Getting a Hold of Experienced Language Teachers' Practical Knowledge: Exploring the Perspectives of Student Teachers

Abstract

This paper investigates emotional support and task assistance as two instances of mentor roles during preservice language teachers' classroom practice. The participants of this study were 21 fifth-year students of graduate university study who were in the process of obtaining Master's Degrees in English Language and Literature, teaching stream. The findings revealed that preservice English teachers were capable of recognizing their mentors' experience and expertise while being supervised. Along with that, preservice teachers could successfully identify their strengths and weaknesses concerning teaching. Good rapport between mentors and preservice teachers played a key role in future teachers' performance.

Full text

UPRT
2019
Empirical
Studies
in
English
Applied
Linguistics
in
Honour
of
József
Horváth
Edited
by
Adrienn
Fekete
Magdolna
Lehmann
Krisztián
Simon

UPRT
2019
Empirical
Studies
in
English
Applied
Linguistics
in
Honour
of
József
Horváth
Edited
by
Adrienn
Fekete,
Magdolna
Lehmann
and
Krisztián
Simon
Published
by
Lingua
Franca
Csoport
Pécs
(PDF)
-
ISBN
978-963-429-491-7
Chapters
©
2020
The
authors
Collection
©
2020
Lingua
Franca
Csoport
Cover
©
2020
Tibor
Zoltán
Dányi

Contents
1
Preface
The
Editors
2
Investigating
High
School
Students’
Emotions
in
Connection
with
Their
EFL
Classes:
A
Questionnaire
Study
Ágnes
Albert,
Katalin
Piniel
and
Ádám
Lajtai
22
Pre-service
Teachers’
Understanding
of
Research
in
the
Working
Environment
of
the
Practicum
in
TEFL
Stefka
Barócsi
46
Getting
a
Hold
of
Experienced
Language
Teachers'
Practical
Knowledge:
Exploring
the
Perspectives
of
Student
Teachers
Jasenka
Čengić
and
Silvija
Hanžić
Deda
76
The
Relationship
Between
Foreign
Language
Learning
Motivation
and
Language
Exams:
The
Results
of
a
Questionnaire
Study
Kata
Csizér,
Enikő
Öveges
and
Ádám
Lajtai
96
Supportive
Moves
in
Intercultural
ELF
Interactions:
A
Study
on
Discourse-level
Realizations
of
External
Request
Modification
Judit
Dombi
122
Authentic
Tasks
and
Games
for
EFL
Learning
in
Two
Secondary
School
Groups
Sándor
Hetesi
143
A
Case
Study
on
the
Second
Language
Socialization
and
Enculturation
Experiences
of
Advanced
Learners
of
English
from
the
Perspective
of
Language
Ecology
Adrienn
Fekete
162
“I
chose
it
because
it
is
not
as
boring
as
other
classes,
and
does
not
hurt”:
BA
students’
motivation
in
translation
studies classes
Renáta
Huszárné
Prikler

190
A
Lexical
Analysis
of
Pre-service
EFL
Teaching
Portfolios
Viola
Kremzer
210
Language
Learning
Motivation
of
Study
Abroad
Medical
Students
Zoltán
Krommer
229
Gaining
Knowledge
out
of
the
Classroom:
Exhibition
Visits
with
Pre
service
English
Language
Teachers
Nóra
Nagy
261
ELT
Teachers'
Perceptions
of
Professional
Requirements
Jasmina
Sazdovska
and
Zsuzsanna
Soproni
282
Exploring
Targeted
Writing
Skills
Development
Krisztián
Simon
306
Using
a
Virtual
Learning
Environment
for
Language
Testing
Purposes
Zsuzsanna
Soproni
331
On
the
Border
Bus:
Narrative
and
Identity
Construction
in
an
English
Major
from
Vajdaság/Vojvodina
Thomas
A.
Williams

Getting
a
Hold
of
Experienced
Language
Teachers'
Practical
Knowledge:
Exploring
the
Perspectives
of
Student
Teachers
Jasenka
Čengić,
Faculty
of
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences
Silvija
Hanžić
Deda,
Faculty
of
Teacher
Education
University
of
Zagreb
jcengic@ffzg.hr; silvija.hanzicdeda@ufzg.hr
1
Introduction
Teaching
practice
is
considered
to
be
a
crucial
component
of
any
teacher
education
program
regardless
of
their structural
differences.
Students
are
given
an
opportunity
to
experience
the
real,
live
atmosphere
of
a
classroom,
observe
more
experienced
teachers,
and
teach
independently.
The
importance
of
creating
stronger
links
between
schools
and
university
programs
providing
teacher
training
has
been
acknowledged
by
the
European
Commission
and
the
European
trade
union
committee
for
education
(EC,
2010;
ETUCE,
2008).
Although
supervised
by
experienced
teachers
during
the
course
of
teaching
practice,
it
is
students
who
take
the
role
of
the
teacher.
Whether
during
a
simple
microteaching
session
or
during
teaching
an
entire
lesson,
it
is
the
preservice
teachers'
classroom
management
skills
and
personality
traits
that
“lead
the
way”
in
what
happens
in
the
classroom.
However,
the
path
from
learner
to
teacher
necessarily
involves
student
teachers
becoming
learners
again.
If
learning
about
teaching
is
the
goal of
teaching
practice
(Paris
&
Gespass,
2001),
then
should
student
teachers
not
be
perceived
as
learners
first,
teachers
second?
The
second
question
that
arises
concerns
how
student
teachers
find,
isolate,
and
acquire
teachers’
‘practical
knowledge’
(Zanting,
Verloop,
Vermunt,
&
Van
Driel,
1998).
Between
the
mentor
and
the
student-teacher,
there
is
a
gap
caused
by
well-developed
practical
knowledge
mentors
as
experienced
teachers
have
and
virtually
no
experience
of
preservice
teachers.
Student
teachers
lack
the
experience
that
involves
getting
to
know
the
interrelatedness
of
factors
connected
to
their
mentors'
classroom
performance,
which
makes
it
clear
why
extracting
teachers’
practical
knowledge
is
not
an
easy
task.
However,
drawing
on
mentors'
practical
knowledge
is
crucial
for
the
effective
training
of
preservice
teachers.
46

The
motivation
for
this
research
was
initiated
by
certain
developments
in
both
student
teachers’
and
mentors’
opinions
about
the
usefulness
of
teaching
practice
components
at
the
University
of
Zagreb.
The
perspectives
taken
in
designing
the
research
instrument
were
the
perspectives
of
a
practicing
mentor
teacher
and
a
university
lecturer
teaching
a
course
on
foreign
language
teaching
theory
and
methodology.
These
two
perspectives
along
with
those
of
a
focus
group
of
students
provided
the
list
of
teaching
practice
elements
important
for
gaining
insights
into
student
teachers'
experience.
The
goal of
this
study
was,
therefore,
to
explore
preservice
language
teacher
training
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
students
experiencing
it.
Those
insights
were
initially
meant
to
serve
as
information
necessary
for
improving
teaching
practice,
but
eventually,
they
shed
light
on
the
complex
dynamics
underlying
the
mentor-student
relationship.
The
complex
interplay
of
individual
differences
of
both
mentors
and
student
teachers,
specific
subject-related
skills,
and
the
methodology
underlying
teachers’
practical
knowledge
becomes
inevitable
at
a
point
when
student
teachers
begin
their
teaching
practice.
Teaching
foreign
languages
is
specific
because
of
the
very
fact
that
the
language
being
taught
is
both
the
subject
and
the
medium
of
instruction.
In
other
words,
foreign
language
teachers'
expertise
lies
not
only
in
the
way
the
content of
the
lesson
is
presented but
also
in
the
1anguage
skills
which
the
content
is
presented
with.
Both
language
skills
and
teaching
competences
should,
therefore,
be
considered
in
order
to
describe
and
define
good
language
teaching
(Kelly
&
Grenfell,
2004;
Radišić,
Pavičić
Takač,
&
Bagarić,
2007).
In
order
to
explain
and
elaborate
the
research
questions
formulated
for
the
present
study
in
section
5,
we
first
have
to
discuss
several
relevant
issues
underlying
research
on
preservice
teacher
training
in
general;
the
first
one
is
mentoring
and
the
role
of
mentors
in
preservice
teacher
training
and
the
second
one
is
conceptualizing
and
defining
teachers’
practical
knowledge.
2
Literature
review
2.1
Mentoring
and
how
student
teachers
perceive
it
During
the
course
of
teaching
practice,
student
teachers
are
observed
and
evaluated
by
their
mentors,
practicing
teachers
whose
experience
and
knowledge
acquired
through
practice
is
invaluable
in
how
student
teachers
learn
to
teach.
The
influence
of
mentors
on
student
teachers’
performance
during
teaching
practice
has
been
described
as
“promoting
beginning
teacher
development”
(Feiman-Nemser,
2000,
p.
28).
47

Despite
the
acknowledged
importance
of
mentors’
role
in
preservice
teachers’
performance
during
teaching
practice,
describing
and
defining
the
role
of
the
mentor
is
a
complex
endeavor.
If
the
mentor
is
the
one
providing
an
example
to
be
followed,
what
kind
of
an
example
should
that
be?
If
the
personality
traits
of
the
preservice
teacher
and
the
mentor
are
very
different,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
their
teaching
styles
might
be
significantly
different
as
well.
The
difficulty
in
defining
the
role
of
the
mentor
during
teaching
practice
can
also
be
found
in
the
complex
contextual
and
situational
factors
embedded
in
the
teaching
profession
and
in
teacher
education
programs.
Mentoring
involves
not
only
working
towards
completing
the
requirements
of
the
training
program,
but
also
adapting
to
the
individual
differences
of
every
student
teacher
attending
training.
Mentoring
is
described
“as
all
the
mentor
teachers'
activities,
attitudes,
and
other
aspects
of
their
mentorship
aimed
at
assisting
student
teachers
during
their
practical
training”
(Zanting
et
al.,
1998,
p.
12).
With
this,
Zanting
and
colleagues
identified
mentors
as
student
teachers’
assistants
in
building
their
professional
identity.
According
to
this
idea,
mentors
use
their
subject
knowledge
and
expertise
as
well
as
their
attitudes
towards
teaching
in
order
to
perform
their
role.
In
addition
to
helping
student
teachers
build
their
professional
identity,
there
are
other
aspects
of
the
assistance
mentors
provide
to
their
students.
Those
aspects
are
shaped
by
the
individual
needs
of
students
and
even
more
so
by
their
perceptions
of
the
role
of
the
mentoring
process.
The
following
subsection
will
provide
the
results
of
studies
dealing
with
how
student
teachers
perceive
the
areas
of
assistance
provided
by
their
mentors
during
teaching
practice.
2.2
Student
teachers’
perceptions
of
their
mentors’
role
The
importance
of
investigating
how
student
teachers
perceive
the
role
of
the
mentor
lies
in
acknowledging
student
teachers’
points
of
view
as
active
participants
of
teacher
training.
Research
into
student
teachers'
perceptions
of
the
areas
of
their
mentors'
assistance
is
based
on
qualitative
studies
with
relatively
small
samples.
Rajuan,
Beijaard,
and
Verloop
(2007)
found
three
main
areas
of
student
teachers’
perceived
assistance
provided
by
their
mentors
during
teaching
practice.
These
three
areas
are
labeled
as
person-oriented,
practice-oriented
and
technique-oriented.
The
first
one
is
identified
through
mentors
providing
emotional
support
in
complying
with
the
task
demands
of
teaching
practice.
The
assistance
that
was
labeled
as
practice-oriented
mainly
reflected
the
advice
student
teachers
received
about
the
more
practical,
classroom
context-related
situations
they
encountered.
Lastly,
technique
oriented
assistance
was
provided
when
dealing
with
methodological
issues
student
teachers
encountered
while
preparing
for
the
lessons
they
were
48

supposed
to teach.
Hennissen,
Crasborn,
Brouwer,
Korthagen,
and
Bergen
(2011)
qualitatively
analyzed
sixty stimulated-recall
interviews
dealing
with
the
topic
of
student
teachers’
perceived
assistance
offered
by
their
mentors
during
teaching
practice.
The
authors
found
six
types
of
mentoring
skills
that
were
perceived
as
emotional
support,
and
five
other
types
perceived
as
task
assistance.
Similar
findings
surfaced
in
a
study
conducted
by
Izadinia
(2015b)
where
both
academic
and
emotional
support
were
viewed
as
important
components
of
teaching
practice.
In
addition
to
this,
one
of
the
students
participating
in
the
study
stated
that
mentors
should
impart
strategic
and
other
pedagogical
content
knowledge
that
can
be
practically
used
in
the
classroom.
An
open
line
of
communication
and
feedback
were
described
as
key
elements
of
a
positive
mentoring
relationship
by
both
parties
(Izadinia,
2015a).
2.3
Experienced
language
teachers’
practical
knowledge and
how
to
get
it
To
delve
deeper
into
the
possibilities
of
mentors’
task-specific
assistance,
we
need
to
specify
the
underlying
components
of
a
teacher’s
practical
knowledge.
Shulman's
(1987)
Model
of
Pedagogical
Reasoning
and
Action
included
a
logical
model
of
the
knowledge
base
of
teaching.
The
seven
categories
included
in
the
model
consider
the
teacher’s
subject
knowledge,
general
pedagogical
knowledge,
curriculum
knowledge,
knowledge
of
learners,
knowledge
of
educational
contexts,
knowledge
of
educational
aims,
and
pedagogical
content
knowledge.
Shulman
(1987)
defines
pedagogical
content
knowledge
as
'that
special
amalgam
of
content
and
pedagogy'
(p.
8).
Other
researchers
acknowledge
its
importance
within
the
knowledge
base
of
teaching
by
stating
that
it
is
this
component
that
distinguishes
the
experienced
teacher
from
the
inexperienced
one
(Godmundsdottir,
1991).
This
specific
knowledge
deriving
from
teaching
experience
is
also
known
as
teacher
cognition
(see
Borg,
2003, 2004, 2005a,
2005b).
Zanting
and
colleagues
(2003)
use
the
term
practical
knowledge
to
define
and
explain
a
complex
construct
of
teacher
cognition including
„both
declarative
and
procedural
beliefs
and
values
that
influence
teachers’
pre-active,
interactive,
and
post
active
teaching
activities”
(p.
199).
The
nature
of
teachers’
practical
knowledge
is
often
described
as
being
tacit
and
personal
as
well
as
“stored
in
patterns,
scenes
and
procedures”
(p.
198).
Consequently,
the
knowledge
of
more
experienced
teachers
is
often
described
as
specialized
and
domain
specific
(see
Berliner,
2001;
Carter,
1990).
In
other
words,
practical
knowledge
is
knowledge
organized
and
adapted
in
such
a
way
as
to
be
used
in
practice
and
such
practical
knowledge
may
have
“a
mediating
function
between
the
theory
and
practice
of
teaching”
(Beijaard
&
Verloop,
1996,
p.
49

277).
In
this
study,
the
term
teachers’
‘practical
knowledge’
will
be
used
to
describe
foreign
language
teachers’
practical
knowledge
identified
as
an
amalgam
of
competence
related
to
teachers’
command
of
language
demonstrated
during
teaching
and
knowledge
of
foreign
language
teaching
methodology
as
applied
during
teaching
practice.
2.4
Student
teachers
gaining
practical
knowledge
Considering
preservice
teachers’
role
as
active
participants
of
the
training
process,
four
different
functions
of
extracting
mentors’
practical
knowledge
during
teaching
practice
are
identified
(Zanting,
Verloop,
&
Vermunt,
2003).
Each
of
the
four
functions
carries
implications
for
the
effectiveness
of
teaching
practice.
The
first
function
of
extracting
mentors’
practical
knowledge
is
obtaining
information
about
teaching
that
is
new
to
students.
An
example
of
this
would
be
seeking
guidance
and
explanations
about
teaching
not
provided
by
the
training
program
up
to
the
point
student
teachers
started
their
teaching
practice.
The
second
one
is
understanding
mentors’
thinking
about
teaching
and
actions
in
the
classroom,
which
involves
eliciting
mentors’
personal
beliefs
and
values
implicitly
influencing
their
observed
teaching.
This
is
directly
connected
to
the
third
and
fourth
functions
of
extracting
mentors’
practical
knowledge:
understanding
mentors’
role
and,
and
finally,
integrating
theory
and
practice.
Through
understanding
the
values
and
beliefs
influencing
their
mentors’
teaching,
student
teachers
will
be
more
able
to
understand
their
mentors’
role,
making
it
possible
for
them
to
critically
reflect
on
their
mentors’
and
their
own
knowledge and
beliefs
about
teaching
and
then
integrate
them
with
practice.
The
importance
of
extracting
mentors’
practical
knowledge
is
not
only
in
involving
student
teachers
as
active
participants
of
teaching
practice
but
also in
introducing
critical
reflection
on
their
mentors’
knowledge
as
a
necessary
component
of
effective
teaching
practice.
Thinking
critically
about
their
mentors’
practical
knowledge
will
serve
as
a
necessary
step
towards
self
reflection
and
towards
thinking
critically
about
students’
own
performance
during
teaching
practice.
3
Background
to
the
study
3.1
Context
The
role
of
any
university
program
that
educates
future
foreign
language
teachers
is
twofold:
on
the
one
hand,
it
provides
high-level
language
training,
and
on
the
other
hand,
it
equips
students
with
specific
training
in
language
50

teaching
methodology.
Within
the
foreign
language
teaching
stream,
the
most
important
part
is
foreign
language
teaching
practice.
At
the
University
of
Zagreb,
teaching
practice
for
students
majoring
in
teaching
foreign
languages
is
organized
in
a
way
to
provide
students
with
real
classroom
experiences
and
guidance
by
an
experienced
teacher
acting
as
a
mentor.
With
both
observation
sessions
and
independent
teaching
sessions,
the
structure
of
each
program
offering
language
teaching
practice
varies
in
the
number
of
hours
assigned
to
teaching
practice.
For
the
participants
of
the
present
study,
this
was
their
second,
and
final,
year
of graduate
university
study
before
which
students
had
already
taken
courses
in
SLA
and
foreign
language
teaching
methodology.
Their
teaching
practice
was
organized
over
the
course
of
two
semesters
during
which
students
had
to
observe
four
lessons
taught
by
their
mentor,
microteach
three
lessons
and
independently
plan
and
teach
two
lessons
supervised
by
their
mentor.
In
each
of
the
two
semesters,
students
had
to
attend
two
schools.
Usually,
this
meant
that
students
had
to
teach
in
one
elementary
and one
secondary
school.
Teaching
practice
in
a
secondary
school
could
be
replaced
by
completing
teaching
practice
in
a
private
school
or
higher
education
institution
where
language
for
specific
purposes
courses
were
provided.
3.2
Rationale
for
the
study
In
the
present
study,
the
authors
followed
the
theoretical
framework
set
by
Hennissen
et
al.
(2011)
in
which
two
major
instances
of
the
mentor’s
perceived
assistance
were
identified
by
preservice
teachers:
emotional
support
and
task
assistance.
Instances
of
the
mentor’s
emotional
support
were
identified
as
creating
opportunities
for
open
communication
with
student
teachers,
as
well
as
creating
a
positive
overall
atmosphere,
and
providing
reassurance
to
student
teachers
when
needed.
Instances
of
providing
specific
task-oriented
assistance
included
mentors
providing
realistic
information
about
pupils
when
preparing
students
for
teaching,
as
well
as
providing
formative
feedback
on
student
teacher’s
performance.
Furthermore,
an
aspect
of
task
assistance
we
included
in
this
research
reflects
the
number
of
instructions
given
by
mentors
to
student
teachers
along
with
its
quality.
In
other
words,
we
sought
to
investigate
how
much
of
student
teachers’
performance
during
teaching
practice
was
the
result
of
mentors’
instructions,
or
simply
of
student
teachers’
intuitive
behavior
when
faced
with
certain
situations
in
the
classroom.
These
instances
of
either
guided
or
self-led
actions
of
student
teachers
in
the
classroom
were
labeled
as
instructed
and
intuitive
performance.
51

3.3
Research
questions
Based
on
the
theoretical
background
described
above,
we
designed
the
following
research
questions:
RQ1:
How
do
student
teachers assess
their
mentors’
language
skills
and
teaching
competences?
RQ2:
How
do
student
teachers
self-assess
their
own
language
skills
and
teaching
competences?
RQ3:
How
do
student
teachers
assess
mentoring
skills
identified
as
emotional
support
and
task
assistance?
RQ4:
In
terms
of
emotional
support,
how
do
the
mentor’s
motivation
and open
communication
correlate
with
students’
satisfaction
after
teaching
an
independent
lesson,
and
with
their
overall
experience
of
the
teaching
practice?
RQ5:
In
terms
of
task
assistance,
how
do
mentors'
formative
feedback,
direct
instructions,
and
realistic
information
about
pupils
correlate
with
students'
satisfaction
after
teaching
an
independent
lesson,
and
with
their
overall
experience
of
the
teaching
practice?
RQ6:
How
do
student
teachers
assess
the
usefulness
of
their
microteaching
sessions
and
the
independently
taught
lessons?
RQ7:
Are
there
differences
between
the
mentor’s
overall
assessment
of
students
and
students’
self-assessment?
3.4
Research
methods
To
achieve
more
depth
in
understanding,
as
well
as
better
validity
and
reliability,
mixed
methods
were
used
in
this
study.
Quantitative
data
collected
through
a
questionnaire
was
complemented
by
qualitative
data
collected
through
a
focus
group
interview.
Both
the
focus
group
discussion
points
and
the
questionnaire
framework were
designed
by
the
authors,
one
of
whom
was
the
lecturer
of
the
teaching
practice
course
with
direct
access
to
student-taught
class
observation,
and
the
other
was
one
of
the
mentors
with
first-hand
experience
in
student-mentor
communication,
class
preparation,
student
teacher
performance,
and
assessment.
52

3.5
Data
collection
instruments
For
this
research,
a
four-part
online
questionnaire
was
designed
following
several
steps
before
reaching
its
final
version
and
utilization.
Firstly,
focus
group
discussion
points
were
drafted
and
reviewed
based
on
multiple
class
observations
and
interactions
with
student
teachers.
Secondly,
a
focus
group
interview
with
student
teachers
was
organized
to
capture
more
precisely
the
information
that
was
relevant
to
the
study.
After
the
first
version
of
the
questionnaire
was
designed,
it
was
piloted.
The
pilot
questionnaire
was
filled
in
by
several
former
students
attending the
same
study
program
a
few
years
earlier
who
assessed
the
questions
and
recommended
minor
changes.
Afterward,
the
questionnaire
was
edited
according
to
the
recommendations
and
reviewed
for
the
second
time.
Next,
it
was
administered
to
the
target
group
of
students.
The
final
questionnaire
consisted
of four
parts:
student
demographics,
student
assessment
of
their
mentors
for
language
skills
and
teaching
competence,
student
self-assessment
of
their
language
skills
and
teaching
competences,
and
finally,
general
information,
regarding
mentor-student
communication,
teaching
practice
requirements
and
final
assessment
(Table
1).
The
components
included
in
evaluating
language
skills
were
overall
language
skills,
target
language,
and
classroom
language.
Concerning
methodology,
the
components
under
evaluation
were
appropriate
methods,
lesson
flow,
clarity
of
instructions,
differentiation,
content
and
language
integrated
learning
(CLIL),
feedback,
and
classroom
management.
In
the
following
subsection,
we
focus
on
how
student
teachers
can
extract
teachers’
practical
knowledge
during
teaching
practice.
The
quality
of
instructions
was
defined
as
clarity
in
verbalizing
the
“tips
and
tricks”
of
preparing
for
and
performing
teaching,
as
well
as
the
clarity
of
the
criteria
student
teachers
were
supposed
to
comply
with
during
teaching
practice.
This
aspect
of
task
assistance
surfaced
during
one
of
the
focus
group
interviews
conducted
with
student
teachers,
where
student
teachers
called
attention
to
the
lack
of
clarity
on
behalf
of
mentors
when
stating
their
expectations
of
student
teachers
during
teaching
practice.
Most
questions
were
a
five-point
Likert
scale
type.
However,
due
to
the
diversity
of
learner
levels,
there
were
cases
in
which
a
variable
could
be
neither
applied
nor
observed,
so
the
scale
had
six
points
because
it
included
zero.
Besides
these,
a
number
of
questions
was
open-ended,
and
some
were
multiple
choice
items.
When
assessing
an
element,
students
were
asked
to
use
the
Croatian
grading
system
that
consists
of
five
grades:
fail
(1),
sufficient
(2),
good
(3),
very
good
(4),
excellent
(5).
The
grade
point
average
is
as
follows:
0
-
1.49
(1),
1.50
-
2.49
(2),
2.50
-
3.49
(3),
3.50
-
4.49
(4),
4.50
-
5.00
(5).
53

Table
1.
Questionnaire
structure
use
Student
General
Student
assessment
of
Student
self
teachers’
information
their
mentors
assessment
demographics
about
teaching
practice
language
skills
teaching
teaching
language
competence
skills
competence
-age
-
previous
education
-
overall
-appropriate
-
overall
-appropriate
-
clarity
of
language
teaching
language
teaching
criteria
methods
use
-
teaching
methods
-
-
target
preferences
-
lesson
-
target
-
lesson
communication
language
flow
language
flow
and
atmosphere
use
-
clear
use
-
clear
-
feedback
and
-
reading
instructions
-
reading
instructions
final
assessment
out
loud
and
out
loud
and
of
students
feedback
to
feedback
to
pupils
pupils
-
classroom
-
classroom
management
mentoring
skills
-
student-mentor
conferences
-
clear
instructions
to
students
-
mentor
involvement
-
flexibility
in
planning
and
preparation
-
timely
and
relevant
management
feedback
Note.
All
questionnaire
items
are
listed
in
the
Appendix.
The
assessment
of
knowledge
and
teaching
competences
was
presented
using
the
mean
value
(Table
3).
To
establish
a
correlation
between
variables,
the
Pearson
correlation
coefficient
was
used,
and
a
regression
analysis
was
run
to
identify
the
statistical
significance
of
the
correlations.
Due
to
the
relatively
small
number
of
participants,
the
independent
t-test
was
used
to
identify
statistically
significant
differences
between
variables.
Since
the
participants
attended
different
schools
for
their
practice
during
the
semester,
and
each
time
they
were
working
with
different
mentors
and
different
age
groups,
it
is
considered
that
they
worked
under
different
conditions
during
their
two
visits
to
schools.
54

3.6
Participants
After
providing
their
written
consent,
a
cohort
of
21
fifth-year
students
majoring
in
English
at
the
University
of
Zagreb
participated
in
this
study.
This
was
their
second,
and
final,
year of
graduate
university
study
leading
to
a
university
degree
in
English
Language
and
Literature,
teaching
stream
(Master’s
Degree).
During
the
semester,
students
were
required
to
do
their
teaching
practice
in
two
schools:
one
primary
school,
and
one
high
school
or
university
where
they
had
to
teach
a
course
in
ESP.
In
each
school,
they
first
observed
four
lessons,
conducted
three
microteaching
activities
during
three
different
lessons,
and
taught
two
independent
lessons.
Along
with
English,
students
had
other
majors:
15
students
majored
in
other
languages
(Russian,
Spanish,
Italian,
German,
Turkish),
three
in
Comparative
Literature,
one
in
Pedagogy,
one
in
Ethnology,
and
one
in
Information
and
Communication
Sciences.
Seventeen
students
had
been
attending
the
same
Faculty
since
year
one,
and
four
students
transferred
from
other
faculties
to
complete
their
graduate
study,
which
means
they
joined
the
cohort
at
the
beginning
of year
four.
The
average
age
was
24.1,
and
three-quarters
of
the
participants
were
female
(Table
2).
Table
2.
Cohort
demographics
(N
=
21)
n(F)
n(M)
Average
age
SD
Same
faculty
since
Y1
Joined
in
Y4
16
5
24.1 1.44
17
4
Note.
n(F)
=
number
of
female
students;
n(M)
=
number
of
male
students;
SD
=
standard
deviation
(age)
4
Results
The
first
part
of
this
section
brings
descriptive
information
about
the
participants,
their
teaching
experience,
age-group
teaching
preferences,
and
attitudes
towards
some
of
the
teaching
practice
elements.
The
second
part
presents
students’
perceptions
of
differences
in
skills
and
communication
between
them
and
their
mentors,
as
well
as
feedback
and
assessment
students
received
from
their
mentors.
Next
is
planning
and
preparation,
which
students
were
able
to
perceive
while
observing
mentors’
performance
during
lessons,
and
at
the
same
time,
they
observed
their
mentors’
skills,
which
are
presented
in
the
following
parts.
The
section
ends
with
the
microteaching
component
and
final
assessment
of
student
performance.
55

4.1
Teaching:
Previous
experience,
preferences
and
attitudes
Four
students
reported
having
no
prior
experience
in
teaching,
eight
students
reported
having
some
experience,
which
included
tutoring
and/or
previous
teaching
practice
in
other
study
majors,
while
nine
students
reported
having
more
than
some
experience,
due
to
their
teaching
jobs,
mostly
in
private
language
schools.
As
for
their
preferences
in
teaching,
thirteen
participants
chose
working
with
young
learners,
ten
with
teens,
and
nine
with
adults.
Figure
1
shows
the
distribution
of
preferences
for
each
participant.
Two
students
(10
and
19)
were
willing
to
teach
all
three
age
groups,
seven
students
(3,
5,
7, 8,
9,
12
and
14)
chose
two
groups
in
different
combinations,
and
eleven
students
(1,
2,
4, 6,
11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18,
20
and
21) chose only
one
of
the
three
age
groups.
Seven
out
of
the
eleven
single-group
choices
were
young
learners,
two
were
teens,
and
two
were
adults.
Figure
1.
Teaching
preferences
expressed
for
each
participant
of
the
study.
4.2
Differences
in
language
skills
and
teaching
competences
By
comparing
the
mean
values of
mentor
and
student
skill
assessment,
it
is
clear
that
students
perceived
mentors
as
more
skilled
than
they
were.
Statistically
significant
differences
between
the
perceived
mentor
and
student
skills
were
found
in
overall
language
skills,
target
language,
classroom
language,
clarity
of
instructions
while
teaching,
differentiation
of
study
materials
according
to
various
pupil
needs,
and
successful
implementation
of
CLIL,
as
specified
in
Table
3.
There
were
no
statistically
significant
differences
between
mentors
and
students
in
other
skills.
Over
and
above,
no
statistically
significant
differences
were
found
between
the
approaches
to
teaching
English
in
elementary
schools
and
high
schools.
56

Table
3.
Perception of
language
skills
and
teaching
competences
Variables
Students
assessing
mentors
(M)
Student
self
assessment
(M)
4.75
4.35
4.60
4.60
4.65
4.40
4.32
4.05
4.47
4.30
Overall
language
skills**
Target
language**
Classroom
language***
Appropriate
methods
Lesson
flow
Clarity
of
instructions***
Differentiation***
CLIL**
Feedback
to
pupils
Classroom
management
Overall
grade
4.80
4.20
3.42
4.30
4.32
4.47
4.43
1.15
3.70
4.00
4.12
3.86
Note.
The
largest
gap
between
mentors
and
students
is
in
bold.
*statistically
significant
difference
at
the.05
level
(2-tailed)
**statistically
significant
difference
at
the
.01
level
(2-tailed)
***statistically
significant
difference
at
the
.001
level
(2-tailed)
4.3
Planning
and
preparation
The
planning
and
preparation
processes
were
assessed
during
the
observation
part
of
the
teaching
practice,
and were
perceived
as
important,
and
assessed
with
the
average
grade
of
4.7
out
of
5.
Students
were
asked
to
assess
their
own
planning
and
preparation
process,
and
also
that
of
their
mentors.
During
the
observation
period,
students
had
some
access
to
mentors’
teaching
materials
and
lesson
plans.
Along
with
that,
they
had
face-to-face
and
online
consultations
with
their
mentors
during
which
they
could
discuss
planning
and
preparation.
Based
on
performance
observation
and
some
insights
into
planning
and
preparation
processes,
both
mentors
and
students
were
assessed
similarly,
and
with
relatively
high
mean
values:
students
assessed
themselves
with
4.4,
and
their
mentors
were
assessed
with
4.3.
However,
when
divided
into
two
groups,
primary
school,
and
high
school,
there
were
slight
differences
in
perception,
even
though
no
statistical
significance
was
found.
As
can
be
seen
in
Table
4,
the
mean
value
of
mentors’
score
in
elementary
schools
(4.47)
was
higher
than
the
mean
value
of
high
school
mentors
(4.15).
In
contrast,
57

student
self-assessment
of
planning
and
preparation
for
primary
school
(4.33)
was
lower
than
their
assessment
of
the
same
component
for
high
school
(4.53).
Table
4.
Perception of
planning
and
preparation
How
prepared
were
mentors?
(M)
4.3/5
Primary
4.47
High
school
Note.
M
=
mean
value
4.15
How
prepared
were
students
(self-assessment)?
(M)
4.4/5
Primary
4.33
High
school
4.53
4.4
Assessment
of
mentoring
skills
As
Table
5
shows,
a
strong
statistically
significant
correlation
was
found
between
open
communication
between
mentors
and
students
and
the
clarity
of
criteria
students
had
to
comply
with.
A
very
similar
correlation
was
also
found
between
student
satisfaction
with
independently
taught
lessons
and
the
amount
of
reassurance
received
from
the
mentor.
Student
teachers’
performance
showed
a
medium
positive
correlation
appearing
with
realistic
information
about
pupils
(provided
by
mentors)
and
with
the
overall
atmosphere.
Similarly,
intuitive
student
performance,
and
formative
feedback
to
students
during
the
course
of
teaching
practice
positively
correlated
with
independently
taught
lessons.
The
mentor’s
motivation
for
teaching
positively
correlated
with
how
inspiring
the
teaching
experience
was,
and
with
overall
student
performance.
Freedom
in
planning
and
performance
also
showed
a
positive
correlation
with
overall
student
performance.
Instructed
performance
showed
a
low
negative
correlation
with
how
satisfied
students
were
with
the
independently
taught
lesson,
but
it
was
not
statistically
significant.
Over
the
course
of
the
students’
teaching
practice,
timely
feedback
from
mentors
was
reported
in
85
percent
of
cases,
and
‘timely’
was
explained
to
students
as
receiving
feedback
early
enough
to
be
able
to
successfully
implement
changes
and
suggestions
both
in
their
lesson
plans
and
in
their
performance.
In
88
percent of
the
cases,
mentor
assessment
was
perceived
as
in
line
with
student
(in)experience.
A
medium
positive
correlation
(r
=
.49)
was
found
between
student
self-assessment
and
mentor
assessment
of
student
performance
during
teaching
practice.
The
correlation
was
statistically
significant
at
the
.001
level
(2-tailed).
58

Table
5.
Assessment
of
mentoring
skills:
correlations
Correlation
(r)
Variables
.75***
.74***
.55***
Open
communication
&
clarity
of
criteria
to
comply
with
Satisfaction
with
independent
lesson
&
reassurance
received
from
mentor
Overall
atmosphere
&
student
teachers’
performance
Formative
feedback
during
practice
&
satisfaction
with
independent
lesson
Realistic
information
about
pupils
&
student
teachers’
performance
Intuitive
performance
&
satisfaction
with
independently
led
.54***
.53***
.53***
lesson
.52***
Mentor’s
motivation
&
how
inspiring
the
teaching
experience
was
Freedom
in
planning
and
performance
&
student
performance
Mentor’s
motivation
&
student
performance
.42**
.38**
-.21
Instructed
performance
&
satisfaction
with
independently
taught
lesson
*Correlation
is
significant
at
the
.05
level
(2-tailed)
**
Correlation
is
significant
at
the
.01
level
(2-tailed)
***
Correlation
is
significant
at
the
.001
level
(2-tailed)
4.5
Assessment
of
individual
teaching
practice
components:
Microteaching
The
participants
were
asked
to
assess
three
aspects
of
their
microteaching:
the
usefulness
of
their
experience
gained
over
the
course
of
teaching
practice,
satisfaction
with
their
own
performance,
and
whether
microteaching
should
be
kept
as
a
necessary
component
of
the
teaching
practice
course.
The
microteaching
sessions
held during
the
course
of
teaching
practice
were
assessed
as
useful
by
19
out
of
21
students.
The
participants
expressed
satisfaction
with
their
microteaching
performance
with
a
mean
value
of
4.42.
Microteaching
was
perceived
as
a
necessary
part
of
teaching
practice
in
general
by
18
out
of
21
students,
as
it
can be
seen
in
Table
6.
59

Table
6.
Perception of
microteaching
sessions
Useful
(n)
Unnecessary
(n)
Useless
(n)
Performance
satisfaction
(M)
Necessary
(n)
19
2
4.42/5
18
3
Note.
n
=
number
of
students
selecting
an
option;
M
=
mean
value
The
participants’
answers
to
open-ended
questions
revealed
four
major
challenges
that
emerged
during
microteaching
sessions:
a)
lesson
flow
(possible
disruptions
as
a
result
of
having
two
teachers)
b)
time
management
c)
choice
of
appropriate
activities
d)
standing
in
front
of
a
new
group
of
students
for
the
first
time
When
asked
to
explain
how
their
microteaching
experience
influenced
their
self-perception
as
future
teachers,
students
offered
various
responses.
In
most
cases,
their
responses
confirmed
microteaching
as
a
helpful
strategy
for
preservice
teachers
to
transition
into
their
teaching
mode
(Excerpt
1).
However,
some
students
suggested
that
microteaching
had
not
changed
their
perceptions
(Excerpt
2).
Based
on
their
microteaching
experience,
some
students
realized
what
age
groups
they
felt
most
comfortable
teaching
(Excerpt
3).
(1)
a)
It
helped
me
a
lot
to
overcome
beginner’s
anxiety
because
it
lasted
only
15
minutes
and
did
not
involve
as
much
preparation
as
when
doing
an
entire
lesson.
After
the
first
microteaching
I
realized
that
I
actually
can
be
a
teacher,
despite
my
insecurities
before
beginning
to
teach.
b)
It
slowly
eased
me
into
teaching
a
class.
c)
It
made
me
realize
that
it
is
possible
to
diversify
the
lesson
to
a
greater
extent
than
I
had
previously
thought.
d)
Microteaching
provided
me
with
an
opportunity
to
perceive
myself
as
a
teacher
without
the
stress
of
having
to
teach
full
lessons.
e)
Thanks
to
microteaching,
I
realized
that
I
wasn't
that
afraid
anymore
and
that
I
could
do
this
job
well.
(2)
Microteaching
alone
did
not
influence
my
self-perception
as
a
future
teacher.
60

(3)
I
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
of
all
the
groups
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
teach
so
far,
I
feel
most
comfortable
with
university
students.
Student
satisfaction
with
teaching
independent
lessons
was
expressed
with
the
mean
value
of
4.47
on
a
5-point
scale,
which
is
quite
high.
4.6
Final
assessment
Mentors
assessed
student
teachers
with
an
average
grade
of
4.56,
while
students
assessed
themselves
with
a
similar
average
grade
of
4.46,
which
confirms
the
findings
of
the
study
conducted
by
Mardešić
(2011).
Both
grades
are
extremely
close
to
the
border
between
the
two
highest
grades
according
to
the
Croatian
grading
system,
but
mentors’
grade
falls
into
the
highest
category
(excellent),
and
students’
grade
is
just
below
the
line,
which
places
it
in
the
area
of
the
lower
grade
of
4
(very
good).
There
was
a
medium
positive
correlation
(r
=
.59)
between
mentor
assessment
and
student
self-assessment,
and
it
was
statistically
significant
at
the
.001
level
(2-tailed).
5
Discussion
Mentors
were
perceived
as
more
skilled
and
more
knowledgeable,
which
implies
that
students
felt
they
were
guided
and
supervised
by
someone
who
demonstrated
the
necessary
competence
and
teaching
experience.
This
finding
answers
our
first
and
second
research
questions
inquiring
about
how
student
teachers
assessed
both
their
mentors’
and
their
own
language
skills
and
teaching
competences.
The
largest
gap
between
mentors’
and
students’
mean
scores
was
in
the
areas
of
differentiation
and
CLIL,
where
mentors’
efforts
were
recognized
as
considerably
better.
The
reason
for
that
might
be
twofold:
either
it
takes
more
experience
and knowledge
to
master
these
skills,
or
they
are
more
difficult
to
recognize
in
the
classroom.
According
to
the
mean
values,
students
and
mentors
were
the
closest
in
choosing
appropriate
teaching
methods
and
maintaining
lesson
flow,
both
of
which
can
be
easily
planned
and
performed
as
planned,
with
little
to
no
deviations
during
performance.
Even more
so,
these
specific
skills
are
acquired
through
practice,
and
therefore,
have
to
be
the
result
of
practical
knowledge.
On
the
other
hand,
classroom
management
and
feedback
to
pupils
could
change
the
course
of
a
particular
lesson;
although,
most
strategies
could
be
planned
in
advance.
In
other
words,
students
seemed
to
perceive
themselves
as
more
confident
in
the
skills
that
are
more
dependent
on
them
and
the
knowledge
they
possessed,
and
less
confident
in
other
aspects.
These
aspects
include
interaction
with
pupils,
dealing
with
61

the
individual
differences
of
pupils,
various
classroom
routines
(e.g.
classroom
language),
and
the extent
to
which
they
can
present
target
language
to
pupils.
Since
every
grade
level
has
a
prescribed
scope
and
sequence,
it
takes
a
longer
time
and
deeper
involvement
to
become
familiar
with
these
elements.
Planning
and
preparation
of
lessons
can
sometimes
appear
more
challenging
than
the
actual
teaching
because
they
include
several
elements:
finding
teaching
sources,
time
management,
choosing
and
sequencing
activities,
transitions,
etc.
(Gülten,
2013).
While
attending
teaching
practice
in
high
schools,
students
perceived
themselves
as
more
invested
in
planning
and
preparation
than
their
mentors,
and
in
elementary
schools,
the
situation
was
the
opposite,
but
the
difference
was
much
smaller.
It
is
possible
that
mentors’
experience
and
familiarity
with
teaching
materials
played
a
crucial
role
here.
On
the
other
hand,
in
elementary
schools,
more
planning
and
preparation
might
have
been
dedicated
to
pupil-teacher
interaction,
which
was
consequently
more
demanding
for
both
mentors
and
student
teachers.
Mentoring
is
a very
important
component
of
teaching
practice,
and
it
appears
to
be
multifaceted.
To
perform
successfully,
student
teachers
are
assisted
by
their
mentors
on
multiple
levels.
If
defined
as
the
sum
of
emotional
support
and
task-oriented
assistance
(Hennissen
et
al.,
2011),
from
one
angle,
mentoring
is
based
on
communication,
overall
atmosphere,
and
reassurance;
whereas
observed
from
another
angle,
it
relies
on
formative feedback,
clarity
of
instruction,
realistic
information
about
pupils,
and
student
teachers’
intuitive
performance,
as well
as
instructed
performance.
The
components
of
emotional
support
and
task-oriented
assistance
were
defined
in
accordance
with
the
specific
requirements
of
the
teaching
practice
included
in
this
research.
Furthermore,
our
findings
offer
a
deeper
insight
into
the
framework
set
by
Hennissen
et
al.
(2011).
According
to
the
questionnaire
results,
maintaining
open
communication
with
mentors
improved
students’
understanding
of
the
criteria
they
were
supposed
to
abide
by.
The
amount
of
reassurance
coming
from
mentors,
as
well
as
continual
formative
feedback
influenced
students’
satisfaction
with
independently
taught
lessons.
Student
teachers’
performance
was
affected
by
the
overall
atmosphere
created
during
teaching
practice,
and
also
by
the
accessibility
of
realistic
information
about
the pupils
they
had
to
teach.
The
above
examples
provide
answers
to
the
research
questions
inquiring
about
the
assessment
of
mentoring
skills,
and
the
correlation
between
mentors’
emotional
support
and
task
assistance
related
to
students’
experiences
during
teaching
practice
(questions
three,
four,
and
five).
Such
outcomes
are
comparable
to
those
of
Izadinia’s
(2015b)
study,
where
she
found
increased
confidence
levels
in
participants
who
managed
to
establish
positive
relationships
with
their
mentors.
To
answer
the
last
research
question
looking
into
the
differences
between
the
overall
mentor’s assessment
of
students
and
students’
self-assessment,
we
found
that
the
majority
of
62

mentors’
final
assessment
to
be
in
the
range
of
students’
expectations.
In cases
where
the
final
assessment
was
different
from
students’
estimations,
students
reported
seeing
their
work
differently
from
their
mentors,
but
there
appeared
to
be
a
lack
of
open
dialogue
between
them,
as
well.
Such
occurrences
could
have
been
attributed
to
the
shortage
of
time
or
some
other
factor
pertaining
to
the
characteristics
of
the
teaching
profession.
However,
that
part
remains
unanswered
at
this
point.
The
importance
of
developing
positive
mentor
student
relationships,
as
well
as
collaboration
with
university
educators
were
accurately
described
by
Graham
(1997,
p.
524):
“The
student
teaching
experience
is
based
upon
a
highly
personalized
relationship,
particularized
by
the
cumulative
experiences
of
the
mentor
and
student
teacher
and
university
faculty
involved
in
the
partnership,
the
school
and
department
cultures
in
which
they
are
immersed,
and
the
university
culture
and
program.”
Recognition
of
microteaching
as
a
useful
and
important
component
of
student
practice
is
consistent
with
commonly
known
and
widely
used
approaches
in
language
teacher
training
(e.g.
Ismail,
2011;
Ogeyik,
2009;
Wallace,
1991,
chapter
6).
A
positive
correlation
between
mentor
assessment
and
student
self
assessment
may
indicate
the
existence
of
coherence
in
assessment
styles,
expectations,
and
competence.
High
mean
values
representing
student
satisfaction
with
microteaching
sessions
and
independently
taught
lessons
reflect
their
impression
of
successfully
completed
tasks.
These
findings
address
our
sixth
research
question
regarding
the
inquiry
into
how
student
teachers
assess the
usefulness
of
their
microteaching
sessions
and
the
independently
taught
lessons.
In
brief,
the
outcomes
of
this
study
have
revealed
that
preservice
English
teachers
are
able
to
recognize
the
expertise
and
experience
provided
by
the
mentors
supervising
their
teaching
practice.
At
the
same
time,
they
are
becoming
aware
of
their
own
strengths
and
weaknesses
and
are
trying
to
find
optimal
ways
to
improve.
Establishing
rapport
with
mentors
facilitates
students’
teaching
endeavors,
which
begin
with
class
observation,
transition
to
microteaching,
and
finish
with
independently
taught
lessons.
6
Conclusion
In
this
study, several
issues
were
addressed:
on
the
one
hand,
there
was
preservice
language
teachers'
perception
of
their
mentors’
practical
knowledge
identified
as
language
skills
and
teaching
competences
as
well
as
mentor
assistance,
and
on
the
other
hand,
there
was
student
teachers’
self-perception
and
evaluation
of
the
effectiveness
of teaching
practice.
Bearing
in
mind
that
63

student
teachers
are
expected
to
perform
as
teachers
during
their
teaching
practice,
they
were
asked
to
self-reflect
upon
their
own
performance,
as
well.
With
that,
insight
was
gained
into
the
complex
situation
experienced
by
preservice
teachers
during
teaching
practice,
where
although
highly
inexperienced
and
lacking
in
practical
knowledge,
students
have
to
experience
all
of
the
practical
knowledge
components
and
try
to
meet
all
the
requirements.
Through
comparing
the
way
students
perceived
their
mentors’
and
their
own
language
skills
and
teaching
competences,
we
aimed
to find
out
more
about
the
value
and
accessibility
of
experienced
teachers’
practical
knowledge and
how
this
perceived
value
influences
the
way
student
teachers
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
teaching
practice.
Since
this
study
did not
include
the
mentors’
point
of
view,
we
can
only
speculate
that
some
of
the
mentors
might
not
have
been
aware
of
the
students’
difficulties
in
extracting
their
practical
knowledge.
Nevertheless,
emotional
support
and
task
assistance
enabled
student
teachers
to
gain
insight
into
their
own
progress
through
clear
instructions
and open
communication.
The
results
of
this
study
can
be
interpreted
tentatively:
although
it
includes
a
whole
generation
of
student
teachers
at
a
Croatian
university,
the
sample
is
rather
small.
Still,
the
findings
provide
a
useful
insight
into
the
practical
part
of
teacher
training.
In
addition,
they
derive
from
a very
context
specific
setting.
To
collect
more
reliable
data
and
possibly capture
certain
tendencies,
future
research
should
include
longitudinal
studies
with
new
generations
of
students.
References
Beijaard,
D.,
&
Verloop,
N.
(1996).
Assessing
teachers'
practical
knowledge.
Studies
in
Educational
Evaluation,
22(3),
275-286.
Berliner,
D.
C.
(2001).
Learning
about
and
learning
from
expert
teachers.
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research,
35,
463-482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6
Borg,
S.
(2003).
Teacher
cognition
in
language
teaching:
A
review
of
research
on
what
language
teachers
think,
know,
believe,
and
do.
Language
Teaching,
36(2),
81-109.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg,
S.
(2004,
18
November).
Quality
in
TESOL
research.
Paper
presented
at
the
Annual
QuiTE
Seminar,
London,
UK.
Borg,
S.
(2005a).
Experience,
knowledge
about
language,
and
classroom
experience
in
teaching
grammar.
In
N.
Bartels
(Ed.),
Applied
linguistics
and
language
teacher
education
(pp.
325-340).
New
York:
Springer.
64

Borg,
S.
(2005b).
Teacher
cognition
in
language
teaching.
In
K.
Johnson
(Ed.),
Expertise
in
second
language
learning
and
teaching
(pp.
190
209).
Basingstoke:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Carter,
K.
(1990).
“Teachers'
knowledge and
learning
to teach”.
In
W.
R.
Houston
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
Research
on
Teacher
Education
(pp.
291-310).
New
York:
Macmillan.
EC
(2010).
The
Profession
of
Teacher
Educator
in
Europe,
the
report
of
PLA
meeting
at
Reykjavik,
Iceland
/online/.
Retrieved
from
https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2011
2013/teacher/teacher-educators_en.pdf
ETUCE
(2008).
Teacher
education
in
Europe,
Brussels:
European
trade
union
committee
for
education
and
Comitee
syndical
europeen
de
l’education
/online/.
Retrieved
from
https://www.csee
etuce.org/images/attachments/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en.pdf
Feiman-Nemser,
S.
(2000).
Helping
novices
learn
to
teach:
Lessons
from
an
exemplary
support
teacher.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
52(1),
17
30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052001003
Graham,
P.
(1997).
Tensions
in
the
mentor
teacher-student
teacher
relationship:
Creating
productive
sites
for
learning
within
a
high
school
English
teacher
education
program.
Teaching
and
Teacher
Education,
13(5),
513-527.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742
051X(96)00053-4
Gudmundsdottir,
S.
(1991).
Ways
of
seeing
are
ways
of
knowing.
The
pedagogical
content
knowledge
of
an
expert
English
teacher.
Journal
of
curriculum
studies,
25(5),
409-421.
Gülten,
A.
Z.
(2013).
Am
I
planning
well?
Teacher
trainees'
voices
on
lesson
planning.
Procedia
-
Social
and
Behavioral
Sciences,
93,
1409-1413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.053
Hennissen,
P.,
Crasborn,
F.,
Brouwer,
N.,
Korthagen,
F.,
&
Bergen,
T.
(2011).
Clarifying
preservice
teacher
perceptions
of
mentor
teachers’
developing
use
of
mentoring
skills.
Teaching
and
Teacher
Education,
27(6).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.009
Ismail,
S.
A. A.
(2011).
Student
teachers’
microteaching
experiences
in
a
preservice
English
teacher
education
program.
Journal
of
Language
Teaching
and
Research,
2(5),
1043-1051.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1043-1051
Izadinia,
M.
(2015a):
Student
teachers’
and
mentor
teachers’
perceptions
and
expectations
of
a
mentoring
relationship:
Do
they
match
or
clash?
Professional
Development
in
Education,
42(3),
387-402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.994136
65

Izadinia,
M.
(2015b).
A
closer
look
at
the
role
of
mentor
teachers
in
shaping
preservice
teachers'
professional
identity.
Teaching
and
Teacher
Education,
52,
1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.003
Kelly,
M.,
&
Grenfell,
M.
(2004).
European
Profile
for
Language
Teacher
Education
—
A
Frame
of
Reference.
Southampton,
UK:
University
of
Southampton.
Mardešić,
S.
(2011).
Uloga
refleksivnog
pristupa
u
inicijalnom
obrazovanju
nastavnika
stranih
jezika.
The
role
of
the
reflective
approach
in
the
initial
foreign
language
teacher
education.
Doctoral
thesis.
University
of
Zagreb.
Ogeyik,
M.
C.
(2009).
Attitudes
of
the
student
teachers
in
English
language
teaching
programs
towards
microteaching
technique.
English
Language
Teaching,
2(3),
205-212.
Paris,
C.,
&
Gespass,
S.
(2001).
Examining
the
mismatch
between
learner
centered
teaching
and
teacher-centered
supervision.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
52(5),
398–412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052005006
Radišić,
M.,
Pavičić
Takač,
V.,
&
Bagarić,
V.,
(Eds.).
(2007).
Kompetencije
učitelja
i
nastavnika
stranih
jezika
u
osnovnoj
školi
u
Republici
Hrvatskoj
(Competences
of
Primary
School
Foreign
Language
Teachers
in
the
Republic
of
Croatia).
Osijek:
Sveučilište
Josipa
Jurja
Strossmayera
u
Osijeku,
Učiteljski
fakultet
u
Osijeku.
Rajuan,
M.,
Beijaard
D.,
&
Verloop,
N.
(2007).
The
role
of
the
cooperating
teacher:
Bridging
the
gap
between
the
expectations
of
cooperating
teachers
and
student
teachers.
Mentoring
&
Tutoring:
Partnership
in
Learning,
15(3),
223-242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260701201703
Shulman,
L.
S.
(1987).
Knowledge
and
teaching:
Foundations
of
the
new
reform.
Harvard
Educational
Review,
57(1),
1-22.
Zanting,
A.,
Verloop,
N.,
&
Vermunt,
J.
D.
(2003).
How
do
student
teachers
elicit
their
mentor
teachers' practical
knowledge?
Teachers
and
Teaching,
9(3),
197-211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309383
Zanting,
A.,
Verloop,
N.,
Vermunt,
J.
D.,
&
Van
Driel,
J.
H.
(1998).
Explicating
practical
knowledge:
An
extension
of
mentor
teachers’
roles.
European
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
21(1),
11
28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976980210104
Wallace,
M.
J.
(1991).
Training
foreign
language
teachers:
A
reflective
approach.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
66

Appendix
Student
Practice:
Online
Questionnaire
Items
A
-
Personal
information
1.
Age
2.
Gender
a)
F
b)
M
3.
Major
subject
apart
from
English
(state
the
stream)
__________
4.
Have
you
been
attending
the
same
faculty
from
the
beginning,
or
you
transferred
from
another
faculty/university
at
some
point?
If
so,
state
where
from
and
the
year
of
study
when
the
transfer
occurred.
a)
same
faculty
from
the
beginning
b)
other
___
5.
Who
do
you
prefer
to
teach?
a)
young
learners
b) teenagers
C)
adults
d)
other
___
6.
Do
you
already
have
some
teaching
experience?
If
yes,
please
state
the
details.
__________
7.
How
many
mentors
did
you
have
during
the
past
semester?
a)
1
2
b)
B
-
Students
assessing
their
mentors
If
you
only
had
one
mentor,
complete
the
scales
for
Mentor
1.
Make
sure
you
always
refer
to
the
same
person
as
Mentor
1.
If
some
of
the
elements
did
not
happen
during
your
practice,
choose
N/A
(not
applicable).
Mentors
as
language
teachers
(language
skills
and
teaching
competence)
How
would
you
asses
your
mentor's
language
skills?
8.
The
overall
use
of
English
during
classes
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
How
would
you
assess
your
mentors'
teaching
competences?
67

9.
Target
language
appearing
in
teaching
topics
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
10.
Classroom
language
(words
and
phrases
as
class
routine
in
English)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
11.
Choice
of
appropriate
methods
according
to
students'
age
and
language
level
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
12.
Lesson
flow
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
13.
Clarity
of
instructions
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
14.
Differentiation
according
to
various
student
needs
(e.g.
for
students
with
very
low
or
very
high
language
ability,
someone
with
dyslexia,
speech
impairment,
etc.)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
15.
Connecting
other
subjects
to
English
(CLIL)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
16.
Feedback
to
students
during
lessons
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
17.
Classroom
management
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
18.
Class
discussion
moderation
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
19.
Expressive
reading
in
front
of
the
class
(e.g.
reading
stories
out
loud)
68

0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
20.
Lesson
planning
and
preparation
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
How
would
you
assess
the
structure
of
your
teaching
practice
with
mentors?
your
21.
Teaching
practice
with
your
mentor
(general
assessment)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
22.
How
prepared
was
your
mentor
during
teaching
observation?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
23.
How
would
you
assess
the
quality
of
student-teacher
conferences
with
your
mentor
during
observation?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
24.
Did
your
teaching
practice
include
microteaching?
a)
yes
b)
no
25.
How
would
you
grade
the
microteaching
section
of
your
teaching
practice?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
26.
How
would
you
assess
the
clarity
of
instructions
provided
by
your
mentor
in
preparation
for
microteaching?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
27.
How
relevant
was
the
feedback
on
microteaching
from
your
mentor
for
the
following
steps
of
your
practice?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
28.
Add
comments
about
microteaching,
if
any.
__________
29.
To
what
extent
was
the
feedback
you
received
from
your
mentor
formative
for
your
understanding
of
the
teaching?
69

0
-
N/A,
1
-
not
formative,
2
-
somewhat
formative,
3
-
formative,
4
-
very
formative,
5
-
highly
formative
30.
Who
chose
the
lesson
plan
form?
a)
I
b)
mentor
c)
other
___
31.
To
what
extent
was
your
mentor
involved
in
the
lesson
planning
process?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
involved,
3
-
involved,
4
-
quite
involved,
5
-
fully
involved
32.
How
flexible
was
the
lesson
planning
process?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
flexible,
3
-
flexible,
4
-
quite
flexible,
5
-
highly
flexible
33.
How
flexible
was
the
choice
of lesson
topics?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
flexible,
3
-
flexible,
4
-
quite
flexible,
5
-
highly
flexible
34.
Add
your
comments
if
any.
__________
35.
How
clear
was
your
mentor’s
feedback?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
unclear,
2
-
somewhat
clear,
3
-
clear,
4
-
quite
clear,
5
-
perfectly
clear
36.
How
relevant
was
the
first
feedback
from
your
mentor
for
your
next
lesson?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
irrelevant,
2
-
somewhat
relevant,
3
-
relevant,
4
-
quite
relevant,
5
-
highly
relevant
C
-
Student
self-assessment
If
some
of
the
elements
did
not
happen
during
your
practice,
choose
N/A
(not
applicable).
How
would
you
asses
your
own
language
skills?
37.
The
overall
use
of
English
during
classes
70

1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
How
would
you
assess
your
own
teaching
competences?
38.
Classroom
language
(words
and
phrases
as
class
routine
in
English)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very good,
5
-
excellent
39.
Target
language
appearing
in
teaching
topics
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
40.
Choice
of
appropriate
methods
according
to
students'
age
and
language
level
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
41.
Classroom
management
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
42.
Clarity
of
instructions
you
gave
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
43.
Lesson
flow
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
44.
Connecting
other
subjects
to
English
(CLIL)
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
45.
Feedback
to
pupils
during
lessons
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
46.
Expressive
reading
in
front
of
the
class
(e.g.
student-teacher
reading
a
story
out
loud)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
47.
If
you
used
expressive
reading,
state
where.
__________
71

48.
Differentiation
according
to
various
student
needs
(e.g.
for
students
with
very
low
or
very
high
language
ability,
someone
with
dyslexia,
speech
impairment,
etc.)
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
49.
Class
discussion
moderation
0
-
N/A,
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
50.
Lesson
planning
and
preparation
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
How
would
you
self-assess
your
performance
during
teaching
practice?
51.
My
own
performance
during
teaching
practice
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
52.
Please
elaborate
on
your
previous
answer(s)
__________
53.
How
useful
did
you
find
microteaching
in
the
course
of
your
entire
teaching
practice?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
useful,
3
-
useful,
4
-
quite
useful,
5
-
highly
useful
54.
Do
you
see
microteaching
as
a
necessary
component
of
teaching
practice?
a)
yes
b)
no
55.
What
did
you
find
challenging
in
microteaching?
__________
56.
To
what
extent
was
your
performance
intuitive
and
to
what
extent
was
it
instructed?
__________
57.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
your performance?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
satisfied,
3
-
satisfied,
4
-
quite
satisfied,
5
-
highly
satisfied
58.
How
did
your
microteaching
experience
influence
your
self-perception
as
a
future
teacher?
__________
72

59.
Did
you
find
microteaching
useful?
a)
yes
b)
no
c)
other
___
60.
How
useful
did
you
find
planning
and
teaching
lessons
in
the
course
of
your
entire
teaching
practice?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
useful,
3
-
useful,
4
-
quite
useful,
5
-
highly
useful
61.
Please
elaborate
on
your
previous
answer.
__________
62.
What
did
you
find
challenging
in
planning
and
teaching
lessons?
__________
63.
How
intuitive
were
your
choices
during
the
planning
and
teaching
lessons?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
intuitive,
3
-
intuitive,
4
-
quite
intuitive,
5
-
highly
intuitive
64.
To
what
extent
were
your
choices
during
the
planning
and
teaching
lessons
instructed
by
your
mentor?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
instructed,
3
-
instructed,
4
-
quite
instructed,
5
-
highly
instructed
65.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
your
performance
while
teaching
a
lesson
independently?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
satisfied,
3
-
satisfied,
4
-
quite
satisfied,
5
-
highly
satisfied
66.
How
did
your
teaching
experience
influence
your
self-perception
as
a
future
teacher?
__________
D
-
General
When
you
think
about
your
teaching
practice
in
general:
67.
How
would
you
grade
the
clarity
of
the
criteria
you
were
supposed
to
comply
with?
73

1
-
unclear,
2
-
somewhat
clear,
3
-
clear,
4
-
quite
clear,
5
-
perfectly
clear
68.
How
much
reassurance
did
you
receive
from
your
mentor?
1
-
none,
2
-
some
reassurance,
3
-
enough
reassurance,
4
-
quite
much
reassurance,
5
-
complete
reassurance
69.
How
much
freedom
did
you
have
in
the
course
of
your
teaching
practice?
1
-
none,
2
-
some
freedom,
3
-
enough
freedom,
4
-
quite
much
freedom,
5
-
complete
freedom
70.
How
individual
were
the
comments
you
received
from
your
mentor?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
individual,
3
-
individual,
4
-
quite
individual,
5
-
highly
individual
71.
How
openly
could
you
communicate
with
your
mentor?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
openly,
3
-
openly,
4
-
quite
openly,
5
-
fully
open
72.
How
would
you
assess
the
overall
atmosphere
created
between
you
and
your
mentor
during
the
teaching
practice?
1
-
very
poor,
2
-
poor,
3
-
good,
4
-
very
good,
5
-
excellent
73.
How
balanced
was
the
feedback
you
received
from
your
mentor?
In
other
words,
what
was
the
ratio
of
positive
and
negative
comments?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
balanced,
3
-
balanced,
4
-
quite
balanced,
5
-
highly
balanced
74.
How
motivated
was
your
mentor?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
motivated,
3
-
motivated,
4
-
quite
motivated,
5
-
highly
motivated
75.
How
inspiring
was
your
pre-service
teaching
experience
for
your
teaching
profession?
1
-
not
at
all,
2
-
somewhat
inspiring,
3
-
inspiring,
4
-
quite
inspiring,
5
-
highly
inspiring
74

76.
Was
the
assessment
given
by
your
mentor
in
accordance
with
your
teaching
(in)experience?
a)
yes b)
no
c)
other
77.
Did
you
receive
feedback
from
your
mentor
in
time
to
process
and
apply
it
in
the
course
of
your
teaching
practice?
a)
yes
b)
no
78.
How
realistic
was
the
information
provided
by
your
mentor
about
the
group
dynamics
of
the
classes
you
had
to
teach?
0
-
N/A,
1
-
not
realistic,
2
-
somewhat
realistic,
3
-
realistic,
4
-
quite
realistic,
5
-
highly
realistic
79.
Do
you
think
student
teachers
should
be
able
to
have
teaching
practice
in
vocational
secondary
schools?
a)
yes
b)
no
80.
Please
elaborate
on
your
previous
answer.
__________
81.
Add
your
comments
if
any.
__________
75