See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300014070

Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

Chapter · July 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-08353-7_5

CITATIONS READS

0 670

1 author:

Maria Dorota Stec

University of Silesia in Katowice
20 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multimodality of ELT materials View project

Evaluation of materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Dorota Stec on 03 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

Copyright Year 2015
Copyright Holder Springer International Publishing Switzerland
Corresponding Author Family Name Stec
Particle
Given Name Maria
Suffix
Organization University of Silesia
Address Cieszyn, Poland
Abstract A reflection in teaching requires practical assessment as well as
diagnostic and critical assessment [Komorowska (Reforma w nauce
języka obcego. Nowe programy i podręczniki. IBN, 2003:15–27)]. The
idea is to explore student-teachers’ reflections on their initial practice
including actions, thoughts and emotions associated with teaching
English to young learners. Student-teachers are introduced to ways of
reflecting upon their experience involving self-observation and self-
evaluation [Richards and Lockhart (Reflective Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms. CUP, 1996:3–4)]. The paper aims to answer the
following questions: What are the positive aspects observed by female
teachers? What are the positive aspects observed by male teachers?
What are the negative aspects observed by female teachers? What are
the negative aspects observed by male teachers? The project involves
two stages. The first stage is based on the SWOT evaluation model
where respondents are asked to comment on their strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats in teaching. The second stage is more detailed
and divided into three levels including recalling and reflecting on their
lessons as well as drawing conclusions for future teaching career. The
results will be discussed in the context of female and male perspective
on the matter.
Reflective Teaching in an English Primary 1

Classroom 2 AU1

Maria Stec 3

1 Introduction 4

Modern English teaching is influenced by political, social and cultural factors in the 5
local and international context (Lee-McKay 2002:129). It is assumed that student- 6
teachers will develop their own teaching style with a reference to the particular 7
learners, teaching goals and materials (Richards 1996:XI–XIII). It is expected that 8
they will select, use and evaluate teaching/learning materials effectively (McGrath 9
2013:81–83) to meet learners’ needs. On the one hand, they can be very creative as 10
it is stated it is the inexperienced teacher who is more likely to innovate - for the 11
very reason that he/she has not established a routine yet (Appel 1995:XV). It may 12
be also related to a lack of confidence in English teaching. On the other hand, they 13
want to survive in a classroom, overcome difficulties encountered during the first 14
lessons and improve classroom management skills in the context of schools they 15
work in (Richards and Lockhart 1996:97). 16
In processing knowledge, teacher training courses concentrate, first of all, on a 17
transmission model (informing and modelling students) while teacher development 18
concentrates on a reflection model (teachers’ personal experience in finding solu- 19
tions) (Richards and Lockhart 1996:97–112; Wallace 1998:12–13, Komorowska 20
2002:15–27). The main advantage of the reflective model is a critical comment on 21
action with the view of possible improvement (Richards and Lockharts 1996:27; 22
Komorowska 2011:18). Much of the research focuses on teachers as learners with 23
the reflective skills (Roberts 1998:103–105; Perry 1997:188–191; Nikolic 24 AU2
2002:57–59). The general tendency is to instruct student-teachers to be reflective 25
in terms of planning, implementation and evaluation of their lessons, materials and 26
procedures (Richards 1996:120–121; Gabryś-Barker 2012:71–109). A reflection on 27

M. Stec (*)
University of Silesia, Cieszyn, Poland

D. Gabryś-Barker and A. Wojtaszek (eds.), Studying Second Language Acquisition

from a Qualitative Perspective, Second Language Learning and Teaching 27,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08353-7_5, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
 M. Stec

28 teaching that leads, among others, to the changing perception of language education
29 and improvement of classroom management skills, is a life-long process of teacher
30 development. Thus, a reflective teacher is perceived as an effective teacher (Nikolic
31 2002:57).
32 Teacher training and teacher development have been recognised as a continuum
33 because student-teachers pass through a number of stages in their professional
34 career (Woodward 1991:139–161; Potocka 2003:179–192; Stec 2009:51–60) and
35 are perceived as learners themselves (Dzierzgowska 2002:34–46; Foord 2009:49–
36 51; Hay 2010:29–34). The subject literature highlights the importance of both
37 practice and experience in the process of becoming the effective teacher (Pearson
38 1994:144–147; Perry 1997:170–192). Then, the appropriate knowledge and skills
39 are required for the cognitive development of student-teachers including “learning
40 to teach” skills (Potocka 2003:189–190; Woodward 2009:18–19).
41 Freeman and Johnson recognise teachers as individuals who begin teacher
42 training with their personal experiences, values and beliefs that influence their
43 teaching procedures and relations in a classroom as well as the results of children’s
44 holistic education (1998:397–411). Teachers’ perceptions of themselves, learners, AU3
45 knowledge and effective teaching may differ in a considerable degree and lead to
46 different teaching styles (Kennedy 1987:163–170; Edwards 1996:99–107; Child
47 1997:321–330). Still, their personal experiences, values and beliefs are perceived as
48 a frame of reference to their theory of language, language teaching, their role and
49 learners’ roles, practice and relations in a classroom (Richards 1998:51) or even the AU4
50 process of course design (Graves 2000:25–36). AU5
51 It is assumed that the project will change perspectives on the process of teaching
52 English to young learners. The idea is to follow reflection-for-action that links both
53 teaching experience (reflection-in-action) and knowledge used for the interpreta-
54 tion of the actions in a classroom (reflection-on-action) to reframe the attitude and
55 instruction, preparing them for better future teaching procedures (Farrell 2007:6 AU6
56 after Gabryś-Barker 2012:78–79). The results of this project are hoped to bring
57 implications for teacher development in primary schools.

58 2 Research Purpose

59 The purpose is to describe teachers’ reflections on their initial teaching experience.

60 The idea is to explore female’s and male’s actions, thoughts and emotions as they
61 present various attitudes and approaches to teaching English in primary schools.
62 Another idea is to develop a reflective practitioner model for English teachers in
63 primary schools.

64 2.1 Research Questions

65 The following research questions are designed for this investigation:

Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

(a) What are the positive aspects observed by female teachers? 66

(b) What are the positive aspects observed by male teachers? 67
(c) What are the negative aspects observed by female teachers? 68
(d) What are the negative aspects observed by male teachers? 69

2.2 Research Scheme and Description of the Instrument 70

The project involves two stages of the research. The first stage was the introduction 71
to the project. It was based on the SWOT evaluation model where respondents were 72
asked to comment in general on positive and negative aspects in their teaching 73
practice. The second stage was more detailed and divided into three levels including 74
recalling and reflecting on their first lessons as well as drawing conclusions for 75
future teaching procedures. 76
For the purpose of the research, a field-note/log was developed as the structured 77
form of reflections on initial teaching experiences (cf. Wallace 1998:54–64). The 78
instrument was entitled: My first experiences: post-lesson reflections, and the 79
following instruction was added: please describe and comment on your first expe- 80
rience in teaching. The instrument was divided into two parts. The first part was the 81
table with four sections—the following elements of the SWOT model: strengths, 82
weaknesses, opportunities and threats of their teaching process. The second part 83
included three groups of questions related to the level of recalling, reflecting and 84
drawing conclusions for their teaching career. Each level included three open 85
questions, which required a reflection on the past and some optional future actions 86
in a primary classroom. The recalling level included questions on issues which 87
happened differently as they had planned, on young learners’ comments and the 88
most difficult decisions for them during the first lessons. The reflecting level 89
included questions related to the best as well as the most uncomfortable elements 90
of their lessons plus achievements. The conclusions plus plans for future teaching 91
constituted the last level of this field-note and included questions on the possible 92
changes in their lessons and their opinions about the process of learning. Finally, 93
the respondents were asked to write a brief description of themselves as teachers 94
viewed from learners’ perspective. 95

2.3 Research Procedures 96

The investigation was performed in the spring 2013 among students of English 97
departments. The form of field-notes was distributed in two high schools and one 98
university in the region of Silesia and collected 1 month later. The respondents were 99
the third year students with their first year of teaching experience. They were 100
usually supported by a member of school-staff and a university-based tutor during 101
school practice. In total, there were 68 women (79 %) and 18 men (21 %), who have 102
 M. Stec

103 already been teaching English in primary schools. The respondents followed a BA
104 model of teacher education.
105 The females’ (F) and males’ (M) answers were coded, analysed and grouped into
106 the patterns in all stages, levels and sections. The results were compared in the
107 context of reflections on teaching English to children. In particular, the SWOT part
108 revealed similarities and differences between the two groups. Then, the pattern of
109 positive and negative aspects was established in three categories for each group. In
110 the same way, the results from recalling, reflecting and drawing conclusions levels
111 were compared and grouped into three subcategories.

112 3 Presentation and Interpretation of the Results

113 The results are presented here from two stages of the research in three categories for
114 each group of respondents.

115 3.1 The SWOT Part: Positive and Negative Reflections

116 The SWOT stage includes positive and negative comments provided by each group
117 of respondents. In particular, the first category of the results indicate the major
118 positive aspects observed by the respondents during their early teaching career. As
119 far as the females are concerned, the positive descriptions refer to the process of
120 learning to plan lessons. They point also at a wide range of materials, which can
121 stimulate good atmosphere in a primary classroom and motivate young learners to
122 pay attention during English lessons. The descriptions include comments on the
123 selection and implementation of different materials, which is illustrated in the
124 following example:
125 F1: I experienced how much time I have to devote before the lesson to plan it and make it
126 interesting, successful and teachable. I use different materials to catch their attention.

127 The second category of their positive reflections relates to their good interactions
128 and communication with young learners during English lessons. Namely, the
129 respondents like children for following instructions, cooperation and honesty in
130 providing comments and feedback. It is illustrated in the following reflection:
131 F1: They were very creative, talkative and take active part in the lesson, speaking English. I
132 made them eager to learn. I gained their sympathy and enjoyed teaching them. They were
133 open and honest talking about the tasks we covered.

134 The third category of positive reflections recorded by the female students is
135 related to the chances for self-development, which are perceived as the perfect
136 opportunities for testing different methods, procedures and materials used in an
137 English primary classroom. They perceive teaching as a challenge to put theory into
Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

practice, teaching a foreign language but also other aspects such as culture. The 138
example is as follows: 139
st nd
F1: I taught in the 1 and 2 grades in primary school. I could have seen on my own how 140
students acquire English at different levels, follow tasks and work with each other. Each 141
task should be prepared and tried. You get experience. I do not want to waste time for 142
preparing unsuccessful activities. 143

Their negative aspects (weaknesses and threats) observed during their teaching 144
practice include three categories of difficulties. The first one involves the problems 145
with discipline, control of children’s behaviour and getting children’s attention 146
during English lessons. It is illustrated in the following statement: 147

F1: It is the waste of time if I will not be able to keep the discipline. Young learners can be 148
very lazy and disruptive after the break. I feel uncomfortable when children are rude and 149
not interested in my lessons. It is chaos. 150

The second category of their negative reflections includes problems with being 151
flexible. Namely, these are difficulties with the implementation of changes during 152
English lessons and timing of the lesson stages or activities. They also feel nervous 153
about the amount of materials to be covered—course books and lesson plans. They 154
definitely feel less self-confident about time management. For example, the reflec- 155
tion is as follows: 156

F1: There is too much material to cover for children, there are high expectations. It is 157
difficult to follow the plan when I have to miss some elements of the lesson. I have problems 158
with time for everyone. I do not have time for talking with them. 159

The third category of negative aspects is associated with being nervous about 160
teaching mixed-ability groups and finally getting a job after the graduation. It is 161
depicted in the following statement: 162

F1: I am nervous about students who may ask me some questions I do not know the answers 163
to, for example a mixed-ability group with different levels, good and “weak” learners. Still, 164
after the graduation we do not know whether we will get this job of teaching or not. I worry 165
about it. 166

The results from the male student-teachers in the first part of the SWOT refer to 167
positive aspects linked with their first lessons. The majority of them perceive their 168
teaching experience as the opportunity to test themselves and their knowledge in 169
practice, which is illustrated in the following example: 170

M1: Teaching was the opportunity to test myself and my knowledge in practice. I observed 171
myself and my learners. 172

The second category of positive aspects, clearly reflected in their reports, relates 173
to the opportunity of testing materials, which is exemplified below: 174

M1: The class listened to me although I was uncertain and lacked self-confidence. I tested 175
myself and the course book. I was aware that I had to repeat everything a few times so my 176
learners would understand it better. 177
 M. Stec

178 The third category of positive aspects mentioned by the males refers to their
179 interactions and approaches to teaching children. They are aware of their role in an
180 English primary classroom. It is illustrated in the following reflection:
181 M1: Teaching English lesson is a chance to get to know the school environment where
182 approaches to learners differ. I always try to create the friendly atmosphere in my class. I
183 learn how to be patient. I want to be a good example for them.

184 As far as negative aspects are concerned, the results show that males weaknesses
185 and threats relate to the amount of materials to be covered and management of time
186 during lessons. It is depicted in the following remark:
187 M1: I spent too little time with students of lower level because I wanted to cover the whole
188 lesson plan. I relied on the course book and workbook too much and therefore some
189 elements of the lesson were boring. It is crazy how much we have to teach.

190 The second category of negative aspects recorded by these respondents refers to
191 the lack of experience in lesson planning, testing and grading children’s progress.
192 The example is as follows:
193 M1: I lacked self-confidence, I tested children’s progress and I was not sure about their
194 grades. Additionally, it is impossible to teach all content while the warm-up takes more time
195 than I planned.

196 Finally, negative aspects observed by the male student-teachers include also
197 difficulties with keeping control in a classroom, getting learners’ attention and
198 dealing with bad behaviour. It is illustrated in the following example:
199 M1: I am impatient and get nervous very quickly when learners are not quiet during my
200 lessons. I hate it when they talk over and over again, for example they are noisy after the
201 break.

202 3.2 Reflecting on the First Lessons and Drawing Conclusions

203 The results obtained in the second stage of the research are similar in nature to the
204 results from the first stage. In particular, the reflections in the recalling level
205 involves issues which happened differently as they had assumed. The females
206 complain in their field-logs about insufficient time to cover all the tasks prepared
207 in the lesson plans, learners’ disruptive behaviour and changes in the pace of
208 lessons. Similarly, the males also describe high expectations, too much material
209 for a 45 min lesson, difficulties with timing of tasks and learners’ disruptive
210 behaviour. One of them writes:
211 M1: Children walked around during my lesson. They were not paying attention as I
212 assumed, some of them were overactive and “destroyed it”.

213 Both the females’ and males’ reflections on children’s feedback are very posi-
214 tive. The respondents know that their learners are satisfied with English lessons and
215 feel excited about new teachers. Namely, one of student-teacher reveals:
Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

F1: It was refreshing for them to have a new teacher. They liked the topic as they did not 216
have to follow the course books all the time, but I had hand-outs. 217

In the last section of the recalling level, the respondents list the most difficult 218
decisions undertaken during English lessons. There are two major categories 219
described by them. On the one hand, these are decisions concerned with keeping 220
discipline in a classroom (punishment for bad behaviour), which are in fact the most 221
challenging for the females. For example, one of them writes: 222

F1: What shall I do when there are problems with discipline? How can I prepare for it 223
earlier? 224

On the other hand, it is difficult to evaluate, grade and assess learners’ knowl- 225
edge as the student-teachers are not so confident and are afraid of being unfair. In 226
case of the males, these are decisions linked firstly with establishing rules in a 227
classroom including punishment for bad behaviour. Secondly, these are decisions 228
associated with testing learners, error correction, which is exemplified below: 229

M1: The most difficult for me is test children’s knowledge and grade their work. I always 230
want to be fair. 231

As far as the reflecting part is concerned, the respondents describe the best 232
components of their lessons. The females’ descriptions focus, first of all, on the 233
good atmosphere, communication and interaction with learners, which is illustrated 234
below: 235

M1: I enjoy my lesson and interaction with young learners. I had fun and they had fun too. I 236
love working with children. I love when they listen to me and pay attention. 237

They seem to be proud reporting about a variety of materials they prepared for 238
the presentation of vocabulary and grammar. The males’ descriptions focus mainly 239
on listing activities such as TPR or drills, which are used in their teaching context. 240
Furthermore, the respondents comment on the most problematic and uncomfortable 241
part of their lessons. The females’ reflections are concerned mainly with the first 242
part (warm-ups, introductions, lead-ins) of their lessons because of discipline 243
problems, difficulty with learners’ attention after the break as well as presentation 244
of content (structures, vocabulary) to mixed-ability groups. The following example 245
illustrates their opinion: 246

F1: Warm-up/introduction was challenging; it is difficult to calm young learners down 247
after the break, they were distracted and impatient. 248

Similarly, the males also recognise the warm-ups and introductions as the most 249
challenging stages of the lessons. Another difficulty is linked with children’s 250
motivation during English lessons, and those learners, who are shy or are not 251
good at learning English. 252
In the last section of the reflecting level, the respondents describe their achieve- 253
ments in teaching English. The females reveal that they are happy about their 254
achievements only partly and want to improve their teaching skills. For example, 255
they are able to finish their lessons on time but are disappointed with learners’ 256
attention. The males head towards the improvement of teaching skills (grammar 257
 M. Stec

258 explanation) and classroom management skills linked with creating the positive
259 atmosphere in a classroom and positive attitude to learning English, which is
260 illustrated below:
261 M1: I improved my techniques of teaching English and enjoyed my lesson. Lastly I managed
262 to involve children in learning new words.

263 The last three sections of the post-lesson reflections are concerned with drawing
264 conclusions for further teaching practice. The respondents comment on the possible
265 innovations in the lessons which they had already taught. Namely, the females refer
266 to changes in terms of preparing more interesting tasks for English lessons and
267 treating children more individually. Still, they would like to change their attitude
268 towards discipline, and they want to be strict about rules as it is depicted in the
269 following remark:
270 F1: I would be more self-confident as I was not sure how to respond and react to their rude
271 questions and behaviour.

272 The males would like to pay more attention to timing and organization of the
273 lessons as well as preparation of more interesting materials. They want to spend less
274 time on checking learners’ attendance or homework.
275 Then, they define what they have learnt about the process of learning itself. The
276 females’ comments are linked with their growing awareness, how easy or difficult it
277 may be, how individual and complex learning may be in case of young learners. The
278 example shows:
279 F1: Children get bored easily, they are not machines, they are different and should be
280 taught differently.

281 The males describe the process of learning very individually in the context of
282 children. They become aware that each lesson (topic) can be organised and taught
283 in many different ways. Their major observation is that learning in Polish schools is
284 constrained by many rules, increasing requirements and plenty of materials.
285 Finally, all the respondents provide descriptions of themselves as teachers seen
286 from a learners’ perspective in the last part of the field-notes. The females describe
287 themselves as responsible, well-prepared, well-educated, talkative, smiling, calm,
288 creative, open-minded, friendly but also as demanding and unexperienced teachers.
289 The following example clarifies it:
290 F1: I am probably seen as the less experienced person (than their standard teacher), who is
291 trying to find solutions to different problems. I am a bit nervous but I want everybody to take
292 an active part in the lesson.

293 The males’ tendency is to describe themselves as nice, sympathetic, pleasant,

294 full of ideas, funny, patient and helpful teacher. The respondents (both females and
295 males) sometimes are not able to define themselves from learners’ perspective.
296 They describe only the actions in a classroom, which is demonstrated in the
297 following example:
298 M1: Teacher should expect unexpected, observe YL and be prepared for everything.
Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

4 Conclusions 299

A considerable amount of the positive aspects are noticed skilfully by the novice 300
teachers. The aspects observed by the female teachers are linked with their oppor- 301
tunities for practising lesson planning, developing good interactions in a classroom 302
and mainly improving their teaching skills. The positive aspects observed by the 303
male teachers are concerned with the opportunities for testing knowledge in 304
practice, testing teaching resources and their ideas as well as developing good 305
approach to young learners. 306
The respondents are able to record competently many problems and difficulties 307
characteristic for modern language teaching at this stage of schooling. The negative 308
aspects described by the females relate to discipline, timing and changes in lesson 309
plans, being nervous about following materials, getting young learners’ attention, 310
teaching mixed-ability groups and getting a job. The negative aspects observed by 311
the male teachers are similar in nature and refer to the extent of teaching materials, 312
insufficient experience in planning tasks or time, children’s assessment and bad 313
behaviour. In general, the females have a tendency to reflect more on planning 314
skills, approach to children and interactions with them. The males, on the contrary, 315
have a tendency to comment more on their competencies, the implementation of 316
ideas and materials in a classroom. The final conclusion refers to the manner in 317
which the females and males reflect on their experience. Both groups of the 318
respondents share similar reflections on bad discipline, lesson plans, pressure of 319
time and large amount of material to cover. Differences among their reflections are 320
linked with the description of emotions and actions such as implementation of 321
materials, procedures and approaches to the reality faced in an English primary 322
classroom. In particular, the females have a tendency to write more detailed 323
reflections in comparison with the males. 324
A number of implications may be drawn from this project. The most important 325
one is to prepare student-teachers for the reflection in stages. Namely, to start with 326
post-lesson comments after each lesson in the first year of practice, then head 327
towards writing more structured field-notes/logs, and finally to encourage them to 328
continue with more elaborate reports or diaries in their further teacher development. 329
It is estimated that student-teachers would be more willing to reflect on their 330
experience with reference to their particular teaching context. Another implication 331
is to develop a set of tools for the reflection (process-oriented evaluation) in English 332
teacher training for primary education. A search for the solutions to the difficulties 333
encountered by the respondents can become a further area of investigation. 334

References 335 AU7

Appel, J. 1995. Diary of a Language Teacher. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. 336

Bodoczky, C. and Malderez, A. 1996. Out into schools. In Changing Perspective in Teacher 337
Education, eds. P. Medgyes, A. Malderez, 58–75. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. 338
 M. Stec

339 Bogucka, M. 2007. The self-perception of early education teachers of English. In Teaching
340 Modern Languages to Young Learners, eds. M. Nikolov, J. Mihaljevic-Djigunovic, 47–57.
341 Graz: ECML, Council of Europe.
342 Carter, R. and D. Nunan, eds. 2001. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of
343 Other Language. Cambridge: CUP.
344 Child, D. 1997. Psychology and the Teacher. London: Cassell Education.
345 Dzierzgowska, I. 2002. Nauczanie nauczycieli. Podre˛cznik dla edukatora [Teaching teachers.
346 Course book for teacher educator]. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna.
347 Edwards, C. 1996. Learning to learn how to teach: developing expertise through experience. In
348 Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, eds. J. Willis, D. Willis, 99–107. Oxford:
349 Heinemann.
350 Foord, D. 2009. From “Me” to “My Profession”. ET Professional 60:49–51.
351 Freeman, D. 2001. Second language teacher education. In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching
352 English to Speakers of Other Language, eds. R. Carter, D. Nunan, 72–75. Cambridge: CUP.
353 Gabryś-Barker, D. 2012. Reflectivity in Pre-Service Teacher Education. A Survey of Theory and
354 Practice. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śla˛skiego.
355 Hay, E. 2010. Career paths in teacher training and trainer training. Teacher Development and
356 Education in Context, 29–34. www.britishcouncil.org Accessed 20 November 2013.
357 Kennedy, Ch. 1987. Innovating for a change: teacher development and innovation. ELT Journal
358 41/3:163–170.
359 Komorowska, H. 2002. Dobry nauczyciel – jego cechy i zachowania w świetle badań [A good
360 teacher – his characteristic features and behaviour in the light of research]. In Stopień po
361 stopniu. Rozwój zawodowy nauczycieli je˛zyków obcych, [Degree after degree. Professional
362 development of foreign language teachers], eds. H. Komorowska, D. Obidniak, 11–15. War-
363 szawa: PWN.
364 Komorowska, H., ed. 2003. Reforma w nauce je˛zyka obcego. Nowe programy i podre˛czniki
365 [Reform in teaching a foreign language. New syllabuses and course books]. Warszawa: IBN.
366 Komorowska, H. 2011. Paradigms in language teacher education. Issues in Promoting Multilin-
367 gualism – Teaching – Learning – Assessment, 9–34. Warszawa: FRSE.
368 Komorowska, H. and D. Obidniak, eds. 2002. Stopień po stopniu. Rozwój zawodowy nauczycieli
369 je˛zyków obcych [Degree after degree. Professional development of foreign language teachers].
370 Warszawa: PWN.
371 Larsen-Freeman, D. 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
372 Lee-McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: OUP.
373 McGrath, I. 2013. Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers. London: Bloomsbury.
374 Medgyes, P. and Malderez, A., eds. 1996. Changing Perspectives in Teacher Education. Oxford:
375 Macmillan Heinemann.
376 Nikolic, V. 2002. Taming Your Teacher Ego. ET Professional 22:57–59.
377 Nikolov, M. and J. Mihaljevic-Djigunovic, eds. 2007. Teaching Modern Languages to Young
378 Learners. Graz: ECML, Council of Europe.
379 Pearson, A. T. 1994. Nauczyciel – teoria i praktyka w kształceniu nauczycieli [Teacher – theory
380 and practice in teacher education]. Warszawa: WSiP.
381 Perry, R. 1997. Teoria i praktyka. Proces stawania sie˛ nauczycielem [Theory and practice. A
382 process of becoming a teacher]. Warszawa: WSiP.
383 Potocka, D. 2003. Paradygmaty wste˛pnego kształcenia nauczycieli je˛zyków obcych [Paradigms of
384 initial foreign language teacher education]. In Reforma w nauce je˛zyka obcego. Nowe
385 programy i podre˛czniki [Reform in teaching a foreign language. New syllabuses and course
386 books], ed. H. Komorowska, 179–192. Warszawa: IBN.
387 Richards, J. C. 1996. The Self-directed Teacher. Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge:
388 CUP.
389 Richards, J. C., Lockhart, Ch. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
390 Cambridge: CUP.
391 Roberts, J. 1998. Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.
Reflective Teaching in an English Primary Classroom

Scrivener, J. 1998. Learning Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. 392

Sikora-Banasik, D., ed. 2009. Wczesnoszkolne nauczanie je˛zyków obcych. Zarys teorii i praktyki 393
[Primary foreign language education. An outline of theory and practice]. Warszawa: CODN. 394
Stec, M. 2009. Nauczyciel je˛zyka obcego w edukacji wczesnoszkolnej [A foreign language 395
teacher in primary education]. In Wczesnoszkolne nauczanie je˛zyków obcych. Zarys teorii i 396
praktyki [Primary foreign language education. An outline of theory and practice], ed. 397
D. Sikora-Banasik, 51–60. Warszawa: CODN. 398
Štros, M. 1995. Understanding Teacher Development for Primary School, Age 4–10. Workshop, 399
no.6. Graz: Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages. 400
Szesztay, M. 1996. From learner to teacher. In: Changing Perspectives in Teacher Education, eds. 401
P. Medgyes, A. Malderez, 36–46. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. 402
Ur, P. 2001. Check it out. ET Professional 21:5–8. 403
Wallace, M. J. 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. 404
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. The incentive value of theory in teacher education. ELT Journal 38:87–89. 405
Willis, J. and D. Willis, eds. 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: 406
Heinemann. 407
Woodward, T. 1991. Models and Metaphors in Language Teacher Training. Cambridge: CUP. 408
Woodward, T. 2009. I think, therefore I learn. ET Professional 60:18–19. 409
 Author Queries
Chapter No.: 5 324495_1_En

Query Refs. Details Required Author’s response

AU1 The citation “Perry, 2000” (original)
has been changed to “Perry 1997”
here and in subsequent occurrence.
Please check if appropriate.
AU2 “Freeman and Johnson (1998)” is
cited in text but not given in the
reference list. Please provide details
in the list or delete the citation from
the text.
AU3 “Richards 1998” is cited in text but
not given in the reference list. Please
provide details in the list or delete the
citation from the text.
AU4 “Graves 2000” is cited in text but not
given in the reference list. Please
provide details in the list or delete the
citation from the text.
AU5 “Farrell 2007” is cited in text but not
given in the reference list. Please
provide details in the list, if applic-
able, or delete the citation from the
text.
AU6 Reference(s) “Bodoczky and Malder-
ez (1996); Bogucka (2007); Carter
and Nunan (2001); Freeman (2001);
Komorowska (2003); Komorowska
and Obidniak (2002); Larsen-Free-
man (1986); Medgyes and Malderez
(1996); Nikolov and Mihaljevic-Dji-
gunovic(2007); Scrivener (1998); Si-
kora-Banasik (2009); Štros (1995);
Szesztay (1996); Ur (2001); Wid-
dowson (1984); Willis and Willis
(1996)” are not cited in text. Please
cite or delete it from the list.

View publication stats