SATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE• MENU• PRINTABLE VERSION• HELP & FAQS

Teacher and Student Learningin the Workplace: The Impactof Performance Tests
Kazuyoshi Sato
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Keiko Takahashi(teachers and a group of students), classroom
observations, surveys (teachers and students),
and documents (including teachers’ materials andstudents’ performance tests), the study delineates
how EFL teachers interact with their colleagues toimprove students’ communication skills in English inthis school context. This study implies that changing
assessment would be effective in promoting teacher
and student learning. However, without school
culture improvement it is difficult to sustain teacher
and student learning.
学校の中で教師が学んで成長することの大切さが、最近の研究で強調されている。しかしながら、実際に教師の成長が生徒の学習成果にどのような影響を与えるのかは、
ほとんど研究されていない。この研究調査は、複合的調査方法（インタビュー、授業参観、質問調査）を用い、日本の高校の英語教員が生徒のコミュニケ－ション能力を高めるために、どのように協力して何を学んだのかを明らかにする。結論として、評価を変えることは教師の成長と生徒の学習成果に一定の効果があるが、教師が継続的に学び合うような学校文化の発展なしには、生徒の学習成果をさらに高めることは困難であることを主張する。

Gifu Prefectural High School
Although teacher development in the workplace has
been emphasized in the recent literature, little is
known as to the relationship between teacher learningand student learning. This study aims at revealing
how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers
learn to teach and how teacher learning influences
student learning in a Japanese public high school.
Using multiple data sources including interviews
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

325

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE[W]e will fail…to improve schooling for children
until we acknowledge the importance of schools not
only as places for teachers to work but also as places
for teachers to learn. (Smylie, 1995, p. 92)

to a powerful base of theoretical knowledge,
such learning requires settings that support
teacher inquiry and collaboration and strategies
grounded in teachers’ questions and concerns. To
understand deeply, teachers must learn about, see,and experience successful learning-centered andlearner-centered teaching practices. (p. 598)

Research IssueT

his study aims at revealing how English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) teachers learn to teach and how teacher
learning influences student learning in a Japanese public highschool. Although teacher development in the workplace has
been emphasized in the recent literature, little is known howteachers learn to teach (Grossman, 1992; Little, 1990; Sato,
2000) and how teacher learning influences student learning(Smylie, 1994; Sykes, 1999). More recently, in the area of ESOL
teacher education Freeman (2001) included “Teacher learningand student learning in TESOL” as one of the research issues
for the TESOL International Research Foundation, by sayingthat “teachers must engage in their own professional learning inorder to improve student learning” (p. 608).
Teacher learning here means inservice teacher learningin schools in contrast with preservice teacher training fromprescribed workshops or new curricula (Darling-Hammond &McLaughlin, 1995; Sato, 2000; 2002; Smylie, 1996). Teachers
do not learn by being told what to do. Darling-Hammond &McLaughlin (1995) assert:
Teachers learn by doing, reading, and reflecting(just as students do); by collaborating with otherteachers; by looking closely at students and theirwork; and by sharing what they see. This kind oflearning enables teachers to make the leap fromtheory to accomplished practice. In addition
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

School teaching cultures that support teacher learning seemto be crucial for professional development. Feiman-Nemser &Floden (1986) define school teaching cultures by saying that
“Teaching cultures are embodied in the work-related beliefs
and knowledge teachers share--beliefs about appropriate waysof acting on the job and rewarding aspects of teaching, andknowledge that enables teachers to do their work” (p. 508).
After Feiman-Nemser & Floden (1986) posed a future researchissue to examine the existence of diversity in teaching culturessystematically, further studies identified typologies of common
teaching cultures. For example, Rosenholtz (1989) identified two
types of school cultures, which influenced teacher and student
learning. The first type was called “learning-enriched” and thesecond one was called “learning-impoverished” school cultures.
For literature review, three other studies that examined teaching
cultures in high schools in different contexts are worth reviewing.
First, Kleinsasser (1993) applied Rosenholtz’s (1989) workwith high school foreign language teachers. Data was collectedfrom 37 teachers in 11 high schools in US contexts throughinterviews, observations, and surveys. Two distinctive technicalcultures emerged. The first type was called “routine/uncertain
cultures,” where most schools belonged. In this type of schools,
teachers 1) were uncertain about their instructional practice, 2)
were engaged in day-to-day routine, 3) had few conversations
about instruction, and 4) relied on traditional approaches. In

326

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
contrast, the other type was called “nonroutine/certain cultures,”where 1) teachers were confident about their instruction, 2) their
daily practices were not predictable, 3) they collaborated acrossthe departments, and 4) they incorporated more communicative
activities. In short, Kleinsasser (1993) revealed the strong
relationship between school cultures and teachers’ practices.
Second, Sato (2000; 2002) conducted a yearlong study ina Japanese private high school. Sato revealed one particularschool culture and how teachers learned to teach in that context.
Multiple data sources (interviews, observations, a survey)
identified the strong relationships among the school context,
teacher beliefs, practices, and interactions. Major findings
included:➣ Teachers rarely talked about instruction andteaching issues.
➣ Teachers were uncertain about teaching.
➣ Managing students and various task assignments
took precedence over teaching.
➣ Teachers reinforced their routine practices and someinnovative practices remained unnoticed.
➣ Many teachers collaborated to get things done and toprepare students for university exams.
➣ Most teachers were engaged in few teacher learning
opportunities within the school and outside theschool to receive new ideas.
The study clearly described a routine/uncertain school
culture. Although these teachers collaborated, they did so
to prepare students for university exams. Furthermore, thefindings provided strong support to Little’s (1990) claim thatcollaboration may lead teachers to reinforce existing practices
and indicated that this type of collaboration eroded teachers’
motivation to learn to teach in a school context.
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

Third, McLaughlin & Talbert (2001) did a longitudinal study
on how various secondary school contexts influence teachers’
work lives and their practices. They selected 16 high schools in
two states in the USA. They identified four types of teaching
cultures and found that different cultures existed not only among
schools but also across departments in the same school. In
strong teacher communities, teachers shared a sense of common
mission. There were two kinds of these. One type was called“teacher learning community” where teachers collaborated tore-invent practice, while the other type was called “traditional
community” where teachers enforced traditions. In contrast,
in weak teacher communities, teachers acted independently
and communicated little with colleagues about teaching. They
also found two types of these weak communities. In one type
teachers innovated alone, while in the other type teachers
enacted traditions or lowered their expectations toward students.
In summary, in collaborative school cultures teachers talkabout teaching on a daily basis, share a repertoire of resources,
and jointly develop their practice for their professional
development. Nonetheless, most schools lack a strong teaching
culture and teachers are isolated and communicate little withcolleagues about their teaching. McLaughlin & Talbert (2001)
claim that “[p]rofessional communities in today’s high schools
differ in strength and in their cultures of practice—differencesthat matter profoundly for teaching and learning” (p. 65).
Then, how can teachers develop their school cultures? How canteachers generate learning opportunities in a school and improvetheir instructional practices? How can teacher learning affect theoutcome of student learning? One of the strategies to promoteteacher and student learning might be changing assessment (Falk2001; Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001).

327

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

Context and Data Collection

Data collection and analysis

Context

Multiple data sources including interviews (teachers and a groupof students), classroom observations, and documents (including
teachers’ materials and students’ performance tests), and surveys(teachers and students) were used to delineate how EFL teachersinteract with their colleagues to improve students’ communication
skills in English in this school context. Data collection started in
September 2002. After the initial teacher survey, a student survey,
teacher interviews, classroom observations are conducted eachterm (there were two terms in this school). At the end of the school
year (March, 2002), a group of six students were interviewed by
Sato. Both qualitative data (interviews observations, documents)
and quantitative data (surveys) from teachers and students wereanalyzed and merged to create evidence of the school culture,teacher learning, and student learning.

This is an on-going study, which started in September 2001. In
addition, this is a collaborative study between a researcher (Sato)and a practitioner (Takahashi). Takahashi, a member of thestudy group organized by Sato, asked him for advice, because
her public senior high school was assigned to experiment with a
two-year project (“communication power-up plan” in Japanese)from the prefectural Board of Education. Sato was interested in
the project and asked for permission to do research. It took him
six months to be finally accepted as a researcher by the principalof this school to collect data. The goal is to improve students’communication skills throughout English education (three years
in junior high school and three years in senior high school) in
accordance with to the present guidelines on communicationoriented English implemented by Mombukagakusho (theMinistry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture).

Participants
In total 15 teachers, including two native English speaking
teachers (assistant teachers), participated in this study. Years ofteaching experiences vary from zero to 30 years, with an averageof 14.4 years as of 2001. There were 10 teachers, including one
native English speaking teacher, when the study started in 2001.
Four teachers left the school and five new teachers came in 2002.
There were 11 teachers in this English department.

JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

School teaching culture
The first teacher interview (September, 2001) data revealed three
distinctive characteristics of this school culture where mostteachers perceived that: 1) teachers lowered their expectationsof students’ outcomes and often complained about theirstudents, 2) managing students and keeping classroom orderwere particularly important, and 3) they did not have enoughcommunication about teaching issues or goals. For example,
Kubo1 confessed that many teachers had already given up.

328

To be honest, teachers in this school have alreadygiven up. Compared to other schools whose graduates
go to prestigious universities, they think their students
are hopeless. I mean, we cannot teach the same way.
Anyway, they are not enthusiastic about teaching.
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
Interestingly, this school created two special classes out of six ineach grade level to prepare some students for university entrance
exams. The policy of this school seemed to separate some“good” students from the majority of “poor” ones. For example,
Suzuki talked about two types of classes.
There are two types of classes. One is for those
who want to get a job after graduating from thishigh school. The other is for those who want to go
to universities. Anyway, most of our students arepoor at English. I have no ideal or wonderful goals
in this school.
Many teachers seemed to have no goals and to lower their
expectations of students’ outcomes. In addition, teachers often
complained about students. They seemed to pay more attention
to classroom order than teaching practice, as Ando reported:
Teachers often complain about students’ lack ofmotivation…I think teachers are not evaluatedmuch based on teaching. Instead, teachers pay
more attention to managing students and keepingclassroom order, because there had been many
classes where teachers lost control with several
students behaving badly until last year.
Moreover, many teachers reported that they usually did nottalk about teaching. Hashimoto said.
We have daily conversations with other teachers,
but usually don’t talk about teaching…We havea weekly department meeting and mainly talkabout administrative things. We start to talk aboutsomething by saying “What shall we do?” but wealways lack time.
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKAIn short, these teachers indicated that they worked in a
weak school teaching culture. In particular, teachers’ lowering
expectations for students is one of the characteristics of weakteacher communities (see McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Theirviews about the teaching culture of this school were consistentthroughout the study. Then how did these EFL teachers learn toteach, and how did teacher learning influence student learningin this weak school culture where a new project was mandated
by the prefectural Board of Education? In the following
sections, Takahashi, one of the teachers, will tell her story, andEFL teachers’ comments from the second interviews will be
examined. Finally, implications will be offered.

Teacher and student learning:
Takahashiʼs story
Oral Communication class forfirst-year students in 2001
Due to the uncertainty about teaching communication skills,
English teachers in our department had been conducting
a grammar class under the name of Oral Communication
class (OC). However, only when the school was assigned toexperiment with the project to improve students’ communicativeskills in 2001, we finally started to have OC in a systematic way.
OC was offered for the first-year students twice a week. The
class size was about 20 students. One of the classes was a teamteaching class with an assistant English teacher (AET) and theother was taught by a Japanese teacher of English (JTE). After
finishing one unit in the textbook (Impact Intro, Longman), thestudents prepared for an oral presentation during one period.
Then, in the next lesson, they performed a presentation in front
329

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACEof the class. Four speech presentations, four pair-conversations,and one group presentation were made throughout the year.
Three different assessment criteria (e.g., volume, eye contact,gestures) were set and showed to students before they prepared
for the presentation. During the performance test, both teachers(a JTE and an AET) and students participated in the assessment.

meeting, we watched several videotaped students’ performancesand discussed the issue. We agreed that both JTEs and an AET
would assess the performance test and talk about the differences.
Another gradual but remarkable change was that we started toshare some of the problems and ideas in the following meetings.
For example, I videotaped students’ presentations in my class andlent it to Kubo. Kubo appreciated my help. This is his comment.

Problems in Oral performance tests

I showed Ms. Takahashi’s video to my students
before presentations. It was very useful.

Five performance tests (three speech presentations and twopair conversations) were made from April to July. However,
little improvement was found in terms of fluency, delivery,
and enthusiasm during this period. It took students one period
to write a skit with only six to eight lines, and in their oralpresentations, they spoke quietly and used few gestures.
Thus, the teachers were frustrated to see the little student
improvement, and some teachers started questioning theeffectiveness of oral performance tests. They said, “Should
we continue oral performance tests when they take too muchtime to prepare and the students don’t improve?” and “Are oralpresentations effective for the students whose English abilities
are not so high?” Moreover, we faced another problem thatthe students’ grades varied to a great extent, depending on theteachers. Some JTEs gave high marks to their students, whileother JTEs were stricter in marking.

Students seemed to notice some of the good points and bad
points about presentations and to raise their awareness about
assessment criteria by watching others. They were also
encouraged to make their own skits.
In October, students started to enjoy the presentation. They
spoke in a louder voice and used more gestures and facial
expressions. We were very pleased to see their improvement.
One student commented as follows:
At first I didn’t enjoy making an oral presentation,but once I got used to it, it was so much fun to do,
I enjoyed both making a presentation and watching
the presentations of my friends.

How to overcome the problem
In September, to solve the problem of the assessment, I asked
Sato for advice. He advised me to have a weekly meeting anddiscuss the assessment criteria with other teachers. I called for ameeting for those who taught OC (six JTEs and one AET). In the
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKAIn February, students made a group presentation for the firsttime. The topic was food. They were required to write a skit,
deciding characters, personalities, place, time, problems, etc.
Their performances were very creative and their skits becamemuch longer than before. The students were able to use English
in context.

330

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

Final grade of OC class

19% to 1%. The number of students who felt “I could speak ina loud voice without any scripts” increased from 17% to 29 %.
The number of students who felt “I could speak with gestures
without any scripts” increased from 4% to 31 %.
For listening skills, as Table 2 shows, the number of students
who felt “I could hardly understand” decreased from 28% to 4%.
The number of students who felt “I could understand a little”
decreased from 41% to 25%. The number of students who felt “I
could understand half of the class” increased from 22% to 39%.
The number of students who felt “I could understand most of theclass” increased from 10% to 30%.
Since the students’ level of English was not high, we wereafraid that pair activities and performance tests would be
too difficult for them to enjoy. However, on the contrary, thestudents liked a student-centered and communication-orientedclass better than a teacher-centered and grammar-translation
class. These are some of their comments.

As for the final grade of OC, we discussed the ratio of each
assessment criterion in a meeting. Although we used to rely
only on term examination as a single assessment criterion, we
decided to incorporate oral performance tests to count for asmuch as 40 % in the final mark for the first time, Thus, we had
three assessment criteria for OC.
1) Term examination: 50 %2) Performance tests: 40 %3) Participation, assignment: 10%

Student survey
The students evaluated their own speaking and listening skills
in April, October and February. These evaluations show thatthey noticed that their speaking and listening skills improved
through the oral presentations. As Table 1 shows, the numberof the students who felt “I could hardly speak” decreased fromIf we just listen to the teacher’s talk, it is boring. OC
class was fun because we had many activities to dowith other students. We helped each other.

Table 1. Speaking skills
I can hardly
speak.

I can speak a little
using scripts.

I can speak in aloud voice without
any scripts.

I can speak using
gestures without
any scripts.

I can speak withemotion without
any scripts.

April

19%

59%

17%

4%

1%

October

5%

40%

30%

23%

2%

February

1%

38%

29%

31%

1%

(209 first-year students)
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA331

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

Table 2. Listening skills
I can hardly
understand.

I can understanda little.

I can understandhalf of the class.

I can understandmost of the class.

I can understandeverything.

April

28%

41%

22%

10%

0%

October

12%

35%

33%

20%

0%

February

4%

25%

39%

30%

1%

(209 first-year students)
OC was useful because we used English a lot. I
talked about myself in pair activities. I used new
expressions in making a presentation.

I want to be able to think in English so that I canspeak more freely in a conversation. I hope we canhave many interactive activities in class next year.

As the students made oral presentations, their communication
skills gradually improved. As they became used to making oralpresentations, they started to enjoy using English in classrooms.

They wanted to continue to learn oral English and to have more
spontaneous conversations. Since there is no OC for the secondyear students, I had no idea about what to do. Then Sato advised
me to try the approach used in his university. In this approach,writing activities and speaking activities are integrated throughinteresting topics related to their lives. Some teachers hesitatedto try it, but finally all teachers agreed to incorporate thisapproach in their writing classes.
However, later in July, I found that the other two teachers who
were in charge of the second-year students had the students write
compositions but did not develop their writing into a speaking
activity. This year we do not have a regular meeting becauseof a busy schedule. As a result, students in my class had many
chances to use English but students in other teachers’ classes
did not. I have come to realize that without enough teacher
communication, it is difficult to make a coherent program.

Writing class in 2002
Students realized that the presentations they made in OC
were based on the scripts and that role-play was not realcommunication. They seemed to want a challenge to participate
in more spontaneous and natural conversations as theircomments show.
I enjoyed presentations but I don’t have confidencein speaking with a native speaker. I want to be able
to have a natural conversation in English.

JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

332

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE

Summary, and the importanceof Takahashiʼs story

Teacher and student learning:
What other teachers said

Takahashi’s story gave her personal insight to this study. In
particular, she revealed how she interacted with other teachers tosolve the issue of assessment and how she and other teachers felt
about the project imposed by the prefectural Board of Education.
In particular, Takahashi revealed how these teachers changed
their views about performance tests. When students could not
perform well for the first six months, teachers wondered if
performance tests were worth doing. Then, after discussing
assessment criteria and other issues in the meetings, they began
to change their views about performance tests as they saw more
and more successful student presentations. However, without
enough communication, these teachers went back to their own
ways of teaching in the next year.
In short, Takahashi’s story gives a glimpse of how teachers
learned to teach in this particular context. Johnson & Golombek(2002) claims:

The second interviews were conducted at the end of the school
year (in late March). The seven teachers who taught first year
students were all interviewed. The data confirmed that teachers
became positive about performance tests. All teachers said that
performance tests were useful and students enjoyed creating a skit
and presenting it. Moreover, several teachers noticed the progress
students made in terms of fluency, delivery, use of gestures andeye contact, and enthusiasm. For example, Ishikawa reported:

It follows…that in order to recognize and document
the activity of teacher learning and language
teaching through the perspective of teachers, it isnecessary to gather descriptive accounts of howteachers come to know their knowledge, how they
use that knowledge within the contexts where theyteach, and how they make sense of and reconfigure
their classroom practices in and over time. (p. 2)

JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

Students developed presentation skills over the year.
They could perform with gestures and emotions.
The only native English teacher, Mike, commented on theperformance tests.
Students gained self-confidence. They still may
be very shy. I think their confidence is growing.
Certainly, they are learning new skills. They
are becoming more and more interested inpresentations. Once we did a group presentation,and there were some really original skits.
There were some collaborations among teachers. Teachers
took turns making a handout for each presentation. Someteachers exchanged their supplementary materials with others.
Furthermore, as Takahashi’s story showed, teachers held several
meetings to talk about assessment. Suzuki reported on it.
We talked about assessment. It was good we could
cooperate with one another regarding assessment.

333

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
However, these teachers revealed some difficulties andteaching issues after they had experienced this project for one
year. Interestingly, most of the teachers who became positive
about performance tests indicated their concern about university
entrance exams. There will be no oral communication classes inthe second and the third years. Kubo commented on it.
We worked hard to improve students’ communication
skills, but we also have to prepare our students foruniversity entrance exams.
Preparing students for university entrance exams has been ahidden goal in Japanese high schools (see Sato, 2000; 2002), andthese classes were no exceptions. One year’s innovating teachingexperience did not seem to have much impact on their beliefs
about English language teaching.
To take one example, teachers stopped holding meetings as
they became used to performance tests. Though a few teachers
such as Suzuki (see above) appreciated the opportunity to talkabout assessment, one teacher explicitly expressed her reluctancetoward extra meeting besides a weekly department meeting.
Hashimoto said:
Creating another meeting was too much. That period
on Thursday was the only free time for me. To behonest, I did not want that extra meeting to be held.
On the other hand, Takahashi confessed:
Unfortunately, we stopped having a meeting about OC
classes in January. I could not talk with other teachers
about teaching issues. I felt lonely and isolated.
What was worse, JTEs relied more on Mike about grading
performance tests. Mike reported:

JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

I had to do individual evaluations, I mean 240
students. But I don’t know all the names and faces
very well. Because I was writing down comments
while I was watching, I missed some points. So, it
was difficult.
Although JTEs agreed in the first meeting that they would
cooperate with Mike about grading, most JTEs stopped
cooperating shortly. JTEs except Takahashi expected Mike totake more initiatives in teaching oral communication classes.
At the end of the school year, teachers finally talked about
students’ final grades from necessity. Ando found a problem.
While we were talking about grading, wefound a problem. Some students were good atpresentations but poor at term exams. Others werepoor at presentations but good at term exams. We
agreed that we should talk about the ratio of each
assessment criterion in the next school year.
Nonetheless, they did not get together to discuss the problem.
And the next school year started in April. As Takahashi told in
her story, most JTEs went back to their routine practices.

Implications
The study implied that promoting teacher and student learning
would entail improving a school teaching culture. In particular,changing assessment would be effective but is not an easy task,
because “[a] lternative classroom assessment is a new world
for teachers, most of whom have very little (if any) assessment
training, often lack fundamental measurement knowledge,
and generally feel uncomfortable about the quality of theirassessments”(Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001, p.53).
334

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
Although this is an on-going study, the data presented above
offered the following implications.

favored strategies for promoting higher standards of teaching
and learning” (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001, p50). Nevertheless, the study revealed the difficulty of creating
continuous teacher learning opportunities in this workplace.
Without enough discussion and sharing about student learningand teacher learning, and without solving teaching issues, amajority of teachers went back to their routine practices easily inthis working environment where actual teaching practices andinnovative assessment were little evaluated.

➣ Teachers were resistant to changing their beliefs
about English language teaching and learning.
➣ Changing assessment criteria and using performance
tests was most effective to promote teacher
collaboration and led to the improved student
outcomes.
➣ Sustaining teacher collaboration was difficult without
the improvement of the school culture by teachers
involved in it.

Note
All teacher names, except the authors, are pseudonyms.

In summary, students made progress in their performance
tests as teachers collaborated toward more coherent assessment
criteria. Falk (2001) affirms that “[i] nvolving teachers in scoring
students’ responses to large-scale standards-based performance
tests offers rich opportunities to enhance teacher learning” (p.
127), which results in better student learning, and summarizes
the strengths of performance assessments.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

learning about the strengths of diverse learners
providing a guide for teachingchanging the way teachers teachpromoting teacher collaboration and inquiry
meeting the challenge of responsive teaching:teaching to the child

Similarly, Fullan (2001) stresses the importance of “assessment
literacy,” which constitutes the capacity of professional learning
communities. In addition, most recent studies indicated that“[a]ssessment-led reform has become one of the most widely
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

References
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies
that support professional development in an era of reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604
Falk, B. (2001). Professional learning through assessment. In A.
Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action:
Professional development that matters (pp. 118-140). New
York: Teacher College Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures ofteaching. In M.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research onteaching (3rd ed., pp.505-526). New York: Macmillan.
Freeman, D. (2001). Teacher learning and student learning in
TESOL. TESOLQuarterly, 35 (4), 608-609.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rded.). New York: Teacher College Press.

335

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSSATO & TAKAHASHI: TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING IN THE WORKPLACE
Grossman, P.L. (1992). Teaching to learn. In A. Lieberman (Ed.),
The changing contexts of teaching (91st yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, pp.179 196). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001).
Learning to change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers’
narrative inquiry as professional development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kleinsasser, R.C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures:
Foreign language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
9 (4), 373-383.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy andinitiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College
Record, 91 (4), 509-536.
McLaughlin M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional
communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace. New York: Longman.
Sato, K. (2000). EFL teachers in context: Beliefs, practices, andinteractions. PhD dissertation. Centre for Language Teaching
and Research, University of Queensland, Australia.
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of CLT and teacher
development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting
Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns
in Teacher Education (pp. 41-81). New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Smylie, M.A. (1994). Redesigning teachers’ work: Connections
to the classroom. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of
research in education (Vol. 20, pp.129-177). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace:
Implications for school reform. In T. R. Guskey & M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education:
New paradigms & practices (pp. 92-113). New York: Teacher
College Press.
Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building
human capital: The importance of teacher learning in
education reform. Educational Researcher, 25 (9), 9-11.
Sykes, G. (1999). Teacher and student learning: Strengthening
their connection. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as a learning profession: Handbook of policy andpractice (pp. 151-179). San Francisco: Jossey-Brass.

336

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS