A Habermasian Approach to the Examination of Language Teachers’ Cognitive Interests
Abstract
Language teacher educators train pre-service teachers in numerous theories and pedagogical practices of language learning and language teaching. They expect that their student teachers will translate this conceptual and practical knowledge into action during their practicum. However, in the process of determining pre-service teachers’ readiness for the field experience and the profession in general, methods classes measure only their conceptual knowledge and omit looking at their student teachers’ belief system about language teaching and learning. This belief system is a strong indicator of how the students organize their knowledge for application (Borg, 2003) and may help teacher educators gauge students’ read ness in the use of new pedagogies that these pre-service teachers may not have experienced before. Using two reflective essays and a piece of authentic assessment as instruments to gather data, as well as Jürgen Habermas’s theory on cognitive interests as a framework to explore the espoused beliefs of nine pre-service language teachers at the end of a methods
course, this qualitative study addressed the following questions: What levels of cognitive interests do the nine pre-service world language and ESL teachers exhibit prior to student teaching? To what extent do the students’ levels of cognitive interests change during the methods course called Teaching a Second Language? What are the most common cognitive interests regarding such areas of teaching performance, such as methodology and assessment among the participants? The results show that the nine pre-service teachers held mostly technical
and some practical cognitive interests at the beginning of the semester. In the end, most of the participants held practical interests, and three out of the nine pre-service teachers held elementary emancipatory beliefs. One pedagogical recommendation is to include experiences in the training of pre-service teachers that promote emancipatory beliefs that could support teachers in their pursuit of transforming challenging social conditions while examining and adopting new pedagogies.
Keywords
pre-service language teachers; cognitive interests; technical interests; practical interests; emancipatory interests; Habermas
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001
Bernard, H., & Ryan, G. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37−60.
Brown, J., & McGannon, J. (1998). What do I know about language learning? The story of the beginning teacher. Retrieved from: http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/alaa/proceed/bro-mcgan.html. Accessed 22 March 2020.
Burns, A., Edwards, E., & Freeman, D. (2015). Theorizing and studying the language-teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12245
Butler, S. L. (1997). Habermas’ cognitive interests: Teacher and student interests and their relationship in an adult education setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University, Alabama.
Crookes, G. (2010). Language teachers’ philosophies of teaching: Bases for development and possible lines of investigation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12, 1126–1136.
Cumming, A. (1989). Student teachers’ conceptions of curriculum: Towards an understanding of language teacher development. TESL Canada Journal, 7(1), 33−51.
Debreli, E. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ belief sources about learning and teaching: An exploration with the consideration of the educational programme Nature. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p116
Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas: The key concepts. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1996). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gabryś-Barker, D. (2012). Reflectivity in pre-service teacher education: A survey of theory and practice. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Geelan, D. (2001). The empty centre: Power/knowledge, relationships and the myth of student centered teaching in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2001v26n2.3
Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2017). Re-conceptualizing teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development. Profile, 19, 15–28.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Schapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Hennissen, P., Beckers, H., & Moerkerke, G. (2017). Linking practice to theory in teacher education: A growth in cognitive structures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.008
Johnson, K. E., & Golembek, P. R. (2002). Inquiry into experience: Teachers’ personal and professional growth. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golembek (Eds.), Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kondrat, M. E. (1995). Concept, act, and interest in professional practice: Implications of an empowerment perspective. Social Service Review, 69(3), 405–428.
Mann, S. (2005). The language teacher’s development. Language Teaching, 38(3), 103–118.
Ring, C. (2014). Social work training or social work education? An approach to curriculum design. Social Work Education, 33(8), 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.902435
Scott, B. (1997). Curricular change in higher education: What we say and what we do. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, November 1997, Memphis, TN.
Sinprajakpol, S. (2004). Teachers’ beliefs about language learning and teaching: The relationship between beliefs and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo, New York.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorising language teacher identities: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 4, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0401_2
Vibulpol, J. (2004). Beliefs about language learning and teaching approaches of pre-service EFL teachers in Thailand (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000030
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
