Developing teacher agency through dialogue

Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Developing teacher agency through dialogue Matthew Wallen a, b, *, Roland Tormey c, d a

Knocknacarra Educate Together NS, Knocknacarra, Galway, Ireland Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland c
^timent BI), Station 7, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland Teacher Support Centre, Ecole Polytechnique F
ed
erale du Lausanne, EPFL E-DAF CAPE, BI B2 431 (Ba b

d

Department of Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

h i g h l i g h t s  A dialogic inquiry was facilitated among mainstream teachers of EAL learners.  As a new professional development experience, the inquiry required scaffolding.  The perceived locus of agency was broadened to include a range of stakeholders.  Frequent expressions of teacher agency were evident at the end of the process.  Participants awakened a belief that they were activists with expert knowledge.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 January 2018 Received in revised form 9 March 2019 Accepted 26 March 2019

Based on the experiences of a group of mainstream primary teachers of English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) learners in Ireland, a dialogic inquiry has the potential to influence perceptions regarding teacher agency. The participants examined their practice in a collaborative knowledge-creation process and progressed through a series of phases regarding their perceptions of which stakeholders possess agency, observing changes in efficacy beliefs and assigning greater value to their own existing knowledge. The possession of agency was perceived not to be singular but shared, relational and contextual, as teachers recognised their own agency within the context of a specific ecological and temporal setting. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Continuing professional development Primary education English as an additional language (EAL) Self-efficacy Dialogic inquiry Teacher agency

1. Developing teacher agency through dialogue While much of continuing professional development seeks to improve professional judgement, rarely does it successfully tap the rich knowledge base present among participants (Dadds, 2014; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). In fact, continuing professional development often seeks to problematise the experiences and knowledge of teachers, just as the teaching English as an additional language has often problematised the cultural background and first language of learners (Cummins, 2003). This is not to say that professional development should not lead to changes in teacher

* Corresponding author. Knocknacarra Educate Together NS, Knocknacarra, Galway, Ireland. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Wallen). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.014 0742-051X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

thinking and practice, but the problematisation of teachers’ knowledge fails to develop an understanding of teacher agency. By focusing on instrumental aspects, such as methods and strategies, professional development experiences rarely provide opportunity for a deeper, more intellectual discussion (Biesta, Priestley, & Robinson, 2015). Research has shown that of the various pressures faced by mainstream primary teachers, teaching EAL learners ranks second, only after time management, as the most challenging and stressful aspect of their jobs (G
andara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). Professional development related to teaching English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) learners typically addresses solely the needs of learners, remaining methods-focused and not supporting teachers asking questions. In contrast, an informed agency approach can act as a counterpoint by asking teachers to think again about language, their skills, and the context they work in

130

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

(Palmer & Martínez, 2013). In the Republic of Ireland, the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (DES, 2011) has called on all teachers to improve the literacy attainment of all children, including EAL learners, even as an erosion of the provision of English language support in Irish schools continues. Though English language support teachers work in schools with high proportions of EAL learners, most language support teacher posts have been removed and, in compensation, a small increase in the general allocation for special educational needs in the vast majority of schools. Therefore, the responsibility for teaching EAL learners is shouldered increasingly by mainstream teachers. It is noteworthy that all primary school teachers are trained in teaching English as a first language and the Irish language as an additional language. As such, while many do not have explicit EAL training they do have training in additional language teaching. This generates a sense of ambiguity in which the teachers may have a wealth of professional skills and knowledge upon which to draw without necessarily believing themselves to capable of acting. Agency, as defined by Bandura (2006), is an individual's capacity for initiating intentional acts, with the individual both a product and a shaper of social systems. For Bandura, agency was closely linked to the concept of self-efficacy e the sense of being able to achieve something in a given context. From a post-structuralist perspective, agency is seen as temporally embedded and a social construct, informed by the past but also oriented towards the future and the present as agency responds to variable and changing orientations (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). Therefore, teacher agency is related to the agency of others in the social context (i.e., other teachers, pupils and parents). Social agency can be seen as additive (with the teacher's agency enhanced by the agency of others) or as a zero-sum game (in which an increased capacity to act by one's agency reduces the capacity of others to have an influence). Teacher agency is also intrinsically connected to teacher professional €ha €santanen (2015), for example, identifying that identity, with Va educational change often requires the renegotiation of professional identity, in which teacher agency emerges as an important factor (see also Tao & Gao, 2017). Learning and agency are always centred in a specific and shared context, meaning individuals are not easily distinguished from their environment (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). Agency doesn't reside solely in individuals but within a specific ecological setting within an actor-situation transaction (Biesta et al., 2015). This paper seeks to explore teacher agency in the specific context of mainstream classroom teachers of children learning English as an additional language by considering the following research question: Which stakeholders do participants perceive having agency and do these perceptions change through a process of dialogue to include a renewed a sense of self-efficacy and a recognition of their own agency as teachers? The paper describes a professional development experience, based on a process of collaborative action research, for mainstream teachers of EAL primary pupils which endeavoured to use dialogue to awaken a sense of enhanced self-efficacy beliefs and teacher agency. This dialogic inquiry sought to free teachers to draw on their existing knowledge, carefully considered in a collaborative conversation that aligns with Habermas’s (1990) concept of an ideal speech situation. This dialogic inquiry sought to challenge a deficit model of professional development by promoting a long-term, robust discourse. By establishing a safe space for dialogue, individuals can exchange ideas, engage with a range of viewpoints and collaboratively co-construct knowledge, using dialogue as inquiry to support teachers becoming more agentive in their practice (Haneda, Teemant, & Sherman, 2017). The findings presented in this paper support the argument that

teachers can reclaim a position of power by seeing themselves as possessing knowledge (Foucault, 1982) and in turn renewing a sense of agency to motivate them, even in difficult circumstances, as they awaken the “expert within” (Dadds, 2014). Firstly, this paper explores key conceptualisations regarding teacher agency in the context of continuing professional development. Then, the methodology for this collaborative dialogic inquiry is described. The participants’ self-reported experiences and reflections are reported, followed by an analysis of how the dialogic inquiry affected their understanding of agency with regard to the EAL learners in their classrooms and their perceptions as professionals in general. 2. Teacher agency as a product of professional identity Teachers are the most central actors in relation to changing schools, in a double role as both the focus of reform and the agents of change (Villegas-Reimers, 2003). In order to act effectively, teachers need to feel that their actions are meaningful. As teachers are not empty vessels nor uniform in experience and perspective, continuing professional development should focus on developing this sense of agency and should be responsive to the needs of teachers and give voice to the participants, viewing their own individual knowledge, experiences, preconceptions and values as useful resources (Dadds, 2014). Multiple factors influence teachers' sense of agency or instrumentality, notably emotions and perceptions of power under the influence of cultural and political constructs in social situations. Agency is socially distributed, requiring an individual to mediate €ha €santanen, 2015; within one's socially determined means (Va Wertsch & Rupert, 1993). Individuals act by means of the environment and not just in it. Within the specific context of teaching, agency is the interaction between the individual and the structural aspects of social settings including resources, school culture and policy mandates (Lasky, 2005). To summarise, teachers can be empowered to begin to seek the potential expert within, countering the common impression that “somewhere, somehow, they have been taught to devalue their inner voice, their own experience, their own hard-earned insights about children and classrooms” (Zembylas, 2003, p. 11). CochranSmith and Lytle’s (1999) knowledge-of-action paradigm guided the establishment of the dialogic inquiry enabling teachers to generate knowledge by using their classroom as a place for investigation while also using knowledge produced by others as a resource to support interpretation of their personal and collective experiences. 3. Research methodology This paper describes a collaborative action research project grounded in dialogue among practitioners which sought to enhance teachers’ skills, awareness and agency by recognising their expertise and knowledge as professional practitioners. In this research programme, emphasis was placed on shared knowledge creation through a teacher network comprised of mainstream classroom teachers who were teaching EAL learners. Six voluntary participants teaching in three primary schools in Limerick City comprised the teacher network. They have been assigned pseudonyms (see Table 1). All but one of the six teachers were mainstream classroom teachers, the exception being Tara who was officially an English language support teacher, though the school had implemented a model of parallel teaching where she taught mixed groups of children the mainstream curriculum. Each of the teachers, as well as the principals of their schools, gave informed consent to participate, and the research was approved by

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

131

Table 1 Research participant profiles. Pseudonym

School

Class level

Age of pupils

EAL learners as a proportion of the total class enrolment

Ellen Laura Nan Ann Tara Ciara

A A A B B C

5th Junior infants Senior infants Infants ELST 4th

10e11 years old 4e5 years old 5e6 years old 4e6 years old Various 9e10 years old

1 of 22 16 of 19 12 of 20 10 of 27 Small groups of both EAL learners and native-English-speakers 1 of 28

the relevant ethics committee. Ross, Rolheiser, and Hogaboam-Gray (1999: 256) define collaborative action research as a “systematic inquiry into teacher practice that is conducted by a team of teachers and university researchers working as equal partners”. Following a cogenerative model (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), two groups, insiders or practitioners and outsiders or academics, collaborate, with the insiders' experience as the focus. The outsiders facilitate the process and then lead dissemination of data in academic discourse. Collaborative action research has been shown to have a positive impact on teachers' attitudes and beliefs as well as the range of teaching strategies they employ in the classroom, leading to an increased self-confidence in participants’ own knowledge as well as self-efficacy or sense of agency (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, & Evans, 2003). A dialogue where teachers talk to one another and share stories about the classroom has unique potential for teacher professional development. Wells (2000) labels this approach a dialogic inquiry (see Fig. 1). Dialogue is central because it is the vehicle for achieving common understandings. Wells identifies three features of a dialogic inquiry: it is focused on people doing things or acting (knowledge is situated), knowledge is created between people and this knowledge creation is grounded in collaborative meaningmaking via discourse. Dialogue is a reflective learning process which requires a suspension of judgement while avoiding conviviality where safety and comfort are confused (Garmston & von Frank, 2012). Dialogue, from this perspective, goes against the prevailing practice of point and counterpoint, offering an alternate way of communicating. This collaborative action research project can be conceptualized as having a number of interwoven but distinct layers. The fundamental goal of the project was to improve teaching and learning for

students learning English as an additional language. This was to be achieved by improving teachers’ sense of agency and expertise though a dialogic professional development experience, enabled by a facilitator. In addition to enabling the dialogue in the group, the facilitator was also researching the process of teacher change through the dialogic professional development experience and using dialogic inquiry as a research method. In this sense, all participants held multiple roles: teachers were co-shapers of the professional development experience through participation in the dialogic process and the facilitator was at the same time a researcher. The use of dialogic methods both in the professional development experience and in the research methods provided a conceptual coherence around which these different roles could be articulated. The dialogic inquiry was comprised of eight meetings. Each meeting was 2 h in duration, taking place on a weekday evening in one of the participating primary schools on a monthly basis over the course of one academic year. This dialogic inquiry followed an action-research approach that relied on facilitated dialogue to propose changes in practice. Open-ended questions to stimulate dialogue acted as springboards to shared decision-making and knowledge creation. Further open-ended questions encouraged personal and collective reflection on these interventions. The questions were intended to situate the development of interventions targeting EAL learners within the knowledge present in the teacher network, both individually and collectively (see Fig. 2). This was achieved through a process of awakening personal and shared understandings related to language learning and teaching. The majority of questions were initiated by the facilitating researcher, but over time questions were posed by participants to each other. The participants self-determined when, if and how

Fig. 1. A model for dialogic inquiry.

132

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

Fig. 2. Examples of open-ended questions used to stimulate dialogue.

much to contribute to the discussion for the most part, without any effort to equalise speaking turns except ensuring that every teacher was able to describe the interventions they implemented between meetings. Thus, the amount and length of speaking turns varied, due to a variety of factors such as personality and group dynamics. This method was radically different to the teachers’ prior experience of continuing professional development, which had usually consisted of an “expert” imparting knowledge and skills to the teachers using teaching methods which range from passive (e.g. lecturing) to more active (e.g. role plays) transmission methods. Various data sources were used to identify teachers' understandings of teacher agency. The key data source was the transcript of the eight meetings. In addition, a summative evaluation process used both whole-group discussion and semi-structured one-to-one interviews. These interviews ranged in length from 15 min to 45 min, as determined by the interviewee. The combined length of all sound files, including group meetings and individual interviews, totalled 15 h and 22 min. In addition, other data sources include the participants' notes as well as the facilitating researcher's personal notes, including a reflective research log completed after each session. All participants were given the transcripts of the meetings and interviews and given the opportunity to make any amendments or deletions. To differentiate between quotes from academic literature and statements attributed to the research participants, the latter are italicised in the results section of this paper. Upon initial macro analysis of the data, it was apparent that the number of references assigning agency to various stakeholders changed over the course of the dialogic inquiry, with limited references to teacher agency at the beginning of the process but with such references dominating the latter stages of the dialogic inquiry. To provide a more detailed data analysis and affirm this speculation, distinct speaking turns were counted that could be interpreted as assigning agency to various stakeholders without regard to the length of these turns. The stakeholders considered included the Department of Education and Skills (the government department responsible for education funding and policy, referred to as “the Department” by participants in the data), English language support teachers (ELSTs) and learning support teachers, parents, EAL learners and the participants themselves. The process of data analysis relied heavily on the use of NVivo 7 and later NVivo 9, computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software useful for both

inductive and deductive analysis, drawing on a grounded theory, analytic induction and constant comparative approach (see Silverman, 2014). A methodical manual coding of the data for references to specific stakeholders having agency, whether or not the identified party was perceived as acting on this agency, was completed. From a more inductive approach, the comments regarding teacher agency were examined more carefully in order to understand how self-efficacy beliefs and an understanding of teacher agency may have changed. Two senior researchers reviewed the data analysis process ensuring that independent observers helped to both query and shape the coding process and the development of conclusions based on the data. The participants were invited to read the summary of the findings, being afforded the opportunity to reflect again on the process. Conversations with two of the six participants after the completion of the professional development experience were insightful in helping to shape the formal data analysis process. There are some limitations associated with this methodology. The size and scope of the case sample limits the capacity for empirical generalisation. This is common in qualitative research where the goal is often to generate theory rather than to empirically test theory. Finally, the task of making inferences, at the heart of data analysis in qualitative research, requires interpretation of data to identify descriptive and causal inferences. While this can be perceived as a limitation, it could also be argued that interpretation plays a role in any data analysis, the difference being that qualitative research makes this more explicit and transparent. Without seeking to minimise the limitations of what can be achieved in this kind of research, the method remains appropriate and valuable given the question addressed by this paper. In summary, the proposed methodology can be described as a dialogic inquiry situated in a teacher network comprised of mainstream primary teachers engaged in considering their practice as teachers of EAL learners. 4. Results The focus of this manuscript is to understand how the attribution of agency by the participants changed over the course of the dialogic inquiry. Recalling that agency is more than simply an individual's capacity for initiating intentional acts as determined by personal efficacy beliefs and is dependent on a specific ecological

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

setting for every actor-situation transaction (Biesta et al., 2015), comments made by the participants throughout the process were analysed for references as to which stakeholders had the capacity and responsibility to act as change agents. Fig. 3 represents the number of times that a particular actor was ascribed agency by the participating teachers. The reason for a close examination of this aspect of the data stemmed from a general observation that over time the perceived locus of agency expanded from distant stakeholders to a more inclusive perception that multiple stakeholders were involved in initiating change, including the participants themselves. The data are presented in several sections below. First, an examination of the participants' perceptions regarding their roles as primary school teachers at the beginning of the process follows to provide context and a baseline to compare with their later perceptions regarding self-efficacy and agency. Then, a three-stage process is described. At first, teachers focused on critiquing the authorities most distant from themselves, namely the Department of Education and Skills. Gradually, blame for what had occurred in the past or responsibility for future actions was assigned to more localised individuals including other teachers, parents and the EAL learners themselves. Towards the end of the process, more frequent expressions of teacher agency were evident, even as the participants came to understand the temporal and ecological influences that inhibited or facilitated agency. Analysis of teachers’ efficacy beliefs and their perceptions of various stakeholders as capable actors appears to provide evidence of the participants accepting a re-imagined role for themselves as activists (Sachs, 2016), seeking an enhanced sense of autonomy. 4.1. The participants’ initial perceptions At the beginning of the dialogic inquiry, the participants described a range of pressures that impact on their professional lives. They referred regularly to on-going struggles related to time management and curriculum pressures. As Ann explained, “There's

133

so much in [the curriculum], and you really are under pressure to cover it all. I feel a duty to cover it because I know my infants are moving up a class and I have to have them prepared for that”. This representative statement indicates a view among the participants that the curriculum is seen as “‘a course to run’, given by ‘experts’ and its relevance or importance for students is not questioned” (Turner, Christensen, & Meyer, 2009, p. 362). Gleeson (2010) explains that such a perception of curriculum focuses on techne, a judgement of quality outside the producer, which may lead teachers to view themselves as solely imparters of knowledge. In contrast, an orientation towards curriculum based on praxis perceives teachers as “reflective facilitators of learning who depend on their professional judgement to interpret the curriculum as text” (Gleeson (2010).,p. 4). Participants often spoke about their perception that pupils, parents and the education system exact extensive demands. As much as there is an acknowledgement that each child is an individual, as Ann stated, “Obviously you've got other children to teach as well; you just have to cater for the whole class”. This makes it difficult to differentiate and support the various needs in a classroom, and it leads to compromises, including as Ciara described “teaching to the middle range”. The participants reported experiencing stress, driven by similar contextual factors described in other research including school climate, political structures and instructional factors (Stauffer & Mason, 2013). With the combined pressures of a shortage of time, an expansive curriculum and large class sizes, the participants commented that this can lead to frustration caused by the “frantic” pace, and they used words such as “demoralised” and “depressed” to qualify this sense of frustration. In particular, they noted these feelings heighten in the context of perceived criticism from outsiders, particularly school inspectors from the Department of Education and Skills, which has been observed previously in other contexts that describe the intense scrutiny teachers are under to follow a prescriptive curriculum and schedule mandates as well as expending time and energy preparing themselves and children for

Fig. 3. Participants' attribution of agency over the course of the dialogic inquiry.

134

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

external evaluation (Palmer & Martínez, 2013). This assignment of knowledge and authority to outsiders presents a common conundrum, as teachers feel under threat from outsiders while simultaneously looking to them for support (Biesta et al., 2015). In the midst of this climate, teachers mentioned several times in the first two meetings that they felt unknowledgeable. This denigration of their own knowledge suggested a perception of powerlessness and an assumption that knowledge emanates solely from outside experts. The participants concurred that their training had provided no information on how to teach EAL learners, and it was suggested that training continues to ignore this aspect of mainstream teaching. In response, teachers are, as Liz said, “playing it by ear”. Ann qualified her actions as a professional saying, “What I do now, whether it's right or wrong e I don't know if an inspector came in whether they'd agree or not”. In summary, teachers frequently described feelings of being under pressure and expressed a lack of certainty about the choices they were making, seeking validation for these actions, rather than attributing their decision-making towards reflective thinking grounded in their own knowledge base.

4.2. Perception of distant authorities as not accepting responsibility Numerous examples from the first meeting of teachers ascribed agency to the Department alone, addressing various aspects of EAL teaching. Ellen suggested the Department had failed to provide adequate resources. Tara concurred, suggesting there was a dearth of guidelines. There were also several references to the lack of funding for interpreter or translation services. The group, from the very first meeting, mentioned the lack of appropriate assessment, either in English or in a child's first language. Most importantly to the group of participants, there was an absence of professional development. It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that the teachers felt the Department had been completely unresponsive, other than allocating ELSTs to some schools. While such a characterisation is not completely accurate, with the presence of some materials recommended by the Department as well as some opportunities for ELST professional development, the participants strongly felt that the Department was largely indifferent, with inspectors demonstrating little expert knowledge and an inability to recommend next steps that seemed practical. At the beginning of the second meeting, Ciara asked the facilitating researcher, “Are we more negative than you thought we'd be?” This perception seems to indicate that the group felt that they had vented their frustrations and now were able to examine the issues to be discussed in a new way. That does not mean the participants did not continue to assign responsibility to the Department. This continued strongly in the second meeting (see Fig. 3), with a sense that while the Department was not in a position to change everything, Ellen said, “But the assessment the government should be meeting”. In addition to assessment, there were comments concerning class size, the need for interpreter services and extension of language support beyond a two-year limit. Tara and Ciara suggested the Department was more than happy to leave teachers underresourced and untrained saying, Tara: Yeah. I mean that's what the Department is depending on. Ciara: The fact that we're going to swim and we'll survive. Tara: Yeah. Basically because we have to, because you have to. These comments began to suggest that while the group felt strongly that the Department was not acting in its best capacity, the

participants were aware that they possessed some level of agency and were obligated to respond as thoughtful practitioners. As references to the responsibility of the Department declined in subsequent meetings, the perceived locus of agency shifted to other stakeholders during an intermediate stage in the awakening of a sense of agency. 4.3. Perceived locus of agency attributed to other stakeholders As the inquiry progressed in the third, fourth and fifth meetings, the participants made suggestions indicating that they perceived the locus of agency with more proximate stakeholders. This evidenced itself in comments that either assigned blame for perceived problems, notably with references to parents and the EAL learners themselves, or assigned responsibility for future actions to other staff members in the school. The use of the word blame, while obviously pejorative, does encapsulate many participants' perceptions that pupils and their parents were themselves responsible for obstructing EAL learners' language development, academic progress and social integration. This confirms previous research that suggests mainstream teachers, especially those teaching EAL learners for the first time, often assign responsibility for adjusting to a new culture and school life to the pupils themselves (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004). Firstly, teachers suggested, as Ellen expressed, that EAL learners often “choose to alienate themselves”. This was an on-going concern for Ellen related to one of her EAL learners, who she felt had all the necessary attributes to be popular in the classroom but instead showed indifference towards interacting with others. This perspective began to change as others argued that it was not a completely fair assessment of the social complexities in a classroom, particularly for EAL learners, grounded in a growing understanding of why pupils may cluster together or hesitate to interact with English-fluent peers. This suggests there was a shift in the teachers' understanding of agency that became more theoretically complex and aligned with post-structural viewpoints by acknowledging that their pupils' agency is dependent on the temporal and ecological structures present in the classroom. The participants began to observe their pupils’ behaviours as individualised rather than based on perceived universal traits of all EAL learners, showing some movement toward recognising the range of individual differences related to second language acquisition identified € rnyei (2005) including personality, temperament, language by Do aptitude, motivation, learning preferences and self-monitoring skills. Tied to this was the perception that EAL learners often avoid risks and fail to demonstrate their knowledge. Liz commented in the fourth meeting that her Polish pupils often grouped together and spoke their first language, saying “Even if they can speak English I find they actually don't”. This statement suggests several subtle messages. Firstly, it seems to indicate that she felt there was little she could do to influence the use of language in the classroom. Secondly, it indicates a sense that the first language remained a barrier from her point of view. Thirdly, it seems to indicate an assumption that receptive and productive language are acquired almost simultaneously. These views changed during dialogue, however, and in contrast Liz commented in the sixth meeting when encouraging interaction was discussed, “All of this language I never knew he had because obviously I'm not giving him the chance to talk because I have it in my head that he can't talk”. Such a change suggests her awareness that the hesitancy to speak may have been related partly to structures put in place by the mainstream teacher rather than a child's willingness to engage in the new language. Several teachers mentioned difficulties teaching pupils who, as Ellen said, do not “want to learn”. This perspective, that a lack of will

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

on the part of the EAL learner was a critical problem, largely disappeared after the fourth meeting bar one comment in the seventh meeting when Ciara said, “If they actually don't have a personal sense of discipline then they're not in a position to learn”. These statements are not necessarily about EAL learners alone. Instead, they seem to be more general in nature, as demonstrated generally regarding teachers' beliefs about pupil motivation (Turner et al., 2009). Closely linked to this concern about pupil motivation were statements related to parental involvement. The relationship between parents and teachers appears to be a fraught one, something that has been demonstrated previously (G
andara et al., 2005; Lasky, 2000). In the context of EAL teaching, a fractured relationship can lead to underlying resentment and resistance (Franson, 1999) and teachers responding to difficulties by focusing solely on the parent's role (Haworth, 2009). The number of references made by the participants that perceived parents as having agency but rarely fulfilling this role peaked during the seventh meeting because the focus of the meeting was the development of action steps to encourage greater involvement for parents of EAL learners. Much of these statements, like those about pupil motivation, were more general in nature and not solely about parents of EAL learners. It has been suggested that such statements allow “teachers to admit their practice [is] troubling them without requiring too much revelation of their own insecurities and failures” (Finley, Marble, Copeland, Ferguson, & Alderete, 2000: Findings and discussion, para. 12), in essence shifting the focus away from themselves. The group of teachers acknowledged that there are many barriers that may prevent parents' involvement in the school including parents' own experiences in school, hesitancy about speaking with teachers, work demands and language barriers. Despite this awareness, several statements such as “Our children are parentally disadvantaged” and “They're waiting for the teacher to trip up” indicate tension between teachers and parents. Of note, the comments show that both parents and teachers place each other under constant surveillance, judging each other according to norm-based beliefs (Lasky, 2000). When these norms are challenged, parents and teachers can become defensive. Despite the possibility that a teacher-as-expert perspective among parents often remains dominant and can create communication barriers, most participants' statements related to parental involvement suggested it was the parents' responsibility to engage with the school and the education of their children. Not all references were negative, particularly related to parents of EAL learners who were often described as showing great interest in the educational progress of their children. Liz and Ellen explained their perception that attitudes of the parents have a direct impact on the progress of pupils. Ellen: […] the girl that has come in to me now will do well because there is this want and need to go on to [university]. If there isn't the want and need to be educated either through secondary education or [university], like any kid, you're not going to. Very few children have the need within themselves or the want within themselves and a lot of it isLiz: It has to come from home. Ellen: Home. Yes. This perspective that aspirations from home have a direct influence on learning English was held by most participants, echoed in previous research that observed teachers' perceptions of parents' value for education may influence expectations teachers hold for pupils (Hauser-Cram, Sirin, & Stipek, 2003). Ciara expressed the

135

idea that parents' attitudes towards education were very important in situations where language development and academic progress were slow, suggesting parents need to be genuinely willing to work with their child as opposed to just saying they'll support them by making statements that are essentially “hot air”. This supports previous research related to the relationship between teachers and parents conducted by Lasky (2000, p. 852) who observed that teachers felt “ineffective, powerless and hopeless when they believed their efforts to work effectively with pupils were impeded due to lack of support from parents”. There was a belief that remained on the periphery throughout the project that those parents who valued learning English themselves made it much easier for their children to succeed. Valuing English meant partly that the parents would make an effort to acquire the language themselves. At first it was assumed necessary, with Ciara commenting in the second meeting, “There should be some means of emphasising to the parents that if the parents are making an effort with the language then [the children] also would improve in leaps and bounds”. The sense that children benefit when their parents also acquire English remained, though the conviction that it is a prerequisite for successful English language learning diminished modestly. Tara, in the final meeting, stated, “I think once the parents have a little bit of English and they're willing and they use it, I think that has helped certainly”. Finally, there were many references to the impact of the “calibre of parenting”. This led to a somewhat defeatist perspective that suggested there was little teachers could do if the “home life” was perceived problematic. In the same conversation in the seventh meeting on the effect of parents not having English ability, Ann was less moderate in tone, commenting, But then you have children whose parents maybe don't have great English or no English, and I think they're at a disadvantage right from the start, no matter what you do for them, the scaffolding, everything. You can do everything you can e of course they'll progress but … Therefore, unlike a new understanding of the pupils' agency emerging that recognised the temporal and ecological influences, the participants' understanding of the parents' agency remained primarily a function of the parents' own will. As described in other research, teachers often believe familial or personal defects of a motivational nature as the source of a child's lack of academic progress (Valencia & Black, 2002). Teachers regularly fail to recognise the funds of knowledge (Rios-Aguilar, Marquez Kiyama, Gravitt, & Moll, 2011) that parents and children from marginalised backgrounds possess, similar to the attitude present in many professional development experiences towards teachers' funds of knowledge. A more focused dialogic inquiry might achieve more meaningful reflection on relationships between teachers and parents, particularly examining teachers' perception of parents as change agents. 4.4. Recognising opportunities for collaboration While there was limited movement in encouraging teachers to imagine their own influence in affecting opportunities for increased parental involvement, there was a notable transformation in how they perceived their own role in collaborating with other stakeholders in the school. At first, references towards ELSTs were all related to the mainstream teachers’ perceptions that they were the teacher responsible for teaching EAL learners. Various statements in the third meeting indicated a belief that the more contact time pupils had with an ELST the better. This also could be interpreted as evidence that they felt unable to support

136

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

EAL learners as mainstream teachers. Nan said she felt 30e45 min per day with an ELST was not sufficient. Ellen stated, “The more time they have with the language teacher, the more they progress”. As the action research process progressed, teachers often commented that the ELST could easily support the implementation of classroom interventions, and there were several examples of working in conjunction with other members of the school staff. On the one hand, this could be interpreted as a relinquishing of personal responsibility for the implementation of the action step. Yet, from another perspective, it indicates that new forms of collaboration developed, an important step towards creating a wholeschool approach to supporting EAL learners that could become more successful if such collaboration becomes richer, with shared goals and negotiation of roles maintained by using common planning structures and ways to monitor the collaboration (Davison, 2006). From the fourth meeting onward, there were very few references to ELSTs, other than examples of collaboration, except a statement made by Ellen indicating she continued to believe that the ELST was the teacher with greater agency. She commented, “I know that [my EAL learner] will never learn as much from me as she will from her language teacher”. This statement was expressed in a discussion about when and how to mainstream EAL learners, though a similar statement was not expressed for the rest of the dialogic inquiry. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that this attitude either shifted or remained fixed other than observing the silence in the rest of the meetings as well as noting that only one teacher held this viewpoint strongly. 4.5. A developing sense of their own agency complementing others’ agency Like statements made critiquing the government, there remained a sense that all of the comments assigning the locus of agency to others in the immediate setting remained valid for the participants. Yet, though the participants perceived a limited degree of influence on affecting changes outside of the classroom, acknowledging that their agency (or lack of agency) is dependent on aspects beyond their personal influence, increasingly the participants made statements suggesting the acceptance of a greater degree of responsibility for meeting the needs of their EAL learners. Specifically, there were indications that they perceived themselves as agents for change, able to initiate small actions in their realm of autonomy, the mainstream classroom, that benefited EAL learners. This can also be seen as greater reflexivity among the participants in that they were able to analyse social and organisational structures and recognise their own ability to effect change within those structures. Situated cognition enhances professional knowledge, if enacted collaboratively and in the context of actions and practice, because it leads teachers to understand their environment by actively shaping it (Riveros et al., 2012). As such they were not simply acting out roles assigned to them by social structures but consciously deciding to change not just their own behaviour but social roles as well. Data suggest that the teachers’ sense of agency changed to envision themselves in a capable role because their efficacy beliefs changed. The clearest examples of the participants viewing themselves as capable actors became apparent during later stages of the dialogic inquiry. Yet, there were several earlier statements that suggested this transformation began before the final meeting and interviews. As early as the second meeting, Liz and Ciara commented that teachers are required to be self-sufficient and independent, particularly in the context of limited support and a limited provision of resources. By the third meeting, there was a sense, as Ciara suggested, “So

while there probably are lots of things that teachers can do, how possible is it to do it … all the time”. This was supported by others who agreed that they could see an expanded and important role for themselves, though overarching concerns about time management and their perception of the need to deliver the primary curriculum remained. Ciara hinted at a growing sense of responsibility saying, […] before you would have kind of said well it's his problem, he's not really interested. Whereas as time wears on I think, “That's okay, that's my deficiency that he's not really interested.” Do you know? So possibly we're taking responsibility more for some of their negative behaviours by adapting what we're doing. Such statements demonstrate that there was a gradual recognition of their own role, requiring a new focus that would not seek to attribute perceived difficulties solely to other stakeholders. Instead, this indicated an awareness of the mainstream teacher's own agency and how her or his decisions may impact on other stakeholders while continuing to recognise ways in which other stakeholders also could and should exercise agency. By the fifth meeting, Liz stated, “The teacher needs to teach herself”, specifically in the context of understanding how best to encourage interaction and language usage in the classroom. This suggested that Liz had begun to recognise a responsibility to reconsider received knowledge, her beliefs or habits and reevaluate their effectiveness in the classroom. Liz and Ciara had a brief exchange about how they view the process of learning as a practitioner. Liz: Well, you know as well it's actually the teacher's experience. I mean every year, no matter how long you're teaching, you learn something new. Ciara: And every teacher you deal with or talk to. Liz: And every child that comes into your room you're going to learn something from that child. In a conversation in the seventh meeting about the dialogic inquiry process, Ciara described how the approach had led her to become more motivated to act on behalf of her EAL learner. She stated, “But you got to the point where you're actually doing … more for them in a more profitable way”. Ciara explained her role had become one of advocating for the needs of her EAL learner. Her desire to seek appropriate support for him led her to write letters to the Department and the school psychologist to share her experience but also seek advice on how to support this child. She commented, “Our professional duty is to connect with [EAL learners] in some capacity”. Another indication of change in a sense of agency was the difference between the identification of the needs and barriers of EAL learners in the fourth meeting and the same discussion in the eighth. At the fourth meeting, the primary barriers mentioned by participants were home life and the lack of separate classes to help them develop English. In contrast, at the eighth meeting, issues closely related to the teachers’ realm of influence were mentioned including providing EAL learners with opportunities for interaction and further professional development for all teachers. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of a change in understanding of agency occurred during the evaluation discussion as part of the final meeting. One participant had suggested that the Department was not addressing assessment sufficiently. While not disagreeing with this statement, Ciara clearly indicated that waiting for other stakeholders to act was a passive and ineffectual response.

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

Yeah … but that's too easy too, to kind of blame everything on the Department. The Department should do this … this, that and the other. Because there's not going to be a magic wand, it's not going to change everything. I reckon it's […] the first and the last resort. It's where things must go to, but in the meantime it's too easy to just say it's their fault. Most of the examples of statements indicating a change in a sense of agency came from Ciara and Liz. Yet, there were statements made by others also indicated that they now viewed themselves as responsible and important change agents. Nan argued, with strong agreement from Ellen, that professional development should be directed not just at ELSTs, primarily as a reminder that “the language teachers only have them for half an hour every day … whereas we have them all day, every day”. Ann also described how it was her responsibility to set up appropriate, structured oral language in the classroom. Building on these statements, when asked how this may have changed their teaching practice in the future, the most common reply was that they were now more confident about teaching EAL learners. Liz explained in her evaluative interview, As well as the experiences here, my own teaching experience as well … when you really delve into it and when you really look at what you're doing with them, I think it's easier than we think it is. This statement suggests that she had come to see her own experiences as valuable for making decisions and also indicates a greater openness and willingness to engage with EAL learners in a meaningful way. The final part of her statement suggests a desire to reflect on and experiment with her practice. Ann made a similar statement, noting that she had become more focused on developing small ways of helping EAL learners which also often benefit other pupils. As Ellen said, previously the EAL learners “tended to just blend in, and when I got a new one e I was so used to getting a new one e I didn't focus on them”. Several participants stated they intended to make the needs of their EAL pupils a priority in the future. Nan argued that making them a priority required seeing these children as individuals rather than as one large group needing the same level and form of assistance. Ann echoed this belief, arguing that it was her obligation to make language input comprehensible for each individual pupil. Part of making EAL learners’ needs a priority involves an increased level of empathy, according to Nan and Ellen. Perhaps most importantly, indicating a sense that a mainstream teacher can be an activist for change, Ciara stated in her evaluative interview, […] it probably made me be more proactive in terms of the fact that [my EAL learner] was kind of not getting involved. That it would have made me, not just for him but for others as well, that I was compromising as I was going along […] I felt I should do more for him, which I think has to be a good thing […] No matter what level he's at there are ways to reach him at that level. Ciara continued to elaborate, suggesting that from day one she would seek to ensure EAL learners' progress, especially to counteract the prevailing assumption that they are lazy or not aware when in reality it may be a lack of understanding. She argued that meeting pupils where they were at as far as language fluency is always possible and always necessary. This viewpoint suggests, at least for this individual participant, that her understanding of her role as a mainstream teacher is one that must be active and responsible, advocating for the rights of all her pupils, grounded in

137

a conviction that progress is always possible. This resonates with Fullan’s (1999) call for a moral purpose to be central in teaching, specifically making a difference by enhancing the opportunities afforded to all pupils. As Ciara wrote in her written evaluation comments, “I will carry forward a strong feeling of the entitlement of EAL students to be assisted in accessing as much as possible, as often as possible”. 5. Discussion While the focus of the dialogic inquiry was on language teaching and learning, the data suggest that the dialogue went beyond just teaching EAL learners. The participants seem to have considered broadly personal perspectives on teaching and learning in general, particularly their role as an autonomous professional and their perception of agency. This professional development experience followed a reconstructionist paradigm (Cochran-Smith, 1995) intended to lead teachers towards questioning their assumptions and re-imagining a role as activists in their profession, based on a renewed sense of agency. Actively fighting the norm of an expert transferring knowledge, this approach intended to renew professional identities as learners, reflective practitioners and activists. Because opportunities for collective sense-making are limited, teachers are often in a state of confusion (Biesta et al., 2015). The usual absence of professional discourse negatively impacts on teachers’ potential to exercise agency. This dialogic inquiry gave an opportunity for effective teacher talk in a collaborative setting. Naturally, the dialogue highlighted the environmental aspects of agency, where teachers came to recognise their ability to influence the classroom but found it more difficult to see a role as an agent outside of specific autonomous zones (Biesta, Priestley, & Robinson, 2017). Each participant in their evaluative interview initially seemed to suggest that they wished there had been greater direction from the facilitating researcher. Yet, several of the teachers changed their point of view over the course of the interview, suggesting that this would have altered the experience profoundly. As Ellen said, “On reflection it is probably the best”, suggesting that the unplanned dialogue without direction led to the sharing of difficulties and the development of actions to address them, rather than the usual mode of an expert informing workshop attendees which problems they will experience and how they should address them. The participants explained that the process did not take the usual form of “someone talking at you”, but instead involved learning situated in a sharing of experiences, practices and opinions. Personal theories of social and organisational structure were discussed, and as such, the participants become more aware of the social situatedness of their own agency, reaffirming a perspective that agency is not a matter of individual capacity but an ecological response and that any stakeholder's agency is dependent on aspects beyond personal influence (Biesta et al., 2015). While the participants may have wanted tips, tricks and skills for use with EAL learners, the outcome of the process was a more situated understanding of learners and themselves in social and organisational context. This dialogue moved personal knowledge towards professional knowledge as personal theories were communicated and considered publicly. Because this dialogic inquiry countered participants’ notions of professional development, a form of acculturation to participantdriven professional development was required, alluded to in previous research that suggested it takes time for teachers to accept soft approaches because of a continuing sense that hard, practical measures ready for implementation are needed (Clayton et al., 2008). It has been argued that such a process requires practice to become effective (Clair, 1998). While it can be argued that all participants moved towards a

138

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139

greater sense of agency related to teaching EAL learners, the degree of this sense of self-efficacy varied. For example, Tara in her evaluative interview, still yearned for external and expert assurance that she was following good practices. Similarly, Liz felt that the facilitating researcher should have been explicit about objectives and expectations, sensing that she was not meeting another person's intentions. This appears to be only natural as teacher identity undergoes continuous reconstruction by drawing on personal beliefs and biographical experiences balanced with structural expectations (Vloet & van Swet, 2010). Therefore, while individuals continued to prize outsider affirmation, the participants did begin to value their own knowledge and potential and showed openness towards engaging in a similar process in the future. Acculturation to such an approach may require a revision of the participants' understanding of professional development and ultimately their perceptions of professional knowledge. It is likely that the value of a professional dialogic inquiry often manifests itself in small, incremental movements and changes in practice (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002), at times imperceptible to the practitioner. Professional development experiences often reinforce the notion that there are universal solutions suitable for all classrooms as well as suggest that anything personal should be devalued as teachers reject their inner voice and their own hard-earned knowledge (Dadds, 2014). Instead, through this dialogic inquiry there seem to have been significant steps taken by all participants towards a broader sense of professional knowledge that is variable and responsive to both teachers’ preferences and the needs of their learners. This could be described as a change in orientation from strategies to principles, an awareness that rather than collecting specific tricks to be applied in the classroom, teachers are better served by reviewing and clarifying personal understandings related to teaching and learning through robust, critical conversations (Biesta et al., 2015; Palmer & Martínez, 2013). 6. Conclusion At the heart of this dialogic inquiry, and in response to the research question, there seems to have been a change in the participants’ sense of teacher agency, specifically their efficacy beliefs regarding their work with EAL learners. Rather than following a deficit approach towards teacher change that is often prevalent in professional development experiences, this dialogic inquiry set out to empower individuals to recognise their capacity for agency. Ciara most strongly summarised this perspective in her evaluative interview stating, My attitude has moved from can't do (by him) to how can I help him do (by me). Handwringing was replaced by minute changes in my awareness of him e which of itself improved my attitude to my EAL pupil, thus improving his outcomes. The results support a sociocultural understanding of teacher agency with particular focus on social contexts and cultural tools that influence beliefs, values and actions e in short, people doing things together in social situations using the tools available to them. All stakeholders continue to exercise agency, but the participants’ personal capacity for change should be their focus, acknowledging that sociocultural conditions shape and influence their sense of agency. Agency is not limited to one actor, rejecting the false assumption that either a teacher has agency or another stakeholder has agency. Instead, agency is assigned to multiple players, with teachers exercising their power while understanding the context and power relationships that assign agency to other stakeholders. This is supported by the concept of mediated agency (Lasky, 2005). Often the exercise of agency is relational, grounded

in the interaction between these stakeholders. Equally, agency is contextual as teachers recognise the situations in which their knowledge can be directly or indirectly used to create changes in practice. Professional development typically focuses on the instrumental aspects of teaching rather than intellectual engagement with wider issues embedded in the relationships established in the ecological environment of the school and wider society. Instead, as Biesta et al. (2015) have argued previously, robust discourse leads to teachers locating their own understandings and beliefs within a wider conversation, ensuring that beliefs are not viewed as inevitable but chosen. The findings suggest further research is warranted concerning the role of a facilitating researcher. While a balance between dominating and promoting the dialogue was required, the presence of a facilitator seemed necessary to maintain a shared direction. As part of enhancing the process and perhaps leading to greater ownership of the dialogic inquiry among participants, a more deliberate transfer of responsibility may be appropriate. It appears, based on the experiences as described in this paper, that this process requires significant scaffolding. Central to any such endeavour, the focus would seem to benefit from remaining fixed on the goal of affecting pupils’ experiences by involving teachers in a reexamination of their values and practice. A degree of flexibility is necessary, allowing for participants to shape the process. Therefore, it is envisioned that implementing a dialogic inquiry as a form of participatory action research in a different setting and context may require some changes to localise the experience and provide a sense of ownership to participants, requiring negotiation between participants and the facilitating researcher in this cogenerative model of teacher research. Further research could look at embedding these practices within schools where school leaders act as the process facilitators to address ecological aspects of agency as well as to support the integration of discursive practices in learning communities. In summary, the results affirm the value of teacher talk as a resource for the achievement of teacher agency, where talk is not independently created but is constructed through the interaction of collective sense-making and the wider discourse. This dialogic inquiry led to a reappraisal of their role as a teacher, awakening their sense that they were activists with expert knowledge who held a responsibility to address the needs of EAL learners. Funding This work was supported by the Centre for Applied Language Studies at the University of Limerick. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.014. References Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164e180. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624e640. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: Exploring the significance of teachers' talk for agency. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 38e54. Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. Tesol Quarterly, 32(3), 465e492. Clayton, S., O'Brien, M., Burton, D., Campbell, A., Qualter, A., & Varga-Atkins, T. (2008). ‘"I know it's not proper research, but…": How professionals' understandings of research can frustrate its potential for CPD. Educational Action Research, 16(1), 73e84. Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers:

M. Wallen, R. Tormey / Teaching and Teacher Education 82 (2019) 129e139 Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493e522. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249e305. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Cummins, J. (2003). Challenging the construction of difference as deficit: Where are identity, intellect, imagination and power in the new regime of truth? In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 39e58). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dadds, M. (2014). Continuing professional development: Nurturing the expert within. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 9e16. Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454e475. Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life. Dublin: DES. € rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in Do second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962e1023. Finley, S., Marble, S., Copeland, G., Ferguson, C., & Alderete, K. (2000). Professional development and teachers’ construction of coherent instructional practices: A synthesis of experiences in five sites. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777e795. Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language: The class teacher's perspective. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 59e71. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press. G
andara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Garmston, R., & von Frank, V. (2012). Unlocking group potential to improve schools. London: Sage. Gleeson, J. (2010). Curriculum in context: Partnership, power and praxis in Ireland. Bern. Switzerland: Peter Lang. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Trans. C. Lenhardt & S. Weber Nicholson. Cambridge: MIT Press. Haneda, M., Teemant, A., & Sherman, B. (2017). Instructional coaching through dialogic interaction: Helping a teacher to become agentive in her practice. Language and Education, 31(1), 46e64. Hauser-Cram, P., Sirin, S. R., & Stipek, D. (2003). When teachers' and parents' values differ: Teachers' ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 813e820. Haworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2179e2208. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3e15.

139

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. London: Sage. Lasky, S. (2000). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher-parent interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 843e860. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociological approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899e916. Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing teachers to educate Latina/o children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 269e297. Rios-Aguilar, C., Marquez Kiyama, J., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich?: A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163e184. Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2012). A situated account of teacher agency and learning: Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 202e216. Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of collaborative action research on the knowledge of five Canadian teacher-researchers. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 255e274. Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: Why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(4), 413e425. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: Sage. Stauffer, S. D., & Mason, E. C. M. (2013). Addressing elementary teachers' professional stressors: Practical suggestions for schools and administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 809e837. Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 346e355. Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Teachers' beliefs about student learning and motivation. In L. J. Saha, & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (Vol.21, pp. 361e371). Springer International Handbooks of Education. € h€ Va asantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1e12. Valencia, R. R., & Black, M. S. (2002). ‘Mexican-Americans don't value education!’: On the basis of the myth, mythmaking and debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 81e103. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO e International Institute for Educational Planning. Vloet, K., & van Swet, J. (2010). ‘I can only learn in dialogue!’ Exploring professional identities in teacher education. Professional Development in Education, 36(1e2), 149e168. Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). Not in my classroom: Teachers' attitudes towards English language learners in the classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130e160. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51e85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V., & Rupert, L. J. (1993). The authority of cultural tools in a sociocultural approach to mediated agency. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3e4), 227e239. Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 9(3), 213e238.