’ and ‘teaching the spoken language’ teacher D used with Grades 3 and 4. The smaller practices she used are different to the task formats and their enactments used by teacher A and teacher B with the younger Grades (see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2). However, the overall key practices of ‘building a vocabulary’ and ‘teaching the spoken language’ still highlight the moments worthy of further examination when task enactment is investigated. Figure 25 is from an earlier lesson during teacher D’s task sequence in which the students practised writing the new words. Figure 26 is a student’s final poster in a (word search). Here, the student is making use of the sentences and phrasal structures teacher D had provided to the students and which the students had practised in several steps before creating the final poster. F. 25: Student creating a word search. A smaller practice used, for example, is ‘matching a sentence to a picture’. For this preparatory activity teacher D used another worksheet on which a number 222 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks of sentence beginnings were written along with a few pictures illustrating job equipment. The students had to read the sentences, look at the pictures, identify the matching sentence and picture, and then copy the sentence by writing it next to the picture in the space made available. This means that for this activity the student read the sentence; “I’m an astronaut. I need a …” and then looked at the pictures to try to identify the picture of a space suit. The student then copied the word “space suit” in the free space. The student then used this structure for the final poster below. F. 26: A poster of a student’s dream job. Table 8 presents some examples of smaller linked practices to illustrate the respective teacher’s nexus of practice for one key practice. Each key practice highlights the nexus of practice of a different teacher to present the variety among the group. 223 6.2 Four key practices Key practice / di‐ mension ‘Doing school’ ‘Providing space for students’ ‘Building a vocabu‐ lary’ ‘Teaching the spoken language’ Teacher Teacher A (see 6.2.1) Teacher B (see 6.2.2) Teacher D (see 6.2.3) Teacher E (see 7.2) Some smaller prac‐ tices forming a circle: names circle starting group + turns her chair towards the circle middle; looks at noisy / pro‐ testing children + calls them up + lets them be part of her teacher ex‐ ample opens the floor to the students by asking them relatively open questions (e.g. What can you see on the pic‐ ture? / What’s your fa‐ vourite pet? ) + nods and smiles + calls up a child who’s raised her hand introduces new words (e.g. wooden spoon) through ut‐ tering them + letting children repeat new words letting children en‐ gage with objects di‐ rectly (feely box)+ children close their eyes, put their hand inside the feely box and have to guess which object it is hands out left blank worksheets to stu‐ dents + students create own word searches for their neighbours presents new phrase verbally + shows a flashcard tells a story that uses the new phrase + shows flashcards matching the phrase sings a song with the children that uses the phrase + uses body movements to illus‐ trate the song’s meaning Across the group of teachers different smaller practices can be found, for ex‐ ample concerning: seating arrangements: students do not sit in a circle, usually stay at their desks forms of cooperation between teacher and students: student get’s called up to the front to be forms of vocabulary introduction: - stu‐ dents look at flashcard + utter word presentation & prac‐ tice of new phrase/ chunks: students look at flash‐ card + listen to teach‐ 224 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks students are called into a circle time + teacher says students’ names individually students are called into circle time + teacher makes a cir‐ cular hand movement the teacher + student decides on game and calls up other students student receives a ball from the teacher + gets asked a close question by the teacher + answers + repeats close question and passes ball on to his neighbour teacher says newly introduced word + student looks at a number of flashcards and touches the matching one with a fly swatter er’s utterance of the newly introduced word + perform matching body move‐ ment students look at written form of newly introduced phrase + repeat with the teacher the new phrase + perform matching TPR Description of a teacher’s nexus of teaching tasks (a few smaller prac‐ tices as examples) across the for prac‐ tices: Teacher: Ruth, Grade 1; Topic: Favourite ice cream (see Voice 5; Figure 9; Voice 37) Ruth calls students into a semi-circle + pointing to the dedicated seating area + says: Now children, please go to the back and sit down. holds up a picture of an ice cream cone with three scoops with left hand + motions her right hand to her tummy and performs circular movement + says: “I love ice cream. My favourite is…” holds up respective flashcard + while audio story is played about ice cream holds up a flashcard + matching ice cream flavour + signals the children to speak with her she combines the well known structure “What is your fa‐ vourite…? ” + the new ice cream flavours while students draw their favourite ice cream + she walks around + helps the stu‐ dents learn their indi‐ 225 6.2 Four key practices - Points with right hand to the children + says “What’s your fa‐ vourite ice cream? ” puts flashcards on the floor in front of the children + asks them “Do you like … ice cream? ” vidual favourite ice cream flavours Description of a teacher’s nexus of teaching tasks across the for prac‐ tices: Teacher: Jenny, Grade 4; Topic: book project (see Voices 28 / 29; Figures 17 + 18) Jenny stands in the front of the classroom + makes a circular hand move‐ ment with both hands + asks the students to come into a circle + puts seat cushions in the middle for the stu‐ dents to take and sit on asks students to pick their favourite book + while pointing to the different ones on dis‐ play in front of her introduces strategies for guessing the meaning of unknown words: write down word on blackboard + asks students to look at the word + asks them to find a part of the word they might already know introduces new phrases while speaking them + pro‐ viding a written form on the black board + asks students for a German translation; practices new phrases (Who is the author of the book? The author is …) with the game stop-dance (see 6.2.3.) T. 8: The four key practices across the group of teachers. 226 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks 6.3 The teachers’ task enactments: further examples This section starts with a clarification of the first key practice, ‘doing school’, before a summary of the results of the previous analytical steps is provided. The summary compares the results to teacher D’s key practices to further illustrate the different enactments. ‘Doing school’ is a very complex and difficult to define notion, yet it is useful for combining the different smaller practices that form an underlying part of every lesson. As such, it is crucial. I chose to illustrate ‘doing school’ in more detail because of its complexity and vagueness. The other key practices refer to smaller practices that are logically grouped together under one key practice. Vocabulary teaching practices, for instance, focus on presenting a word, on building a mental word representation and learning a word’s meanings. Those practices refer to ‘building a vocabulary’. ‘Learning a spoken language’ refers to vocabulary teaching aspects that espe‐ cially focus on discursive practices such as phrases and chunks, and their com‐ binations to communicate with others (see Chapter 6.2.1). ‘Providing space to communicate’ is closely connected to ‘doing school’. ‘Providing space to com‐ municate’ refers to the way a teacher gives students the room to experiment with language. It also includes how students are enabled to talk about something personally relevant. All these aspects are related to how the social relationships within a classroom are defined. In this section, references are also made to the theoretical aspects briefly addressed in Chapter 3. ‘Doing school’ refers to several smaller practices that can be related to: • General classroom management aspects → for example: a teacher is asking students to form a circle + she is making a circular movement with both hands to illustrate the meaning of the English phrase: “Please, form a circle.”, • Aspects referring to a teacher’s attitude/ ‘Haltung’ towards the children → for example: she is asking students to describe a picture and then praises them for their contribution even though it is in German + offers scaffolding with English chunks / words while making a body movement that illustrates the meaning of the English chunks. Then she signals the students to repeat the English phrase, • Learning atmosphere / learning environment → for example: in fluency phases, a teacher does not comment on the students’ mistakes / errors + writing them down in an observation protocol. Then, after the presenta‐ tion phase is over (fluency) she praises the learners + addressing aspects that need correction (accuracy) in giving correct examples to all students, 227 6.3 The teachers’ task enactments: further examples • ‘Doing eEFLT’ with its several smaller practices such as ‘doing vocabulary introduction’ → these smaller practices refer to the procedural displays teachers show when they engage in ‘doing vocabulary introduction’ (Bloome et al., 2005; Bloome et al., 1989). For example, ‘holding up a flashcard with an object on it + uttering the object’s name three times in a row + signalling the students to immediately repeat the word’, • Aspects such as teacher expectations → for example: challenging the students to engage with studying English, asking the students to try as hard as they can to form sentences in English. It can be said that the four key practices function as umbrella terms comprising a multitude of smaller practices. The smaller practices are sometimes shared across the group of observed teachers, while at other times they are only char‐ acteristic of one or a few teachers. The four key practices can be used as a de‐ scriptive aid to illustrate the teachers’ task enactments. It is important to realise that the overall task enactment and with it the final task product(s) and results will change depending on how the teacher enacts the different key practice. This leads to the assumption that a task enactment is crucially influenced by the overall teaching practices the teacher has embodied over time. It can be assumed that these embodied teaching practices are influenced by personal experiences as a student and a teacher (see MDA historical bodies [R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, e.g. p. 13]), by the teacher’s understanding of eEFLT, general PS teaching ap‐ proaches, curricular suggestions, the teacher’s colleagues and school culture (see discourses in place and interaction order [R. Scollon & Scollon, 2004, e.g. p. 13f]), as well as the teacher’s knowledge and understanding of tasks. It can be said that all teachers followed the basic three steps of a task, but that their individual ways of performing the practice (e.g., ‘building a vocabulary’) are rather different. Thus, even though their overall task structure is rather similar (three task components, focus on a spoken language outcome teacher A: role-play, teacher B: reconstruction of a story), the way in which the teachers respond to or ignore the students’ remarks has a crucial influence on the overall task enactment. The description of the four key practices and how they and the smaller prac‐ tices within them mutually influence each other is shown in Figure 28. The underlying aspects crucially influence all key practices in general PS ap‐ proaches, eEFLT practices, and educational theories with a long tradition in the German education system, and provide the backdrop for a discussion of the key practices. The first key practice, ‘doing school’, is the most influential and basic one. This is due to two reasons: first, ‘doing school’ is part of every lesson re‐ gardless the subject; and second, if the teacher fails at classroom management, 228 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks for example, then all other key practices will lose their efficiency. All aspects, namely eEFLT practices, general PS practices, and education theories in general, and the four key practices mutually affect each other. Depending on the teach‐ er’s definition of ‘doing school’, common patterns between the other practices can be identified. The figure illustrates the interdependencies between the four key practices. ‘Doing school’ and ‘providing space to communicate’ are espe‐ cially closely connected just as the two vocabulary teaching practices are. F. 27: Key practices illustrating the teachers’ biggest similarities and differences in teaching tasks. Illustrating the linkages between the four key practices To illustrate the linkages again, two short examples are discussed in reference to the previously introduced project teachers in Chapters 1 to 5 to also provide a better understanding of the teachers’ ideas and general teaching practices. This way the key practices can be connected to the respective teacher’s general teaching practices. Anna Anna’s definition of ‘Haltung’ (attitudes, see Section 4.2.2) entailed a certain way of ‘doing school’ and of conducting the other three practices. In her case, for example, a few of the smaller practices were used and others were completely absent from Anna’s teaching practices. She frequently touched the flashcards or objects she used herself and allowed the students to interact with them di‐ rectly as well. She used a choric repetition of new words in short intervals. Each 229 6.3 The teachers’ task enactments: further examples new word was repeated a few times. Then she asked the students to use the words in riddles or in other games such as ‘stop dance’ or they were applied in an action story. In addition, students were asked about their favourite aspect of the topic in the first lesson and Anna provided matching English translations in the next lesson. In turn, she often used this as the basis for the final target task. In the final target task, Anna wanted the students to remember the words nec‐ essary for their presentation. The long-term practice of the words used in the different topics or task sequences happened in routinized question rounds at the beginning of each lesson. Ruth Her teaching practices were rather similar to Anna’s. She also shared a similar view on learning and practising new words. Yet, she provided another way of including the students’ favourite aspects. She asked the students during lessons and then provided a direct and immediate translation (see Table 8 concerning the ice cream lesson and the extract below). Voice 37 Ruth: Now, what do you like when you are at the iceman" Boy (B) 1: Uh, uh Spaghettieis (strong German pronunciation). (A few students giggle and try to start talking about their favourite ice cream). Ruth: Okay, you like spaghetti ice cream. Okay. - (Students start talking to each other about their favourite ice cream. A few giggle. The noise level and chatter increases within a few seconds.) Ruth: - Sh: : : : But, please, try to imagine when you go to the iceman and you want, you want to have an ice cream cone (Re-traces the V-shape of the cone with her left index finger several times.), Okay" This is a cone. Uh (2) what would you choose? Girl (G) 1: My favourite ice cream is cookie ice cream. Ruth: (Boy’s name) B2: My favourite ice cream is Zitrone Ruth: Ah, you like lemon ice cream. (A few students later.) Ruth: (Girl’s name) G6: (Starts opening her lips without uttering sounds and looks at the teacher.) Ruth: I like, I would like to have … or my favourite ice cream is … (short nodding of the head, cooing voice in soft and high pitch). G6: I like uh cookie ice cream and lemon ice cream. 230 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks This extract can also be used to explain aspects of Ruth’s way of ‘providing space to communicate about something personally relevant’. She pre-structured the phases by directly asking the students about their interests. Here, a student un‐ derstood her question as a very open one, thinking that the question referred to any kind of ice cream one could order in a café. Ruth, on the other hand, wanted to talk about scoops of ice cream in a cone. She listened to the student and then provided him with the English translation before trying to come back to her own teaching agenda. I did not observe CIs in which students tried to change Ruth’s agenda. Ruth seemed to enable the children to feel confident (Kohonen 1992) and she scaffolded their English use (Cameron 2001) consistently. An illustration of Ruth’s key practices could look like this: • ‘Doing school’: She includes students in the lesson structure in limited ways (see teddy bear song below), tolerates students’ short bursts of noise and chatter (ice cream extract above), and accepts that some students only want to write a text and not draw a picture when the overall core activity is “Please draw a picture and write a text about your favourite place” (different task sequence in a Grade 4 class). She speaks mostly English and allows the students to use a few German words before she mediates. She is flexible in her teaching agenda etc. The ‘doing school’ practices are closely linked to ‘providing space to communicate’. • ‘Providing space to communicate’: she asks students about their fa‐ vourite / dream aspects or to make use of their imagination (students write own story endings, riddles, etc.). She validates students’ answers regard‐ less of whether or not they match the teacher’s agenda (e.g., a boy starts telling a mini-story in German about his last vacation in which he appa‐ rently ordered 21 scoops of ice cream and ate them), before she mediates the German “outbursts” and re-directs the group gently back to the orig‐ inal plan (see extract above). She foresees possible communicative prob‐ lems and provides support (sentence structure in example G6 above), etc. • In ‘building a vocabulary’ and ‘teaching the spoken language’, she tries to communicate “naturally” by using words even if they have not yet been taught. She indirectly explains the words when they are relevant for the context, but are not to be actively used by the students (see cone example above). She provides translations so that students can express their per‐ sonally relevant information in English. She uses stories and songs to provide a rich environment (could also be counted as ‘doing school’ as ‘doing eEFLT’ involves the use of songs and stories to create a language rich context, e.g., Rück, 2004) as well as sentences and phrases that have content meaning (I like, My favourite is, or I want…) and which lead to a 231 6.3 The teachers’ task enactments: further examples later core activity etc. She teaches words in many different ways through action, through letting the students taste something (e.g., fruits), or by using a ‘Fühlkasten’ (a feely or guessing box). She lets students practise words in different contexts with different games, and focuses on letting the students use the words instead of learning them by heart in the task sequence in which they are introduced. Learning and remembering the words happensthrough repeating them in ritualised question rounds at the beginning of each lesson and through revision that happens from time to time throughout the year etc. As can be seen from the smaller practices / aspects summarised above, there is considerable overlap between the key practices. Thus, ‘doing school’ in Ruth’s understanding involved, for example, including students, letting them be the teacher from time to time when playing games (Simon says), and allowing them to pose questions to her at the end of the routinized question round (“What is your favourite animal? ” and “How old are you? ”). It also included students being asked what they wanted to do next within a pre-defined framework (“Let’s sing our teddy bear song three times. How shall we sing it? ” - “Like a ghost.”, “Like a baby.”, or “Like a gentleman.”). It also meant being tolerant of a certain noise level and trying to calm down students when necessary. When students were asked what they liked, usually moments of instant chatter exploded, as described above. A possible motive for this behaviour is that the students got excited about sharing information about their favourite things with classmates and the teacher. Ruth tolerated those moments and simply asked the students to be quiet in order to get back to the teaching agenda. For each of the video-recorded task sequences, the teachers’ practices can be illustrated in great detail. Doing this here would, however, not help to further understand the power of the four key practices. I chose to provide illustrations, diagrams, and teaching examples in this chapter to outline the analysis, the way in which I built the key practices, and to show why I find them useful for de‐ scribing the teachers’ task enactments in great detail. Other aspects on tasks found in the literature can be subsumed under the key practices even though they have not been explicitly stated here as they played no crucial role in the project teachers’ lessons. An example of this aspect is the task instruction. Many teachers refrained from informing the students about the overall target task at the beginning of the task sequence because they often decided upon the overall task sequence as they were progressing through the task sequence. Aspects such as the way instructions were given did not play a crucial role as the teachers did not appear to adhere to one specific style of giving instructions. This means, I could not determine a characteristic way common to 232 6 Task-in-action: Focus on the project teachers’ enactments of tasks all teachers, unlike for ‘building a vocabulary’. Likewise, the pronunciation of the teachers did not influence the overall task enactment. Some teacher’s Eng‐ lish pronunciation was rather native-live. Other project teachers spoke with a strong German accent. 6.4 Summary This chapter demonstrates that the way tasks are enacted is crucially influenced by the teachers’ teaching practices: ‘doing school’, ‘providing space for com‐ munication’, ‘building a vocabulary’, and ‘teaching the spoken language’. These four key practices are relevant for putting a task-as-workplan into action, namely task-in-action. The way in which the four key practices are enacted influences the overall task emergence. CIs can be used as a starting point to investigate the four practices and smaller practices within them in order to identify the moments in which a teacher’s practices can be optimised. The mo‐ ment in which English is used as a means of communication (i.e., in which the task emerges) can be found when all four practices smoothly interact. This is the moment in which the learners are enabled to use English as a means of communication about something personally relevant within the lesson. Looking at the project teachers’ task enactments shows that this appears to be rather complicated. In some examples, the task emerged outside of an English lesson at the beginning of another lesson (e.g., teacher A). More examples could have been presented in detail in which the task emerged outside of school (i.e., at home, see e.g. teacher C) when the children created a poster of their favourite ‘something’ with the help of their parents or when an overall task emergence was constraint due to few practice phases (see e.g. teacher E in Table 8). Chapter 7 further investigates aspects that may help teachers to use the smaller practices in a way that they afford the emergence of a task within a lesson. 233 6.4 Summary 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the findings regarding the two main research questions: • What is the nature of eEFL tasks? • How are eEFL tasks enacted in the project classrooms? Chapter 7 discusses the findings on the nature of eEFL tasks from the two per‐ spectives of the first research question (academic, political discourse vs. teach‐ er’s discourse). It also considers the findings on the enactment of eEFL tasks from the systematic analysis of the teachers’ task formats and the multi-faceted and multimodal analysis. In Section 7.1, the task features identified in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 are combined and contrasted in relation to the overall findings from Chapters 3-6 and other illustrating teaching examples (see example: 7.1 “Let’s create a picture book together to reconstruct the story”). This is under‐ taken to identify the key features for eEFL tasks. Section 7.2 proceeds with an evaluation of the teachers’ task enactments against the backdrop of the key features (from Section 7.1) and a re-examination of the CIs. This section inves‐ tigates how the four key practices need to interact so that English can be used as a means of communication during a lesson teaching eEFL tasks in the project setting. I will address the following question: What needs to be considered to ensure that students can use English as a means of communication about some‐ thing personally relevant within a lesson? Here it needs to be remembered that every teacher performs different embodied actions. Therefore, it is not wise to identify the single smaller practices by a teacher successfully teaching eEFL tasks. Rather, it is wise to look for those critical moments and aspects that afford or constrain the overall task emergence. 7.1 eEFL task features The results in Chapter 3 show that eEFL tasks can be conceptualised with ref‐ erence to general pedagogical theories that have a long tradition (e.g., Pestalozzi and Freinet) within the German education system. Also, political guidelines and curricula value tasks and demand the use of task-like and task-supporting teaching approaches and education theories. eEFL tasks can easily be embedded into general eEFLT practices (also shown in Chapter 5) and some secondary school TBLT aspects appear to be transferable to the eEFLT context in German PS. In short, the academic and political discourses name abstract task features that can be related to humanistic ideals, recurring to the students’ overall de‐ velopment, and enabling them to become responsible for their learning and to reflect on their learning development. The results in Chapter 4 show that teachers mostly address a different level of task feature than those mentioned in research literature. The teachers are more concerned with how to translate the abstract features into manageable aspects that they need to consider in their daily teaching routines in order to enact tasks. They name aspects of how to motivate students or how to scaffold the students in their use of English. In addition, the teachers often struggle with fulfilling their administrative duties alongside their teaching planning duties. They claim that they need to balance out the differences between their own lesson planning, their students’ wishes, and the unpredictable school reality. Here, the teachers refer to school events, such as fieldtrips, school curriculum agreements, for example, taking part in a teacher exchange program once a year, and making room for the different extra-curricula show days (theatre performances, project weeks, Christmas markets, Halloween parties, etc.). Those teachers who allowed their students to work more independently and included tasks into their lesson planning seemed to highly trust their students’ skills of self-management and at the same time had a more positive attitude towards their own teaching abilities. When comparing and contrasting the academic features with those of the teachers it becomes obvious that the academic discourse refers to tasks as chal‐ lenging, meaningful, and useful for enabling students to use English as a means of communication. The teachers’ task features often address these features im‐ plicitly regarding, for example, how to find out what the appropriate level is at which to challenge the students. The teachers discuss aspects such as how to teach vocabulary in a way that children are subsequently enabled to use English, what kind of vocabulary to teach, and how to include the students’ wishes. In addi‐ tion, the teachers also discuss how to prepare other subjects and adequately at‐ tend to other job duties alongside of preparing eEFLT tasks. In general, it is evi‐ dent that the teachers’ and the theoretical task features complement each other. However, some aspects of TBLT appear to be difficult to transfer to eEFLT practices such as the phases that focus on meta-language (language focus and focus on form (D. Willis & Willis, 2007; J. Willis, 1996). This is because the PS students’ cognitive skills are not yet fully developed (Nunan, 2011; Pinter, 2011; Wolff, 2009). In addition, teachers lack training in how to attend to a spontane‐ 236 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting ously arising “language focus” in their eEFLCs. The example below illustrates such a situation: Mini-Vignette 10, teacher F Grade 4; four years of English; task sequence on a story; Target task: “Let’s create a picture book together to reconstruct the story.” Text: Mrs Quisen‐ berry’s birthday. An old lady suddenly remembers that it is her birthday. She decorates her house and bakes a cake. Then the door bell rings. It is a deliveryman with a parcel in his hands. The old lady thinks it is one of her guests, even though she has not invited anyone. The deliveryman simply wants to ask for an address, but she shuts him up and ushers him into the house. The doorbell rings again two more times (boys and their mother), and each time the people want to ask something, but Mrs Quisenberry cuts them short and invites them into her house for the birthday celebration. Finally, she unpacks the parcel, finds a skateboard in it and skates off. It is the fourth lesson in the task sequence. The teacher has already read out the story several times, the students all received a sheet of paper with a sim‐ plified story sentence on it. The students read the sentence and draw a matching picture. In this sequence the children come into a circle and present their pictures to the class. The teacher gives an example presentation with one of the pictures and the children all present their pictures accordingly. Then the teacher takes the cover picture (of the story’s main character, Mrs Quisenberry, carrying a parcel in her hands as she runs away from a deliv‐ eryman) and asks the students: The transcript: Voice 38 Teacher F: Who’s made it" Who’s drawn it" Who knows who’s drawn it" Student (S) 1: The deliveryman. Teacher (T) F: Yes, you can see the deliveryman on it. Yes, and what else" S2: And mm, the Mrs Quisenberry. TF: Yes, and what happens here" S3: The present. TF: Yes. Where is the present" S4: Here. (Points to the main character) TF: And the deliveryman" 237 7.1 eEFL task features S5: Hmm. Kann ich das {Can I} TF: Try to say it in English. Try to say it in English. S5: Mm, Mrs Quisenberry run and mm but why he think this is my TF: Yes, very good. S5: But my present and not yours. TF: And the deliveryman, what’s he doing" S6: Stop TF: Yes. S7: He says, “Stop it. But this is a skateboard. That it is for the boys, I think. TF: Perhaps. Yes. S7: But he mm try to make a question mm ob Mrs Quisenberry die Adresse weiß, weil er die Adresse nich weiß. {But he tries to ask Mrs Quisenberry whether she knows the address because he doesn’t know the address.} TF: Yes. He wanted to ask for the address and Mrs Quisenberry boom S7: Mrs Quisenberry takes the present. TF: Yes, very good. (…) The students have put up the pictures on the board and start retelling the story. S8: Mom, mom, mm, comes with a dog and mm wie heißt fragen auf English" {What does ask mean in English"} TF: Ask S8: Ask mm TF: Asks S8: She mm ask ob {whether} the boys boys TF: Are in the house S8: Yes. They are all sit and they eat and eat. Two more children create code-mixed sentences with ‘ob’ {if / whether} con‐ structions re-constructing the story (with the help of reported speech). The stu‐ dents try to re-tell the story in English more freely and in doing so make use of the sentences the teacher has provided for them as well as begin to create their own sentences. They lack words, phrases, and chunks and thus start to code-mix. Teacher F helps them when it comes to simple vocabulary translations. When more complex phrases are needed, the teacher accepts the German-English code-mix. Here, the teacher could have provided the structure: Example 1: The deliveryman asks if she knows the address Example 2: Mom asks if the boys are in the house 238 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting 1 Except one situation in which student played a game similar to the game ‘battleship’. Even though this is usually a topic in secondary school, it might have helped the students to express themselves in English. In hindsight, teacher F said that she would have liked to have helped the students phrase their thoughts in English, but that during the teaching situation she did not know how to deal with it and thought it best to allow the German words to be used. During later lessons the teacher started to reflect on grammatical aspects and now some‐ times includes visual materials that emphasise the grammatical aspects of structures the children need on a regular basis such as “Yes, I have./ No, I haven’t.” This is shown as: 246 tions. When more complex phrases are needed, the teacher accepts the German-English code-mix. Here, the teacher could have provided the structure: ((Halbzeile/ halbe Leerzeile)) Example 1: The deliveryman asks if she knows the address Example 2: Mom asks if the boys are in the house ((Halbzeile/ halbe Leerzeile)) Even though this is usually a topic in secondary school, it may have helped the students to express themselves in English. In hindsight, Teacher XX said that she would have liked to have helped the students phrase their thoughts in English, but that during the teaching situation she did not know how to deal with it and thought it best to allow the German words to be used. During later lessons the teacher started to reflect on grammatical aspects and now sometimes includes visual materials that emphasise the grammatical aspects of structures the children need on a regular basis such as “Yes, I have./ No, I haven’t.” This is shown as: $ , have. / X, haven’t. aussah. Geht das? The analysis in Chapter 3 also showed that there are two eEFL task suggestions: one in a non-German and one in a German context (Cameron, 2001; Legutke et al., 2009). The project teachers appear to broadly follow the suggestions by the researchers for the eEFL tasks in general and also the suggestions embedded in the curricula. However, they do not use the features referring to: - the students’ involvement in the negotiation of meaning and use of language as a means of communication with others in group work and partner work with, for example, information gap activities. The analysis in Chapter 3 also showed that there are two eEFL task suggestions: one in a non-German and one in a German context (Cameron, 2001; Legutke et al., 2009). The project teachers appear to broadly follow the suggestions found in literature for the eEFL tasks in general and also the suggestions embedded in the curricula. However, they do not use the features referring to: • the students’ involvement in the negotiation of meaning and use of lan‐ guage as a means of communication with others in group work and partner work with, for example, information gap activities. • the involvement of critical thinking, reflection, problem-solving, and par‐ ticipating within societal discourses. I have not observed any situation in which the students engaged in a classical information gap activity 1 . This is interesting to note as other German scholars using tasks in eEFLT and assessment proclaim this task format’s usefulness (Keßler, 2006, p. 200). Nor have I seen any task that may be connected to the second aspect of problem solving and participation in societal discourses. When I presented the findings to the teachers during a project meeting and asked for their feedback, they stated that they preferred to focus on students’ interests as they had received positive evaluation from their students in regards to topics involving aspects concerning “My favourite…”. They did, however, mention as‐ pects that were not explicitly stated in literature such as: 239 7.1 eEFL task features • vocabulary practice (collective class vocabulary vs. individual vocabulary). • the secondary school teachers placed a particular focus on motivation in the group interviews and the primary school teachers referred in their interviews to trying to make EFLT fun. • the teacher’s attitude/ ‘Haltung’ towards the students. To better understand the features relevant for eEFL tasks, they were compared to the teachers’ task enactments. I argue that the teachers offer so-termed ‘transla‐ tions’ of the abstract features in their teaching practices. In general, I found four forms of ‘translations’ within the group of project primary school teachers: group ‘translations’ of the abstract task features 1 provides extensive exercise phases on a topic that relates to the stu‐ dents’ lifeworld. 2 provides extensive experience-based and holistic approaches with stories, songs, and realia that are engaging for the students and which stem from the students’ lifeworld. 3 provides a combination of the two previous translations related to the student’s lifeworld. 4 provides the combination of group 1 and 2 and additionally asks the students about their individual interests. This group then provides ad hoc translations or introduces specific vocabulary and structural el‐ ements in the next lesson, depending on the complexity of what stu‐ dents want to talk about. T. 9: Four different groups of how abstract task features are translated into actual teaching realisations. The last translation is naturally the most elaborate and demands the teachers to be fully present in the lessons and to use whole body / physical involvement. I decided to only include those aspects in the key features for eEFL tasks in the primary project schools that appeared to be manageable for the project teachers. Manage‐ able refers here to aspects the teachers have already fulfilled in their lessons and found useful and easy to create during their normal lesson planning hours. More‐ over, I included those that the teachers could realistically include into their daily teaching routines without extensive further in-service training or additional litera‐ ture study. As outlined in Chapter 2, the project teachers have many responsibili‐ ties and it is therefore unrealistic to assume that they could acquire other features that demanded more training or literature study in their free time and on their own. 240 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting In determining what is manageable, I also took each teacher’s workload into consideration (see Chapter 2), their assumptions, beliefs (grouped under ‘doing school’), and embodied practices of eEFLT and PS teaching identified through the MDA and multimodal analysis (Chapters 5 & 6) as those aspects are difficult to change (Appel, 2000; R. Scollon & Scollon, 2007). They were then compared to the minimalistic characteristics named in TBLT literature on which the teachers agreed: “A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 11). In addition, I included all of the aspects that mattered to the project PS teachers when planning and conducting lessons that may often get neglected in theory. These aspects include, for example, the fact that English is often taught by an English teacher and not by the homeroom teacher, and often English teachers only teach a class for a short period of time (i.e., one or two years) rather than for four years. This is not ideal, as building vocabulary in students takes time. Further, increasingly longer and more complex task sequences could be observed by those teachers who taught a class for a longer time, as they could fall back onto students’ prior knowledge of vocabulary and discursive patterns (see task formats in Chapter 5). For example, “Save the planet” (Bäumer, Bluhm, Scholz, & Schäfer, n.d.) is an environmental learning material kit that involves problem solving and possibly participation in societal discourses. As such, it requires not only a high level of competence in the four key practices, but also that the teacher has taught the class for a certain length of time. This is because the class needs to be trained in group work skills and learning strategies such as using a dictionary in order to successfully complete such a complex activity. I decided against writing a definition of eEFL tasks as the PS teachers stated that they could often not relate to complex definitions. In addition, I view the list as aspects to consider when teaching eEFL tasks in the project schools as all PS teachers made use of several features, but only very few applied all or almost all features. At the same time, a list implies that other features can be added. Below are the features based on academic, political, and teachers’ discourses: eEFL tasks’ features in the project setting… • consist of preparation, core and follow-up in the basic form, but can be combined to a sequence of tasks in which the different smaller tasks build on one another and lead up to a complex target task. • are learner-centred (i.e., they leave room for the learners to relate to their individual experiences, interests and lifeworld). They can hence 241 7.1 eEFL task features be termed meaningful and purposeful for the learners and allow for different possible solutions. • involve the students actively. • use English as a means of communication with naturally occurring language (i.e., discursive elements relating to the learners’ lifeworld) and focus as such on communicating meaning before accuracy. • foster the child’s entire development, not only language skills. • are embedded within general primary school teaching approaches, ed‐ ucational theories, and eEFLT practices. They make use of concepts such as the spiral curriculum; routines to revise and recycle previously learnt language from former task sequences in every session; and songs, rhymes and stories. • have coherence and unity, clear language learning goals, and a begin‐ ning and end for the learners. • may include communication with peers with a focus on negotiation of meaning. When teaching eEFL tasks, teachers need to consider the following aspects: • The choice of vocabulary pre-defines the overall task emergence. This means that in different task sequences the teacher should alternate between a focus on a collaborative class vocabulary and individual student’s vocabulary. • The teacher needs to be rather flexible in their pre-planned lesson structure. A shift to the students’ focus of attention should be consid‐ ered. Further, aspects of the topic in question that are personally rel‐ evant to the students need to be included in the task. These aspects often need ad hoc scaffolding so that the learner can express herself in English and therefore experience English as a means of communicating personally relevant ideas. • In order to be flexible and allow the learners to share their personally relevant ideas with their classmates and the teacher, it is beneficial for the teacher to view the lesson as a cooperation between the students and herself, create a positive learning atmosphere, allow the learners to make mistakes and experiment with language, and value the stu‐ dents’ contributions. In those task sequences students showed often interest and motivation. 242 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting I also offer three features not yet present in the teachers’ practices. These fea‐ tures may be difficult for the teachers to realise, but they appear to be important. They are also thought to be translatable into eEFLT practice in the future when teacher education programs both at university and trainee teachers college levels start focusing not only on the abstract definitions but also include example translations for how to put the features into a task-in-process. Within the project setting, those three features listed below seem to be rather difficult to add. The analysis of the teachers’ task enactments and of their opinions about teaching in general, as well as their comments on their task enactments, show that teachers often lack practical examples of how to translate the abstract aca‐ demic or political demands into actual teaching practices. At the same time, they lack the opportunity to observe other teachers’ best practice during their studies at university or trainee teachers college. Creating own translations of abstract task features often overwhelms teachers. First, they have no time for individual theory studies. The teachers claim that their planning takes up most of their afternoon time. As they stay with one class for four years accompanying them from Grades 1 through to 4, they often cannot re-use lesson plans from prior years, let alone develop any professional stance in any subject. In addition, the teachers are not aware of their embodied actions and many had not previously looked at video recordings of their teaching (see Chapter 6). The three features that appear to be important to address in teacher education and future teacher in-service training are: - How to help students acquire self-directed learning skills and to be more autonomous in their learning. - How to help students acquire critical thinking and problem solving skills as well as how to participate in societal discourses. - How to teach students linguistics features in a task-related focus-on-form. This refers to explicit teaching of structures and phrases the students need in order to accomplish the target task. The teaching of these structures needs to aim at the cognitive level the students can process. What level they are on and how the structures and phrases can be explicitly taught in a way that students are able to understand them seems to be rather difficult for the teachers to determine. In addition, PS teachers do not learn how to teach grammar to students. Often they did not even have to take grammar and linguistics classes as part of their degree program them‐ selves. Hence, they lack the knowledge of the linguistic structures of the language and do not know how to explain it to their learners. 243 7.1 eEFL task features 2 This refers to all PS lesson observations, fieldnotes, and video recordings I conducted. It consequently includes even those teachers I only observed once. 7.2 eEFLT tasks and their enactments The extracts of teacher A and teacher B in Chapter 6 show differences as well as similarities. The teachers are described while teaching the first lesson(s) of a new task sequence. Teacher A started after the students had formed a circle in front of the classroom. Teacher B started after a routinized greeting song and question round had taken place. Depending on how the teacher enacts the four different key prac‐ tices, a task emerges in a certain way as is discussed in this section. Also, the Grade level does not change the importance of the four key practices. For the practice of ‘building a vocabulary’, several smaller practices could be observed in all teachers’ practices regardless of the Grade level 2 . The most common ones were: “presenting an object / flashcard + naming it” and “showing the object + saying its name + immediate choral imitation by the students”. Most teachers also engaged in “pointing to / showing a flashcard with a written form on it + students reading it and saying it aloud”. Some of the teachers used this technique with the early Grades; however, all teachers used it with Grades 3 and 4. Most teachers across all Grades also engaged in letting the students apply the new words, though differ‐ ences between the teachers could be observed. One group of teachers allowed the students to only repetitively apply new words in pre-defined phrases the teacher had introduced shortly before the application (see teacher A as a representative of this group). The other group of teachers allowed the students to ‘creatively’ use words. That is, students were invited to either further describe the properties of the words or use riddles and quizzes to paraphrase and describe the word in question as the other students guess which aspect or object has been described. As can be seen here, firstly, the four key practices present a description of the teachers’ task enactments. In addition, they highlight the moments or aspects in task sequences that demonstrate possible critical phases in which the overall task emergence can be afforded or constrained. They offer possible entry points for fur‐ ther research when applied as analytical categories and when comparing and con‐ trasting the respective teacher’s practices with relevant eEFLT, general PS teaching approaches, and education theories. The key practices have been created by map‐ ping the smaller practices of an individual, and then of different teachers, together. When combining the findings from Chapters 3 to 6, it is evident that an evaluation of the task enactments is also bound to the task definition. Thus, after having iden‐ tified the key features and aspects to which teachers need to pay attention (see Section 7.1), the teachers’ key practices can be evaluated in the following way: 244 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting • Do they match the identified key features? • When and how does the task emerge? A favourable starting point to determine how to conduct the specific key prac‐ tices appeared to be a search for emergent CIs. It was found that most CIs emerged on the basis of the two first key practices such as ‘doing school’ and ‘providing space for learners to communicate’. Some CIs were based on problems referring to ‘doing school’; for example: • students are unfocused and the teacher cannot draw their attention back to her focus of attention. • the teacher uses only a fraction of teaching time; that is, enters lessons chronically late or, if on time, spends 10 to 15 minutes organising herself or talking to a small group of students about non-English related topics. • the teacher is unable to see the realisation of a lesson as a co-operative event between the teacher and students. • the teacher focuses on mistakes and accuracy instead of helping students to use English as a means of communication and is, in general, rather inflexible in her teaching. • the teacher promises students that the focus will be on a special topic of their interest and then does not follow through with her support / scaffoldings. When looking at the second key practice of ‘providing space to communicate (about something of personal interest)’, it becomes obvious that CIs occur when: • students are denied the opportunity to share their personally relevant aspects with their classmates and the teacher (e.g., not asking learners about “What’s your favourite…/ What do you like? / Write an own ending to a story). • situations are disregarded in which students offer a communicative sug‐ gestion (e.g., they want to change a line in a dialogue or role play). Including these aspects, or rather initiate a change in the teacher’s values and opinions could, help to prevent the CIs. It seems that the two key practices ask for further reflection on the teachers’ side, specifically reflection on their beliefs. Teachers often assume things and relate their teaching and ideas to ideals (Appel, 2000). In teacher A’s practices (see Chapter 6), the assumption was apparent that children learn to speak English by repeatedly practising grammatically correct sentences. She uses pattern drills (mechanical drills) in which a word is em‐ bedded: “What is it? It’s a …”. It is notable that even though it is common in PS teaching to include the children’s personal interests, the teacher appears to have 245 7.2 eEFLT tasks and their enactments problems embracing those pedagogical values. As the discussion by the group of PS teachers shows, they are often not sure how to include the children’s personal interests in a way that matches the students’ limited language skills. Ruth explains that she asks the students about their interests before com‐ mencing a new task sequence and that she then makes sure to also include those vocabulary items. She is aware of the fact, however, that she can then only talk about the topics in more general terms, as she has to offer sentence structures that cater to many different personal issues. Teacher X illustrates that she some‐ times favours talking about aspects in great detail (see Chapter 5.2.2, Voice 30) and that she then cannot include all children’s personal favourites. As such, she now asks the group beforehand to make sure that all children can identify with the words she introduces. As these two examples show, in eEFL task teaching the teacher needs to decide whether or not a collaborative or an individual vo‐ cabulary is favoured and then also explain this to the students to prevent CIs similar to those outlined in Section 6.1. In regards to the other two key practices related to learning vocabulary and discourse patterns, I found CIs pertaining to the teachers’ teaching practices: • the teachers constrain the learning of words and discursive patterns due to a highly narrow language context and the use of exercises that facilitate the practice of chunks rather than words (see teacher A’s drills: What is it? It’s a dog. What is it? It’s a cat.). • are due to too limited practice exercises for students that focus on chunks and phrases. The CIs might have been avoided if the teacher had engaged in more varied ways to introduce the words and by providing several different kinds of meaningful exercises. Here an example from teacher E’s class serves as an explanation: Mini-Vignette 11, teacher E Grade 4, topic: hobbies The students have prepared a presentation over several lessons. The teacher’s classroom management skills follow Kounin’s (2006) principles of withitness, overlapping, momentum, smoothness, group focus, managing transitions, and avoiding mock participation. The lessons run smoothly. The children’s interests are valued and the teacher uses a variety of games with the children to learn the new words (e.g., bingo and matching pairs). The children draw the new words in their exercise books and write down the names of their hobbies. They can name hobbies that they like and the teacher then translates them if they have not previously been introduced. The teacher pronounces 246 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting the hobbies several times, makes body movements matching the hobbies, and lets the children repeat the words. The overall target task is to create a poster on their favourite hobby. They can cut out sentences from a worksheet to glue onto their posters. In the last session, the teacher asks the students to present their poster. A few students raise their hands or are asked by the teacher to come to the front and show their posters. The children display their poster, point to the picture of their hobby, and then look at the sentences and try to read them. They can recall single words, but have problems forming sentences. They can barely utter a few sentences in a row or read them out. The teacher has not provided them with exercise phases in which the students were introduced to the sentences and chunks, as well as to practise them (e.g., a stop dance, a class survey, or presenting the presentation beforehand to a partner or their table group). Thus, the sudden focus on their oral skills as applied in the sentences is too much of a gap for the students in terms of what the teacher has supported and what is now demanded of the learners. I argue that a change in the last two key practices that focus on vocabulary may have helped the students to more successfully use English as a means of com‐ munication about their hobbies. The task emergence appears to be hindered as the students obviously struggle to share their products with classmates. This is because they practised the words in a variety of ways, but not according to the necessary sentence structures they needed for their poster presentation. The teacher comments on this, saying that her students’ level of English was rather low and that they have trouble remembering sentences. I would argue, however, that an additional lesson focusing on the sentence structures would have helped the students to present their posters. These examples, together with the others, show that a detailed re-examina‐ tion of the teaching situations is needed to identify the ways in which tasks emerge. I therefore further compared and contrasted the four key practices taught by the teachers and found that: • tasks sometimes emerged outside of the lesson → when the teacher de‐ nied the students the opportunity to change the task sequence to include aspects they found relevant or when the teacher did not offer a variety of language chunks (see teacher A’s example in Section 6.2.1). • tasks sometimes emerged at home → when the teacher denied the stu‐ dents the opportunity to identify words they did not know. The students then went home and developed a poster with the help of their parents 247 7.2 eEFLT tasks and their enactments who looked up the missing words in dictionaries and then helped them to phrase their thoughts (see Section 3.4.1). • tasks sometimes could not fully emerge → when the practice phases only focused on words yet disregarded discursive patterns (see teacher E’s ex‐ ample on hobbies). • tasks could not emerge at all just like any other useful teaching situation could not develop due to the teacher’s extraordinarily poor skills in drawing the students’ focus of attention over long periods towards the teacher’s focus of attention. • tasks emerged within the lesson when the teacher made sure to include: the student’s wishes and interests, stopped to briefly investigate the students’ focus of attention and used it when beneficial for the overall task develop‐ ment, vocabulary built through a variety of exercises, general eEFLT prac‐ tices, discursive patterns, a variety of practice phases for students. After careful consideration and comparison of the CIs and the eEFL task prac‐ tices of different teachers, it may be concluded that the task enactments fol‐ lowing teacher B’s example (see Section 6.2.2) appear to be most favourable. This is due to several reasons: • Teacher B makes use of the key features outlined in Section 7.1. • CIs in her lessons fall into situations similar to that outlined in Section 7.1 in which students asked for more complex chunks and phrases than are expected of them by the curriculum. • The students seemed to be much more focused (referring gaze analysis) on the lesson topic if the teacher created situations in which they could relate directly to the topic and share personally relevant aspects with each other. • A task emerges in the lessons, children use English to communicate about something personally relevant when for example re-constructing a story. Alternatively, in other teachers’ task sequences, they use English to present their favourite animal, describe their dream house or their fa‐ vourite ice cream cone, or engage in a creative process such as writing their own ending to a story. By way of cross-comparison, an example is presented in which the task emerges outside of the lesson and is critically examined for ways in which it could have been optimised (i.e., so that the task could have emerged during the lesson). In critically re-considering the four key practices and the interplay between them, I follow Hammersley and Traianou’s position who argue that data needs to be critically evaluated (2012). This step is difficult as the collab‐ orative nature of the research made it difficult to assume a position from 248 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting which to judge the teachers’ lessons. Yet, the nature of a research study de‐ mands a critical examination as described by the two scholars cited above. I decided to use teacher A’s example to show possible ways to optimise her lessons for two reasons: (1) to present a full picture of the several steps in‐ volved in the data analysis (see Section 4.2.2); and (2) because her lesson has already been outlined in great detail (see Section 6.2.1): Affordances / Constraints Teacher A’s practices Constraints The task emerged outside of the lesson at the beginning of the Art class when the students turned to each other to ask for their paintboxes. Affordances Undoubtedly, the teacher’s practices led to the children being able to use the phrase “Can you pass me the ‘Malkasten’ (paintbox), please? ” Constraints However, the children were constrained in the lesson in terms of not being permitted to talk about something that really mattered to them. Instead, they practised a closed role-play without context relation. Affordances Here the teacher could have embedded the role-play into an imaginary world the children could relate to such as being in a pet store picking a pet or a toy store shopping for soft toys. Constraints The way the teacher practised the words and taught the spoken language could be termed ‘drill’. Here, a greater va‐ riety would have been beneficial by allowing the learners to use the words in a variety of contexts (see Rück, 2004). Addi‐ tionally, her vocabulary range was very limited and offered no communicative opportunities or real world conversation value (see Section 6.2.1 ‘Teaching the spoken language’). Constraints When examining the students’ focus of attention (‘gaze study’ see Section 6.2.1), it became obvious that the students found it difficult to focus on the words. T. 10: Critical examination of teacher A’s practices The teacher could have chosen other possible task formats. For example, a poster presentation of a favourite pet or a description on how to take care of a pet; a pet story to be re-constructed by the children; a poem on pets or a visit to a vet in the form of a role-play; or a class survey conducted by the students in which they ask their classmates whether they have a pet (or pets) and why they have 249 7.2 eEFLT tasks and their enactments the type of pet they have. These alternatives thus give focus to the learners’ personal interests. This, however, refers to a different task format (see Chapter 5). Yet, as I argued in Chapter 6, a different task format would not have ensured that teacher A enacted a task (i.e., a task may not have emerged) because: • her smaller practices constrained the cooperation between her and the students to include aspects of the topic that are relevant to the students (see Section 3.4.1). • there is no shift in focus to the student’s focus of attention. • the way the teacher builds vocabulary and the combination of her prac‐ tices to “teach the spoken language” do not offer the learners the oppor‐ tunity to use English as a means of communication. • the children are constrained in trying to communicate freely or, as some project teachers refer to it, “just talk”. Following the consideration of the task features presented in section 7.1, it may be concluded that even though the teacher terms her teaching practice ‘doing a task’, her enactment constrained transformative moments. That is, the children are not challenged to use English and then supported to express their interests, and through this experience develop English as means for communication. The CI described in Section 6.1, in which the student turns to the teacher and asks her whether she has pets at home only to be told by the teacher to be quiet, could easily have been used as a gateway to initiate talk with the students about their pets at home. This would have implemented several aspects of the definition of a task: lifeworld, personal interests, and use English as a means of communication. Moreover, the teacher could have scaffolded particular questions: Have you got pets at home? Yes, I have a …/ No, I haven’t. This would have involved a shift in the teacher-focused attention to the student-focused attention and a change in the teacher’s pre-planned lesson agenda. It may be also assumed that the learners would have felt validated and that they would have been able to better remember the words being taught. Likewise, it is difficult to suddenly change the teaching agenda and it is not always useful. Definite predictions can obvi‐ ously not be made, but it would be interesting to investigate in a follow-up study the extent to which the teacher’s smaller practices can be changed. To conclude, the focus on task enactment has proven to be very helpful to gaining a better academic understanding of where critical moments in a teaching situation may potentially arise in the overall emergence of eEFL tasks. The four key practices offer a starting point for observation of a teacher’s task enact‐ ments. CIs seemingly occur often in the first two key features related to organ‐ isational aspects and teachers’ assumptions about what ‘doing school’ entails. 250 7 The nature and enactment of eEFL tasks within the project setting This leads to the assumption that general teaching aspects such as the creation of a positive learning environment and the teacher-student relationship are es‐ sential for the successful enactment of eEFL tasks. Such tasks need to be em‐ bedded into general PS teaching approaches and educational theories, as the pedagogical underpinnings are similar to those of general TBLT approaches. In addition, they need to be embedded into eEFLT practices to offer a rich language background to learners. This is because they place particular focus on actively involving students and by focusing on what is personally meaningful and pur‐ poseful to a child. In addition, the learners’ abilities to express themselves without the teacher’s support are rather limited. As such, it seems to be crucial to create a rich language context that includes a variety of texts and which focuses on letting the students “just talk” about personally relevant aspects. It therefore appears that the teacher needs to be flexible in her teaching agenda, attentive to the students’ focus of attention and personal interests, focused on aspects that the students can already voice such as the colour of pets, and be especially qualified in teaching vocabulary and the spoken language using a variety of activities that allow the learners to focus on an individual vocabulary. As the investigation of the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks shows, teachers have to ask themselves many more questions than simply what kind of task format and sequence they want to teach. I followed Gibbons (2006) “(…) ‘articulating the intuitive’ has the potential to lead to educational change” (p. 82). This study has clearly shown how influential the teacher’s embodied prac‐ tices are on the overall classroom situation. It is important for teachers to become aware of their embodied behaviours so that they can investigate as to whether these embodied actions afford or constrain the understanding of meanings of words, for example, and with this influence the overall task emergence. This is because eEFL tasks emerged in the eEFLCs when “a [certain] network of fixed practices” (R. Scollon, 2001, p. 147) were applied and only through critical ex‐ amination of one’s own teaching practices can answers be found as to how and when an eEFL task emerges in one’s own teaching practice. Teacher B presents one example for those fixed practices that led to the emergence of a task within an eEFLT lesson. 251 7.2 eEFLT tasks and their enactments 8 Task-in-reflection Every qualitative researcher needs to reconsider and reflect on her research process. Reflection and reflexivity are important in qualitative research because the researcher is part of the research and of the field and as such inevitably influences the data. Subjectivity is considered a part of the research process (Flick, 2006). Qualitative research paradigms formed part of the conceptualisa‐ tion of this research study from the beginning (see Figure 1). The investigation of the discursive practice of tasks in eEFLT in the project schools has been un‐ dertaken from the researcher’s perspective (see Chapter 1). Therefore, it is im‐ portant to reflect on my actions, observations and assumptions (Flick, 2006). Additionally, the study is set within a collaborative research project and there‐ fore asks for reflection on the research process to question its very nature. Fur‐ ther, it needs to be examined in what ways collaboration between the different members has been achieved (Denos, 2009; T. Harris, 2007; Phillips, Kristiansen, Vehviläinen, & Gunnarsson, 2013b, 2013a). I strongly believe that any kind of research is highly influenced by the people conducting it, hence the decision to write from a first person point of view. As a consequence, it seems only wise to follow Phillip’s (2011) “(…) form of reflexive meta-analysis of the project, from within as participating actor” (p. 82) as a guideline. What is more, only with a reflexive approach can the results outlined in Chapter 7 be evaluated. All re‐ flective aspects raised in this chapter mutually influence each other and can hardly be fully detangled. Therefore, Chapter 8 focuses on the last set of ques‐ tions concerning aspects of reflexive research. I reflect about how the project members influenced one another, what my underlying assumptions were, and reconsider the previously outlined quality criteria. I follow Bolton (2010) who defined the two relevant terms of reflection and reflexivity as: [r]eflection involves reliving and retendering: who said and did what, how, when, where, and why. Reflection might lead to insight about something not noticed in time, pinpointing perhaps when the detail was missed. Reflexivity is finding strategies to question our own attitudes, thought processes, values, assumptions, prejudices and habitual actions, to strive to understand our complex roles in relation to others (p. 13). Reflecting on one’s research enhances quality and is a common demand (Bar‐ bour, 2010; Patton, 2002; Sarangi & Candlin, 2003; Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). Due to space restrictions, only a few conditions can be addressed. Two condi‐ tions seem most important: • (i) The specific nature of the collaborative research • (ii) General aspects of a qualitative PhD study (i) The first condition re-examines a key challenge of the collaborative nature of the research project, namely the relationships between the different project members. Here, two aspects are often reported as potentially troubleshooting: (a) knowledge dimension, and (b) affective dimension (Phillips, 2011). (a) The knowledge dimension highlights aspects of who knew what and learnt from whom. (b) The affective dimension is connected to the first and addresses the relationships between the members on an affective level, examining the roles and positions different members attributed to each other. The collaborative approach demanded strict adherence to ethical guidelines. I feel responsible for the teachers, and I view it as my duty to make sure I do not threaten their face (Goffman, 1967). This means that in addition to the standard ethical considerations to treat the data responsibly, I also took special care to keep participants’ names and contexts anonymous to guarantee that partici‐ pants are unharmed (Cacciattolo, 2015). I also had to change lesson topics be‐ cause we watched videos of several project teachers in the project meetings. So outlining and analysing the lesson topics in this publication would allow project teachers to identify other project teachers. In addition, I refrained from pro‐ viding information about the teacher’s school affiliation, meaning I did not re‐ veal which teacher taught at which school. In some cases, I also did not use the teacher’s ‘name alias’, but instead used a further alias such as ‘Teacher’ in com‐ bination with a ‘capital letter’. This was done because I wanted to make sure that the respective teacher’s face among the group members was not threatened (Berg, 2004) as well to ensure a ‘safe space’ for the duration of the research project. I tried to include voices from all primary school teachers I worked with over a longer period to show their respective opinion. Naturally, those I spent more time with and / or were more communicative provided me with more data. Anna’s voice can often be found in this book; this is because we spent the most time together and I often recorded talks or asked her to repeat something when I was not fast enough to take notes. Other teachers did not have the time to accommodate me in gathering my data as Anna had due to her being the project coordinator and therefore, the gatekeeper. Moreover, the collaboration obviously entailed an environment that was emotionally charged, as is often the case when people work and learn together over many years. The collaborative nature of the research project almost forbid 254 8 Task-in-reflection judgement of the teachers’ practices and made it difficult for me to critically examine their teaching. In the research diary, many fieldnotes refer to the dif‐ ficult emotional situations that arose from trying to balance my adherence to the ethical guidelines and the research guidelines: Extract from my research diary: I have tremendous respect for the teachers and they seem to feel the same about me. I am deeply grateful to them for allowing me to enter their class‐ rooms, to follow them for years, for providing me with information, an‐ swering my questions, and helping me to learn from them. Yet, at the same time, it is a research project and this demands that practices, routines, and, in this case, enactments need to be critically examined. I have been highly aware of this demand throughout the entire phase, as have my teachers. We have been under each other’s looking glass. I have a responsibility to both the teachers and the research endeavour. Herein lies a major advantage and a major disadvantage of the collaborative setting. In order to entangle the threads of emotional responsibilities (Lilleaas, 2013), the way sharing ideas or disagreeing with the ideas of others enabled or hindered each other from learning is addressed in this chapter to shed further light on how the data was collected, analysed, and interpreted. (ii) The second condition addresses two different aspects. First, I ponder about the overall situation of a conducting a PhD study. Second, I re-examine the qualitative evaluation criteria (see Section 2.4.2). In the first aspect, I discuss my personal assumptions at two points in time and also retrace the difficulties I experienced as a novice researcher finding my voice. This has been especially difficult for me due to the contradictory roles of being a research assistant (con‐ ducting meetings with the teachers) and a PhD student (familiarising myself with TBLT) (see Chapter 2). I briefly evaluate the overall research process and address the difficulty of translating the teachers’ voices into English. 8.1 Reflecting on the collaborative research: Relationships and knowledge Due to the specific research setting that required me to not only research the project but also to conduct teacher meetings on occasions (see Chapter 2), it seems necessary to reflect on the learning processes that took place. Learning 255 8.1 Reflecting on the collaborative research: Relationships and knowledge 1 These are task sequences in which a primary and secondary school class meet to use English in a communicative way and to show the primary school children what a sec‐ ondary school looks like. For information concerning the project’s bridging tasks, see Dreßler, A. Kolb, Kollmann, and Legutke (2016). 2 For the list of the PS picture books, see Appendix F. The two literature books are: Böttger (2012) and Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth (2011b). None of the teachers asked to discuss any of the academic books; the picture books, however, were used frequently. was a collaborative process as many teachers worked in teams on bridging tasks 1 . In addition, Anna helped the teachers and also showcased lessons, espe‐ cially in schools with only one project teacher actively involved. In showcasing tasks at those schools, the hope was to win teachers over and increase their level of interest to start participating in the project. The research team purchased a “book box” for each school with picture books appropriate for Grades 3-6 that were often used for the bridging tasks 2 . Learning, or rather the processes initiated by the project team and the indi‐ vidual teacher to stimulate learning about tasks (Bloome et al., 2005), was ena‐ bled in several ways. It was often an intricate interplay of several factors that cannot be singled out. In general, all project teachers stated at some point during the research project that they enjoyed working on it, that they profited, and that they were learning new things. The positive feedback they regularly gave at the end of meetings or project conferences - without being asked for it by the re‐ search team - increased over time. Many teachers valued regular discussions and the exchange of new ideas. Voice 39 I just wanted to say something. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to critically look at our lessons again. That’s something that you normally wouldn’t do; you don’t have the time for that. Here we get new ideas and can take them home and think about it. That is very helpful. Simon However, this should not lead to the assumption that the research team was not criticised. Publications referring to practical teaching examples in particular were often not typed up quickly enough and sent to the teachers. The teachers complained that the ideas generated in the meetings, which they were promised to receive, often took the research team weeks to produce. The teachers would have preferred the publications soon after the meetings in order to apply the ideas in their teaching. Nonetheless, because the number of teachers in the group 256 8 Task-in-reflection was constantly increasing, they concluded that they enjoyed being a part of the collaborative setting. Many teachers commented on the research project during their interviews or informal talks, at least implicitly. Patricia directly addressed this topic in her interview. She remained keen to extend the project to other school districts. She wanted to leave this school district as it was quite a distance from her house and she did not enjoy the daily commute. She regularly asked me what the chances were that the project and the early start to teaching English would be transferred to the school district in which she lived. When asked what the researchers could do differently if they had to do a similar project again, her first utterance was that they should include more school districts and more schools. When asked what she found beneficial, she referred to the exchange of ideas and the communication between different schools, especially different school types. In reference to what new teachers could learn from such a project, she said: Voice 40 Ah, well, always always a wealth of experience watching other teachers doing their English lessons. Things that one can learn from another by watching that, seeing things one doesn’t want to do. Also, simply as a teacher, one is, what I really truly think, often because one @works alone@, I was so lucky to have been working for so many years together with Anna, but one is sooner or later a lonely human being, yes. Because one only sees one’s own teaching, one does no longer have the chance to watch other’s while teaching and hm, that’s what you get there again, in the one or the other form, either through direct observation and internships or, you know, through video snippets and so on. Patricia These experiences are similar to those of Allwright and Hanks (2009) who re‐ ported on successful project settings and their focus on quality of life. Likewise, they reported about the difficulty teachers had talking about their experiences (Allwright, 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). In collaborative research, there are periodically described power struggles between researchers and research participants. Those refer to researchers often viewed as those who have knowledge and thus power (Phillips, 2011), whereas teachers are seen as powerless as they lack knowledge. This problem appeared to be irrelevant here, as specific steps were undertaken to ensure that the 257 8.1 Reflecting on the collaborative research: Relationships and knowledge teachers felt valued (see Section 2.2). Nonetheless, Patricia did express doubts as to whether her opinion could be relevant: Voice 41 I: Yes, great. I’ve already learnt a lot. Thank you. Patricia: Really I: Yes, for sure well for me it is naturally, well it is like this, it always interests me what you all generally think about eEFLT, what you think about the tasks, because mmh, I always find, it is from the outside, one can always think up anything, and think yes, like this might this work, but I don’t know how it is to have 29 lessons. I have never taught 29 lessons or so over a long period Patricia: / / mhh/ / . What I really like are things like… After having reassured her that her opinion mattered, she went on illustrating her ideas. It seems that the overall experience of taking part in the research project has not only helped her to reflect on her teaching, share her expertise with me, and show me how to engage children in speaking English even during group work phases, it has also encouraged her to participate in future research projects. As Bruner (1986) stated, “[m]uch of the process of education consists of being able to distance oneself in some way from what one knows by being able to reflect on one’s own knowledge” (p. 127). In my view, Patricia has ac‐ complished that. 8.2 Reflecting on my research involvement There are several aspects of this research process that I could reflect on. For example, teaching a lesson about tasks in my seminars and how this involved my understanding of tasks, or how the research team’s understanding of eEFL tasks changed throughout the course of the project. Though these aspects would also provide useful insights, I have chosen two that were most influential for this research. The first comprises my personal assumptions, as they are often implicit, and the second is my struggle to find a voice as a novice researcher when trying to evaluate the teachers’ practices. Personal assumptions need to be made clear as they influence research decisions at all stages of the research study. The second aspect shows the difficulties the collaborative setting placed on me in relation to the emotional and ethical responsibilities towards the teachers and the research standards. 258 8 Task-in-reflection 3 Here I follow Legutke and colleagues assigning special functions to the classroom as well as Van Lier illustrating aspects of autonomy and learning environment (Legutke, 1997, 2006; Legutke et al., 2009; Van Lier, 1988, 1996). 8.2.1 Personal assumptions Due to my education and previous experiences in teaching eEFLT, I hold implicit and explicit assumptions of what eEFLT should take into consideration. I have tried to make them explicit from the outset in this research by using a research journal (see Chapter 4.1) to refrain from involuntarily judging the teachers. It also functioned to keep track of my thoughts, the CIs, and all other notes I collected in informal talks with the project members. Regular entries showed how my assumptions and opinions of teachers’ task enactments changed, and what I generally termed “good eEFLT practices” and “bad eEFLT practices”. I am aware that those words are not useful for research; however, they are common evaluative emotional expressions that I felt whenever I observed a lesson or even after having taught one myself. In allowing myself to express my emotions, I was able to keep a record of them. It helped to focus on solely describing lessons rather than engaging in criticising them. A colleague read a portion of my observation protocols and helped me by highlighting possible pitfalls. I then re-wrote my protocols and asked her to comment on the revised versions as well. Nonetheless, it cannot be guaranteed that all deeply implicit assumptions were discovered and made explicit. I will present my assumptions in two stages: the first from the beginning of the re‐ search project and the second during the final phase of writing this book. They can be compared and contrasted by the readers to form their own judgements. I have re-arranged them so that a connection to the four key practices can be drawn. It has to be noted here that the smaller practices listed below are not solely based on descriptions of what could be seen in the teachers’ lessons, but that they show my own understanding of, for example, creativity in eEFLT. For me, ‘creative’ means that students can experiment with language and try to create their own dialogues 3 : Research diary 2011 - For me eEFLT should include: In reference to aspects and practices that have been grouped under ‘doing school’: Beginning and ending a lesson on time; during teaching phases, students should be quietly listening and paying attention to what the teacher does; the teacher chooses topics based on the students’ lifeworld, but the students have 259 8.2 Reflecting on my research involvement to be able to connect to them (i.e., the teacher introduces a variety of pets, but if a student asks for a specific word, the teacher has to comply); routinized ways of revision of prior knowledge; teacher speaks English only; students use English as a rule. In reference to aspects and practices that have been grouped under ‘providing space’. The aspects are often similar to ‘doing school’ and not clearly dividable as the four key practices are a rather complex notion: If students ask for a word, the teacher has to help; teach strategies such as how to work with a dictionary; let children be creative in using riddles and role-plays; only provide a basic dialogic structure and let students then create their individual dialogue in groups or pairs. In reference to aspects and practices that have been grouped under ‘building a vocabulary’ & ‘teaching the spoken language’: Teach words in sentence structures and use storytelling; speak as much Eng‐ lish as possible; make us of prior knowledge of the students; include a few songs, if students particularly like it; teach language following the spiral cur‐ riculum, in Grade 3, ‘food’ and in Grade 4. ‘ordering a meal’. 2015 - For me eEFLT should include: Lessons that run rather smoothly without students’ complaining about the topic or the activity used: ‘doing school’ and ‘providing space for commu‐ nication’: Cooperation between the teacher and the students; the teacher includes the students’ interests explicitly, values the students’ answers regardless whether they match the teacher’s higher level activity, and then guides the students’ attention back to the teacher’s agenda instead of brushing the students’ in‐ terests off; allows students to express complex aspects in German and then provides support to express them in the target language. In those lessons, ‘building a vocabulary’ & ‘teaching the spoken language’ was achieved through considering the aspects listed below: Inclusion of at least two of the PS teaching learning stages into the eEFLT lessons (enactive, iconographic, and symbolic forms); made use of a variety of language contexts such as songs, action stories (cater for children’s need to move), rhymes, stories that provide a rich language background, routines to help revise and remember previously learnt aspects; and provide a certain predictability of the lesson for weaker students. The teachers use English in a much more natural way with a focus on making students speak, i.e., by asking students for the colour of a story character’s pants on a flashcard might be seen as an unnecessary question that is artificial and which simply aims at checking what the students know. However, it is 260 8 Task-in-reflection (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) also a natural way of using the language, when talking to smaller children the caretaker interacts with the children on a level that they can communicate by themselves (see Brenda and the ball handing example in R. Scollon [2001]). Thus, allowing the students to describe pictures to involve them and draw their attention towards the teacher’s agenda, (i.e., the telling of the story) seems to be appropriate. As can be seen in my entries, I became more flexible with the use of English and German in the classroom and started to place importance on the involvement of songs and the inclusion of students’ interests. I used to be rather strict with the “English only” rule in my classrooms. Due to my personal shyness towards singing out loud in public, I only included songs in my teaching when there was a recorded version in the textbook. I used to include students’ interests when they asked for words in English, but I would not actively encourage them to tell me their favourite things beforehand so that I could mainly introduce those words. My observations, analyses of the data, and discussions with the teachers made me change my opinion. Additionally, my opinion changed due to the CIs I observed. These incidents can broadly be divided into four types. The first three types refer to situations in which students were frustrated; whereas the fourth type refers to situations in which the students offered or asked for more than what is expected of them by the curriculum (see Chapters 2 & 7): Students wanting to change the topic or task to allow for an inclusion of their personal interests. Students being under-challenged and left alone (i.e., they did not receive necessary support in expressing themselves in English due to a lack of useful practice and exercises). Lessons in which the teacher’s lack of classroom management hindered any productive and smooth conduction of a lesson. Students actively asked for words (written form) or grammatical struc‐ tures such as phrases or chunks (that are explicitly taught in Grades 5-8 in secondary school) that could either lead to a ‘language focus’ or ‘focus on form’ (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011b; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; D. Willis & Willis, 2007; J. Willis, 1996) (see Chapter 7). The teachers stated that they were shying away from those possibilities (in type iv) out of fear of not obeying the curriculum or lack of knowledge about how to teach the aspects in a meaningful and helpful way in both ad hoc and prepared situations (see Section 7.2). 261 8.2 Reflecting on my research involvement These incidents led me to assume that a much more flexible approach towards eEFLT and eEFL tasks is needed to cater to the students’ needs and to help them become competent language users expressing themselves in English. Analysing the CIs especially helped me to realise my assumptions about teaching. With the change in my assumptions outlined above, the way I viewed the CIs changed as well. In connecting the CIs to the four key practices, it can be concluded that they may often be resolved with a change in practices in two of the key practices. Category (i) and (iii) mostly relate to the first two key practices referring to organisational aspects and how far the teacher values absolute control of the lesson. Thus, a change may have to involve a reconsideration of one’s teaching beliefs (Pajares, 1992). Category (ii) and (iv) refer to the last two key practices and could have been resolved with more training in eEFLT. I am sure that there are many more blind spots that I could not reflect upon and that a deeper level of reflection (Green, 2011) could have been accomplished with, for example, the help of an outsider. That is, another researcher as a ‘critical friend’ who was not involved in the project, but who would have provided me with “hot feedback” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 277) to trigger further reflection. 8.2.2 Finding a voice as a novice researcher This aspect is closely connected to the previous one in that my personal assump‐ tions and experiences in eEFLT as well as several beliefs about learning some‐ times made it difficult to try and maintain the shift between the emic and etic perspective (Boyle, 1994; Goulding, 2005; T. Harris, 2007). I could often view the situation from the teacher’s point of view and that made me rather under‐ standing of their struggles. Though eEFLT is the key focus for me, it is not the key focus for the teachers. They all have to teach other subjects alongside eEFLT. At other times, I found it challenging to see that the teacher was probably doing her best according to her knowledge and energy level, and that teaching is in essence a difficult undertaking (Koster, Brekelmans, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 2005). As a possible solution to this situation I noted down my feelings and evalua‐ tive comments about the teachers’ lessons in my research diary to make them explicit. In addition, Anna’s perspective and insight into school reality often put the teachers’ teaching practices into perspective. On the other hand, presenting at conferences and in the research colloquia at my two universities helped me to critically examine the lessons. Another useful aspect that helped me to focus on a descriptive level was Goffman’s question (see Chapters 1 & 6) and the systematic analysis of the teachers’ enactments based on MDA and a multimodal 262 8 Task-in-reflection 4 As outlined in Chapter 2, several steps have been taken to ensure the creation of a positive atmosphere from the beginning onwards. analysis. Those two approaches focus on a detailed description of language in action and therefore helped to maintain a non-judgemental view. I also examined why it was rather difficult for me to remain in this descriptive stance. As mentioned above, although my background proved useful to relate to the teachers, it also made it difficult to not compare their teaching practices to how I thought I would have behaved in certain teaching situations. I also think that my challenges were grounded in the nature of the collaborative re‐ search setting. Through its collaborative nature, the usually separated roles of conducting research and being researched merged. In conducting a few of the monthly project meetings with the teachers, I suddenly became the one whose teaching was under observation so to speak. In addition, Anna observed me while presenting at several research conferences and when conducting a work‐ shop with her. As a consequence, I started reflecting on and analysing my own teaching practices and became aware of my embodied practices. In addition, positioning the teachers as equals and experts in their fields compelled me to clearly distinguish between a descriptive and an evaluative stance. The separation of these two steps can be found in the structure of this book. Chapters 5 and 6 only present a descriptive analysis of the teachers’ en‐ actments and an evaluation of them is presented in Chapter 7. It also helped me to find a voice to evaluate. Lastly, as Harris (2007) pointed out, a key role in a collaborative project - and this applies to working with teachers - is that the members need to be enthusiastic and motivated throughout, and this involves planning the project with them (Harris, 2007) 4 . Closely connected to the alternation between the many different roles I in‐ corporated in this project (see Chapter 2) is that my novice status made it ad‐ ditionally difficult to find a voice. Here, I refer to the aspect of reading and learning while simultaneously carrying out the research. This was challenging and the evaluation and discussion of the results were especially difficult for me compared to how I felt during my Master thesis. The close relationships that formed over the years of working together with the teachers seemed to be the root of my dilemma to apply stricter rules and guidelines than those usually adhered to in qualitative research. Making the data anonymous was not enough. I also took great care in not humiliating or harshly criticising the teachers, and protecting them from one another’s criticism. Adhering to the legal aspects of school research sometimes did not seem ap‐ propriate enough to me due to the years of collaborative work. In addition, I 263 8.2 Reflecting on my research involvement often was torn between the participants’ rights of “owning their own stories” (Patton, 2002, p. 411), which compelled me to illustrate their insights and knowl‐ edge, and the promise to respect their privacy. As a consequence, I would have liked to state their names in the acknowledgements, but that would not be ac‐ ceptable in regards to legal standards. My solution to this problem resulted in including various teachers’ voices throughout the book to credit their experi‐ ence and knowledge. 8.3 Re-examining the evaluation criteria As outlined in Chapter 2, evaluation criteria for qualitative research have been taken into consideration at all stages of this research study. Initially, theoretical sampling was applied which was then re-examined and changed during the data analysis. This aspect is a quality criterion as it takes the research setting into consideration and changes the strategy, methodology, and methods accordingly to match the specific nature of the phenomenon under investigation. As such, it is context-sensitive (Nunes, Martins, Zhou, Alajamy, & Al-Mamari, 2010). Referring back to Steinke’s (2004) evaluation criteria (see Chapter 2.4.2), I outlined the research process, provided reasons for my choices of all relevant research aspects from the procedure to the evaluation criteria. I outlined the methods I used and discussed them in the relevant chapters. Evaluation of the results that draws on a systematic literature study (Chapter 3), and an empirical investigation drawing on different data sets taking into consideration the per‐ spective of different project members, are provided in Chapters 4-6. Thus, the further insights generated are based on theory and data and an evaluation of the results is discussed in Chapters 7 and 9. The reasons for this strategy are explained in different Chapters in the book (see e.g. Chapter 6). The results were presented to the teachers and their ideas and comments were taken into con‐ sideration. Additionally, I have outlined aspects that could not be investigated and I have thoroughly reflected on my involvement. Moreover, I address below an aspect that has not yet been raised in this book, but which is potentially troublesome; namely the binational character of my PhD thesis that required me to write in English, even though the data was mostly gathered in German. An aspect of the research process that gradually gained importance was that I conversed with the teachers in German. As a consequence, all snippets of talk I noted down and all interviews I conducted had to be translated into English. With this, the teachers’ voices naturally were altered and sometimes through the translation the teacher’s original ‘voice’ somehow got lost. The German and 264 8 Task-in-reflection the English versions of many quotes were originally provided in my PhD thesis to allow for a verification of my translations. Due to space restrictions, and because of a thorough illustration and reflection of collaborative research in a further publication (see Legutke & Dreßler [forthcoming]), I refrained from printing the teachers’ voices in German in this book. To adequately and truthfully represent the teachers’ voices, it would have been best to conduct the interviews in English and to ask them for written statements in English. This, however, was impossible as the teachers did not feel competent enough to share their opinion in English. In addition, all transcripts also represent a form of distortion of what really happened and what was said. So the teachers’ voices shown here present their perspective as best as I could account for it, bearing in mind the difficulties of transforming something said in German that was then transcribed and translated according to the conven‐ tions of a PhD thesis written in English. 8.4 Summary and evaluation As was shown, I developed an understanding of tasks that derived from theoret‐ ical and practical studies, observations and discussions with the teachers, and es‐ pecially with Anna. In critically investigating my relationships with the project members (Legutke & Dreßler, forthcoming), I addressed aspects of power and status present in a collaborative and ethnographic research setting. The old theory versus practice discussion played an implicit or explicit part in all of my relation‐ ships with the teachers (see e.g. Patricia’s statement in this chapter). It was also vital for the research project to ensure that all teachers felt valued and respected, and to clearly and overtly assign them an expert role. In addition, it was important to show that the superiority status that is often placed on theoretical insights was not true for this collaborative research project. Through actively assigning teachers expert positions, they were able to share their ex‐ periences and insights with the research team and mutual learning was enabled as a group endeavour (see Simon’s statement in this chapter). Overall it can be concluded that working in a collaborative research project and conceptualising a binationale PhD study as a multi-perspectived and inter‐ discursive research endeavour brings both advantages and challenges. The very nature of the project asks for close working relationships that inevitability entail that members influence each other. At times this is a goal, whereas at other times it can be problematic as the different roles merge and shifting between the emic and etic perspectives is challenging. 265 8.4 Summary and evaluation In addition, questions of authorship arise: who thought what and when, and who voiced what and how? Critically re-examining the roles and positions in a collaborative research community is crucial and allows for a continuation. Im‐ plicit or explicit power struggles take place regarding the question of who has knowledge and must be addressed to prevent power struggles. It is important for all stakeholders to treat each other with respect, value each other’s insights and standpoints, and view each other as equals. If these outcomes are achieved, valuable insights, mutual learning, and an increase in self-esteem can be gained through an embodiment and embracement of several roles and perspectives. 266 8 Task-in-reflection 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks This book presented a qualitative explorative case study making use of a multi-perspectived, interdiscursive, and multimodal analysis (Chapter 1) that drew on ethnographic data, namely observation protocols, ethnographic ac‐ counts, interviews, informal talks, and video recordings (Chapter 2) of eEFLT lessons (see Chapter 1) in five project primary schools. The study was placed within a wider project setting that applied collaborative research to work with EFL teachers from 12 schools in an urban city in central Germany. Together, the project members investigated the use of eEFL tasks, the transition from primary to secondary school, teachers’ competencies in Grade 5, and students’ English skills at the end of Grade 4 (see Chapter 2; Legutke and Dreßler [forthcoming]; Dreßler [forthcoming]). The focus of this study lay on the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks in Grades 1 to 4 (Chapter 2). The data were analysed using a multi-method approach including a thematic analysis of teachers’ interview responses and other informal statements to determine their task concepts (see Chapter 4), an MDA and multimodal analysis of the videos, an investigation of CIs, and a cross-comparison of other data sets with the video data to determine the enactment of eEFL tasks (see Chapters 5 & 6). The empirical data and results were compared to a systematic analysis of TBLT, eEFLT and primary school teaching literature to present a thorough picture of eEFL tasks and their enact‐ ment in Grades 1 to 4 in the project primary schools (Chapter 7). In addition, a reflection of the overall collaborative research procedure and the case study approach presented further detailed information to evaluate the procedure and results (Chapter 8; Legutke and Dreßler, [forthcoming]; Dreßler [forthcoming]). In the following sections, the perspective on eEFL tasks in reference to the re‐ search questions is broadened to show the research study’s relevance and lim‐ itations, and to offer suggestions for future research. 9.1 The scope of the study and a personal evaluation of the research process The study’s key elements were the collaborative research, the overall research conceptualisation that asked for a different structure of the book, and the re‐ search focus on the nature and enactment of tasks. Collaborative research Fully embracing the collaborative research approach was a necessity in order to successfully work together with so many different agents. A crucial step in this process of working together was the establishment of a ‘safe space’. In addition, the way in which data were produced, collected, and analysed is an issue in collaborative settings (see Chapter 2). It was both important and beneficial to the long-term relationships with the teachers to be rather flexible with data collection. This entailed interviewing teachers only when they felt ready to share their insights with me. Of key importance was to accept that school reality does not offer ideal research situations. Coming to terms with the difficulties school life poses for the teachers and inevitably for the research project allowed me to understand that theoretical task definitions, regardless of how precise they are phrased, almost never hold true in actual classrooms. I witnessed that highly appraised task suggestions that are developed outside of actual teaching situations were often not relevant for teachers. Only when the definitions were manageable alongside the teachers’ normal workloads could teachers apply them. I observed in the project schools that a typical PS teacher was almost always also a homeroom teacher. She often taught all core subjects in her class. These were German, Mathematics, and Sciences. English was just one of many subjects for which the teacher had to prepare. The teachers primary focused frequently on those subjects the parents valued the most. These were the core subjects. Standards had to be met and the students’ needed to acquire compe‐ tencies. Best practice lessons in English requiring a lot of preparation, therefore understandably, were often not a priority. However, I strongly believe that this could be changed if teacher education programs were not such a gross mismatch between what university and trainee teacher colleges proclaim as good teaching and what is actually possible on real school life conditions. Many project teachers stated that they had studied theories and prepared ideal highly complex and meticulously planned showcase lessons for their trainee teacher college certificate and were then shocked by school reality. Further, the project teachers stated that they had experienced a big difference between what they had learnt at university and what had then been expected of them at trainee teacher college. In addition, the manifold administrative duties a teacher nowadays has to deal with alongside preparing the lessons put additional strains on the project teachers. It seems that teacher education does no longer offer the actual profi‐ ciency in training that is needed to be able to put the complex and the diverse curriculum requirements into action. At the same time, the teachers seem not to have necessarily had the chance to develop teaching practices that afford the emergence of tasks or a communicative language practice as such. 268 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks Research conceptualisation and book structure The interdiscursive approach to methodology and method proved to be benefi‐ cial. No single method would have provided adequate insights into the different aspects of the nature and enactment of tasks. The multi-perspectived concep‐ tualisation enabled me to include teachers’ voices and my own voice, and also relate the different opinions back to the research literature. At the same time, focusing on the task enactments and not providing a teacher typology (Kelle & Kluge, 1999) allowed me to describe the task enactments and then evaluate them only as a second step. With a focus on the teachers, I would have violated the collaborative nature. Other researchers who provide teacher portraits also crit‐ ically examine teachers’ teaching styles against standards and curricula (Zhang, 2005). This may be appropriate in other forms of research, but it is unethical in a collaborative setting unless teachers’ evaluations of the researchers’ practices are also guaranteed. Even though structuring a book in this way may seem impractical to some readers, it is a sensible way to present the different sites of engagement ade‐ quately. In this way, I could address them in combination with the methods of analysis. Placing texts in their discoursal practices and within ethnographic analysis (Faiclough, 1995) is a key element of the research conceptualisation applied in this book. Research focus As the results show, emphasising the nature or the enactment of eEFL tasks would have risked diminishing the complexity of teaching tasks in eEFLCs in the project primary schools to a level that would not have yielded relevant in‐ sights. Investigating their nature and enactment helped me to discover that the nature of eEFL tasks and their formats and sequencing alone do not ensure that students experience transformative moments in which English is used as a means of communication about a topic they find important and worthwhile. Rather, the way in which tasks are enacted provides insights into the usefulness of a specific task sequence. The focus of the research examination was on the way teachers’ enacted the four key practices: ‘doing school’, ‘providing space to communicate about some‐ thing of personal relevance’, ‘building a vocabulary’, and ‘learning the spoken language’ (discursive practices) (see Chapters 6 & 7). These practices mutually influenced each other and were often hard to distinguish. Moreover, as shown in the analysis, it is crucial that the four key practices are enacted in such a way that a task emerges within an eEFLC. If children are not enabled to express their own interests in English, then, as I argued in Chapter 7, a reflection on the teacher’s smaller practices needs to be undertaken. This allows for an identification of mo‐ 269 9.1 The scope of the study and a personal evaluation of the research process ments in which the smoothness of the lesson (Kounin, 2006), for example, is dis‐ rupted by students’ shifts in focus of attention and their uttered complaints. As the CIs showed, all learners regardless of their Grade level and age voiced their frustrations regarding tasks that did not include their personal interests. It appears, therefore, to be the teacher’s responsibility to at least consider al‐ tering her teaching agenda when students voice their frustration. It seems even better to create tasks in which the students’ personal interests are already taken into consideration so as to prevent potential CIs. Other CIs occurred in situations in which the task emergence was hindered due to particular teaching practices (e.g., unfavourable vocabulary teaching practices). As was emphasised in Chapter 3, even though secondary school TBLT approaches provide valuable starting points for using eEFL tasks, of much more relevance to teaching TBLT in the project PS was it to embed eEFL tasks into common PS practices. These are: pedagogical traditions and eEFLT practices that proclaim learner-center‐ edness, learners’ active involvement, inclusion of learners’ personal interests and experiences, the provision of support through a variety of modes (e.g., lan‐ guage, body movements), and the creation of a rich, holistic language context to experiment with English. Furthermore, the teachers’ embodied practices were reflected and discussed in relation to how they fostered or constrained a task emergence. This was ach‐ ieved through an analysis of the extent to which the teachers’ body movements or use of meditational tools were in accordance with general primary school practices. For example, it is often more beneficial to allow the students to directly interact with objects rather than using a mediated tool such as a pointing stick (see Chapter 6). In touching the object students can experience other features (soft fur of a soft toy hamster, tasting a green apple’s sourness). These can then be used for further communicative situations. The findings of this study show that eEFL task enactment is rather complex and as a result I agree with Carless (2012) who stated: (…) the implementation of TBLT is even more complex with school-age students than adults, in view of challenges, such as (…), classroom management, limited resources, the needs of school examination systems, and the teacher factors of attitudes, under‐ standing, and capacities (p. 346). Lastly, the teachers’ concepts of tasks highlight that it is important for them to not only define the key features of eEFL tasks that describe abstract notions of how to involve students’ personal interests, but also to provide them with con‐ crete translations of how to involve students’ interests in a classroom situation. Here, future research would be beneficial as well as changes to teacher education 270 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks 1 Here taking a look at one’s own historical body also might proof of further relevance. programs. In terms of the latter, the programs should not only discuss relevant theories of how to teach curriculum aspects (e.g., vocabulary and spoken lan‐ guage) on an abstract level, but also include more internships that allow current student teachers to conduct lessons, video record themselves and then re-ex‐ amine their own embodied actions to critically evaluate the resulting affor‐ dances or constraints relating to students using English as means of communi‐ cation 1 . Moreover, allowing student teachers or trainee teachers to observe best practice lessons under real circumstances of other teachers inhabiting a full-time teaching position seems to be vital for a future positive teacher development. Within the project setting we offered video recordings of project teachers’ and other teachers’ best practice. All project teachers found those examples useful and beneficial for their own further development. The project teachers stated that they gained new insights, they could try out in their own lessons. 9.2 Reconsidering the aspects that have been investigated and presented and those that offer possible further exploration I will briefly address the most important aspects of the research diagram (see Figure 1, Section 1.3) included in this present study and also identify which aspects are open to further research. The majority of the results of my investi‐ gation are presented in this book. The remaining results are shown in Legutke and Dreßler (forthcoming) and Dreßler (forthcoming). The Venn diagram (Chapter 1) comprises the researcher’s perspective on social practice, the sem‐ iotic resource perspective, participants’ perspectives, and the social / institu‐ tional perspective. Throughout the research study, I included aspects across all five fields. However, there are also aspects that future research needs to inves‐ tigate. In answering the research questions, I followed Punch’s (1986; cited in Patton, 2002) suggestion in not only outlining the positive experiences, but also the potentially challenging experiences: [i]n our teaching and publications we tend to sell students a smooth, almost idealised, model of the research process as neat, tidy, and unproblematic…. Perhaps we should be more open and honest about the actual pains and perils of conducting research in order to prepare and forewarn aspiring researchers (p. 415). 271 9.2 Investigated and presented aspects and those that offer possible further exploration This statement functioned as a guideline in the presentation of the research process. It will also be used for the evaluation. As is the case with all research studies, this study presents limitations. As a common rule in case study research, all that is investigated and analysed refers to the case study context (Duff, 2008). In turn, a strength of case study research is particularisation (Patton, 2002). Generalization is a quantitative term and is not applicable to qualitative research (Guba, 1981). However, if two contexts are similar, the results from one context may possibly be informative for the other (Patton, 2002). I believe that the four key practices are relevant for eEFLT practices across German primary schools for at least in this federal state because: • …all primary school teachers’ lessons, regardless of whether or not the teachers were active project members, could be analysed with the help of the four key practices. Once the four key practices were determined, I went through all data sets and looked for examples that would not fit. I specifi‐ cally looked for CIs that would not be able to be related to one of the key practices but such a case was not found. I also looked for cases in which the task emerged within a lesson, but showed different practices. I could not find any. Hence, my hypothesis is that other eEFLT classes in German primary schools in which eEFL tasks are applied that are similar to those used within the project may also be analysed with the four key practices. Whether this is true or not needs to be determined in another research study. • …all CIs in my data sets can be explained with the help of the four key practices. • …the project schools resemble different types of schools. For instance, some of the schools are in areas where the parents are mostly well edu‐ cated, one school is located in a rather small and almost rural suburb of the city in which the majority of students are of German background, and in one school the majority of students are of migrant background and are often educationally disadvantaged. Furthermore, all schools have stu‐ dents with special needs and two of the schools have a strong special needs background; that is, the schools offered ‘Gemeinsamer Unterricht’ (integrated or joint classes with a homeroom teacher and a special needs teacher, who was often also present in the English lessons, as a team). Thus, many task formats developed in the project have been tried out with mainstream students and special needs students. This research study is relevant and was necessary because tasks in eEFLT have become increasingly popular. However, there has not yet been a proper inves‐ 272 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks tigation of the transferability of the secondary school task definitions to the eEFLT context before, let alone a classroom-based empirical investigation of the enactment of tasks that focuses on language in action. In addition, the MoE of the BL in which the study was set not only proclaims the use of tasks (HKM, 2010, 2011), other federal states also suggest using tasks (QUA-LiS NRW, 2015). The findings show that eEFLT tasks can and should be embedded into general PS teaching approaches because the features are similar if not the same. In ad‐ dition, through the embedment a rich learning context is offered. As foreshadowed in the previous section, only when the four key practices (‘doing school’, ‘providing space for the learners to communicate’, ‘building a vo‐ cabulary’, and ‘teaching the spoken language’) are used in an interactive and a mu‐ tually beneficial way can a task emerge. I showed that it is important for teachers to view a lesson as a cooperation between the teacher and the students, to manage classrooms effectively (Helmke, 2015; Kounin, 2006; Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, 2015), to create a positive learning environment (Williams & Burden, 1997) and to allow students to experiment with language (Legutke, 1997; Schocker, 2015). Furthermore, students should be allowed to make mistakes. In addition their in‐ dividual lifeworld (see Chapter 3) needs to be included in the lessons so that teachers can provide space for the students to explore aspects they find inter‐ esting. Then teachers need to support the students to talk about these aspects by offering a mixture of collective and individualised vocabulary (see Chapter 4). ‘Building a vocabulary’ should involve the three developmental stages (see Chapter 3). For example, a first step may be to direct the student’s gaze to an object on the floor with a pointing stick to teach the pronunciation of the word + object (see Chapter 6). In a second step, the learners need to be allowed to actively engage with the object, for example, touching it and describing its colour or shape or other char‐ acteristics (holistic learning see. e.g., Pinter [2006, 2011]) within a rich learning en‐ vironment (Cameron, 2001; Legutke et al., 2009; Nunan, 2011; Pinter, 2006; Rück, 2004) and in the last step, the written form or more abstract contexts, such as a functional structure can be used for further exercises. When these aspects were taken into consideration, a task emerged within a lesson (see Chapter 7). These aspects are not new as reference to various research literature shows. Some have been known for decades. Yet, as the data sets in my research study show, it cannot be assumed that teachers have already incorporated them in their historical bodies (their teaching practices, in their embodied movements, and in their beliefs and assumptions about what ‘doing a task’ means). Questions need to be asked as to how these already researched aspects can be better in‐ troduced and included into eEFL teacher education so that future eEFL teachers can embody them. 273 9.2 Investigated and presented aspects and those that offer possible further exploration 2 In MDA and teacher research, a strong focus lies on empowering the teachers and initiating change. 9.3 Future steps This study answered the two primary research questions, yet while conducting the research with teachers, I identified many more questions worthy of future research investigation: • How can teacher education benefit from the insights into the four key practices? • How can the four key practices be used for an analytical approach to investigate teachers’ task enactments? How are tasks enacted in secon‐ dary schools? • How can initiation of change within a collaborative research project be actively implemented without compromising the collaborative nature of the research 2 ? In answering the first question: I assume that awareness of embodied smaller practices will be raised in future eEFLT teachers through the inclusion of a micro-analysis that draws on aspects of an MDA and multimodal analysis of video sequences from lessons. It would be interesting to discover how ‘building a vocabulary’ involves making use of a rich learning environment and what body movements are needed to illustrate the meaning of a word in question so that learners are enabled to use English as a means of communication. Such an analysis may also raise the level of awareness of embodied and covert teaching practices. It should also be addressed in what way those embodied practices constrain or afford the students’ learning processes. As already stated in Section 7.1, the teachers’ task concepts address abstract notions of what eEFL tasks are in more concrete ways. The enactments have shown teachers are in need of concrete examples to successfully translate those general concepts into practice. Future research as well as teacher education programs at both levels (i.e., uni‐ versity and trainee teacher college) should focus on providing examples of how to translate features (e.g., lifeworld) so that teachers are competent in creating transformative events in which students can experience English as a means of communication. Teachers need to witness best practice examples conducted by other full-time teachers to help them translate the teaching demands into daily teaching situations. In answering the second question: It appears that there is promise in con‐ ducting further explorative studies whereby different teachers’ teaching prac‐ 274 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks tices are micro-analysed to provide a more detailed academic understanding of what smaller practices can be combined with the four key practices, or whether there are still more key practices that are not among the group of teachers in this study. I believe that the four key practices are relevant to any CLT situation in eEFLT regardless of whether or not eEFL tasks are used. Future research needs to determine their importance and their possible relationships. I assume that a two-step approach would be favourable: (i) through theoretical sampling, fur‐ ther extreme cases need to be found to collect as many different smaller practices as possible; and (ii) through an evaluation of these smaller practices, future eEFLT guidelines may be developed that illustrate “translations” of abstract de‐ mands (e.g., What is child-like? ). This would help to clearly define what “keeps children engaged” (Pinter, 2006, p. 49). The data in this study suggests that “chil‐ dren sitting in a semi-circle + a teacher holding a book open facing the students + reading the story to them + and then moving the book a little bit closer towards those students who shift their focus away from the teacher’s focus” helps to draw back the students’ attention in a smooth way without disrupting the overall teaching routine of telling a story. Although this seems common sense, I observed many situations in which teachers could not find those solutions. In the project schools and later on during my time at the trainee teacher college, I observed young as well as experienced teachers struggling with finding solu‐ tions that helped their students to stay on the teaching focus. I assume there are many other smaller practices that are as efficient as the one shown in Chapter 6. In investigating ‘best practice’ examples of other teachers’ CLT and / or eEFL task practices in eEFLT their “network of linked practices” (R. Scollon, 2001, p. 147) can be determined. This may help to define complex notions of common eEFLT principles so that current and future eEFL teachers receive ideas for how to optimise their lessons. Further, teachers are then enabled to not only have to rely on their historical body of teaching practices. In addition, it would be in‐ teresting to investigate secondary school task enactments to determine whether similar key practices can be found in the early Grades of secondary school. Lastly, future collaborative research with teachers should also focus on how the explicit initiation of change can be implemented early on in a collaborative research process. I assume that an explicit initiation at an earlier stage will offer more time for reflection on the teachers’ part. Within the project context change was initiated during the last year of the project phase after the completion of the research study described in this book (Dreßler & Loumbourdi, 2016). How‐ ever, it may also change the power balance and therefore endanger the collab‐ oration between the members. As I pointed out in Chapter 8, inviting a ‘critical 275 9.3 Future steps research friend’ to analyse the power balance in a collaborative research project from the etic perspective might provide valuable insights. I would like to conclude with a teacher’s statement: Voice 58 Ruth’s written statement The English teacher of the future should have the courage to try out new learning forms and also include more difficult task formats in the lessons. Additionally, she should consider the learner group’s interests and be open for students working individually. Ruth - 2015 In order for Ruth’s statement to become a common observable situation in eEFLCs, I believe that teacher education needs to fundamentally change. In ad‐ dition, more money needs to be transferred into the education system to allow teachers to teach less, but spend an adequate amount of time on reflecting and researching their own practices. In addition, it needs to be registered that teachers need more time than currently allocated to plan their lessons thor‐ oughly in accordance with the state curricula. Only then might they be able to prepare future generations for a successful participation in a globalized world. 276 9 Broadening the perspective on eEFL tasks 10 References Adamson, B., Kwan, T., & Chan, K. (Eds.). (2000). Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Allen, C. (2003). Joined-up Working, Welfare Professionalism and the Pursuit of the ‘Pure Relationship’ - A Critical Encounter With the Sociology of Trust. Housing, Theory and Society, 20(1), 2-14. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 14036090310004559 Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1191/ 13621688 03lr118oa Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Altrichter, H., & Posch, P. (2007). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht (4.). Bad Heilbrunn: Kinkhardt. Angelides, P. (2001). The development of an efficient technique for collecting and ana‐ lyzing qualitative data: The analysis of critical incidents. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 429-442. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 095183901100 29058 Appel, J. (2000). Erfahrungswissen und Fremdsprachendidaktik (1. Aufl). München: Lan‐ genscheidt-Longman. Asher, J. J. (2003). Learning another language through actions (6. ed., 2. print). Los Gatos, Calif: Sky Oaks Productions. BAG. (1978). Kommunikativer Englischunterricht. Prinzipien und Übungstypologie. Mün‐ chen: Langenscheidt-Longman. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bamberg, M. (2012). Identity and Narration. In P. Hühn & et al. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology (pp. 1-9). Hamburg: Hamburg University Press. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narra‐ tive and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 217-451. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ TEXT.2 008.018 Barbour, A. (2010). Exploring some ethical dilemmas and obligations of the ethnographer. Ethnography and Education, 5(2), 159-173. Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Topics, Aims, and Constraints in English Teacher Research: A Chinese Case Study. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 113-125. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 2778499 0 Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. New York: Routledge. Bartnitzky, H. (2008). Schulfähigkeit: die >>kindfähige<< Grundschule. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grundschulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 75-86). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. Bastian, J. (2006). Unterrichtsentwicklung- Wie kann Schulbegleitforschung dabei helfen? Ein Werkstattbereicht aus Hamburg. Lüneburg. Retrieved from www.nordverbund-sch ulbegleitforschung.de/ allg_material/ vortrag_bastian.pdf Bäumer, J., Bluhm, J., Scholz, R., & Schäfer, U. (n.d.). Nature & Environment: Save the Planet. Finken-Verlag. Bäuml-Roßnagl, M.-A. (1974). Zum entdeckenden Lernen im Deutschunterricht der Grundschule. Die Scholle, 7, 401-408. Bäuml-Roßnagl, M.-A. (1993). Was ‘Sache’ ist, (1), 19-22. Bäuml-Roßnagl, M.-A. (2000). Leben mit Sinnen und Sinn in der heutigen Lebenswelt. Wege in eine zeitgemäße pädagogische Soziologie. Retrieved from http: / / epub.ub.uni-muench en.de/ 2979/ 1/ 39.pdf Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ elt/ 57.3.278 Bechler, S. (2014). Bilinguale Module in der Grundschule. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Benitt, N. (2015). Becoming a (better) language teacher: classroom action research and teacher learning. Tübingen: Narr. Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative Research in Lan‐ guage Teaching and Learning Journals, 1997-2006. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 79-90. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 40264130 Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed). Boston: Pearson. Berger, M., & Dreßler, C. (Eds.). (2017). Autoethnographien zur Professionalisierung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Ap‐ proach in Motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Re‐ search, 13(1). Biebighäuser, K., Zibelius, M., & Schmidt, T. (2012). Aufgaben 2.0 - Aufgabenorientierung beim Fremdsprachenlernen mit digitalen Medien. In K. Biebighäuser, M. Zibelius, & T. Schmidt (Eds.), Aufgaben 2.0: Konzepte, Materialien und Methoden für das Fremd‐ sprachenlehren und -lernen mit digitalen Medien (pp. 11-56). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 278 10 References BIG-Kreis. (2015). Der Lernstand im Englischunterricht am Ende von Klasse 4 Ergebnisse der BIG-Studie. München: Domino. Billmann-Mahecha, E., & Tiedemann, J. (2008). Identität und Selbstkonzept. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grundschulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 65-74). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis & the study of classroom language & literacy events: A microethnographic per‐ spective. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 265-291. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 1179417 BMAS. (n.d.). Gemeinsamer Unterricht. Retrieved from www.einfach-teilhaben.de/ DE/ S tdS/ Schule_Studium/ so_paed_foerderung/ gemeins_unterricht/ gemeins_unterricht_ node.html BMBF. (2008, August). Lebenslanges Lernen. Retrieved from https: / / web.archive.org/ we b/ 20080822031749/ http: / / www.bmbf.de/ de/ 411.php Bohnsack, R. (2004). Group discussion and focus groups. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 214-221). London: Sage Pub‐ lications. Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development (3. ed). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications. Börner, O. (2006). KESS - Eine flächendeckende Untersuchung mündlicher Sprachleis‐ tungen im Englischunterricht der Hamburger Grundschulen. In N. Schlüter (Ed.), Fortschritte im Frühen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge - Wein‐ garten 2004. (pp. 169-172). Berlin: Cornelsen. Börner, O., Engel, G., & Groot-Wilken, B. (Eds.). (2013). Hörverstehen, Leseverstehen, Spre‐ chen. Münster: Waxmann. Börner, O., & Frisch, S. (2013). Förderung und Erhebung des Lesens im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. In O. Börner, G. Engel, & B. Groot-Wilken (Eds.), Hörverstehen, Le‐ severstehen, Sprechen (pp. 71-94). Münster: Waxmann. Bosančić, S. (2014). Arbeiter ohne Eigenschaften: Über die Subjektivierungsweisen ange‐ lernter Arbeiter. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Böttger, H. (2005). Englisch lernen in der Grundschule. Bad Heilbrunn / Obb.: Klinkhardt. Böttger, H. (Ed.). (2012). Englisch: Didaktik für die Grundschule. Berlin: Cornelsen. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourne, J., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Orchestrating debate: A multimodal analysis of classroom interaction. Reading, 37(2), 64-72. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ 1467-9345.3702004 Boyle, J. (1994). Styles of Ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 158-185). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 279 10 References Brake, A. (2012, February). Triangulation und Mixed-Methods im internationalen Diskurs. Presented at the GIME 2012, Giessen. Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International. Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112. Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham ; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible Worlds. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11-32. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 4 0970444 Bruner, J., & Watson, R. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brügelmann, H. (Ed.). (2006). Kinder lernen anders. Lengwill am Bodensee: Libelle-Ver‐ lage. Bureau of Applied Social Research, C. U. (1976). Das qulitative Interview. In R. König (Ed.), Das Interview. Formen, Technik, Auswertung. (10th ed., pp. 143-160). Köln: Kie‐ penheuer & Witsch. Burgess, R. G. (1981). Keeping a research diary. Cambridge Journal of Education, 11(1), 75-83. Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. A Guide for Prac‐ titioners. New York: Routledge. Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher edu‐ cation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33-48. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0346-251X(98)00048-7 Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education. Cacciattolo, M. (2015). Ethical considerations in research. In M. Vicars, S. R. Steinberg, T. McKenna, & M. Cacciattolo (Eds.), The praxis of English language teaching and learning (PELT): Beyond the binaries: Researching critically in EFL classrooms (pp. 55-78). Rot‐ terdam: Sense Publishers. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‐ versity Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Basis of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, I(1), 1-47. Candlin, C. N. (Ed.). (1981). The communicative teaching of English: Principles and an exercise typology. Harlow, Essex: Longman. 280 10 References Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International. Candlin, C. N. (1993). Task-based educational approaches. In W. Savage (Ed.), Language programs in development projects: Proceedings of the AIT RELC Conference, 1993. (pp. 225-237). Bangkok: AIT Language Center. Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (2011). Introduction. In C. N. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of deficit (pp. 1-22). Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire ; New York: Pal‐ grave Macmillan. Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (Eds.). (2013a). Discourses of trust. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (2013b). From ontology to methodology: Exploring the discursive landscape of trust. In C. N. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust (pp. 1-18). Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Candlin, C. N., Crichton, J. & Moore, S. H. (2017). Exploring discourse in context and in action. Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Candlin, C. N., & Murphy, D. (1987). Introduction. In Language learning tasks (pp. 1-4). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall International. Carle, E. (2002). The very hungry caterpillar. Harlow: Pearson Education. Carless, D. R. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4), 389-396. Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485-500. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.system.200 3.03.002 Carless, D. R. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 639-662. Carless, D. R. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 345-358). Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Caspari, D. (2003). Fremdsprachenlehrerinnen und Fremdsprachenlehrer. Studien zu ihrem beruflichen Selbstverständnis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Chan, S. P. (Shirley). (2012). Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms (pp. 187-213). John Benjamins. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory - A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications. 281 10 References Chereni, A. (2014). Positionality and collaboration during fieldwork: Insights from re‐ search with co-nationals living abroad. FQS: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3). Choi, J. (2017). Creating a multivocal self: autoethnography as method. New York, NY: Routledge. Christenson, M., Slutsky, R., Bendau, S., Covert, J., Dyer, J., Risko, G., & Johnston, M. (2002). The rocky road of teachers becoming action researchers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 259-272. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0742-051X(0 1)00068-3 Cicourel, A. V. (2007). A personal, retrospective view of ecological validity. Text & Talk, 27(5/ 6), 735-752. Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in Narrative Inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qual‐ itative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory / practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9-26. Cobern, W. W. (1993). Constructivism. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consul‐ tation, 4(1), 105-112. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1207/ s1532768xjepc0401_8 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed). London ; New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: narratives of experience. New York, NY : Toronto, Ont: Teachers College Press, Teachers College. Columbia University ; OISE Press, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 1176100 Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., Cruz, E. de la, & Lewin, B. (1993). The reflective prac‐ titioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 347-359. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0742-051X(93)90002-X Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. Council of Europe (Ed.). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Lan‐ guages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from www.coe.int/ t/ dg4/ linguisti c/ Source/ Framework_EN.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five ap‐ proaches (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Crichton, J. (2010). The discourse of commercialization: a multi-perspectived analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 282 10 References Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Re‐ search Process. Sage Publications. Cukor-Avila, P. (2000). Revisiting the observer’s paradox. American Speech, 75(3), 253. Dausend, H. (2014). Fremdsprachen transcurricular lehren und lernen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63. De Bot, K. (2005). Second language acquisition an advanced resource book. London ; ; New York : Routledge,. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. G. W. (Eds.). (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Demircioglu, J. (2008). Englisch in der Grundschule - Auswirkungen auf Leistungen und Selbstbewertung in der weiterführenden Schule. Berlin: Logos- Verl. Deng, C., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Examination preparation or effective teaching: Con‐ flicting priorities in the implementation of a pedagogic innovation. Language Assess‐ ment Quarterly, 7(4), 285-302. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 15434303.2010.510899 Denos, C. H. (Ed.). (2009). Collaborative research in multilingual classrooms. Bristol ; Buf‐ falo, N.Y: Multilingual Matters. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative mate‐ rials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Devlieger, M., & Goossens, G. (2007). An Assessment Tool for the Evaluation of Teacher Practice in Powerful Task-Based Language Learning Environments. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in Action: Task-Based Language Education from a Classroom-Based Perspective (pp. 92-130). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. Toronto: Collier-Macmillan. Diehr, B., & Frisch, S. (2008). Mark their words: Sprechleistungen im Englischunterricht der Grundschule fördern und beurteilen. Braunschweig: Westermann. Diehr, B., & Frisch, S. (2010). A roadmap to reading. Grundschule, 9, 26-28. Diehr, B., & Frisch, S. (2011). Stepping stones to writing. Grundschulmagazin Englisch, 1, 7-8. Diehr, B., & Kötter, M. (2013). Englisch sprechen lernen: Kompetenzaufbau im Licht der EVENING-Studie. In O. Börner, G. Engel, & B. Groot-Wilken (Eds.), Hörverstehen, Le‐ severstehen, Sprechen (pp. 95-120). Münster: Waxmann. Diehr, B., & Rymarczyk, J. (Eds.). (2010). Researching literacy in a foreign language among primary school learners = Forschung zum Schrifterwerb in der Fremdsprache bei Grund‐ schülern. Frankfurt am Main : New York: Peter Lang. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2003). The snail and the whale. London: Macmillan Child‐ ren’s Books. 283 10 References Doose, S. (2014). Inklusion als Menschenrecht - Zukunftsplanung als Weg [Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte e. V.]. Retrieved 3 November 2014, from www.inklusion-a ls-menschenrecht.de/ ? id=258 Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 330107 Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Uni‐ versity Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and Vision: An Analysis of Future L2 Self Images, Sensory Styles, and Imagery Capacity Across Two Target Languages. Lan‐ guage Learning, 63(3), 437-462. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ lang.12005 Doyé, P. (Ed.). (2005). Kernfragen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann. Drese, K. (2007). Einschätzung der Sprechleistung von Lernern im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Dreßler, C. (2012a). Aufgabenbasiertes Arbeiten: Fertigkeiten integrieren. In H. Böttger (Ed.), Englisch Didaktik für die Grundschule (pp. 227-236). Berlin: Cornelsen. Dreßler, C. (2012b). Aufgabengestütztes Lernen im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. In H. Böttger & N. Schlüter (Eds.), 3. FFF-Konferenz Fortschritte im Frühen Fremdspra‐ chenlernen. Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge Eichstätt 2011 (pp. 53-60). München: Domino. Dreßler, C. (2012c). Elementares Sprechen: Vom Imitativen zum ersten freien Minivor‐ trag. In H. Böttger (Ed.), Englisch Didaktik für die Grundschule (pp. 123-131). Berlin: Cornelsen. Dreßler, C. (2012d). Where I work well. Lernumgebungen gestalten und ausschöpfen. Grundschulmagazin Englisch, (3), 7-8. Dreßler, C. (2017). ‘Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach, in meiner Brust’ Doing Research With / On Teachers Within a Collaborative Research Project for a Binational PhD. In M. Berger & C. Dreßler (Eds.), Autoethnographien zur Professionalisierung des wissen‐ schaftlichen Nachwuchses (pp. 132-144). Tübingen: Narr. Dreßler, C., & Kolb, A. (2015). Von Klasse 4 nach Klasse 5 - Sprachliches Können sichtbar machen. Braunschweig: Westermann Schulbuchverlag. Dreßler, C., Kolb, A., Kollmann, S., & Legutke, M. K. (Eds.). (2016). Herausforderung Über‐ gang: Kontinuität im Englischunterricht. Handreichungen für die Praxis in den Klassen 4 und 5. Diesterweg. Dreßler, C., & Kollmann, S. (2016). Wo stehen die Kinder am Ende der 4. Klasse? Stufen‐ profil und Lernaufgaben. In C. Dreßler, A. Kolb, S. Kollmann, & M. K. Legutke (Eds.), 284 10 References Herausforderung Übergang: Kontinuität im Englischunterricht. Handreichungen für die Praxis in den Klassen 4 und 5 (pp. 14-29). Diesterweg. Dreßler, C., Kollmann, S., & Legutke, M. K. (2016). Show what you know - show what you can do. Zur Arbeit mit Schätzen. In C. Dreßler, A. Kolb, S. Kollmann, & M. K. Legutke (Eds.), Herausforderung Übergang: Kontinuität im Englischunterricht. Han‐ dreichungen für die Praxis in den Klassen 4 und 5. (pp. 30-40). Braunschweig: Die‐ sterweg. Dreßler, C., & Loumbourdi, L. (2016, April). Early EFL teachers’ classroom practice: Vo‐ cabulary teaching practices and their influence on the emergence of tasks. Colloquium teachers & tasks: Pre-service and in-service research perspectives on task-based Eng‐ lish language teaching and teacher education in Germany presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2016 Conference in Orlando, Florida, Orlando, Florida. Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Boca Raton, FL: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Duscha, M. (2007). Der Einfluss der Schrift auf das Fremdsprachenlernen in der Grund‐ schule. Retrieved from http: / / digisrv-1.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de: 8080/ docportal/ receive/ Doc Portal_document_00021088 Ecarius, J., & Miethe (Eds.). (2010). Methodentriangulation in der qualitativen Bildungs‐ forschung. Leverkusen: Budrich, Barbara. Eckert, E., & Fichten, W. (Eds.). (2005). Schulbegleitforschung: Erwartungen - Ergebnisse - Wirkungen. Münster: Waxmann. Edelhoff, C. (Ed.). (2003). Englisch in der Grundschule und darüber hinaus. Eine praxisnahe Orientierungshilfe. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (2014). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Routledge. Ehlers, G. (Ed.). (2013). Bumblebee textbooks. München: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag. Ehrenreich, S. (2004). Auslandsaufenthalt und Fremdsprachenlehrerbildung: das Assis‐ tant-Jahr als ausbildungsbiographische Phase (1. Aufl). München: Langenscheidt. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4 (138)), 273-290. https: / / doi.org/ 10.23 07/ 23032294 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. Inter‐ national Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. 285 10 References Elsner, D. (2010). Englisch in der Grundschule unterrichten: Grundlagen, Methoden, Prax‐ isbeispiele. München: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag. Elsner, D. (2015). Kompetenzorientiert unterrichten in der Grundschule. Englisch 1/ 4: Kom‐ petenzorientiert unterrichten in der Grundschule: Englisch 1 - 4 ; [veränderbare Kopier‐ vorlagen auf CD-ROM] (1. Aufl). München: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverl. Emerson, R. M., Fetz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Erdmann, B. (2006). Time for stories. Offenburg: Mildenberger. Evers, J., & Van Staa, A. (2010). Qualitative analysis in case study. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 749-757). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical analysis of language. London: Longman. Fearnley, J. (2001). Mr Wolf ’s pancakes. Wilton, CT: Tiger Tales. Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publica‐ tions. Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178-183). London: Sage Pub‐ lications. Flick, U. (2006). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. (4th ed.). Reinbek bei Ham‐ burg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch-Verl. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4. ed., repr). Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE. Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (Eds.). (2004). A companion to qualitative re‐ search. London: Sage Publications. Foley, J. (1991). A Psycholinguistic Framework for Task-Based Approaches to Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 62-75. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ applin/ 12.1.62 Freeman, D. (2009). What Makes Research ‘Qualitative’? In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 25-41). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualising the Knowledge-Base of Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417. Freinet, C. (1965). Die moderne französische Schule. Paderborn: Schöningh. Freinet, E. (1981). Erziehung ohne Zwang. Der Weg Célestin Freinets. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Friebertshäuser, B., Kelle, H., Boller, H., Bollig, S., Huf, C., Langer, A., … Richter, S. (Eds.). (2012). Feld und Theorie : Herausforderungen erziehungswissenschaftlicher Ethnogra‐ phie. Leverkusen: Budrich. Friebertshäuser, B., Richter, S., & Boller, H. (2010). Theorie und Empirie im Forschung‐ sprozess un die ‘Ethnographische Collage’ als Auswertungsstrategie. In Handbuch 286 10 References qualitativer Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft (3rd ed., pp. 379-396). Weinheim [u. a.]: Juventa Verlag. Frisch, S. (2013). Lesen im Englischunterricht der Grundschule eine Vergleichsstudie zur Wirksamkeit zweier Lehrverfahren. Tübingen: Narr. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical Sociology (pp. 338-366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Prob‐ lems, 11(3), 225-250. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 798722 Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5- 21. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 2787116 Garton, S., Copland, F., & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating Global Practices in Teaching English to Young Learners. ELT Research Papers, 11(1), 1-24. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3. ed). Abingdon: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1983). Dichte Beschreibung: Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme. Frank‐ furt am Main: Suhrkamp. Gellner, E. (1998). Language and solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski, and the Habsburg dilemma. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122-130. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org.proxy.ub.u ni-frankfurt.de/ 10.1075/ ni.16.1.16geo Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small Stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gerngross, G., & Puchta, H. (1996). Do and understand: 50 action stories for young learners. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Gerngross, G., Puchta, H., & Becker, C. (2013). Playway pupil’s books. Stuttgart: Klett. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research principles and practices. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: students, teachers and re‐ searchers. London ; New York: Continuum. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for quali‐ tative research. New York: Aldine. Glöckel, H. (2000). Grundlegende Bildung - Ein >>offener<< Begriff im pädagogischen Spannungsfeld. In D. Haarmann (Ed.), Grundschule: ein Handbuch (4. neu ausgestat‐ tete, pp. 336-350). Weinheim: Beltz. 287 10 References Gnutzmann, C. (2004). Lingua franca. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Lan‐ guage Teaching and Learning (pp. 356-359). London: Routledge. Göbel, K. (2003, 18. 12). Critical Incidents - aus schwierigen Situationen lernen. Presented at the Fachtagung Lernnetzwerk Bürgerkompetenz, Bad Honnef. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. London: Penguin Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (North‐ eastern University Press ed). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gompf, G. (1975). Englischunterricht auf der Primarstufe: didakt. Modelle u. Perspektiven. Weinheim ; Basel: Beltz. Gompf, G. (Ed.). (1980). Englisch ab 3. Schuljahr: ein Modell. Weinheim ; Basel: Beltz. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 682303 Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gorden, R. (1998). Basic Interviewing Skills. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/ 4), 294-308. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1108/ 03090560510581782 Green, A. (Ed.). (2011). Becoming a reflective English teacher. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press. Groot-Wilken, B. (2009). Design, Struktur und Durchführung der Evaluationsstudie EVE‐ NING in Nordrhein-Westfalen. In G. Engel, B. Groot-Wilken, & E. Thürmann (Eds.), Englisch in der Primarstufe - Chancen und Herausforderungen: Evaluation und Erfah‐ rungen aus der Praxis (pp. 124-149). Berlin: Cornelsen. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ BF02766777 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1991). What is the Constructivist Paradigm? In D. S. Anderson & B. J. Biddle (Eds.), Knowledge for policy: improving education through research (pp. 158-170). London: Falmer Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229-252). Cam‐ bridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Haase, G. (2011). Fächer integrativ Unterrichten: They sleep all winter. Grundschulma‐ gazin Englisch, (4), 13-16. Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivating learning. Harlow, England: Pearson. 288 10 References Hagstrom, F. (2000). Mediated Action Analysis: A tool for planning zones of proximal development from standardized test. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 27, 135-142. Hall, J. K. (1997). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 287- 311. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0898-5898(97)90003-6 Hallet, W. (2011). Lernen fördern: Englisch Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Seelze: Kall‐ meyer. Hallet, W. (2013). Die komplexe Kompetenzaufgabe. DFUE, 124, 2-8. Hallet, W., & Krämer, U. (Eds.). (2012). Kompetenzaufgaben im Englischunterricht. Grund‐ lagen und Unterrichtsbeispiele. Seelze: Klett Kallmeyer. Hallet, W., & Legutke, M. K. (2013a). Task-approaches revisited: New Orientations, New Persepctives. EJAL TEFL, 2(2), 139-158. Hallet, W., & Legutke, M. K. (2013b). Tasks re-visited. FLuL, 42(2), 3-9. Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? : methodological explorations. London ; New York: Routledge. Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnography and Educa‐ tion, (1: 1), 3-14. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: controversies and contexts. Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.]: Sage Publications. Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31. Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic / etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5(ArticleType: research-article / Full publication date: 1976/ Copy‐ right © 1976 Annual Reviews), 329-350. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 2949316 Harris, T. (2007). Collaborative research and development projects a practical guide. Berlin; New York: Springer. Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in quali‐ tative research: The rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323-345. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagina‐ tion. London: Sage Publications. Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., & Darvishi, S. (2012). Using taskbased language teaching, learning practically in English classes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 526-529. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.sbspro.2011.12.098 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to ach‐ ievement. London; New York: Routledge. Have, P. ten. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London ; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 289 10 References Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Heigham, J., & Sakui, K. (2009). Ethnography. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qual‐ itative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 91-111). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hellmich, F., & Kiper, H. (2006). Einführung in die Grundschuldidaktik. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag. Helmke, A. (2015). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts ; Franz Emanuel Weinert gewidmet (6. aktualis. Aufl). Seelze: Klett / Kallmeyer. Helsper, W. (2008). Schulkulturen - die Schule als symbolische Sinnordnung. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 54, 63-80. Henderson, B., Meier, D. R., Perry, G., & Stremmel, A. J. (2012). The Nature of Teacher Research. Voices of Practitioners, 1-7. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York, N.Y: Polity Press. Hilligus, A. H., & Rinkens, H. D. (Eds.). (2006). Standards und Kompetenzen - neue Qualität in der Lehrerausbildung? : neue Ansätze und Erfahrungen in nationaler und interna‐ tionaler Perspektive. Berlin: Lit. HKM. (n.d.). Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Sekundarstufe I - Gymnasium. Retrieved from http: / / verwaltung.hessen.de/ irj/ servle t/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ HKM_Internet/ med/ 4c2/ 4c22d584-b5 46-821f-012f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222 HKM (Ed.). (1995). Rahmenplan Grundschule. Frankfurt / Main: Diesterweg. HKM. (2010). Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder: Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen Primarstufe. Entwurf Moderne Fremdsprachen. Retrieved from https: / / la.hessen.de/ ir j/ servlet/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ LSA_Internet/ med/ d9d/ d9d1d 584-b546-821f-012f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222 HKM (Ed.). (2011). Leitfaden: Maßgebliche Orientierungstexte zum Kerncurriculum Pri‐ marstufe Moderne Fremdsprachen. Hobbs, J. (2012). Task structure and patterns of interaction. What can we learn form observing native speakers performing tasks? In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementa‐ tion (pp. 109-133). Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Holodynski, M., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Das Grundschulkind: Heterogenität des Auf‐ wachsens - Lernpsychologische Befunde. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grundschulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 15-28). Balt‐ mannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. 290 10 References Holtappels, H. G. (Ed.). (2004). Schulprogramme - Instrumente der Schulentwicklung: Kon‐ zeptionen, Forschungsergebnisse, Praxisempfehlungen. Weinheim: Juventa. Hopf, C. (2004). Qualitative Interviews: An Overview. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 203-208). London: Sage Pub‐ lications. Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust connecting teachers and learners in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Hutchinson, N. L. (1996). Action research: Being teachers or freeing teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 109-114. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0742-0 51X(94)00042-5 Hymes, D. H. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an under‐ standing of voice. London ; Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Izadi, D. (2015). Spatial Engagement in Persian Ethnic Shops in Sydney. Multimodal Com‐ munication, 4(1), 61-78. Jäger, A. (2012). Basics: Grundsätze beachten. In Englisch Didaktik für die Grundschule (pp. 198-208). Berlin: Cornelsen. Johnson, K. E. (2007). Tracing teacher and student learning in teacher-authored narra‐ tives. Teacher Development, 11(2), 175-188. Jones, R. H., & Candlin, C. N. (2003). Constructing risk across timescales and trajectories: Gay men’s stories of sexual encounters 1. Health, Risk & Society, 5(2). Jones, R. H., & Norris, S. (2005a). Discourse as action / discourse in action. In S. Norris & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 3- 14). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, R. H., & Norris, S. (2005b). Introducing practice. In S. Norris & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 97-99). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (1999). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Keller, S. (2013). The future of the task concept - A look outside the box. FLuL, 42(2), 22- 40. Keller, S., & Bender, U. (2012). Aufgabenkulturen: Fachliche Lernprozesse herausfordern, begleiten, auswerten. Seelze: Friedrich Verlag. Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation. System, 24(3), 351-360. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ 0346-251X(96)00027-9 Kenny, B. (1996). Knowledge, experience and language teaching. System, 24(4), 449-460. https: / / doi.org/ http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0346-251X(96)00041-3 Keßler, J.-U. (2006). Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren: linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr. 291 10 References Keßler, J.-U. (2009). Zum mündlichen englischen Sprachgebrauch von Grundschulkin‐ dern in Nordrhein-Westfalen am Ende des 4. Schuljahres. In G. Engel, B. Groot-Wilken, & E. Thürmann (Eds.), Englisch in der Primarstufe - Chancen und Herausforderungen: Evaluation und Erfahrungen aus der Praxis (pp. 158-178). Berlin: Cornelsen. Keßler, J.-U., & Lenzing, A. (2008). ‘The dog is grabing’ - Englischunterricht in der Grundschule und den Übergang neu denken. In T. Heggen & D. Götze (Eds.), Grund‐ schule neu denken. Beiträge des Paderborner Grundschultages 2006 zu Heterogenität, Medien und Ganztag. (pp. 99-110). Münster: LIT Verlag. Kierepka, A. (2008). Just talk! Die Grundschulzeitschrift, 220, 39-41. Kieweg, W. (2013). I’ve been playing the tuba for 3 years. Über das Erlernen eines Musi‐ kinstruments sprechen. DFUE, 124, 12-17. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The Project Method ((4)19). Teachers College Record. Retrieved from https: / / archive.org/ details/ projectmethodus00kilpgoog Kitchenham, A. (2010). Diaries and Journals. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 300-302). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Klippel, F. (2000). Englisch in der Grundschule. Handbuch für einen kindgemäßen Fremd‐ sprachernunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. Kluge, N. (2008). Anthropologische Befunde. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grund‐ schulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 41-52). Baltmanns‐ weiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. KMK. (1994). Empfehlungen zu Arbeit in der Grundschule. Retrieved from www.kmk.or g/ fileadmin/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 1970/ 1970_07_02_Empfehlungen_Gru ndschule.pdf KMK. (2005, October 2). Bericht ‘Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule - Sachstand und Konzeptionen 2004’. Retrieved from www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ veroeffentlichungen_b eschluesse/ 2005/ 2005_02_10-Fremdsp-Grundschule.pdf KMK. (2013, October 17). Bericht „Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule - Sachstand und Konzeptionen 2013“. Retrieved from www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ veroeffentlichungen_b eschluesse/ 2013/ 2013_10_17-Fremdsprachen-in-der-Grundschule.pdf Knight, P. (2001). The development of EFL methodologies. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 147-166). London ; New York: Routledge ; in association with Macquarie University and the Open University. Knoke, M. (2013, 12). Wenn junge Lehrer auf die brutale Realität treffen. Die Welt. Re‐ trieved from www.welt.de/ wirtschaft/ karriere/ article122915783/ Wenn-junge-Lehrer -auf-die-brutale-Realitaet-treffen.html Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as coop‐ erative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 14-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 292 10 References Kolb, A. (2007). Portfolioarbeit: wie Grundschulkinder ihr Sprachenlernen reflektieren. Tü‐ bingen: Narr. Kolb, A. (2008). Task-based language learning: Impulse für den Fremdsprachenunterricht der Grundschule. In H. Böttger (Ed.), Fortschritte im frühen Fremdsprachenlernen. Aus‐ gewählte Tagungsbeiträge Nürnberg 2007 (pp. 61-69). München: Domino Verlag. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. The experience as the source of learning and devel‐ opment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Quality requirements for teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 157-176. https: / / doi.org/ 10. 1016/ j.tate.2004.12.004 Kounin, J. S. (2006). Techniken der Klassenführung. (M. Gellert, Trans.). Münster: Wax‐ mann. Kress, G. R. (2009). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communi‐ cation. London ; New York: Routledge. Kress, G. R., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the rhetorics of the science classroom. London ; New York: Continuum. Kubanek-German, A. (2001). Kindgemäßer Fremdsprachenunterricht. Band. 1: Ideenge‐ schichte. Münster: Waxmann. Kubanek-German, A. (2003). Kindgemäßer Fremdsprachenunterricht. Band. 2: Eine Di‐ daktik der Gegenwart. Münster: Waxmann. Kuhn, T. (2006). Grammatik im Englischunterricht der Primarstufe: theoretische Grund‐ lagen und praktische Unterrichtsvorschläge. Heidelberg: Winter. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2007). Learner Perception of Learning Tasks. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 7-31). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thou‐ sand Oaks: Sage. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge [Mass.]: Black‐ well. Labov, W. (1997). Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis. Retrieved from www.ling.u penn.edu/ ~wlabov/ sfs.html Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1-4(7), 3-38. Lamnek, S. (1989). Qualitative Sozialforschung. (Vol. 2 Methoden und Techniken). Mün‐ chen: Psychologie Verlag Union. Lancaster, L. (2001). Staring at the Page: The Functions of Gaze in a Young Child’s In‐ terpretation of Symbolic Forms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(2), 131-152. 293 10 References Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed., [Nachdr.]). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Layder, D. (1993). New Strategies in social research. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Layder, D. (2006). Understanding social theory (2nd ed). London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Legutke, M. K. (Ed.). (1997). Sprachenlernen, Primarschule, Unterrichtsanalyse. München: Goethe-Institut. Legutke, M. K. (2006). Projekt Airport - Revisited: Von der Aufgabe zum Szenario. In A. Küppers & J. Quetz (Eds.), Motivation Revisited. Festschrift für Gert Solmecke (pp. 71- 80). Berlin: LIT Verlag. Legutke, M. K., & Dreßler, C. (2013, March). Professional development as practitioner re‐ search. Presented at the TESOL 2013, Dallas, USA. Legutke, M. K., & Dreßler, C. R. (forthcoming). Das Projekt Englisch ab Klasse 1: ethische und methodische Aspekte kollaborativer Forschung. In A. Kolb & M. K. Legutke (Eds.), Englisch ab Klasse 1 - Grundlagen für kontinuierliches Fremdsprachenlernen. Tübingen: Narr. Legutke, M. K., Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2009). Teaching Eng‐ lish in the Primary School. Stuttgart: Klett. Legutke, M. K., & Thiel, W. (1983). Airport. Ein Projekt für den Englischunterricht in der Jahrgangsstufe 6. Wiesbaden: Hessisches Institut für Bildungsplanung und Schulent‐ wicklung (HIBS). Legutke, M. K., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. London: Longman. Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95-115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. LeVine, P., Scollon, R., Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, & Georgetown Uni‐ versity (Eds.). (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Wash‐ ington, D.C: Georgetown Univ. Press. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. M. (2013). How languages are learned (Fourth edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lilleaas, U.-B. (2013). My Discomfort: Practical Reflexivity as a Methodological Approach. In L. J. Phillips, M. Kristiansen, M. Vehviläinen, & E. Gunnarsson (Eds.), Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research: A Reflexive Approach (pp. 105-123). London: Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publi‐ cations. 294 10 References Liu, Y., & Xu, Y. (2011). The trajectory of learning in a teacher community of practice: a narrative inquiry of a language teacher’s identity in the workplace. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 176-195. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 02671522.2011.610899 London, J., & McDonough, J. (2000). Froggy plays soccer. Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books. Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp. 77- 99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lüders, C. (2004). Field Observation and Ethnography. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 222-230). London: Sage Pub‐ lications. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research : methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Magalh-es, P. (2004, 2015). What is Postcrossing? [Social Media]. Retrieved 8 September 2015, from www.postcrossing.com Malinowski, B. (1923). Supplement I: The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. Supplementary essays by B. Malinowski and F.G. Crookshank. (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt. Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic: A study of the methods of tilling the soil and of agricultural rites in the Trobriand Islands. (Vol. 2 Vols.). London: George Allen & Unwin. Mann, S. (2011). A Critical Review of Qualitative Interviews in Applied Linguistics. Ap‐ plied Linguistics, 32(1), 6-24. Marinova, D. (2004). Two approaches to negotiating positions in interaction: Goffman’s (1981) footing and Davies and Harré’s (1999) positioning Theory. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(1), 211-2014. Martin, B., & Carle, E. (2008). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Henry Holt & Co. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Edu‐ cational Review, 3(62), 279-300. Mayer, N. (2009). Wo Fremdsprachenlernen beginnt. Grundlagen und Arbeitsformen des Englischunterrichts in der Primarstufe. In G. Bach & J.-P. Timm (Eds.), Englischunter‐ richt (4th ed., pp. 61-90). Stuttgart: UTB. Merkens, H. (2004). Selection Procedures, Sampling, Case Construction. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 165-171). London: Sage Publications. Mindt, D., & Schlüter, N. (2003). Englisch in den Klassen 3 und 4: Grundlagen für einen ergebnisorientierten Unterricht (1. Aufl., 2. Dr). Berlin: Cornelsen. 295 10 References Mindt, D., & Schlüter, N. (2007). Ergebnisorientierter Englischunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. Morse, J. M. (Ed.). (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. MSWNRW. (n.d.). Lernaufgaben Englisch. Grundschule. Retrieved from www.schulentw icklung.nrw.de/ materialdatenbank/ upload/ 2069/ 287411_klp_grundschule_englisch_l ernaufgaben.pdf MSWNRW. (2008). Richtlinien und Lehrpläne für die Grundschule in Nordrhein-West‐ falen. Retrieved from www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/ lehrplaene/ u pload/ lehrplaene_download/ grundschule/ grs_faecher.pdf Müller-Hartmann, A., Schocker, M., & Pant, H. A. (Eds.). (2013). Lernaufgaben Englisch SI / Lernaufgaben Englisch aus der Praxis Kompetenzentwicklung in der Sek. I: IQB Pro‐ jekt ‘Lernaufgaben Englisch Sekundarstufe I (alle Schularten)’. Braunschweig: Die‐ sterweg, M. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2006). Aufgaben bewältigen. Weg und Ziel des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. DFUE, 84, 2-8. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (Eds.). (2008). Aufgabenorientiertes Lernen und Lehren mit Medien: Ansätze, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven in der Fremdspra‐ chendidaktik. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: Lang. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2011a). Mit Lernaufgaben Kompe‐ tenzen entwickeln. DFUE, 109, 2-9. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2011b). Teaching English: Task-Sup‐ ported Language Learning. Stuttgart: Schöningh UTB. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2013). Developing teachers’ inter‐ cultural communicative competence for task-supported language classrooms. FLuL, 42(2), 85-98. Nohl, A.-M. (2006). Interview und dokumentarische Methode: Anleitungen für die For‐ schungspraxis (1. Aufl). Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. New York, NY: Routledge. Norris, S. (2011a). Identity in (inter)action: introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. Göttingen: De Gruyter Mouton. Norris, S. (2011b). Three hierarchical positions of deictic gesture in relation to spoken language: a multimodal interaction analysis. Visual Communication, 10(2), 129-147. h ttps: / / doi.org/ 10.1177/ 1470357211398439 Norris, S. (Ed.). (2012a). Multimodality in Practice Investigating Theory-in-Prac‐ tice-through-Methodology. New York; Oxon: Routledge. Norris, S. (2012b). Multimodality in Practice Investigating Theory-in-prac‐ tice-through-methodology. In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in Practice Investigating Theory-in-practice-through-methodology (pp. 222-226). New York; Oxon: Routledge. 296 10 References Norris, S., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.). (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1993). Tasked-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In Crookes, Graham & Gass, Susan M. (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 55-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. A comprehensively revised edition of de‐ signing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to young learners - KINDLE. Anaheim University Press. Nunan, D. (2013a). Learner-centered English Language Education: The Selected Works of David Nunan. Routledge. Nunan, D. (2013b). The task approach to language teaching. FLuL, 42(2), 10-21. Nunan, D., & Choi, J. (2010). Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity. New York: Routledge. Nunes, M. B., Martins, J. T., Zhou, L., Alajamy, M., & Al-Mamari, S. (2010). Contextual sensitivity in Grounded Theory: The role of pilot studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(2), 73-84. OECD (Ed.). (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from TALIS. Paris: OECD. Oerter, R. (2008). Entwicklungspsychologische Befunde. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grundschulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 1-14). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. Ofenbach, B. (2001). Wie wir das Kind sehen, so gestalten wir die Schule. In L. Blumen‐ stock, H. Klein, & H. Petillon (Eds.), Lernziel: Grundschule weiterentwickeln: Grund‐ lagen, Anregungen, Beispiele (pp. 35-44). Weinheim ; Basel: Beltz Verlag. Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and Using Reflective Journals in the Qualitative Research Process. The Qualitative Report, 4(13), 695-705. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Park-Fuller, L. M. (1986). Voices: Bakhtin’s heteroglossia and polyphony, and the per‐ formance of narrative literature. Literature in Performance, 7, 1-12. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. 297 10 References Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163-188. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ applin/ amm008 Pennings, H. J. M., van Tartwijk, J., Wubbels, T., Claessens, L. C. A., van der Want, A. C., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Real-time teacher-student interactions: A Dynamic Systems approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 183-193. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.tate. 2013.07.016 Pestalozzi, J. H. (1801). Wie Gertrud ihre Kinder lehrt. Retrieved from http: / / gutenberg.sp iegel.de/ buch/ wie-gertrud-ihre-kinder-lehrt-504/ 4 Pestalozzi, J. H. (1819). Pestalozzis Sämtliche Schriften. Stuttgart, Tübingen: J.G. Cotta. Pestalozzi, J. H. (1826). Schwanengesang. In Pestalozzi’s Sämtliche Schriften, 13 (p. w p). Stuttgart: Cotta. Pestalozzi, J. H. (2001). Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi Ausgewählte Schriften. (W. Flitner, Ed.). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. Phillips, L. J. (2011). Analysing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge: An exploration of the tensions in collaborative research. Public Under‐ standing of Science, 20(1), 80-100. Phillips, L. J., Kristiansen, M., Vehviläinen, M., & Gunnarsson, E. (2013a). Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research: A Reflexive Approach. London: Routledge. Phillips, L. J., Kristiansen, M., Vehviläinen, M., & Gunnarsson, E. (2013b). Tackling the tensions of dialogue and participation: Reflexive strategies for collaborative research (pp. 1-20). New York: Routledge. Piepho, H.-E. (1981). Establishing objectives in the teaching of English. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), The communicative teaching of English: Principles and an exercise typology (pp. 8-23). Harlow: Longman. Piepho, H.-E. (2003). Lerneraktivierung im Fremdsprachenunterricht: ‘Szenarien’ in Theorie und Praxis. Hannover: Schroedel [u. a.]. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: University Press. Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hamp‐ shire ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pinter, A., & Zandian, S. (2014). ‘I don’t ever want to leave this room’: benefits of re‐ searching ‘with’ children. ELT Journal, 68(1), 64-74. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ elt/ cct057 Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: University Press. QUA-LiS NRW. (2015, September 23). Kriterien für gute Lernaufgaben. Retrieved from w ww.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/ cms/ angebote/ egs/ praxis-lernaufgaben/ kriterien-fuer -gute-lernaufgaben/ kriterien-fuer-gute-lernaufgaben.html Raab, J. (2008). Erving Goffman. Konstanz: UVK. Rallis, S., & Rossman, G. (2009). Ethics and trustworthiness. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 263-287). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 298 10 References Reilly, V., & Ward, S. M. (2011). Very young learners (13. impr). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135-173. ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ S0261444813000505 Ribeiro, B. T. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice. Are we talking about the same things? In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 48-82). Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, K. (2011). Using micro-analysis in interviewer training: ‘Continuers’ and in‐ terviewer positioning. Applied Linguistics, 1(32), 95-112. Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. London: Sage Publications. Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Sandilos, L. (2015). Improving Students’ Relationships with Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning. American Psychological Asso‐ ciation. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ education/ k12/ relationships.aspx Roos, J. (2006). Frühes Fremdsprachenlernen - eine Standortbestimmung. In M. Piene‐ mann, J.-U. Keßler, & J. Roos (Eds.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule: Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch (pp. 24-32). Paderborn: Schöningh. Rosenberger, K. (2005). Kindgemäßheit-Methodologische Überlegungen zum Umgang mit normativen Konzepten. Unser Weg, 60(3), 77-80. Rück, H. (2004). Prinzipien des frühen Fremdsprachenerwerbs. NM: Neusprachliche Mit‐ teilungen Aus Wissenschaft Und Praxis, 57(4), 198-207. Ryan, P. (2004). Teacher thinking. In M. Angrosino (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Lan‐ guage Teaching and Learning (pp. 610-616). London ; New York: Routledge. Sambanis, M. (2007). Sprache aus Handeln: Englisch und Französisch in der Grundschule. Landau: Verl. Empirische Pädagogik. Sambanis, M., & Speck, A. (2010). Lernen in Bewegung: Effekte bewegungsgestützter Wortschatzarbeit auf der Primarstufe. Französisch Heute, 3, 111-115. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sarand, L. (2015, 05). Bekenntnisse einer Lehramtsstudentin: Wir lernen: nichts. Spiegel Online: Schulspiegel. Retrieved from www.spiegel.de/ schulspiegel/ lehramtsstudium-s tudentin-erzaehlt-wie-wenig-sie-lernte-a-1033194.html Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. N. (2003). Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271-285. Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition (2nd ed). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 299 10 References Schaer, U. (2012). ‘Task-based Language Learning’ im Englischunterricht. In S. Keller & U. Bender (Eds.), Aufgabenkulturen: Fachliche Lernprozesse herausfordern, begleiten, auswerten (pp. 142-156). Seelze: Friedrich Verlag. Schäfer, U. (n.d.). Early Bird Guide with all the tricks of the trade. Finken-Verlag. Schäfers, A., & Teuchert-Noodt, G. (2008). Neurowissenschaftliche Befunde. In E. Jürgens & J. Standop (Eds.), Das Grundschulkind (5., vollst. überarb. und neu konzipierte Aufl., Vol. 2, pp. 29-40). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verl. Hohengehren. Schiffrin, D., De Fina, A., & Nylund, A. (Eds.). (2010). Telling stories: language, narrative, and social life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schmid-Schönbein, G. (2008). Didaktik und Methodik für den Englischunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. Schocker, M. (2015). Auf die richtigen Aufgaben kommt es an! Kriterien für die Auswahl und Entwicklung von Lernaufgaben. TAKE OFF! , 3, 48-49. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schultz, T. (2013, 05). Der Willkür der Ausbilder ausgeliefert. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Re‐ trieved from www.sueddeutsche.de/ bildung/ referendare-der-willkuer-der-ausbilder -ausgeliefert-1.1664818 Schwandt, T. (2007a). Constructivism. In The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 38-42). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Schwandt, T. (Ed.). (2007b). The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. (3rd ed.). Thou‐ sand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. London; New York: Longman. Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London ; New York: Rout‐ ledge. Scollon, R. (2005a). The discourses of food in the world system. Toward a nexus analysis of a world problem. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(3), 465-488. Scollon, R. (2005b). The rhythmic integration of action and discourse: Work, the body and the earth. In Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 20- 31). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London ; New York: Routledge. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608-625. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1467-9841.2007.003 42.x 300 10 References Scollon, S. W., & De Saint-Georges, I. (2012). Mediated discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 66-78). London ; New York: Routledge. Seale, C. (2003). Quality in Qualitative Research. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning Points in Qualitative Research. Tying Knots in a Handkerchief (pp. 169-184). Walnut Creek; Lanham; New York; Oxford: AltaMira Press. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2011). Teachers’ critical incidents: Ethical dilemmas in teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 648-656. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.tate .2010.11.003 Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judge‐ ments, decisions and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applica‐ tions. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13-30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Shome, S., & Natarajan, C. (2013). Ideas of and Attitudes towards Projects and Changing Practices: Voices of Four Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10). ht tps: / / doi.org/ 10.14221/ ajte.2013v38n10.5 Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. B. (2008). Doing qualitative research: a comprehensive guide. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Ap‐ plied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ applin/ 17.1.38 Skehan, P. (1998). Task-Based Instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268- 286. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ S0267190500003585 Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14. https: / / doi.org / 10.1017/ S026144480200188X Steier, F. (Ed.). (1991). Research and Reflexivity. London: Sag. Steinke, I. (2004). Quality criteria in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 184-190). London: Sage Pub‐ lications. Stern, E., & Hardy, I. (2011). Anspruchsvolle Lernaufgaben. In W. Einsiedler, M. Götz, H. Hacker, J. Kahlert, R. Keck, & U. Sandfuchs (Eds.), Handbuch Grundschulpädagogik und Grundschuldidaktik (pp. 396-402). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory pro‐ cedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1093/ applin/ ami013 Thürmann, E. (2010). Zur Konstruktion von Sprachgerüsten im bilingualen Sachfachun‐ terricht. In S. Doff (Ed.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe: Eine Ein‐ führung (pp. 137-153). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. 301 10 References Thürmann, E. (2013). Scaffolding. Unterstützung für das selbstgesteuerte Lernen im Eng‐ lischunterricht. DFUE, 126, 2-8. Tripp, D. (2012). Critical Incidents in Teaching (Classic Edition): Developing professional judgement. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Tudor, I. (2001). The Dynamics of the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‐ versity Press. Tusting, K., & Maybin, J. (2007). Linguistic ethnography and interdisciplinarity: Opening the discussion. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 575-583. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.146 7-9841.2007.00340.x Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006a). Task-Based Language Education: From theory to prac‐ tice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From theory to practice (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (Eds.). (2007). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London ; Thou‐ sand Oaks [Calif.]: Sage Publications. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: ethnography and second Lan‐ guage classroom research. London ; New York: Longman. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy, and au‐ thenticity. London ; New York: Longman. Vollmuth, I. (2004). Englisch an der Grundschule: wie Handreichungen den Frühbeginn sehen: eine didaktisch-methodische Analyse. Heidelberg: Winter. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. USA: Harvard University Press. Wallrabenstein, W. (2001). Offene Schule - offener Unterricht: Ratgeber für Eltern und Lehrer (9. Aufl., aktualisierte Aufl. 1994). Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Waschk, K. (2008). Öffnung des Englischunterrichts in der Grundschule: Studien zur Wahl‐ freiheit und Lernerautonomie. Duisburg: UVRR, Univ.-Verl. Rhein-Ruhr. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the Essentials. TESOL Quar‐ terly, 22(4), 575-592. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 3587257 Wellenreuther, M. (2000). Quantitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissen‐ schaft. Weinheim: Juventa Verlag. Wells, G. (1993). Re-evaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of the‐ ories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the class‐ room. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1-37. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ S0898-5898(0 5)80001-4 302 10 References Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werner, O., & Schoepfle, G. M. (1987). Systematic fieldwork. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Wilden, E., Porsch, R., & Ritter, M. (2013). Je früher desto besser? - Frühbeginnender Englischunterricht ab Klasse 1 oder 3 und seine Auswirkungen auf das Hör- und Le‐ severstehen. ZFF, 24, 171-201. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social construc‐ tivist approach. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophische Untersuchungen =: Philosophical investigations. (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.) (Rev. 4th ed). Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Wohlwend, K. E. (2007). More than a Child’s Work: Framing Teacher Discourse about Play. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 3(1), 1-25. Wohlwend, K. E. (2011). Playing their way into literacies KINDLE. New York: Columbia University. Wolff, D. (2009, October 12). Didaktik und Methodik 1. Lern- und entwicklungspsycho‐ logische Voraussetzungen. Retrieved from www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/ cms/ front _content.php? idart=1958&idcat=1002 Xie, M. (2014). The Relationship between Teachers‟ Knowledge, Attitude and Belief with the Implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning in Zhengzhou, China. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 8(1), 149-161. Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quar‐ terly, 26(1), 58-65. https: / / doi.org/ 10.2307/ 2392599 Young, R. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Chichester ; Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell. Zhang, E. Y. (2005). The implementation of the task-based approach in primary school Eng‐ lish language teaching in mainland China. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Zhang, E. Y. (2007). TBLT-innovation in primary school English language teaching in mainland China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 68-91). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. 303 10 References 11 Appendix A An example of an un-revised lesson protocol B A problematic interview situation C Transcription guideline D Picture books used in the research project A An example of an un-revised lesson protocol This is an extract of a lesson protocol prior to its final revision. I provide this example to show different stages of the analysis. Another extract of a lesson protocol in its final stage (revised and also analysed) is shown in Section 4.2.1. The box on the right side provides an explanation of the observation protocol. School: XXX Teacher: XX Class: 1c G / B: 9 / 12 Time: 12: 23-13: 00 Date: 22/ 03/ 2012 Lesson Topic: Presentation Teaching Unit: Two Little Dicky Birds Overall Description: Anna accompanies me. We talked about X’s teaching style and that last time, I observed her, I had difficulties being rather neutral towards her teaching style. 4 We enter the classroom at the end of recess. The form teacher comes in a few minutes after us and asks us, who we are and what we want. This is the first time at this school that we are noticed and asked to identify us. She nods and grunts and walks over to her desk. Then, after a few minutes the bell rings. After another few more minutes she asks us where the children are. We tell her that we do not know. She raises her brows and leaves the classroom. 8 minutes after the end of recess, Teacher X arrives with most of the children. She tells us that she usually picks them up at the end of the staircase and walks them up. She is in a good mood, smiles and waves at us . Lesson outline: Comments: X: “Good morning” Students: “Good morning” X introduces us to the class in English. Then she takes out Mr. Mole and greets the class with the hand puppet. Mr. Mole: “Good morning” Students: “Good morning” Mr. Mole suggests listening to and performing the “Two Little Dicky Birds Song”. The children all join in and do the movements. Four girls are suddenly get up from their chairs and walk to the blackboard behind the teachers’ back. The sit down on the floor in front of the blackboard facing 1 All students mispronounce the word come (= / k ! m/ ) as the German verb komm (= / / ). 2 The blackboard has one big rectangle and two squares. The squares can be opened and closed in front of the big rectangle as they are attached to the short sides of the big rectangle through hinged-joints. 3 The teacher promises The overall description refers to the classroom atmosphere. I compare and contrast the teacher’s behaviour to previous and later lessons. The first column describes the lesson outline following Goffman’s question concerning unfolding events. In the second column I write down my own remarks to clarify the situation, note down students’ language performance as well as my thoughts referring to tasks. 306 11 Appendix the rest of the class. X notices this after a while and says: “I switch to German” and accompanies this phrase with her usual hand movement 5 . “There are already 4 girls sitting in front of the class. But I think that we should allow the others 5 minutes more time to practice. I have already told the class that you have to do the movements first. ‘Who’ and ‘how’ is something you have to agree on within your group. Those who want to hear it again, may come to me. Every group looks for a place to practice.” The students get together in their groups and start practicing. A few leave the classroom and practice in the little hallway in front of the room, others walk down the first flight of stairs and practice there. A few groups stay in the classroom. Most groups consist of 4 students. At 12: 35 the presentations begin. 2 girls groups starts, followed by a mixed group and then 3 boys present the rhyme. 1 After the presentations are over the teachers introduces the next phase with the following description: “The sun is shining. Not only 2 little dicky birds, but a lot of dicky birds are sitting in a tree. What can you find outside in about 15 days? When you look outside.” A boy raises his hand and answers in German “Eagle.” X says accompanied with her usual gesture: “I switch to German. You are talking about the big bird. Yes, but what else? ” X opens the blackboard 2 and draws two eggs, one natural one and one decorated with Easter patterns and a bunny with a brush full of paint in one of its pads. … 4 to email me the worksheet several times, but never follows through. 4 I am not sure whether the presentation phase could be seen as a follow-up of a production task. It would be interesting to see in how far the students were free to interpret the rhyme in their own way, e.g. with their own movements. The lesson is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It is not directly clear what the students are supposed to do. Anna and I find the lesson a bit confusing and while walking around the groups practicing their nursery rhyme performance, it becomes apparent that some of the students are bored and engage in other activities, such as chatting about their afternoon activities. Additional materials / information to the lesson: Nursery Rhyme Two little dicky birds sitting on a wall, ! One named Peter, one named Paul. ! Fly away Peter, fly away Paul, ! Come back Peter, come back Paul! Worksheet: x T. 11: Lesson protocol 307 11 Appendix B A problematic interview situation Extract from my research diary - May, 16 2012 Ruth We meet in her classroom in the afternoon. The door is open and I wait in the doorway. She is sitting at a student’s table marking students’ workbooks, one small pile on the left and one big pile on the right and one open workbook in front of her. I knock louder at the door to signal to her that I am here. She looks up and smiles and waves me in. I smile back and greet her. She is very kind and always interested to learn something new and she takes me seriously and asks me directly for help and wants to work in a team. I like that. It makes my work easier and I feel that we learn a lot from each other. We chat a bit about school difficulties with her new Grade 1, especially the noisy and chatty bunch of boys she has to deal with. I had brought cookies and she thanks me, and tells me that she tries to not eat any chocolate at the moment and I am like: “Ah, sorry.” And she shakes her head and says, “Not to worry, it’s really nice. I usually would eat them. It’s just now… I have decided to not eat any sweets whatsoever.” I nod and say I understand and we talk a bit about nu‐ trition and going to the gym. She is really diligent. She comes to school early in the mornings and stays until late and then she goes home and goes to the gym with her boyfriend and after that she works for about two more hours often after midnight. I feel bad to burden her with my research. Here she is, a really motivated teacher and willing to learn more and I make her work even more. I say, “My goodness. That is quite a long day. So that’s why you answer my emails after midnight.” And she smiles, “Yes, well. It’s the way it is. You are not any better. You reply at the same time.” And then I smile and reply, “Well, you know. The project work doesn’t get done by itself.” We laugh a bit and then we start with the lesson planning and finally the interview. I have two recording devices and all seems just fine and suddenly this student’s mother walks in and demands to talk to Ruth. What an unbelievable person! It is late in the afternoon and she just assumes a teacher does not have any‐ thing else to do. She clearly sees me, but she simply ignores me and starts talking to Ruth in a loud voice asking her about her son’s behaviour and how to go about it. And Ruth, as always, being way too nice, gives in and talks to her for a while before she tells her that it might be best to discuss this in a proper teacher-parent meeting. Awesome. Just another interview situation that is ruined… 308 11 Appendix C Transcription guideline The transcription guideline is based on (Nohl, 2006, p. 123) and was adapted to fit my interviews. (Seconds) or (.) for pause or short pause (2) or (.) underlined for emphasis no period . for a falling intonation comma , for a slightly rising intonation two " for a rising intonation hyphen for a discontinuation of a sentence or an abrupt stop of a word / word co: : : lon termination we=have for elongated words, the amount of : represents the elon‐ gation (unsure) for words that merge together ((sighs)) for utterances that are difficult to understand @laughing@ for extra-/ para-linguistic data / / uhm/ / for ‘talking laughingly’ [overlap] for confirmative or consentient vocal interjections °very quietly° for overlapping of utterances very loudly for quietly spoken utterances »English« for very loud utterances 309 11 Appendix D Picture books used in the research project The books listed below present a selection of the picture books and stories used within the project schools. I selected the books below because I observed the teachers teaching entire task sequences on them or because they were in the “bridging boxes” each school received to use for joint teaching sequences be‐ tween a PS and a secondary school class. The research team established a ‘project library’. Books from the local university library and those owned by the senior researcher, Anna and myself were all stored at Anna’s place for the project teachers to borrow and use in their lessons. Armitage, R., & Armitage, D. (2014). The lighthouse keeper’s lunch. Burke, J. (unpublished). Mrs Quisenberry. Carle, E. (2002). The very hungry caterpillar. Harlow: Pearson Education. Cave, K., & Riddell, C. (Eds.). (2011). Something else (Publ. in this ed. 2011). London: Puffin. Coffelt, N., & Tusa, T. (2011). Fred stays with me (1st ed). New York, NY: Little, Brown. Cousins, L. (2011). I’m the best. London: Walker Books. Dale, P. (2013). Ten in the bed. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2002). The gruffalo. London: Campbell Books. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2003). The snail and the whale. London: Macmillan Child‐ ren’s Books. Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (2015). Superworm. Duncan-Hauff, P. (Ed.). (2013). Storytime 1/ 2. Braunschweig: Westermann Schulbuch‐ verlag. Erdmann, B. (2006). Time for stories. Offenburg: Mildenberger. Fearnley, J. (2001). Mr Wolf ’s pancakes. Wilton, CT: Tiger Tales. Freedman, C., & Cort, B. (2009). Aliens in underpants save the world. London; New York: Simon and Schuster. Gaffal, A. (Ed.). (2003). Storytime 3 (1. Aufl., Dr. 1). Braunschweig: Westermann. London, J., & McDonough, J. (2000). Froggy plays soccer. Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books. London, J., & Remkiewicz, F. (2002). Froggy’s best Christmas. New York: Puffin Books. Martin, B., & Carle, E. (Eds.). (1996). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? (1. board book ed). New York: Holt. O’Connell, J. (2007). Ten timid ghosts. Paw Prints. Saracino, L., & Bernatene, P. (2011). The monster diaries. London: Meadowside Child‐ ren’s. Thomas, V., & Paul, K. (Eds.). (2006). Winnie the witch: 6 in 1 collection ; Winnie the witch, Winnie flies again, Winnie in winter, Winnie’s magic wand, Winie’s new com‐ puter, Winnie at the seaside (1. publ). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 310 11 Appendix List of Figures F. 1: Venn diagram of researching the nature and enactment of eEFL tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 F. 2: Overview of the project schools that formed part of the data collection and their entry times into the project. . . . . . . . . . 26 F. 3: Research project members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 F. 4: Collaborative research approach in the project. . . . . . . . . . . 34 F. 5: Anna’s ‘Word Monster’ for the topic clothes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 F. 6: Extract of transcript. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 F. 7: Extract of fieldnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 F. 8: Account with additional information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 F. 9: Grade 1 student giving a mini-presentation about her favourite ice cream (Ruth, July 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 F. 10: Grade 2 student giving a presentation on her favourite type of sport (Anna, April 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 F. 11: Grade 2 student presenting her ‘Leporello’ on "The snail and the whale" (Anna, July 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 F. 12: Elaborate task sequence within a story-based approach with a focus on spontaneous speaking activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 F. 13: Basic task in Grade 1 and 2 with a focus on understanding and repeating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 F. 14: Mini-interview used in Grade 1 (Paula, March & April 2012). 164 F. 15: Typical task sequences in Grade 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 F. 16: Worksheets: sample sentences and empty worksheet for students’ core activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 F. 17: Overall task sequence for “My favourite book”. . . . . . . . . . . 171 F. 18: Mind maps of topics relevant for the picture books. . . . . . . 172 F. 19: Task sequence for the overall target task: “My favourite place”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 F. 20: The four key practices relevant for the emergence of an eEFL task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 F. 21: Illustration of the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 F. 22: Teacher A’s nexus of ‘Building a vocabulary’ (see R. Scollon, 2001, p. 149. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 F. 23: Teacher B teaching “Mr Wolf ’s Pancakes”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 F. 24: Guessing game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 F. 25: Student creating a word search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 F. 26: A poster of a student’s dream job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 F. 27: Key practices illustrating the teachers’ biggest similarities and differences in teaching tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 312 List of Figures List of Tables T. 1: Overview of most important project teachers and data sources. 29 T. 2: Competencies Grade 4 HKM 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 T. 3: Teachers’ task features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 T. 4: The four key practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 T. 5: Aspects I focused on in the analysis of the teachers’ teaching practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 T. 6: Teacher A’s teaching practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 T. 7: Teacher B’s teaching practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 T. 8: The four key practices across the group of teachers. . . . . . . . . 224 T. 9: Four different groups of how abstract task features are translated into actual teaching realisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 T. 10: Critical examination of teacher A’s practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 T. 11: Lesson protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307