Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

ISSN: 1750-1229 (Print) 1750-1237 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Using cases in EFL/ESL teacher education

Gertrude M. Tinker Sachs & Belinda Ho

To cite this article: Gertrude M. Tinker Sachs & Belinda Ho (2011) Using cases in EFL/
ESL teacher education, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5:3, 273-289, DOI:
10.1080/17501229.2010.537755

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.537755

274 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 3, November 2011, 273−289

INNOVATIVE PRACTICE
Using cases in EFL/ESL teacher education
Gertrude M. Tinker Sachsa* and Belinda Hob

MSIT Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA; bDepartment of English,
a

City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

(Received 4 January 2010; final version received 30 October 2010)

We believe that the use of cases in teacher education has not been fully explored
or fully utilized as a means of fostering professional discourse on teaching,
particularly in English as a second/foreign language teacher learner contexts. This
paper describes the process of developing cases for teacher education. In it we
report on how our cases were field-tested and we illustrate the types of
discussions that can emerge in an EFL teacher education class. Feedback from
our teacher education students indicates that they appreciate the learning
opportunities provided by case-based methodology. Cases can be used to support
the development of reflective practice and bridge the gap between theory and
practice with both in-service and pre-service teachers. We contend that the
development of cases for use in a variety of educational and teacher-educator
research contexts is needed.
Trong bài báo này, tác giả cho rằng việc sử dụng trường hợp
(case) trong đào tạo giáo viên chưa được khai thác hoặc sử
dụng đầy đủ như một phương tiện để khuyến khích cuộc trò
chuyện chuyên nghiệp về giảng dạy, đặc biệt là trong ngữ pháp
tiếng Anh như một ngôn ngữ thứ hai/ ngoại ngữ. Bài báo mô tả
quá trình phát triển trường hợp cho đào tạo giáo viên, báo cáo
về cách các trường hợp của chúng tôi được thử nghiệm tại hiện
trường và minh họa các loại cuộc thảo luận có thể nảy sinh
trong lớp đào tạo giáo viên tiếng Anh như một ngôn ngữ thứ
hai. Phản hồi từ sinh viên đào tạo giáo viên của chúng tôi cho
thấy họ đánh giá cao cơ hội học tập được cung cấp bởi phương
pháp dựa trên trường hợp. Trường hợp có thể được sử dụng để
hỗ trợ phát triển thực hành phản ánh và chắp cánh sự chênh
lệch giữa lý thuyết và thực tiễn với cả giáo viên trong và ngoài
khối đào tạo. Chúng tôi cho rằng cần phát triển các trường hợp
để sử dụng trong các bối cảnh nghiên cứu giáo dục và giáo
viên giảng dạy khác nhau.

Introduction
One criticism that is consistently directed at teacher education programs is the
perceived lack of carry-over and distance from what is taught in the institution of
study to what is done in practice in the real classroom situation (Putnam and Borko
2000; Singh and Richards 2006). Such criticism is derived from varied research
findings (e.g. Henry 1986; Pennington 1996; Pigge 1978; Richards and Pennington
1998; Smylie 1989) and from conversations with and observations of novice
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 275
teachers in videotaped lessons (Tinker Sachs 2002; Tinker Sachs and Lin 1997).
Weaknesses in the student teachers’ preparation have also been found in the area of
procedural knowledge, knowledge about learners and general unpreparedness for the
classroom such as dealing with unmotivated students (Kagan 1992). Prospective
teachers need to learn to struggle with issues of management, social roles, and
classroom routines (Richards 1996) as well as master the content knowledge of
teaching and learning (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage 2005). It is felt
that student teachers are not coming to see teaching as deliberate action, nor are they
developing the ability to use knowledge to inform their work (Edmundson 1990). In
general, it appears that novice teachers also have not formed an awareness of the
multidimensionality of teaching (Calderhead and Robson 1991).
Một trong những chỉ trích thường được đưa ra đối với chương trình đào tạo giáo
viên là thiếu sự liên kết và khoảng cách giữa những gì được dạy trong cơ sở đào
tạo và những gì được thực hành trong tình huống lớp học thực tế (Putnam và
Borko 2000; Singh và Richards 2006). Sự chỉ trích này được rút ra từ các kết quả
nghiên cứu đa dạng (ví dụ như Henry 1986; Pennington 1996; Pigge 1978;
Richards và Pennington 1998; Smylie 1989) và từ các cuộc đối thoại với và quan
sát của các giáo viên mới bắt đầu trong các bài học được quay trên video (Tinker
Sachs 2002; Tinker Sachs và Lin 1997). Các yếu điểm trong sự chuẩn bị của các
giáo viên sinh viên cũng được tìm thấy ở lĩnh vực kiến thức về thủ tục, kiến thức
về học sinh và sự không chuẩn bị chung cho lớp học như là cách giải quyết với
những học sinh không có động lực (Kagan 1992). Những giáo viên tiềm năng
cần phải học cách giải quyết vấn đề quản lý, vai trò xã hội và thói quen trong lớp
học (Richards 1996) cũng như nắm vững kiến thức về nội dung giảng dạy và học
tập (Bransford, Darling-Hammond và LePage 2005). Cảm giác của mọi người là
các giáo viên sinh viên không nhìn thấy việc dạy học là hành động chủ đích và
cũng không phát triển được khả năng sử dụng kiến thức để thực hiện công việc
của mình (Edmundson 1990). Nói chung, có vẻ như các giáo viên mới cũng chưa
nhận thức được sự đa chiều của việc giảng dạy (Calderhead và Robson 1991).

Johnson (1999) cites another problem in teacher education programs which

contribute to novice teachers’ difficulties. She describes this problem as the linear
and decontextualized presentation of knowledge and methods with the belief that
these could be ‘generalised to any teaching context’ (8). Johnson (1999)
contends that knowledge in many teacher education programs is presented as
‘oversimplified’ and transmitted through ‘passive instructional strategies such as
course readings, lectures, exams, and term papers’ (8). Like Johnson, Uber
Grosse (1991) had also added to the litany of complaints about teacher education
programs in general and second language teacher education in particular. Uber
Grosse surveyed TESOL methods courses in 120 teacher preparation programs in
the USA. Amongst the five areas for improvement in their methods courses, Uber
Grosse’s respondents cited ‘greater emphasis on solving classroom problems’ (40).
Amongst Uber Grosse’s recommendations are the need for more attention to
reflective teaching and the empowerment of teachers through active involvement in
the decision-making process in the classroom. There is, however, one missing
component from Uber Grosse’s study: the teacher-learners themselves. Freeman
and Richards (1993) contend that, ‘efforts to assess methods apart from the teacher
who implements them, the setting and learners with whom they are being
276 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho
implemented are fallacious’ (209). Freeman and Richards (1993) believe that we
need to keep at the forefront of our discussions, teaching issues that relate to the
thinking and reasoning which motivate different teaching practices. In her
doctoral dissertation, Swartz Zitlow (1986) agreed that teacher educators should
be concerned more with pre-service teachers’ guiding frameworks than training as
technicians. When teacher learning is viewed from the perspective of professional
development there is another pessimistic outlook. Smylie (1996) puts it this way:
‘professional development as it is generally practiced, has a terrible reputation
among scholars, policy-makers, and educators alike as being pedagogically
unsound, economically inefficient, and of little value to teachers’ (10).
In general, our conventional approaches to teacher education have been based
on the separated view of knowledge acquisition and application. J. Shulman
(1992) believes that the separation of theory and practice may be attributed to
teacher educators’ reliance on theoretical research, which usually becomes
‘impossible’ when applied to the classroom by both neophytes and veteran
teachers (xiii). Indeed, in commenting on the design of teacher education
programs in the 1980s and 1990s, Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) in their
review of research found problems related to: inadequate time for teacher
preparation; fragmentation of coursework such as professional skills; uninspired
teaching methods; superficial curriculum; and traditional views of schooling
prevailing (447). More progressive approaches contend that knowledge is
interactive and situated, and develops from the context of use (e.g. Lave 1988;
Lave and Wenger 1991; Resnick 1989). In reviewing the status of teacher
learning and current theoretical constructs, Putnam and Borko (2000) adopt a
sociocultural perspective of cognition being social, cultural, and historical (after
Lave and Wenger 1991). That is they see teacher learning, in both in-service and
pre-service teacher education, as situated in the various settings of in-school and
outside of school, in which different kinds of knowing and learning take place.
Lave (1991) would see these learning events as, ‘ .. . relations among people
engaged in activity in with, and rising from the socially and culturally structured
world’ (original italics, 67). In other words, teachers are said to learn best when
they are actively involved in their own learning and when their opportunities to
learn are situated in the everyday tasks of teaching. Smylie (1996) states that
teacher opportunities to
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 277

learn should be problem-oriented, grounded in inquiry, experimentation, and

reflection; they should be collaborative, involving interaction with other teachers
and educators as sources of new ideas, and these opportunities should be on-
going (10). Lave (1991) also sees this situated learning ‘as a process of becoming a
member of a sustained community of practice’ (65). Participating in a community of
practice gives one access to a knowledgeable skill and helps to shape one’s identity.
This overall social constructivist view of learning as opposed to a traditional
individualistic transmissive view of education promotes the interaction of prior
knowledge with new knowledge and pushes for internalization and deep under-
standing. Richardson (1997) puts it this way:

In the constructivist view, learning cannot be separated from action: perception and
action work together in a dialogical manner. And there is no representation of
reality that is privileged or ‘correct’. There are instead, a variety of interpretations
that are useful for different purposes in different contexts. (8)

Teaching has been described as an ‘ill-structured domain similar to medicine,

history, and law’ (L. Shulman 1992, 24), and as such demands multiple
representations and ways of seeing. Many of these representations come in the form
of narrative modes of inquiry which are ‘specific, local, personal; and
contextualised’ or very different from paradigmatic or generalized scientific forms
of knowing, which tend to have the opposite characteristics (L. Shulman 1992, 22).
Connelly and Clandinin (1994) illustrate how matters of the ‘personal’ are central to
teacher education, teacher development, and the improvement of schools. In an
entire issue of Teacher Education Quarterly, winter 1994, which was devoted to
using personal histories in teacher education (Vol. 21, 1), Connelly and Clandinin
and others in the issue contend that the dominant metaphors of teacher education are
too narrow and restrictive and ignore the personal. Connelly and Clandinin (1994)
instead encourage us to view teacher education as reconstruction or from a narrative
perspective as the education of teachers is not linear but a ‘process of rethinking and
rebuilding the past’ (149). The reconstructive metaphor also ‘allows teacher
educators to make sense of their teaching and learning as expressions of their
personal practical knowledge’ (149).
Goodson and Cole (1994) state that the development of case studies, life stories,
and narratives that seek to elicit teachers’ personal practical knowledge as well as
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (L. Shulman 1986, 1987), must also go
beyond a narrow view to include the micro-political and contextual realities of
school life. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge goes beyond the knowledge
of the content one is teaching to specific ways of teaching such as ‘the ways
of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others’
(L. Shulman 1986, 9). The dilemma that continues to haunt teacher educators, in
particular, and other teaching professionals in fields such as law, medicine, and
business (J. Shulman 1992) in general, is how to bridge the gap between the
academy and the school while simultaneously effectively reducing the gap between
theory and practice. There are several recommendations for how this could be done.
Educators talk about adopting developmental and inquiry-oriented models in our
teacher education practice (e.g. Richards 1989; Richards and Lockart 1994), which
would encourage active problem solving and more engaging reflective teaching
approaches. In 1983, Celce-Murcia had argued that, ‘successful language teaching
involves a great deal of problem solving and that problem solving should be
systematically included
278 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

in language teacher preparation’ (103). Celce-Murcia (1983) felt that problem

solving would help to integrate content and practical courses and in general improve
novices’ problem solving skills. A means of effecting problem solving and similar
recom- mendations is through the adoption of cognitive apprenticeship approaches
pertinent to the field of second language teacher education (Johnson 1996). This
would mean acquiring skills and knowledge of teaching in social and functional
contexts through authentic activities (e.g. Feiman-Nemser and Remillard 1996;
Johnson 1996;
J. Shulman 1992). These authentic activities could be derived from cases which
provide rich contextualized descriptions of teachers’ work. Teachers’ stories
embedded in cases also capture the richness of teaching in the teachers’ own voices.
Practical arguments in cases also provide another approach for developing problem
solving from which the teacher learner transforms his/her knowledge through the
empirical and situational premises of the argument (L. Shulman 1992). Cases situate
teaching and foster the learning of concepts and the development of reasoning and
problem solving, which is similar to real teaching (Feiman-Nemser and Remillard
1996; Wright 2010).
Richert (1991) describes cases as ‘stories that typically include the actions,
thoughts, beliefs and feelings of both the teachers and the students’ (136). She
believes that the descriptive nature of cases ‘provides an opportunity for presenting
teachers’ work in all of its complexity’ (136). Bailey (2006, 26) believes that
‘reviewing and interpreting cases with classmates or colleagues can lead to fruitful
(and even heated) discussion.’ Pedagogical reasoning and decision-making is said
to be one of the five core components of a good second language teacher education
program. The other components are general teaching skills, language proficiency,
subject matter knowledge, and personal theory of teaching (Richards 1997). Case
discussions can bring these five components together, especially pedagogical
reasoning and decision-making. These discussions can reveal insights into how
teacher learners are internalizing and coming to terms with key teaching issues,
theories, concepts, and methodologies. Discussions can also be used as data for
understanding teachers’ cognitions and conceptulizations (e.g. Copeland and Decker
1996; Moje and Wade 1997; Swartz Zitlow 1986). Classroom discussions in general
are said to provide opportunities for students’ active engagement in learning (e.g.
Gebhard 2005; Larson 2000; Singh and Richards 2006) and foster communities of
practice which were discussed earlier (Lave 1991).
Merseth (1998) believes that ‘studying cases of teachers in real-life situations can
help new teachers bridge the gap between theory and practice’ (30).
Above all the use of cases enhances reflective thinking about teaching in a social
setting. Reflective thinking about teaching can lead teachers to analyze and theorize
their practice and bridge the theory/practice divide (Darling-Hammond et al. 2005,
408). Johnson (2009) also argues that from a sociocultural perspective, language
teacher education should be: ‘a transformative process of making sense of classroom
experience through the theoretical constructs of the broader professional discourse
community and vice versa, which enables teachers to reconceptualize the way they
think about teaching and student learning’ (98). The rich contexts and descriptions
of cases can facilitate the transformative possibilities of our teacher learners.
Discussions of authentic cases can begin to address these issues and accommodate
social constructivist/cultural and humanistic views of teaching and learning.
In 1986, the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching recommended that teaching cases
should be developed ‘as a major focus of instruction’ (76) (cited in J. Shulman
1992).
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 279

From that time to the present, numerous publications on cases for teaching purposes
have emerged (e.g. J. Shulman 1992; J. Shulman and Mesa-Baines 1993; Lundeberg,
Levin, and Harrington 1999; Richards 1998). However, in language education,
Bailey (2006) states that while cases have been used in business, law, and general
education they have been ‘less widely used in language teacher development’ and in
the context of her book, ‘less in the preparation of language teacher supervisors’
(27). In EFL/ESL contexts, few cases exist (Bailey 2006; Johnson 2000; Richards
1998; Tinker Sachs and Ho 2007).

The purpose and context of our research

In response to Grossman (2005) when she states that ‘researchers need to be more
explicit in describing the characteristics of cases used in the teacher education
classroom’ (442), this paper seeks to delineate how our cases were developed and
field-tested in the teacher education classroom. This field-testing of the cases took
place with undergraduate student teachers in a BA in Teaching English as a Second
Language program in Hong Kong. Following field-testing, the cases were then edited
and published in a book by the authors (Tinker Sachs and Ho 2007). Thirty-eight
second and final year student teachers and three professors participated in field-
testing the cases.

Development of our cases

In developing cases, other writers have sought to present different types of cases,
such as the dilemma or problem-based case (e.g. Harrington, Quinn-Leering, and
Hodson 1996; Richards 1998; Tippins, Koballa, and Payne 2002), the methodolo-
gical cases and decision-making cases (e.g. Merseth 1992), leadership-based cases
(e.g. Bailey 2006), course-based and/or program-based cases (e.g. Johnson 2000),
narratives of teachers’ lives (e.g. Connelly and Clandinin 1988), or cases devised to
teach different theoretical viewpoints (e.g. Buchholz and Rosenthal 2001). Cases can
also come in video formats as in the work of Copeland and Decker (1996) to further
teacher cognition. They may also be written by teacher educators or by teachers
themselves as a form of enquiry (e.g. Arellano et al. 2001; Reichelt 2000).
In trying to embrace the rich contexts of cases, we set out first to capture
authentic teaching contexts in the development of our cases. We sought to depict
current classroom practices and through our case discussions, have teachers discuss
the merits of different teaching theories, beliefs, and practices. The five stages in the
development of our cases are enumerated below.

Stage 1: identifying the participants

The teachers in the Bachelor degree program on Teaching English as a Second
Language (BATESL) and the Master’s degree program on Teaching English as a
Second Language (MATESL) together with their teacher friends were our main
contacts and volunteers. When the teachers were contacted and had indicated
interest in joining the project, letters were sent to the principals of their schools so
that the teachers could obtain official approval to participate.
280 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

Stage 2: interviewing the teachers

These teachers were then interviewed to collect background information about their
schools, their classes, their own experiences, beliefs, and practices in teaching and
learning English. This was a very important stage as it enabled us to provide the
reader with the context for the specific case.

Stage 3: videotaping the lessons

Each teacher then chose a convenient time for three to five of his or her lessons to be
videotaped. These were the teachers’ regular lessons which were not especially
designed for our project.

Stage 4: preparing the cases

After videotaping the lessons, the researchers viewed the lessons and selected
interesting episodes to be included in the cases. Questions were noted during the
viewing process and the teachers were interviewed for the second time to collect
their reactions and explanations for the selected episodes and to clarify any other
researcher questions.

Stage 5: testing and refining the cases

After the cases were developed, they were sent to the teachers for comments and
approval. These cases were then field-tested by the researchers and other local and
international colleagues. Based on the information collected from the field-tests, the
cases were then edited and refined. Figure 1 depicts the development of our cases.

Description of the cases used in the study

Because cases can be episodic in nature, in the first part of each case, information
was provided on the context such as the school, the class and the teacher’s beliefs
and practices. This was to provide important background for the reader to appreciate
the teacher’s work context and beliefs and offset the difficulties attributed to lack of
contextual information to fully appreciate the case. The main part of the case
contained the events. This section started with an overview of the lesson, followed
by a transcription of a selected episode from the lesson. The teacher’s comments
followed the transcriptions. Following the comments were questions to scaffold the

Context

Event

Teacher’s comments

Discussion questions

Case commentary

Figure 1. Description of our cases.

 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 281

readers’ discussion. In a few of the cases, the views of the students on the lesson
were provided. Five cases were used in this project. These cases, along with others,
can be found in Tinker Sachs and Ho (2007).

Procedures for carrying out our case discussions

Table 1 depicts some of the various formats that can be used to present and utilize
cases. Our cases were presented procedurally so that methodologies and theories
may be reconstructed and problems may be situated within the multidimensionality
of teaching. However, in all of the suggested formats, the teacher educator/teacher
developer plays the role of facilitator, except where an asterisk (*) is given, when
s/he may give direct input. McAninch (1995) states that one of the shortcomings of
case- based methodology is that it can be difficult to carry out and that it can place
extra

Table 1. Case presentation formats.

Field-test
presentation
format Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Read case sections
− teacher, *Give an Read case Read discussion Read case
school, lesson overview of the sections questions commentary
overview, case background − teacher, school,
episodes (teacher, school, lesson overview,
lesson overview) teacher’s
comments
Discuss the initial Read episodes Respond *Give an Respond
questions overview of the
case background
(teacher, school,
lesson overview)
Read the teacher’s Respond to the Read episodes Read case Read case
comments case, initial and discussion sections: teacher, sections: teacher,
questions questions school, lesson school, lesson
overview, overview,
episodes, episodes,
teacher’s teacher’s
comments comments
Read the Read teacher’s Write response Respond to the Discuss your
discussion comments and discussion response and
questions case questions compare and
commentary contrast with the
case
commentary
Respond Respond Discuss response Connect to Respond to the
readings discussion
questions
Read case Connect to other Read case Prepare written Compare and
commentary teaching topics commentary response contrast
(not included in response with
our field tests) possible answers
Respond Write a response Pursue suggested
readings for
further study
282 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

demands on already overburdened teacher educators. However, we believe that it is

best to adapt and modify any procedures to suit the purposes and contexts of
different programs in order to address potential shortcomings. In essence, it was
hoped that through offering teacher educators different presentation formats for
our cases, flexibility and creativity could be encouraged. In field-testing our cases,
we followed the procedures outlined in Table 1. The professors incorporated a
discussion format in their regular teacher education classes as time allowed. In the
next section, we examine one example of the types of discussions that took place
about one of our cases.

Case discussion
The following is an excerpt from one of our field-tests of six final year student
teachers’ discussion on one of our cases. The discussion demonstrates how cases can
be used to examine teaching and learning in the pre-service teacher education
classroom. In this excerpt, the student teachers have read the case and are now
giving their initial response to the case before reading the teacher’s comments and
working with the questions. ‘S’ denotes ‘student’ and the numeral, the number
assigned to distinguish the different speakers.
S2: When I ... first er ... read the class script here, I thought that the proficiency of the
students is not very good. And even after they are drilled with a certain pattern,
they still can’t make ... they still can’t make a request by using the pattern that the
teacher taught them.
S3: I think Mr Chan, yes, as she said, although the students are in low proficiency, the
teacher is very patient with the students, and I think he believes strongly in the
audiolinguistic approach, that is, he wants lots of drilling and drilling, always in
pairs repeating the patterns.
S4: I think the lesson is quite mechanical. The teacher reads a sentence, and students
follow him to say the sentence. I think this way of teaching is quite mechanical,
but the . . . they can . . . learn to be more accurate from drilling.
S5: I also agree with Maria that the teacher is patient, and I think he can teach the
students in a clear way. Because he wrote down all the things he said, especially
the structure and the form of how to make a request, and taught the students how
to give the answer, I think it is good.
S6: I think it’s better for Mr. Chan . . . to, to, let the students to, to try to make a
request themselves, rather than they . . . (unclear) and the teacher gives the answer
for them.
S3: I am not sure whether the . . . situation is written on a worksheet or not. I think it’s
better to have a worksheet, and giving some situations or some controlled practice.
And after this, the kids can figure out the dialogue for themselves.
S2: It seems that . .. the students are not able to make a request after the lesson.
(they laugh) um . .. (S1: I think so) Would it be possible or better if the teacher
can give more drilling to them? Because the students seem not to be able to
produce the structure or form.

S1: Do you mean the teacher should use, to have more drilling exercise?
S5: I think the teacher can give more examples to the students before asking them for a
request.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 283

S3: And also we can let the students pair up to discuss. Because I think that
individually the students are quite low in proficiency, if pair work is carried out
before individually asking them, the students may feel more comfortable to make
a request.
S1: And also I think that the teacher should not state out the rules, or the ‘can I . . . ’ is
less polite, ‘could I .. . ’ is more polite, and want to express some important news,
would you mind some . . . I think rather, other than these three kinds of requests,
we still have other types to request others to do something. For example, ‘may I do
something?’
S3: But the teacher wants to focus on these three types and wants to compare between
the three levels. So that’s why he did that.
S1: Then it seems just like a traditional way − students have to memorize all the words
also.
S3: Yes, but I think it’s good that Mr. Chan .. . I remember in one dialogue, he said, in
a text, there is a lot of words, and then I appreciate that Mr. Chan wrote out the
main idea. He presents the main idea, so that the students will . . . It’s easier for
the students to follow.
S4: I think it is good that the teacher wants the feedback from them in the lesson.
Because they are not familiar, because the students can’t make a request after the
lesson, if they are given feedback, they will just ... expand.
S3: In the pattern, Mr. Chan makes use of some, some exercises, like . . . so that the
students can at least make a request by themselves. Because if you have no free
practice, then the situation will be like this.
S1: But if their proficiency can, is so low that they can’t make a request, then it’s
meaningless to have the free practice. Is it?

S3: Maybe semi-controlled.

S5: I think it is more semi-controlled.

S3: But I wonder why the students will automatically repeat what Mr. Chan said.
S6: Maybe they have a tradition . . . They do the same thing for every lesson,
maybe. They got used to drilling (laughter and they read the second question).
What do ...
S5: I also noticed one more thing. When the teacher asked the student to make a
request, and when the student gave the response, ‘no’, he had set the situation for
you to say, you must say ‘yes’ .. .
S3: Yes, because Mr. Chan wants the students to familiarize themselves with the
positive answer first, and then after that he .. .
S5: But it seems that he controlled, it seems that, that, they are not responding with
their own thinking . . . yeah, the restricted answers.
S4: In this way, the student can practice both answers, both the positive answers and
negative answers.
S5: Yes, but maybe if the student say no for the first time, then the teacher can ask the
student, ‘if you don’t want it, if you want it, what would you say?’ They can
practise both.

S1: That means the teacher makes his own choice. First, it seems that the student may
think that ‘I am wrong’. (S1: yeah) And this may lower their motivation.
284 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

S3: Also I think the three patterns, ‘can you . . . ’, ‘could you . . . ’ and ‘would you
mind .. . ’, the answering pattern is very different. Because if you want to ask
somebody, ‘would you mind helping me to do other things?’ If you don’t mind,
you have to answer, ‘no, I don’t mind.’ Is it? No, of course not. But I think
students can’t figure this rule . . .

S5: I think so.

S1: I think the number of students that can participate in .. . I mean the students
who talked with the teacher are not too many, the teacher only goes, went to
two or three individual students, and then asked them to give response to him.

I think that’s not enough, I think maybe the other students will be lost or they
will only sit on their seats and do not have any chance to practise. And not the
whole class can participate in this case. Um . . .
S6: Maybe the teacher can set up a pair work first, before he went to the individual
students. They can have the follow up activities for the, for the individual oral
practice. Isn’t it?
S3: I think before the individual request, they should have pair work. And then after,
after the pair work, the teacher will ask individual students to speak in front of
class.
S6: Yes, at least, at least they can negotiate the pattern with their students, with their
partners. They, they maybe have more confidence when they answer the teacher’s
questions.
S5: I also think that there’s a need to do pair work in the lesson. And after the pair
work, students, the teacher can pick up two to three pairs to come out and make a
request and give a response. So that the teacher can see whether they can really
master the, the language, the sentence.

In the preceding excerpt, the student teachers are engaged in a high level of
discussion. They discussed the pros and cons of the teacher’s approach, they
considered the teacher’s rationale for his teaching practices and they made
recommendations for other ways of teaching, such as bringing in more pair work
and more opportunities for the students to practice before coming up to the front of
the class. They questioned the students’ uptake of the different forms of request
despite the drilling. An interesting observation was also made about the students’
lack of input and language creativity as all the language forms were presented by the
teacher. However, while they questioned uptake, they could all see the usefulness of
the teacher’s approach even though there were learning problems. During the
discussion there are a few instances where the student teachers laughed during
moments of common ‘shared’ understanding. In their view of, ‘maybe it’s the
tradition . . . ’, they are recognizing their own lived history of learning in this
context. But, despite this, their learning in the teacher education classroom is
pushing them to question the efficacy of this tradition of drilling, if the students are
not learning. In other words, this is an opportunity through their case discussion
for these teacher learners to: ‘reorganize their lived experience through the
theoretical constructs and discourses that are publicly recognized and valued within
the professional discourse community’ (Johnson 2009, 98). In these teachers’
professional community and personal history, drilling and memorizing are very
much part of their learning history and they know both the strengths and limitations
of drilling (Watkins and Biggs 2001). However, in the transcript the teacher learners
make explicit the
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 285

limitations and want students to create their own dialog. Wong (2006) sees this
desire as pushing toward ‘a more dialogic approach’ (35) that opens the way for
learning and for genuine communication.
It is interesting that in the entire excerpt, the teacher educator is absent from
this discourse and as facilitator, s/he should be. But what might be useful is a round-
up of the main points brought out by the groups at the whole class level to further
expound on possible dilemmas and alternative viewpoints. The teacher educator’s
role can vary according to the different procedural formats presented earlier in Table
1 but in this particular case, it might have been useful for the teacher educator to
make explicit some of the strengths and challenges of drilling, for example. The
rounding-up could take place after or before reading the teacher’s comments and
working with the questions that we provided for all the cases, as outlined in our case
procedures in Table 1.

Feedback on the utility of the case method

The feedback from our 38 second and final year student teachers who participated
in our field-tests with the support of our three colleagues indicates that all of
them found our cases suitable in their format, content, length, difficulty level,
and processing time. They and the teacher educators, however, wanted to read the
students’ response to the lesson, which we were unable to provide for this particular
case. For all of the students and professors this was their first time working with
case- based methodology. All the students and teacher educators found the approach
useful for learning but only 26 of the 38 (68.4%) found the approach interesting. The
following comments are some of the reasons given by the students (Table 2).
While some students may not have found the case-based approach interesting,
nearly all of them (29 or 76.3%) indicated that they had learnt something from the
case. Eleven of the students opted not to qualify their answers, but the other 27
(71%) that did offer us some insights into what they learned (Table 3).

Appropriateness of using cases in different cultural contexts

Some may question the cultural appropriateness of case discussions in certain
teaching contexts and particularly when the medium of the discussion is not the
students’ mother tongue. Thompson (2000) pursues the cultural appropriateness of a
western imported teaching style in reporting on his case-based work, in English,
with
76 MBA students in Beijing, China. The results from his questionnaire survey

Table 2. Why did you find this kind of activity useful?

Help us reflect and prepare. 1
It makes us think about what we would do if we are in the same situation. 1
It really gives us a real situation for us to think it over and analyze. 1
Learn skills and approaches through discussion of the case. 2
Let us brainstorm the alternative way of performing the lesson. 2
We have more opportunities to be exposed to different teaching methods. 2
We can learn from a real classroom. 2
We can learn from other students. 1
We can learn the pros and cons of using a particular teaching technique. 2
286 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

Table 3. Have you learnt anything from the case? What have you learnt?

Merits and demerits of different approaches in real situation. 2

Reality doesn’t really correspond with our ‘beliefs’. We should constantly be alert of 1
the situation.
The audiolingual approach and modification of the case, things that can be done 2
better. We also discuss some issues of communicative language teaching approach.
The real practice of teaching in Hong Kong; the strategies used by the teacher. 2
Their strength and weakness. 1
Using audiolingual teaching method in the whole lesson would be quite boring. Also, 2
combination of communicative and audiolingual teaching approach should be used
in HK English language classroom.
We can learn from the teacher’s merits of the lesson. 1
We can think of the merits and demerits of certain teaching methods through 1
discussion.
We learned the weakness and strengths of Mr. Chan’s methodology in teaching. 1

showed that business students in China are receptive to this way of teaching. Jackson
(1999), working in Hong Kong again with business students and employing a more
in-depth ethnographic approach, examined the students’ response to the language of
instruction in case-based learning (in English) and participants’ participation,
amongst other factors. Jackson’s respondents indicated that they felt confident to
prepare and present their cases in either English or Chinese but expressed difficulty
in understanding the cultural contexts of western-based cases. In observing students’
participation during case discussions and in follow-up interviews, Jackson (1999)
reports that students did not volunteer ideas. When interviewed about this, the
students expressed concern about their level of English and the validity of their
contributions. Jackson acknowledges that there is a problem of getting students to
take an active role in discussions and that this might be probably more acute for
Chinese students who ‘tend to be more reserved and reticent than their western
counterparts’ (73). Tsui (1996) offers similar insights in her findings on Hong Kong
secondary students learning English. However, there are ways to overcome problems
of reticence in the university setting for case-based work. Jackson’s students provide
the following suggestions:

S Focus on presentation skills.

S Help students to develop the ability to argue, defend, and negotiate.
S Help students to develop analytical skills.
S Provide students with lots of opportunities to speak and discuss freely.
S Encourage students to participate in small group discussions so that they will
be more willing to speak. (73)

Jackson (2000) also supplements this list with one of her own. Amongst her 11
recommendations are ensuring that students understand the purpose for the case-
based approach, having students prepare in advance to facilitate the discussion and
using a mixture of locally and internationally designed cases. There is no doubt that
there is a strong potential for case-based work in Asian contexts but case writers and
facilitators would need to be sensitive to cultural differences and above all, develop
cases that are reflective of that particular teaching context. Case-based approaches
can also be adapted to suit the different cultural contexts. More research in this area
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 287

in working with culturally appropriate cases would add to our understanding of

which types of cases and which facilitative strategies and teaching environments
promote higher participation rates in different cultural contexts.
From our colleagues as well as our own experience in field-testing our cases, we
have not observed any difficulties related to reticence or language use. This may well
be due to the fact that we are working with small groups of TESL English majors in
a very familiar and non-threatening teaching context. We are also working with
cases which have emerged from the Hong Kong context, so there is a very high level
of cultural familiarity. Our students, while not used to case-based methodology,
are however, familiar with discussing teaching issues in both small and large groups
in English.

Limitations of working with cases

Despite the noted strengths of working with cases, there are still some shortcomings.
In an extensive review of the literature on discussions as a tool for research in case-
based approaches in teacher education, which showed evidence that ‘discussion of a
case is a valuable pedagogical tool for the learning and developing of teachers’
(Levin 1999, 157), Levin notes that there are still many unanswered questions and
untested claims about case-based pedagogy. McAninch (1995) has similar views. In
a more limited review of the literature on teaching with cases, she agrees that while
cases seem to have many positive attributes and seem to be very promising, research
still needs to demonstrate this and its comparison to other methods. Putnam and
Borko (2000) in a review of the state of the field on teacher learning concur with the
other researchers on the limitations of the case-based approach. They believe that
questions for future research could address: responses to different types of cases
such as differences in hypermedia cases vs. more structured; focused written and
videotaped cases; levels of complexity of cases and teachers’ problem solving; and
comparison to other methods as noted by McAninch (1995). As indicated earlier,
future research could also shed insights on the viability of the case-based approach
in non-western contexts. However, in general, there is a need for more research, as
Grossman’s (2005) review of the literature summarizes: ‘there is little empirical
research on the use of cases in teacher education’ (442).

Conclusion
The findings from the field-testing of our cases indicate that pre-service teacher
learners can appreciate the utility of cases and that discussions can help teachers to
see the efficacy of classroom practices and forge connections to their theoretical
understandings. The field-tests solidified for us the utility of cases in teacher
education language classrooms and demonstrated that cases devised from genuine
classroom encounters provide situations for teacher learners to apply their theories
and reflect on the soundness of their own beliefs and practices in clear and explicit
ways. Learning to teach and learning about teaching require rich context-based
knowledge and skills as well as opportunities to discuss them. Schoolrooms are
microcosms of the world outside of them and as such make up the sum total of
teaching and learning contexts coupled with students’ unique learning aptitudes,
motivations, skills, and experiences. Teachers, too, bring a host of variables into the
classroom: their own learning histories, beliefs, perceptions, and practices. All these
288 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

personal factors, in combination with the realities of our everyday world and
teaching environments, make up the context and impact the content and delivery of
teaching and learning. Singh and Richards (2006) have reiterated an oft-cited
criticism of our field of teacher education: ‘discussions about language teaching
pedagogical practices in the course room are infrequent.’ At the same time, Gebhard
(2005) in discussing approaches to teacher development cites a need for teachers
to ‘talk with other teachers’ about classroom practices and to learn to do so in ‘non-
judgmental and non-prescriptive ways’. Certainly, cases lend themselves to filling
the aforementioned gaps in our practices as teacher educators and as teachers.

Notes on contributors
Gertrude M. Tinker Sachs is associate professor of ESOL, Language, and Literacy in the
Middle Secondary Education and Instructional Technology Department of the College of
Education at Georgia State University. Prior to this appointment she worked for 12 years in
Hong Kong where she supervised MA and PhD dissertations and taught undergraduate and
graduate primary and secondary teachers of English as a second/foreign language. She is co-
author of ESL/EFL Cases, Contexts for Teacher Professional Discussions, 2007, City
University of Hong Kong Press.

Belinda Ho is an associate professor in the Department of English at the City University of

Hong Kong. She teaches both teacher education as well as English for Specific Purposes
courses. She has been a teacher of English as a second/foreign language for more than 14
years. Belinda is co-author of ESL/EFL Cases, Contexts for Teacher Professional Discussions
(Tinker Sachs and Ho 2007), published by City University of Hong Kong Press.

References
Arellano, E.L., T.L. Barcenal, P.P. Bilbao, M.A. Castellano, S.E. Nichols, and D.J. Tippins.
2001. Using case-based pedagogy in the Philippines: A narrative enquiry. Research in
Science Education 31, no. 2: 211−26.
Bailey, K.M. 2006. Language teacher supervision. A case-based approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bransford, J., L. Darling-Hammond, and P. LePage. 2005. Introduction. In Preparing teachers
for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to do, ed. L. Darling-
Hammond and J. Bransford, 1−39. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buchholz, R.A., and S.B. Rosenthal. 2001. A philosophical framework for case studies.
Journal of Business Ethics 29, nos. 1/2: 25−31.
Calderhead, J., and M. Robson. 1991. Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions
of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 7, no. 1: 1−8.
Celce-Murcia, M. 1983. Problem solving: A bridge builder between theory and practice. In
Applied linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers: Toward a rationale, ed.
J.E. Alatis, 97−105. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Connelly, F.M., and D.J. Clandinin. 1988. Teachers as curriculum planners. Narratives of
experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Connelly, F.M., and D.J. Clandinin. 1994. Telling teaching stories. Teacher Education
Quarterly 21, no. 1: 145−58.
Copeland, W.D., and D.L. Decker. 1996. Videocases and the development of meaning making
in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 12, no. 5: 467−81.
Darling-Hammond, L., K. Hammerness, P. Grossman, F. Rust, and L. Shulman. 2005. The
design of teacher education programs. In Preparing teachers for a changing world. What
teachers should learn and be able to do, ed. L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford,
390−441. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 289

Edmundson, P.J. 1990. A normative look at the curriculum in teacher education. Phi Delta
Kappan 71, no. 9: 717−22.
Feiman-Nemser, S., and J. Remillard. 1996. Perspectives on learning to teach. In The teacher
educator’s handbook, ed. F.B. Murray, 63−91. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman, D., and J.C. Richards. 1993. Conceptions of teaching and the education of second
language teachers. TESOL Quarterly 27, no. 2: 193−216.
Gebhard, J. 2005. Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways and examples.
TESL-EJ 9, no. 2: 1−15.
Goodson, I.F., and A.L. Cole. 1994. Exploring the teacher’s professional knowledge:
Constructing identity and community. Teacher Education Quarterly 21, no. 1: 85−105.
Grossman, P. 2005. Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, ed.
M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner, 425−76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harrington, H.L., K. Quinn-Leering, and L. Hodson. 1996. Written case analyses and critical
reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education 12, no. 1: 25−37.
Henry, M.K. 1986. Strengths and needs of first-year teachers. Teacher Educator 22, no. 2:
10−8.
Jackson, J. 1999. Perceptions of Chinese students in an English medium case-based
management course. In Interactive teaching and the multi-media revolution. Case method
and other techniques, ed. H.E. Klein, 61−76. Needham, MA: WACRA.
Jackson, J. 2000. Demystifying the discourse in L2 case discussions: Implications for case
leaders in Asia. Paper presented at the International Conference on Research and Practice
in Professional Discourse, November 15−17, in the City University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Johnson, K.E. 1996. Cognitive apprenticeship in second language teacher education.
In Directions in second language teacher education, ed. G. Tinker Sachs, M. Brock, and
R. Lo, 23−36. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Johnson, K.E. 1999. Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Toronto, Canada:
Heinle and Heinle.
Johnson, K.E. 2000. Teacher education. Case studies in TESOL practice series. Alexandria,
VA: Teachers to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Johnson, K. 2009. Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York/
London: Routledge.
Kagan, D.M. 1992. Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research 62, no. 2: 129−69.
Larson, B.E. 2000. Classroom discussion: A method of instruction and a curriculum outcome.
Teaching and Teacher Education 16, nos. 5−6: 661−77.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. 1991. Situated learning in communities of practice. In Perspectives on socially shared
cognition, ed. L. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley, 63−76. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, B.B. 1999. The role of discussion in case pedagogy: Who learns what? And how?
In Who learns what from cases and how?, ed. M.A. Lundeberg, B.B. Levin, and
H.L. Harrington, 139−57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lundeberg, M.A., B.B. Levin, and H.L. Harrington, eds. 1999. Who learns what from cases
and how? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McAninch, A.R. 1995. Case methods in teacher education. In International encyclopedia of
teaching and teacher education, ed. L.W. Anderson, 2nd ed., 583−8. New York: Elsevier
Science.
Merseth, K.K. 1992. Cases for decision making in teacher education. In Case methods in
teacher education, ed. J.H. Shulman, 50−63. New York: Teachers College Columbia Press.
Merseth, K.K. 1998. What the case method offers the teaching profession. In Professional
development, ed. R. Tovey, 30−2. Harvard Education Letter, Focus Series No. 4. Boston,
MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
290 G.M. Tinker Sachs and B. Ho

Moje, E.B., and S.E. Wade. 1997. What case discussions reveal about teacher thinking.
Teaching and Teacher Education 13, no. 7: 691−712.
Pennington, M. 1996. Learning to teach English in Hong Kong: The first year in the
classroom. Research monograph. Kowloon, Hong Kong: Department of English, City
University of Hong Kong.
Pigge, F.L. 1978. Teacher competencies: Need, proficiency and where proficiency was
developed. Journal of Teacher Education 29, no. 4: 70−6.
Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4−15.
Reichelt, M. 2000. Case studies in L2 teacher education. ELT Journal 54, no. 4: 346−53.
Resnick, L.B. 1989. Introduction. In Knowing, learning and instruction, ed. L.B. Resnick,
1−24.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richards, J.C. 1989. Beyond training: Approaches to teacher education in language teaching.
Perspectives 1, no. 1: 1−13.
Richards, J.C. 1996. Preparing language teachers for tomorrow’s language classrooms.
Keynote address given at RELC, April, in Singapore.
Richards, J.C. 1997. Preparing language teachers for tomorrow’s language classrooms.
In Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses, ed. G. Jacobs, 195−229.
Anthology Series 38. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Richards, J.C., ed. 1998. Teaching in action. Case studies from second language classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Richards, J.C., and C. Lockart. 1994. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., and M. Pennington. 1998. The first year of teaching. In Beyond training:
Perspectives on language teacher education, ed. J.C. Richards, 173−90. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. 1997. Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice.
In Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings, ed. V. Richardson,
3−14. London: The Falmer Press.
Richert, A.E. 1991. Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teach teacher reflection.
In Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education, ed. B.R. Tabachnick and K.M.
Zeichner, 130−50. London: The Falmer Press.
Shulman, J., ed. 1992. Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teacher College Press.
Shulman, J., and A. Mesa-Baines, eds., 1993. Diversity in the classroom: A casebook for
teachers and teacher educators. Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher 15, no. 2: 4−14.
Shulman, L.S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review 57, no. 1: 1−22.
Shulman, L.S. 1992. Toward a pedagogy of cases. In Case methods in teacher education, ed.
J. Shulman, 1−30. New York: Teacher College Press.
Singh, G., and J.C. Richards. 2006. Teaching and learning in the language teacher education
course room: A critical sociocultural perspective. Paper presented at the RELC
international conference on teacher education in language teaching, April 24−26, in
Singapore.
Smylie, M.A. 1989. Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach.
Elementary School Journal 89, no. 5: 543−58.
Smylie, M.A. 1996. From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of
teacher learning in educational reform. Educational Researcher 25, no. 9: 9−11.
Swartz Zitlow, C. 1986. A search for images: Inquiry with preservice English teachers.
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). ED284211. http://www.eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=
ED284211&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED284211 (accessed February
19, 2009).
Thompson, E.R. 2000. Are teaching cases appropriate in a Mainland Chinese context?
Evidence from Beijing MBA students. Journal of Education for Business 76, no. 2:
108−12.
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 291

Tinker Sachs, G.M. 2002. Conversations with novice teachers of English as second/foreign
language. Kowloon, Hong Kong: Department of English and Communication, City
University of Hong Kong.
Tinker Sachs, G.M., and B. Ho. 2007. ESL/EFL cases. Contexts for teacher professional
discussion. Kowloon, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
Tinker Sachs, G.M., and A. Lin. 1997. Video development for the BATESL program of study.
Kowloon, Hong Kong: Department of English, City University of Hong Kong.
Tippins, D.J., T.R. Koballa Jr., and B.D. Payne. 2002. Learning from cases. Unraveling the
complexities of elementary science teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tsui, A. 1996. Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In Voices from the
language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education, ed. K. Bailey
and D. Nunan, 145−67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uber Grosse, C. 1991. The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly 25, no. 1: 29−49.
Watkins, D.A., and J.B. Biggs. 2001. The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In
Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives, ed. D.E. Watkins
and J.B. Biggs, 3−23. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Wong, S. 2006. Dialogic approaches to TESOL. Where the Ginkgo tree grows. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wright, T. 2010. Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice.
Language Teaching 43, no. 3: 259−96.