Open this publication in new window or tab >>2025 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]
This paper reports on images of lesson planning. In an attempt to conceptualise current lesson planning, a series of duo-ethnographic conversations (Karaz, Martini & Faez, 2022) with practicing teachers were initiated by teacher educators and researchers at a Swedish university. The conversations, starting with novice language teachers, functioned as a constructive space where new teachers reflected on the usability of course content studied in the teacher education programme, in relation to lesson planning needs of their current work (SNAE, 2022). Conversations with new teachers of other school subjects will follow in spring-time. Theory-wise, principles and models of lesson planning (e. g. Brewster, Ellis & Girard, 2012; Brown, 2007; Ellis, 2008; Harmer, 2015; Purgason, 2014; Shin, 2006; Tornberg, 2016; Wiliam, 2019), genre as founded and developed within Systemic Functional Linguistics (e. g. Bartlett & O’Grady, 2017; Hyland, 2007, 2004; Martin, 2009; Maton, Martin & Doran, 2021) and action research (Burns & Dikilitas, 2024; Edwards & Burns, 2024) guided the study. Methodologically, the duo-ethnographic approach, include digitally recorded and transcribed conversations, combined with artefacts and written reflections (cf. Glazer & Bailey, 2022). In the ongoing analysis, three continuua were constructed to capture the range of images of lesson planning mentioned; illusion --- authenticity, structure --- flexibility and individual planning --- collaboration. Potentially, the genre stretches from a written document to the interactive mode, and it could embrace a scheduled 45-minute lesson following a set structure on a weekly basis as well as individual study planning and collaborative planning of study for groups of learners in the digital- and physical room. Clearly, the community of practice of novice teachers was keen on reasoning about purposes, structures and grammar of lesson planning. At the conference it would be interesting to engage with theory-building of lesson planning as a genre with experts in the field!
Keywords
Professional development; Teacher education, Duo-ethnography; Lesson planning; Genre
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Educational Sciences in Arts and Professions
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-245017 (URN)
Conference
50th International Systemic Functional Congress and Institute (ISFC 50): A Trinocular Retrospective, 7-11 July, 2025, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Note
The study is part of a small-scale project on assessment and lesson planning carried out together with Birgitta Fröjdendahl.
References:
Bartlett, T. & O’Grady, G. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Routledge.
Brewster, J. Ellis, G. & Girard, D. (2012). The Primary English Teachers’ Guide. Penguin Classics.
Brown, D.H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Pearson.
Burns, A., & Dikilitaş, K. (Eds.). (2024). The Routledge Handbook of Language Teacher Action Research. Routledge.
Glazer, A. M. & Bailey, K. M. (2022). Reflecting and Connecting: Creating Opportunities for Teacher Trainees to Connect Theory and Practice. I Tajeddin, Z. & Watanabe, A. (Red.). Teacher Reflection. Policies, Practices and Impacts. Multilingual Matters, 88 – 104.
Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2024). Inclusivity and sustainability in language practitioner researcher development: A sociocultural ecological framework. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241250363
Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).
Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (Fifth edition). Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Wiley.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Wtiting.16 (3), 148-164.
Karaz, M., Martini, J. & Faez, F. (2022). Duoethnography for Reflective Practice: Triumphs and Challenges. In Tajeddin, Z. & Watanabe, A. (Red.). Teacher Reflection. Policies, Practices and Impacts. Multilingual Matters, 120-134.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20 (1), 10 – 21.
Maton, K., Martin, J.R., & Doran, Y.J. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching Science: Knowledge, Language, Pedagogy (1st ed.). Routledge.
Purgason, K. B. (2014). Lesson Planning in Second/Foreign Language Teaching. In: Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M. & Snow, M.A. (red.). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (4 ed.) National Geographic Learning, 362 – 379.
Shin, J. K. (2006). Ten Helpful Ideas. English Teacher Forum, 44 (2), 2-7.
The Swedish National Agency of Education (SNAE) (2022). Curriculum for Comprehensive School, Preschool Class and School-Age Educare. Curriculum for Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-Age Educare – Lgr22 - Skolverket
Tornberg, U. (2020). Språkdidaktik. [Language Education]. Gleerups.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Formative Embedded Assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. (2019). Att följa lärande. Studentlitteratur.
2025-07-142025-07-142025-08-20