I defended my dissertation in April, 1985. When John Fanselow, my dissertation advisor, told me I passed the defense, I was, needless to say, very happy. That was a milestone for me, twenty-two years ago. I am now impending on a new journey in my life. I am retiring from IUP. But before doing this, I wanted to take time to reflect on the past years at IUP, and one way to do this is by focusing attention on how my dissertation and the process of completing it has impacted my professional life over the past two decades.

        I begin this exposition by discussing my experiences in conceptualizing a dissertation topic and developing and designing my study. I then summarize my dissertation findings. In the next section I address how my dissertation has had an impact on my course development experiences, my teaching, my way of understanding others, and my attitude toward and advances as a scholar. In the third section I offer advice to those doctoral students who are in the process of selecting a dissertation topic and director, and conceptualizing a research design and methodology.

My Dissertation-- Interactional Arrangements in a Teaching Practicum: Providing and Blocking Opportunities for Change

Conceptualizing My Dissertation Topic and Research Design

Selecting a research topic for my dissertation was easy. John Fanselow offered me a chance to join a project to describe, analyze, and evaluate the experiences of students in the MA TESOL Program at Teachers College (TC), Columbia University. I accepted immediately, mostly because my research efforts, I hoped, would contribute something of value to the MA program. I had been teaching as an adjunct instructor in the MA TESOL Program and was very interested in learning more about the many program practica, as well as the Teachers College Community Language Program, a place where ESL students from New York City can study English at a very low cost and where TESOL graduate students can gain teaching or supervising experience.

As one of the main purposes of my study was to evaluate the MA TESOL Program practica, my first inclination was to design a study that asked student teachers for their opinions about their practica experiences. I jumped right into the project without giving it much thought, and I decided to ask all the MA TESOL students who were enrolled in practica to complete a questionnaire. I spent many hours reading about how to design questionnaires, test them for validity and reliability, and interpret the results. I also designed a detailed questionnaire, tested it out on a segment of the MA TESOL student population, and started to redesign it. However, the more I learned about designing questionnaires, and the more I tested my own questionnaire, the more I saw problems with using one in my study. Was my population too small? Was I really interested in surveying the student-teachers on their opinions about their experiences in a practicum? Was my questionnaire reliable? Although it was not an easy decision, I decided that the use of a questionnaire would not give me the kind of description I needed to evaluate the program. More importantly, I was becoming more and more aware of myself as a researcher, and the use of a questionnaire seemed to conflict with my methodological interests.

With renewed interest in discovering my research methodology, I decided to spend time observing what went on in a variety of practica, including practica titled Teaching Writing, Teaching Grammar, Teaching Speaking, Teaching Reading, The Silent Way, and Community Language Learning, and the more I observed, the more obvious it became that I certainly could not describe all of the twenty-five practica offered at Teachers College! As such, I decided to do the opposite – to do a detailed descriptive study of one practicum. Luckily, I was invited to make Guided Teaching, a practicum for inexperienced teachers, as my research site.

In concurrence with locating a viable research site, I also worked on creating a design for my study. To do this, I pondered over my experiences in different academic courses. I had taken three semesters of course work in Observation with John Fanselow. I had also read Fanselow’s (1977) now classic article on observation, as well as read, discussed, and offered feedback on pre-publication drafts of his book Breaking Rules: Exploring and Generating Alternatives in Teaching (1987) and his TESOL Quarterly article “’Let’s see’: Contrasting conversations about teaching” (1988). Although his words are seemingly about teaching, I was easily able to make connections to my research design. It became apparent that I wanted to do a descriptive study. I wanted to focus my attention on describing, analyzing, and giving multiple interpretations to my observations. As I had been learning from Fanselow, I realized I wanted my research design to include detailed nonjudgmental description and by listing, grouping, categorizing, photographing, taping, and transcribing. I also wanted to adhere to Fanselow’s point that there is usually more than one interpretation of any description, and that generating multiple interpretations of descriptions could free me from my preconceived ideas about what interaction in a practicum might mean.

As a way to construct and reconstruct my research design, I also pondered over what I learned from Ray McDermott, an anthropologist and ethnographer. In addition to carefully reading his work (McDermott, Gospodinoff, and Aron, 1978; McDermott and Roth, 1978), I took two courses (Qualitative Research and Conversation Analysis) with this talented professor. Based on these reading and course experiences, it became obvious to me that I wanted to understand the interaction going on between people and less about what people report about their experiences (as is the case with questionnaires).  I also wanted to relate the interaction to change (or lack of change) in the way student teachers taught. With this idea in mind, I generated the following research questions:

·        Are there changes in the teaching behavior of student teachers while they are participating in a practicum for inexperienced ESL teachers?

·        If there are changes in teaching behavior, what opportunities are made available though the interaction that possibly accounts for these changes?

·        If there are no changes, how does the interaction seem to block student teachers from change?

I realized from the start, at least in part, that I could really only explore possible accounts for change in teaching behavior or lack of it. Certainly I would not be able to claim definite ways that interactional arrangements create change. But, I also knew that I could set out to explore possibilities for change, and this was going to be an exciting journey for me.

        I knew that I wanted to focus the content of my dissertation on interactional arrangements and change, but I still needed to consider the methodology I would use to collect and analyze my data. While thinking about how I should approach my data collection and analysis, I read a statement published in an interview with Ray Birdwhistell (McDermott, 1980) that was quite useful:

In the behavioral sciences, we have been slow to absorb that every problem worthy of extended intellectual effort demands a special set of methods. A new problem cannot be assumed to be resonant to a research design guided by a paradigm developed for research on a previous problem. (p. 2)

I very much agreed (and still agree) with Birdwhistell’s comment. I saw my research problem as unique, and rather than try to follow the prescriptions of others about how to collect and analyze my data, I decided to approach my dissertation research pragmatically.

With Birdwhistell’s words in mind, I felt free to draw from and add to my experience and knowledge. As my undergraduate degree was in Anthropology, and I had had a keen interest in ethnography, I allowed my interest to flourish even more by reading about ethnography while developing my dissertation methodology. (Agar, 1980; Frake, 1980; Geertz, 1973; Health, 1982 & 1983; Spindler and Spindler, 1982; Spradley, 1979). I learned that it is important to understand, even personalize, basic methodological concepts used in ethnographic inquiry. For example, I became very aware that it is important to set aside my own preconceptions and to explore the practicum setting from an emic perspective (from the viewpoint of the participants). I also learned to look at the practicum setting and the participants within it from a holistic perspective, as well as to consider the relationships between people within this setting.

I had long been intrigued with the idea of participant-observation, and I decided to approach my dissertation as both a participant and researcher. I enrolled in the practicum as a student-teacher, and I accept the responsibility to team-teach a class, as well as do all the assigned tasks (observing other teachers and giving them descriptive feedback, doing a self-observation project, attending weekly seminars, reading assigned articles, and keeping a teaching journal). I realized from the start that I had to ask the practicum instructor and student-teachers for permission to also be a researcher, and I approached this responsibility by remembering the words of Berreman (1962), an ethnographer with interesting field experiences:

Every ethnographer when he reaches the field is faced immediately with accounting for himself before the people he proposes to earn to know. Only when this has been accomplished can he proceed to his task of seeking the way of life of those people. (p.5)

Within a participant-observation setting, where I would be talking with classmates, the professor, and others on a personal level while at the same time collecting data, I gained awareness about how difficult it is to actually set aside preconceived ideas. As such, I decided to keep a research journal to write out my thoughts and feelings in an attempt to make sense of my descriptive data, transcriptions of interaction, and my possible personal influences on what this data means to me from an etic perspective (my own interpretations rather than those of the participants I was studying).

 I also decided that as a participant-observer I needed to develop my own techniques, based on my personalization of ideas from other more experienced qualitative researchers. For example, I made Michael Agar’s (1980) one-down position part of the way I talked with others in the practicum -- Everyone became my teacher. I learned from James Spradely (1979) how to ask questions that get participants to talk. His advice is to be silent, be genuinely interested, and paraphrase a lot. He also taught me how to ask a variety of question types, such as grand-tour questions (“What do your students normally do in your classroom?”), more narrowed mini-tour questions (“You said students you teach like group work. What kinds of tasks do you ask groups of students to do?”), and contrastive questions (“What kinds of non-group activities do you do?”).

I planned to ask specific questions, based on interest, but I did not think of asking questions as interviewing. Rather, I simply wanted to ask questions, and I knew that this needed to be done within the familiar everyday settings of the student teachers. As McDermott put this, “Without a here-and-now context some student-teachers might be systematically inarticulate about some dimensions of their experience” (McDermott, personal communication).

Dissertation Research Findings

My dissertation research resulted in discovery of answers to three main questions. In economy of space, I only briefly discuss the first two here. I give a more elaborate discussion, including illustrations and examples to support my findings, in Gebhard (1990a) and Gebhard, Gaitan, and Oprandy (1987).

Were there changes in the teaching behavior of student teachers while they were participating in a practicum for inexperienced ESL teachers?

I discovered strong evidence that five of the seven student teachers changed aspects of their teaching behavior while participating in the sixteen-week practicum. Table 1 below shows the areas and details of the changes they made (From Gebhard, 1990a).

All seven student teachers began their practicum teaching through teacher lecture and a pattern of teacher soliciting, student responding, and teacher reacting (Bellack et al., 1966). Although some teacher lecture and questioning continued, by the second half of the practicum five of the student teachers were, to various degrees, having students do group-tasks and discussions, pair work, and individual seat work. Students also asked the teacher more questions.

Table 1: Changes in Teaching Behaviors

Teaching Area	Behavior at Start of Practicum	Behavior During Second Half of Practicum
Setting Up and Carrying Out Lesson	Primarily teacher-centered lecture or teacher questioning (teacher solicit, student response, teacher react).	Whole-class discussion (mostly teacher-directed); small group discussions (without teacher), pair work (interviewing, functions of language practice); individual seat work (silent reading, writing tasks); teacher-centered lectures less (more student solicits and reactions).
Use of Classroom Space	Students sit in rows; teacher stands in front; some arrangement of chairs into groups.	Reorganization of chairs (back-to-back, circles); use of tables; students stand at blackboard and walk around room; teacher moves around room; use of space outside classroom (hallway, kitchen).
Selection of Content	Primarily a focus on study of language itself (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation); some focus on functions (agreeing, introductions, asking for information, etc.)	Some study of language continues; life content (e.g., talking about family based on photos students bring in) and the study of other things (e.g., putting together a jig-saw puzzle, writing a Dear Abby letter, watching a film.)
Treatment of Students’ Language Errors	No treatment, or treatment limited to two basic strategies: (1) repeat sentence with correction using emphatic stress at point of correction; (2) write correction on board and lecture.	Some adaptation to original error treatment strategies; additional strategies used; stopping student at point of error and doing mini-drill; telling students to write down error and correction; having students work in groups to correct list of sentences with errors; having students take home their own sentences with errors and finding out the corrections.

 

 

Five of the seven student teachers changed their use of classroom space as well. They began by using very little of the available space; the teacher stayed in front of the classroom and the students sat in rows. By the second half the student teachers were using much more available space, doing such activities as having students sit back-to-back to practice telephone conversations, in small-group circles to work through problems posed to them, and walking around the classroom while silently reading. One teacher moved the class to a kitchen, and another expanded class to the hallway, and two teachers taught class from the back of the room.

The student teachers also expanded the content of their teaching. At the start of the practicum, most teachers focused most classroom time to the study of language itself: vocabulary items, grammar, and pronunciation. However, by the second half of the practicum, the content shifted to life or study (other than about English) content. One teacher had small groups write and respond to each other’s “Dear Abby” letters. Another class read about Halloween, and then gave short lectures on Halloween. Another discussed crime after reading short newspaper articles.

All student teachers changed the way they treated students’ language errors. At the start of the practicum two student teachers did not treat student errors at all. The others limited their pattern to repeating the student’s sentence with the correction highlighted through emphatic stress or writing the correct sentence on the board. By the second half of the practicum, the student teachers used a variety of strategies, including (1) stopping the student at the point of the error, doing short drills, and then continuing the lesson; (2) collecting errors, writing the sentences with the errors on the board, and having students either correct the sentences in groups or at the board; (3) collecting errors and designing exercises for future classes; (4) approaching the student who made the error and whispering the correction in his or her ear.

If there are changes in teaching behavior, what opportunities are made available though the interaction that possibly accounts for these changes?

These student teachers seemed to have had chances to change their teaching when:

• interaction afforded them chances to talk about real teaching issues;

• interaction was arranged so that they could process aspects of their teaching through multiple activities;

• student teachers were given a break from their usual teaching setting and a chance to start over in a new setting.

Change and chances to talk about real teaching issues. Student teachers had many chances to talk about their teaching experiences with each other and with the teacher educator through seminar meetings, supervisor conferences, observation-room discussions, and journal correspondence. Discussions also took place over the phone, in the cafeteria, at the local pizza shop, or simply in the hallway. Such discussions were important because they provided opportunities for student teachers to discuss their classroom observations and teaching experiences, allowing them to work through real teaching problems and issues. Talk also afforded them chances to raise cognitive questions (Smith, 1975; Curran, 1978) – questions the student teachers did not know they had until they had the opportunity to ask them. When responses to such questions were in the form of alternative ways to teach, the student teachers were also given the means to make decisions about how to change their teaching behavior.

Change through multiple activities. The practicum included many kinds of activities. Student teachers were required to team-teach an ESL class, observe their own teaching (through audio and video recordings), observe other student teachers’ teaching (though classroom visits, through an observation room, and through video), do investigative projects of their own teaching behavior, read about teaching, discuss teaching in a seminar and during supervisor sessions, and write about teaching and observation experiences in a journal. One finding is that multiple activities, as opposed to a single activity, provided opportunities for student teachers to process and change their teaching behavior.

Here is an example related to June, one of the student teachers who changed her way of treating student errors (From Gebhard, 1990a). June did not treat student errors at the start of the practicum. She had stated to her teaching partner that as a result of reading the current research (in the early 1980’s) on second language acquisition, she believed that error treatment did not help students to develop their English. She also said that she did not want to disrupt communication in the classroom to correct language errors. However, June had chances to observe her peers teaching, and some of them were treating student errors. The topic of error treatment also came up during the seminar and during supervisory meetings with the practicum instructor. June also read about techniques teachers use to treat errors. As such, although June was not treating errors in her class, she had opportunities to consider error treatment. I believe that it is through these multiple activities that June made a decision to treat student errors. She started correcting errors toward the end of the first seven weeks of the practicum, and by the end of the practicum she had developed several strategies for treating errors.

I believed, and still believe, that June decided to treat students’ language errors through multiple chances to observe other teachers as they treated errors, hear others’ opinions about treatment, read about treatment, and talk about the topic. June, as with the other student teachers, had the chance to discover and rediscover her beliefs about error treatment through multiple experiences, not any one single event.

Change through a break from established patterns. One of the most striking observations was how teaching behavior dramatically changed after student teachers were given the chance to make a complete break from one teaching context and to begin afresh in another. For example, after six weeks of interaction with an advanced class, June was assigned to a low-intermediate class. Although she had begun to treat student errors in the advanced class, after she changed classes, she began treating errors much more frequently. June’s change can be understood from at least two perspectives. First, she was provided with a new context to work in, one in which she believed the type of interaction with students needed to be different (e.g., more error treatment was needed for a low-intermediate class). Second, June was also set free from established patterns of interaction between herself and the advanced class, which included student expectations of her behaviors. For example, June did not treat students’ errors frequently in the advanced class, and the students learned not to expect her to correct them.

The Influence My Dissertation Has Had on My Career

An Influence on Course Development

A very direct benefit of my dissertation topic has been the knowledge I have gained about the field of Second Language Teacher Education, and in particular, about teacher development. And, I have been fortunate to have had a career as a second language teacher educator where I can apply this knowledge to develop courses for the Rhetoric & Linguistics and more recently the Composition & TESOL programs.

        One of these courses is ENGL 694 Observation of Teaching, which I created for the MA TESOL program. This course provides opportunities for teacher-learners (to use recent terminology) to learn to “see their own teaching in the teaching of others” (Fanselow 1988) through observations of  live and digitally recorded teaching, as well as to learn to describe, analyze, and give multiple interpretations to this teaching. They also have the chance to collaborate with classmates over lesson ideas, teach each other while being digitally recorded by a classmate, analyze scenes from their teaching in support groups, and write detailed observation reports.

        I was also able to apply the knowledge I gained from my dissertation experience to creating an advanced seminar, ENGL 723/823: Second Language Teaching. One third of this course is devoted to Second Language Teacher Development, and students focus on a variety of sources, such as Schön’s (1983) classic The Reflective Practitioner, Johnson and Golombek’s (2002) Teachers’ Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development,  and Richards and Farrell’s (2005) Professional Development for Language Teachers.

An Influence on My Teaching

One of the most beneficial uses of my dissertation experience has been applying my dissertation findings to my teaching.  Whether I am teaching an undergraduate or graduate course, I follow this set of guidelines: (1) provide multiple opportunities for students to process their thinking and knowledge; (2) build in chances for students to change settings, if possible; (3) provide opportunities for students to talk about their interests and issues.

        When teaching a course such as ENGL 202: Research Writing, for example, I not only apply my knowledge of doing research to the course design, but also apply the three concepts that guide all my courses. As the professor, I attempt to give students chances to select their own academic topics to research, and through hands-on library research, interviews, poster sessions, small group discussions, whole class presentations, conferences with me, journal entries, and formal academic essay drafts, I allow them the opportunity to process and develop their selected topic. However, if some students discover a topic is not as interesting or relevant as they had hoped, or if a few students did not take the opportunities seriously enough and are failing to develop their research skills and knowledge, I give them chances to start over with a new topic and a new context. I will meet with these students outside of class to give them a fresh start and renewed understanding that they are empowered to make their own informed decisions, as well as what they need to do to meet my high expectations as their professor.

        I follow the same three guidelines in the graduate courses I teach. For example, I try to give students in my ENGL 643: TEFL/TESL Methodology course multiple chances to process their knowledge about teaching through readings, small group and whole class discussions, demonstrations, peer teaching, workshops, guest speakers, response papers, poster sessions, quizzes, and more. Through these activities they have opportunities to process and reprocess course content, as well as recreate their philosophy of teaching, consider how they can adjust what they are experiencing in the course to their past and future teaching (and learning) contexts, and raise questions they did not know they had until they had a chance to ask them.

Ethnography as a Way of Understanding

Although certainly my exposure to ethnography has had an influence on my teaching, I have decided to write about it separately because the concepts I have learned from studying and practicing ethnography have influenced more than just how I teach. They have also influenced how I approach understanding any unfamiliar (or even familiar) context, whether living abroad as an exchange professor or understanding students’ lives from the perspective of program director or course professor.

        More specifically and referring back to my earlier discussion on what I learned about ethnography while processing my dissertation research, I have over the past twenty-two years dramatically changed how I interact with students, university administrators, colleagues, secretaries, and people beyond the walls of the university. I find myself taking a one-down position (Agar, 1996) with the on-going goal of having a clearer emic understanding (and understanding from the participants’ point of view). Everyone is my teacher, and I try to make it clear that I listen with a nonjudgmental attitude and that my goal is simply to understand.[1]

I also find myself asking lots of questions. Maybe too many! I ask grand- tour questions (What can you tell me about the way people in Hungary interact with each other?), mini-tour questions (What can you tell me about the way Hungarian men greet each other?), and contrastive questions (What do you find are differences between the way Hungarian men and American men in Indiana greet each other?). While asking such questions, I also try to understand a new context (or a familiar context I want to understand differently) in a holistic way. For example, when I was a visiting professor in Hungary at the University of Pècs (along with my MA TESOL Program intern, Barbara Duncan), part of our job was to reeducate Russian teachers to be English teachers. To understand this context, Barbara and I consistently talked with the Russian teachers in and outside of class (i.e. at restaurants; in homes), observed high school classes and talked with principles, teachers, and students, talked with Russian program teacher educators, and more. Our goal was to understand as much as we could about our teaching context and to build a flexible, yet on-going, curriculum for the Russian teachers that met their needs (Gebhard and Duncan, 1992).

Conference Presentations and Publications as Learning and as Teaching

Another outcome of my dissertation research is that I had developed an interest in telling other educators about second language teacher development, especially in the pedagogy of providing teachers with chances to become more aware of their teaching beliefs and practices. Although it is difficult to write papers for publication and conferences presentations, as we are forced to face our own knowledge (or lack of it), not to mention our writing abilities and voice, I am contented that I have been consistently able to process publishable writing, as well as present at conferences. I also realize that without having had a solid doctoral program and dissertation experience, I likely could not have had much content to write about, nor have developed my own academic writing voice.

I also indirectly gained an attitude toward publishing that is a consequence of my interactions with my dissertation advisor, John Fanselow, who taught me that I needed to think of myself as an educator, and that publishing is simply an extension of ourselves as teachers. Although I have to admit that part of my motivation to present at conferences and to write, at least at first, was to be promoted. However, as I matured as a scholar and teacher, I followed Fanselow’s example, perhaps stimulated by hearing the same words from a C&T program colleague and mentor, Dan Tannactio. I realized that my reason for publishing was less about me and self-promotion and more about developing and sharing my knowledge as a teacher.[2]

        I also indirectly learned from John Fanselow (and from my own dissertation research) that we need other people to develop. As he once put this, “trying to develop without interacting with others is like trying to cut paper using scissors with only one blade” (personal communication). This meaningful idea became profound for me, and to implement it, I have asked students to co-present at conferences. For example, an MA TESOL Program student, Tom Wolfe, joined me at International TESOL to demonstrate a supervisory process that frees the teacher to make his or her own informed decisions. Likewise, a doctoral student, Agnes Malicka, joined me at the TESOL Convention to demonstrate different models of supervision. In preparing to do these demonstrations with Tom and Agnes (and other students throughout the years), we all learned something of value which contributed to our own development.

        Likewise, I have collaborated with graduate students on research and writing projects (for example: Gebhard and Duncan, 1992; Gebhard and Ueda-Motonaga, 1992; Gebhard and Wu, 1992; Gebhard, Fodor and Lehmann, 2003; Gebhard and Nagamine, 2005). Through this process of collaboration, we learn much.

Conclusion and Advice to Doctoral Students

        I fully realize how important the dissertation is. The process of doing a dissertation includes establishing an identity that can take you into your future. It is important to select a topic that not only interests you, but one that you are willing to carry into a future career as a researcher and educator. I chose to build a career within the growing field of Second Language Teacher Education, as well as to do my dissertation within the area of second language teacher development, and I am happy with my choice. My timing of this choice, my fate in part, has taken me to IUP where I have had the chance to help build our MA TESOL and Ph.D. Composition & TESOL programs, apply my knowledge and experience to create and teach courses within my selected field, and learn much from the international student population (including Americans) over the past twenty-two years. I truly believe I have learned far more than I have taught because of the wonderfully gifted and diverse students in our programs.

In addition to selecting a dissertation topic that excites you, it is important to discover your own identity as a researcher. I chose an identity as a practitioner-researcher, who enjoys nonjudgmental descriptive observation and an ethnographic lens, and who believes that research can be used as a way to grow as a teacher. Others have chosen to take on a more empirically-based approach to research. What form of research, though, is not as important, at least to me, as being comfortable with who you are becoming as a researcher and your desire to continually develop yourself within that research paradigm.

I can confidently say that to select a topic that evokes strong interest within you and to develop your own research stance can take time. If you are not confident about your topic or your methodology, I suggest that you don’t rush. Take time to select and narrow your topic, as well as to decide on a research design through reading, talking with classmates and professors, and doing pilot studies.

In short, if your goal is to recreate yourself as a teacher and research-scholar, and to take your experience in the doctoral program into your future, take advantage of the opportunities you have to develop your dissertation topic, design and methodology. Turn your dissertation into an exciting adventure into learning that can, if the circumstances are right, help you to build an exciting and productive future.

---

Notes

---

References

Agar, M.A.(1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: 

           Academic Press.

Agar, M.A.(1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography, second edition.

           New York: Academic Press.

Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.

Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H.M., Hyman, R.T., and Smith, F.L. 1966. The language of the classroom. New

           York: Teachers College Press.

Berreman, G.D. (1962). Beyond many masks: Ethnographic and impression management in a Himalayan

           village. Monograph N0. 4. The Society for Applied Anthropology.

Curran, C. A. 1978. Understanding: A necessary ingredient in human belonging. Fort Lee, NJ:

           Counseling-Learning Publications.

Fanselow, J. F. (1977). Beyond Rashomon: conceptualizing and observing the teaching act. TESOL

           Quarterly 11, 17-41.

Fanselow, J.F.(1987). Breaking rules: generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching. White

           Plains, NY: Longman.

Fanselow, J.F.(1988). “Let’s see”: contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly 22, 1:

           113-30.

Frake, C.O. (1980). Language and cultural description: Essays by Charles O. Frake. Stanford, CA:

           Stanford University Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (1984). Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly 18: 501-14.

Gebhard, J. G. (1985). Interactional arrangements in a teacher preparation practicum: Providing and

           blocking opportunities for change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia 

           University.

Gebhard, J. G. (1990a). Interaction in a teaching practicum. In J.C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.),

           Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 118-131). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (1990b). Models of supervision: Choices. In J. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second

           language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (1990c). Freeing the teacher: A supervisory process. Foreign Language Annals 23(6):

           517-25.

Gebhard, J. G. (1991a). Language teacher supervision: Process concerns. TESOL Quarterly 25: 738-43.

Gebhard, J. G. (1991b). Seeing teaching differently: The teacher as observer. The Language Teacher 15

           (5): 7-9.

Gebhard, J. G. (1992). Awareness of teaching: Approaches, benefits, tasks. English Teaching Forum 30

           (4): 2-7.

Gebhard, J. G. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign or second language: A teacher self-development

           and methodology guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (1998). Second language teacher development and Korea. The Korea TESOL Journal 1(1):

           1-10.

Gebhard, J. G. (2002a). The cyclic process of action research. Thai TESOL Focus 15(3).

Gebhard, J. G. (2002b). Action research: An historical perspective. Thai TESOL Focus 15(2).

Gebhard, J. G. (2005a). Teacher development through Exploration: Principles and Activities. TESOL-EJ 10

           (4).

Gebhard, J. G.  (2005b). Awareness of Teaching through Action Research: Examples, Benefits,

           Limitations. JALT Journal 27(1): 53-69.

Gebhard, J. G. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign and second language: A self-development and

           methodology guide, second edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gebhard, J. G. (In press). The practicum and internship in TESOL. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (eds.). The

           Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J.G. and B. Duncan. (1992). EFL teacher education curriculum development as inquiry. In J.

           Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on second language teacher education 

           (pp. 319-335). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Gebhard, J.G., M. Fodor, and M. Lehmann. (2003). Teacher development through exploration: Principles,

           processes, and problems in Hungary. In J. Andor, J. Horváth and M. Nikolov (eds.), Studies in 

           English Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.

Gebhard, J. G., S. Gaitan, and R. Oprandy. (1987). Beyond prescription: The student teacher as

           investigator. Foreign Language Annals 20: 227-232.

Gebhard, J.G. and A. Malicka. (1991). Creative behavior in teacher supervision. Prospect 6(3): 40-49.

Gebhard and T. Nagamine. (2005). A mutual learning experience: Collaborative journaling between a

           nonnative speaker intern and native-speaker cooperating-teacher. Asian EFL Journal 7(2).

Gebhard, J. G. and R. Oprandy. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and

           practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J.G. and A. Ueda-Motonaga. (1992). The power of observation: “make a wish, make a dream,

           imagine all the possibilities!” In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp.

           179-191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J.G. and C-W Wu. (1992). Second language teacher education and Japan: State of the art and

           implications for Japan. The Language Teacher 16(12):29-32.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Heath, S.B. (1982). Ethnography in education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore & A.A. Glatthorn

           (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education. Washington, DC: Center for 

          Applied Linguistics.

Health, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New

           York: Cambridge University Press.

Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Ethnography. TESOL Quarterly 28: 688-90.

Johnson, K.E. and P.R. Golombek (Eds.). (2002). Teacher’s narrative inquiry as professional

           development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McDermott, R.L. (1980). Profile: Ray L. Birdwhistell. The Kinesis Report 2(3): 1-4, 14-16

McDermott, R. L., Gospodinoff, K. and Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate

           description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica 24(3/4): 245-75.

McDermott, R.L. and D. Roth. (1978). The social organization of behavior: international approaches.

           Annual Review of Anthropology 7:321-345.

Richards, J.C. and T.S.C. Farrell. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for

           teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic

           Books.

Scollon, R. & S. Scollon. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.Oxford: Blackwell.

Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and learning: A conceptual framework for teachers. New York: Holt,

           Rinehart and Winston.

Spindler, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. New York:

           Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Spradely, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly 22: 575-92.