Teacher learning by script

Abstract

Scripted instruction (SI) programs, which direct teachers to teach, even to talk, from a standardized written script, are roundly criticized for inhibiting teacher creativity and teacher learning. In fact, such programs utilize scripting for exactly that reason: to reduce teacher interference with (and presumed weakening of) the prescribed curriculum and its delivery. Yet, two teachers in this 18-month study reported learning much about language and language teaching from scripted instruction programs. Through a sociocultural lens, this article explores how an instructional program so widely decried as de-professionalizing instead became a catalyst for these teachers’ professional growth. Exploring the teachers’ reasoning about adopting the program and their day-to-day experiences teaching by script yielded new insight into how the language teachers used the script as a meditational tool for their own teacher learning. These teachers’ cases underscore the need for formal teacher education to articulate with how teachers learn and to advance teacher development toward adaptive teaching expertise.

Keywords

sociocultural theory scripted instruction teacher learning language teacher education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bransford, J. , Derry, S. , Berliner, D. , & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Canagarajah, A.S. ( 1999). Interrogating the ‘native speaker fallacy’: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Commeyras, M. ( 2007). Scripted reading Instruction? What’s a teacher educator to do? Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 404-07.

Dejka, J. ( 2009). On the front line of an education war. Omaha World Herald. 7 June. Retrieved online from http://www.omaha.com (June 2009).

Duncan-Owens, D. ( 2009). Scripted reading programs: Fishing for success . Principal, 88, 26-29.

Fang, Z. , Fu, D. , & Lamme, L.L. ( 2004). From scripted instruction to teacher empowerment: Supporting literacy teachers to make pedagogical transitions. Literacy , 38, 58-64.

Firth, A. & Wagner, J. ( 1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.

Freeman, D. ( 2004). Language, sociocultural theory, and L2 teacher education: Examining the technology of subject matter and the architecture of instruction . In M.R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 169-97). Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

Gee, J.P. ( 2004). Learning language as a matter of learning social languages within discourses. In M.R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 13-31). Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

10.

Hamann, E.T. ( 2003). The educational welcome of Latinos in the new south. Westport, CT: Praeger.

11.

Hammerness, K. , Darling-Hammond, L. , Bransfords, J. et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Hassett, D.D. ( 2008). Teacher flexibility and judgment: A multidynamic literacy theory. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8, 295-327.

13.

Hawkins, M.R. ( 2004). Social apprenticeships through mediated learning in language teacher education. In M.R. Hawkins (ed), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 89-109). Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

14.

Johnson, K.E. ( 2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235-257.

15.

Johnson, K.E. ( 2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective . New York: Routledge .

16.

Kirby, V. ( 2007). Corrective Reading intervention programme report 2006-07 . Retrieved from http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/correctivereading.htm (March 2010).

17.

Lantolf, J.P. & Johnson, K.E. ( 2007). Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 877-92.

18.

Milosovic, S. ( 2007). Building a case against scripted reading programs: A look at the NCLB’s Reading First initiative’s impact on curriculum choice. The Education Digest, 73, 27-30.

19.

Riessmann, C. ( 2002). Narrative Analysis. In A.M. Huberman and M.B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 217-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Sawyer, R.K. ( 2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33, 12-20.

21.

SRA/McGraw-Hill ( 2009a). Corrective reading: Sample lessons: Decoding: Level B1: Lesson 26. Available online at http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/free-downloads.htm#corrective_reading (March 2010).

22.

SRA/McGraw-Hill ( 2009b). Corrective reading: Sample lessons: Comprehension: Level A: Lesson 52. Available online at http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/free-downloads.htm#corrective_reading (March 2010).

23.

What Works Clearinghouse (2007). Corrective reading. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Intervention Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Education .