Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999).

Output enhancement and the acquisition of the

past tense. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp.
173188). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment
in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287301.
doi:10.1017/S0272263100009177
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on
Chinese EFL learners acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235263. doi:10.1017/
S0272263109990519
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers choice and learners preference of corrective-feed-
back types. Language Awareness, 17, 7893. doi:10.2167/la429.0

Pedagogical Reasoning in EFL/ESL Teaching:

Revisiting the Importance of Teaching Lesson
Planning in Second Language Teacher Education
MAY PANG
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Hong Kong

doi: 10.1002/tesq.283

& Lesson planning has always been an essential competence for

teacher candidates to master in their education for teaching around
the globe. This is reflected in the thirteen teacher preparation stan-
dards required for English as a second language (ESL) P12 teacher
education program accreditation in the United States (Teaching Eng-
lish to Speakers of Other Languages [TESOL]/National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE]; TESOL, 2010). The
component of instructional planning forms one of the five essential
professional domains of teacher candidate assessments, namely lan-
guage, culture, instruction, assessment, and professionalism (Newman &
Hanauer, 2005; Thibeault, Kuhlman, & Day, 2010). And among the six
minimum assessments of teachers knowledge, skills, and dispositions
as evidence of benchmark for quality teaching, two involve assessments
of planning and implementing instruction. The first requires teacher
candidates to demonstrate an ability to plan for supportive classroom
English learning, and the second an ability to implement their lesson
plans in the English for speakers of other languages (ESOL)

246 TESOL QUARTERLY

classroom, based on student interests and levels of proficiency in Eng-
lish, including using resources effectively. Outcomes of planning (i.e.,
unit lesson plans) therefore logically become commonly used tools for
assessing teacher candidates professional readiness for practice. It is
believed that, among other tools of teacher candidate assessment, les-
son planning can best reflect a teachers competence in integrating
theory and practice.
Findings of research into the knowledge growth of teachers have
shed light on the importance of engagement in lesson planning in
teacher development. The novice teachers reported in Wilson,
Shulman, and Richerts study (1987) show that their subject matter
knowledge is enriched and enhanced by other types of knowledge in
the process of preparation for teaching. The case study of the practice
of experienced teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in
Hong Kong reported in Tsui (2012) shows a dialectical relationship
between theory and practice in teachers reflective reasoning of
problem solving in teaching. In the process of solving the practical
problems encountered, Marina, the head teacher of Tsuis study,
began with an application of theory to help address the curriculum
problem in focus. Marina concretized the abstract principles for the
new practice by drawing on her practical knowledge as procedures
and classroom activities; subsequently new practice resulted, and
further principles emerged. It is through such a dialectical integration
of theory and practice that the teachers enhanced understanding of
the subject matter is gained.
As reflected in these studies, engagement in pedagogical reasoning
of planning for teaching or practical problem solving provides an
important site for developing pedagogical competence in handling
content for teaching, which Shulman (1987) first called pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (PCK). In the process, teachers draw on various types of
knowledge to search for more effective ways of representing specific
content for learning. This search for better representation of the sub-
ject matter not only enables teachers to develop a more varied reper-
toire of pedagogical strategies, but also develops awareness and ways of
thinking that facilitate the generation of these representations for tar-
get students as required (Wilson et al., 1987). In the context of Eng-
lish as a foreign or second language (EFL/ESL) initial teacher
education, this means student teachers can be guided to apply content
knowledge, including knowledge about language as a system and that
about language acquisition and development, as specified in the con-
tent domain of TESOL/NCATE P12 ESL teacher preparation stan-
dards (TESOL, 2010) in lesson planning. Through the process of
planning as mediated within a curricular context of ESL/EFL teach-
ing, and guided by use of related pedagogical knowledge, student

TEACHING ISSUES 247

teachers develop an integrated understanding of English for teaching,
that is, their PCK for EFL/ESL instruction.
Despite the importance of the role lesson planning plays in teach-
ers development of practical competence, exploration of this essential
pedagogical task of second language teacher education (SLTE) seems
scarce in language teacher cognition (LTC) research. This is reflected
in Borgs comprehensive review of research conducted in the previous
decade on what teachers think, know, believe, and do (2003, p. 81)
in the field. This gap remains in the related research conducted in the
current decade. Common interests in LTC, for example, center on
research exploring the practical knowledge base of EFL/ESL teachers
(e.g., Kayi-Aydar, 2011; Mullock, 2006), teachers perceptions of their
knowledge base and growth (e.g., Choy, Wong, Lim, & Chong, 2013;
Kourieos, 2014), or teachers knowledge base for a few specific aspects
of EFL/ESL teaching. For example, practical knowledge growth in
communicative language teaching (CLT) is reported in Wyatt and
Borg (2011), teachers PCK in reading instruction in Goldfus (2012)
and Irvine-Niakaris and Kiely (2015), vocabulary teaching in Macalister
(2012), and grammar explanation in Sanchez and Borg (2014).
Despite the volume of work done, understanding gained so far about
the hidden side of the work (Freeman, 2002, p. 1) in language
teaching still seems insufficient. What often gets reported is limited to
lists of skills or categories of teachers self-report of strategy use. For
example, Mullocks (2006) findings of teachers reported pedagogical
thoughts are limited to a general profile of pedagogical action areas in
EFL/ESL lessons. Goldfus (2012) identifies a list of insufficiencies in
the EFL teachers surveyed content knowledge in the phonetic and
phonological domains of their language system. In a study probing
four EFL teachers pedagogical content knowledge in reading compre-
hension teaching for test preparation, what Irvine-Niakaris and Kiely
(2015) achieve is validation of discrete pedagogical strategies in snap-
shots of practice in the pre, while, and post phases of reading in these
teachers classrooms. Neither has the longitudinal study of Choy et al.
(2013) of beginning teachers perceptions of practice in Singapore
offered more than a general self-report of advancement in pedagogical
skills within the first three years of service.
By far what has been understood most about EFL/ESL teachers
knowledge use in practice is in grammar explanation. The findings
gained from Borgs own studies (1998, 1999) reflect a more process-
focused perspective in researching teachers underlying thinking in
real classroom action. Such more in-depth awareness begins to show
some dynamic features of decision making in reasoning for grammar
teaching. Johnson and Goettschs research (2000) into the application
of knowledge base in four experienced ESL teachers grammar

248 TESOL QUARTERLY

explanations in a Midwestern U.S. university intensive English program
(IEP) reveals more specifically the dynamic nature of experienced EFL
teachers use of knowledge in action. As shown in this study, an expe-
rienced teacher in action draws virtually simultaneously on various cat-
egories of knowledge acquired in handling the pedagogical problem
at hand. In grammar explanation, for example, the teachers critical
understanding of the linguistic content in focus may first help in dis-
cerning the critical features of the grammar item/s in focus. The con-
tinuing process of search is informed by the teachers pedagogical
content knowledge accessed, as well as by a construction of the prob-
lems students may have in using those items for the most appropriate
pedagogical choice as perceived in the action. Such an orchestration
of knowledge about the content, pedagogy, and learners current
understanding of the teaching point in focus is geared to achieving
the goal of best helping the target students to grasp the
essential features as they use the language element/s effectively in
communication.
Andrewss (1997) research on EFL secondary teachers grammar
teaching in Hong Kong also echoes such a dynamic nature of knowl-
edge use in action. In fact, he has been among the few EFL/ESL
teacher educators who have probed the nature of language teachers
PCK, in particular their content knowledge (Andrews, 1997, 2001,
2003, 2007). He argues that language teachers content knowledge
refers not only to the declarative component about language (i.e., the
teachers linguistic or lexico-grammatical competence) but also to the
procedural dimension of using that knowledge for communication
(i.e., the competences as encompassed in the notion of communica-
tive language ability; Andrews, 2001) or language proficiency
(Andrews, 2003) as he develops his model of pedagogical content
knowledge for language teaching. It is this declarativeprocedural nat-
ure of the subject-matter knowledge of language that makes language
teaching different from general subject pedagogy. The distinctiveness
of language teaching is reflected in the fact that the content of
language teaching is taught through language (Andrews, 1997; Borg,
2006), assuming using the target language as the medium of instruc-
tion. In action, therefore, subject-matter reasoning for teachingfor
example, framing of language content for lessonsis mediated
through the teachers knowledge both of the language and about the
language. In other words, language teaching is inherently mediated
through the teachers communicative competence, although compo-
nents of that competence may vary with different models of
conceptualization (Celce-Muria, D ornyei, & Thurrell, 1995).
Andrews (1997, 2001, 2003, 2007) adopts the notion of teacher
language awareness (TLA) to underline the special nature of content

TEACHING ISSUES 249

on how to represent content of subject disciplines for learners com-
prehension. Language teaching also involves comprehension; yet, rea-
soning should go beyond comprehension to include transformation of
language content as practice contexts and activities. This may include,
for example, reasoning around what language elements to practice
and how to offer contexts and tasks to practice such elements. Taking
the nature of language teaching into account, Shulmans model of
pedagogical reasoning offers an essential basis for conceptualizing
EFL/ESL lesson planning. While transformation of content is essential
in subject teaching, contextualization of language elements should be
the crux of language instruction.
Based on such a consideration of the nature of language teaching,
an adapted model of pedagogical reasoning and action for EFL/ESL
instruction can be derived to guide teaching of lesson planning in
EFL/ESL teacher education. As inferred from Shulmans (1987)
model, an EFL/ESL pedagogical reasoning and action cycle may
include phases and processes as illustrated in the following sequence.
1. Comprehension. As Shulman (1987) argues, to teach is to
understand. To teach a content topic of a certain discipline, the
teacher needs to comprehend critically the set of ideas to be
taught. To teach certain language elements in some EFL/ESL
materials, the language teacher needs to be able to understand
these language elements in context. For example, the teacher
may need to identify some possible social contexts in which
these elements are used in communication. A more pedagogi-
cally oriented understanding may even include appropriate
authentic or simulated contexts in which these elements can be
practiced and what structural and functional features are
involved.
2. Transformation. In content subject teaching, what distinguishes
the knowledge base of teaching lies in the capacity of a teacher
to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into
forms that are pedagogically powerful yet adaptive to the varia-
tions in ability and background presented by the students
(Shulman, 1987, p. 15). And transformation begins with critical
interpretation of the subject matter, pedagogy and context
(Wilson et al., 1987) so as to guide the search for the best ways
of representing the content for learning, whether using analo-
gies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations, and explanations
(Shulman, 1987), or using real-world resources, students
experiences, and authentic tasks (Halbach, 2012). In EFL/ESL
teaching, critical interpretation of the subject matter begins
with an analysis of the communication area as presented or

252 TESOL QUARTERLY

 from the current representational repertoire that may consist of
tasks, activities, and exercises; techniques for task focus and
demand variations; and/or samples of worksheets, language
models, and assignments. For EFL/ESL planning, however, the
transformation also varies with the teachers views of language
teaching. For those who believe in language use as essential for
acquisition, this may mean designing different pedagogic tasks
to facilitate communication practice. For teachers who believe in
a focus on learning specific language elements, transformation
means identifying language practice activities for specific struc-
tural elements. The repertoire to search may include all kinds
of structured communication and pre- or non-communication
language practice activities with a focus on preempted forms, as
Littlewood (2007) suggests in his continuum of communication
practice.
c. Selection and sequence of lesson steps for instruction. Instructional
reasoning in language teaching must move from contextualiza-
tion or recontextualization of language elements through rep-
resentations in tasks or language practice activities to the
embodiment of these representations in instructional forms as
structures of procedures and activities for delivery in the class-
room. Here the teacher draws upon a representational reper-
toire of practical strategies for language teaching. This
includes procedural considerations through rehearsal of the
performance in search of a logical flow of learning to the best
of the teachers knowledge and reasoning. Specific EFL/ESL
pedagogical tasks may include building a context for language
practice, modeling, explicit instruction, setting up tasks or
other language practice activities, organizing students behav-
ior, or discipline.
d. Adaptation and tailoring to the characteristics of the students.
There are two more essential steps in the transformation/rep-
resentation process: (1) fitting the reasoned sequence of mate-
rials to the characteristics of the target students in general
(i.e., adaptation); and (2) fitting these materials to a specific
group of students of a particular size, disposition, receptivity,
or even interpersonal chemistry (Shulman, 1987, p. 17), that
is, tailoring. In the case of using a task-based approach to lan-
guage teaching, this means the teacher fits the task demands
to the target groups cognitive skills, background knowledge,
and interests.
e. Representation of goals, strategies, and actions in a plan. The trans-
formation/representation process should result in a plan with

254 TESOL QUARTERLY

on how to represent content of subject disciplines for learners com-
prehension. Language teaching also involves comprehension; yet, rea-
soning should go beyond comprehension to include transformation of
language content as practice contexts and activities. This may include,
for example, reasoning around what language elements to practice
and how to offer contexts and tasks to practice such elements. Taking
the nature of language teaching into account, Shulmans model of
pedagogical reasoning offers an essential basis for conceptualizing
EFL/ESL lesson planning. While transformation of content is essential
in subject teaching, contextualization of language elements should be
the crux of language instruction.
Based on such a consideration of the nature of language teaching,
an adapted model of pedagogical reasoning and action for EFL/ESL
instruction can be derived to guide teaching of lesson planning in
EFL/ESL teacher education. As inferred from Shulmans (1987)
model, an EFL/ESL pedagogical reasoning and action cycle may
include phases and processes as illustrated in the following sequence.
1. Comprehension. As Shulman (1987) argues, to teach is to
understand. To teach a content topic of a certain discipline, the
teacher needs to comprehend critically the set of ideas to be
taught. To teach certain language elements in some EFL/ESL
materials, the language teacher needs to be able to understand
these language elements in context. For example, the teacher
may need to identify some possible social contexts in which
these elements are used in communication. A more pedagogi-
cally oriented understanding may even include appropriate
authentic or simulated contexts in which these elements can be
practiced and what structural and functional features are
involved.
2. Transformation. In content subject teaching, what distinguishes
the knowledge base of teaching lies in the capacity of a teacher
to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into
forms that are pedagogically powerful yet adaptive to the varia-
tions in ability and background presented by the students
(Shulman, 1987, p. 15). And transformation begins with critical
interpretation of the subject matter, pedagogy and context
(Wilson et al., 1987) so as to guide the search for the best ways
of representing the content for learning, whether using analo-
gies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations, and explanations
(Shulman, 1987), or using real-world resources, students
experiences, and authentic tasks (Halbach, 2012). In EFL/ESL
teaching, critical interpretation of the subject matter begins
with an analysis of the communication area as presented or

252 TESOL QUARTERLY

 implied in the materials in relation to opportunities for commu-
nicative practice. This requires critical understanding of how
specific instances of communication can be exploited for the
prospective learning. In the case of task-based language teach-
ing, this may involve making choices of tasks and decisions of
how focused practice of individual language elements can fit
into the task cycle. Such interpretation of content also involves
a critical review of the instructional materials in light of ones
own understanding of the subject matter (Shulman, 1987,
p. 119). In an EFL/ESL context, this involves how various views
of language learning can come into play when teaching the lan-
guage elements in focus. For example, what aspects of language
may different pedagogical approaches focus on? For a synthetic
view of language teaching, forms and situational practice may
first be focused on as these language elements are often per-
ceived essential for learners subsequent synthesis in production
practice. On the other hand, an organic view may lead the tea-
cher to focus on providing students with opportunities to gain
exposure to authentic language data that natural language
learning may involve. As for critical interpretation of the con-
text of learning, this involves considering target students prior
experience as well as their abilities, interests, and difficulties in
relation to handling the prospective communication practice.
In the process of such critical interpretations of the communica-
tion context, the teacher needs to search repertoires for repre-
senting language practices from various sources and complete
the reasoning cycle in certain combinations or orderings of the
processes of transformation/representation as outlined in Shul-
mans model.
a. Preparation of the communication area for task design. This
includes (i) identifying and developing the required elements
for establishing (or reestablishing) a context for practice in
the target communication area (e.g., topic choices, participant
roles, and discourse elements involved), including detecting
and evaluating what has been offered or omitted in the given
materials, and (ii) the crucial process of structuring and seg-
menting the holistic communication activity into smaller activi-
ties or supporting elements for focused practice as guided by
the teachers choice of pedagogical approach and knowledge
of learners needs in particular in East Asian contexts.
b. Representation in instances of communication and/or language prac-
tice activities. This refers to the transformation process as
contextualizing the language elements for practice by choosing

TEACHING ISSUES 253

 from the current representational repertoire that may consist of
tasks, activities, and exercises; techniques for task focus and
demand variations; and/or samples of worksheets, language
models, and assignments. For EFL/ESL planning, however, the
transformation also varies with the teachers views of language
teaching. For those who believe in language use as essential for
acquisition, this may mean designing different pedagogic tasks
to facilitate communication practice. For teachers who believe in
a focus on learning specific language elements, transformation
means identifying language practice activities for specific struc-
tural elements. The repertoire to search may include all kinds
of structured communication and pre- or non-communication
language practice activities with a focus on preempted forms, as
Littlewood (2007) suggests in his continuum of communication
practice.
c. Selection and sequence of lesson steps for instruction. Instructional
reasoning in language teaching must move from contextualiza-
tion or recontextualization of language elements through rep-
resentations in tasks or language practice activities to the
embodiment of these representations in instructional forms as
structures of procedures and activities for delivery in the class-
room. Here the teacher draws upon a representational reper-
toire of practical strategies for language teaching. This
includes procedural considerations through rehearsal of the
performance in search of a logical flow of learning to the best
of the teachers knowledge and reasoning. Specific EFL/ESL
pedagogical tasks may include building a context for language
practice, modeling, explicit instruction, setting up tasks or
other language practice activities, organizing students behav-
ior, or discipline.
d. Adaptation and tailoring to the characteristics of the students.
There are two more essential steps in the transformation/rep-
resentation process: (1) fitting the reasoned sequence of mate-
rials to the characteristics of the target students in general
(i.e., adaptation); and (2) fitting these materials to a specific
group of students of a particular size, disposition, receptivity,
or even interpersonal chemistry (Shulman, 1987, p. 17), that
is, tailoring. In the case of using a task-based approach to lan-
guage teaching, this means the teacher fits the task demands
to the target groups cognitive skills, background knowledge,
and interests.
e. Representation of goals, strategies, and actions in a plan. The trans-
formation/representation process should result in a plan with

254 TESOL QUARTERLY

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 122. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2010). TESOL/
NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher
Education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association (TESOL).
Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/books/the-revised-tesol-ncate-stan-
dards-for-the-recognition-of-initial-tesol-programs-in-p-12-esl-teacher-education-
(2010-pdf).pdf?sfvrsn=0
Thibeault, C. H., Kuhlman, N., & Day, C. (2010). ESL teacher-education pro-
grams: Measuring up to the TESOL/NCATE yardstick. CATESOL Journal, 22(1),
4859.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2012). The dialectics of theory and practice in teacher knowledge
development. In J. H uttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner
(Eds.), Theory and practice in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 1637).
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Walker, E. (2010). A systemic functional contribution to planning academic genre
teaching in a bilingual education context. Language Awareness, 19(2), 7387.
doi:10.1080/09658410903431721
Wyatt, M., & Borg, S. (2011). Development in the practical knowledge of language
teachers: A comparative study of three teachers designing and using commu-
nicative tasks on an in-service BA TESOL programme in the Middle East. Inno-
vation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 233252. doi:10.1080/
17501229.2010.537340
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of
knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),
Exploring teachers thinking (pp. 104124). London, England: Cassell.

APPENDIX

A Task-Based Lesson Planning Template for EFL/ESL

Teaching: Scaffolds for Pedagogical Reasoning

Aim
This lesson-planning template aims to scaffold student teachers to
plan communication-oriented language practice (Littlewood, 2004) in
EFL/ESL teaching. It assumes a planning problem with a certain lan-
guage area as the teaching task in focus. The student teachers under-
standing of the critical elements of language use involved is essential,
and hence this should be made the focal point around which to reason
for the key elements of the task eventually designed as well as for the
pedagogical skills required to teach the cycle thus planned. The scope,
foci, and extent of exploration can also be varied to meet the needs of
in-service teachers concerns in lesson planning.

260 TESOL QUARTERLY

To help in illuminating features of pedagogical reasoning in EFL/ESL
teaching as compared with subject teaching or teaching language as
declarative content, a contrastive table of the key emphases in the two
areas of teaching can be drawn up as Table 1 shows. (Please refer to
Shulman, 1987, p. 15 for a summary of his original model of pedagogi-
cal reasoning and action.)
This brief contrastive analysis of subject and language teaching may
highlight the key differences between planning for the two subject
areas. It must be admitted, however, that this is only a matter of focus,
because experience of the world is construed through language from
the functional perspective (Halliday, 2007). Learning any content has
to be mediated through the language choices that make the content.
Halliday actually claims that knowledge is made of language
(p. 353), and systemic functional linguists or educators believe
language is at the centre of all learning (e.g., Love, 2010; Walker,
2010). While a differentiation of emphasis may help illustrate features
of pedagogical reasoning in the respective subject and language class-
rooms, it is also important to bear in mind the interconnectedness
between content and language in education. Meaningful learning of
language has to be achieved through engagement with content,
whereas effective learning of content also needs to involve learners
metalinguistic awareness or academic literacy (Halliday, 2007).

TABLE 1
Features of Transformation in Pedagogical Reasoning and Action of Subject and Language
Teaching

Subject Teaching Language Teaching

Comprehension From content to critical ideas for learner
comprehension in relation to purposes,
subject matter structure within and
outside the discipline
Transformation Comprehension-driven with a focus
on content (i.e., the declarative and
intellectual dimensions of experience)
Use of representational strategies for
adapting content to facilitate learner
comprehension of facts and concepts
covered in content
Use of instructional design and strategies
to promote conceptual learning
From language to critical
features of use in
communication in relation to
purposes and genres of
discourse for various social
contexts
Communication-driven with
a focus on language and
social purposes (i.e., the
functional and procedural
dimensions of experience)
Use of contextualization
strategies for embedding
language in content/contexts
to facilitate understanding of
language in use
Use of instructional design
and strategies to promote
skills or proficiency
development

256 TESOL QUARTERLY

IMPLICATIONS FOR EFL/ESL METHODOLOGY
TEACHING

Because a pedagogical reasoning cycle starts with comprehension of

the content under planning, it is important for a SLTE program to
offer its content components with a pedagogically oriented focus. For
example, learning about the linguistic componentsin particular
about grammar or language as a systemshould go beyond the factual
dimensions of terminology and definitions of grammatical categories
to include the functional use of systems in communication. Similarly,
learning about second language acquisition or psycholinguistic pro-
cesses of language use may include discussions on pedagogical implica-
tions when exploring different acquisitional factors or conditions.
The internal processes involved in a pedagogical reasoning cycle of
planning for teaching are complex, dynamic, and situational. It is essen-
tial for methodology tutors to transform this complex cognitive skill into
forms that are accessible to student teachers when guiding their mastery
of the processes. For example, a lesson planning template based on the
above model can be developed to establish a common framework for
scaffolding pedagogical reasoning. Critical discussions or analyses of
teaching with reference to different phases of the reasoning cycle can
also be pursued in the methodology components whether on campus or
during practicum. Since elaboration of this complex process is beyond
the scope of this article, readers are referred to the Appendix for an
example of such an EFL/ESL lesson planning template with a focus on
task-based or task-supported learning (Samuda & Bygate, 2008).
Whereas understanding about EFL/ESL teachers knowledge base is still
far from sufficient, understanding about teacher educators knowledge
base for methodology training in SLTE provision seems even scarcer. As
the former constitutes one of the knowledge bases for the latter, it is
essential for L2 cognition research to extend beyond portrayals of com-
ponents in L2 teachers knowledge base or factors about teacher deci-
sions in practice. It is the orchestration of these components or factors
in specific contexts of pedagogical reasoning that can better inform how
teachers do what they do or why teachers do not do what they should
do. In other words, this is where teacher educators need to develop their
pedagogical content knowledge for methodology teaching.

CONCLUSION
Pedagogical reasoning underpinning instructional planning is both
conceptual and practical. It is as much a part of teaching as is the

TEACHING ISSUES 257

actual performance itself (Shulman, 1987). Competence in lesson
planning is also what constitutes the essence of quality teaching. With
the required knowledge, skills, and dispositions, new understanding
can often be gained from a complete cycle of reasoning about the
teaching area taught. It is through searching for new understanding of
the content taught and accumulation of experiences of the transfor-
mation processes experimented, together with the knowledge gained
about learners and learning involved, that teachers pedagogical con-
tent knowledge can be developed. Professional competence grows with
intensive engagement with pedagogical reasoning in lesson or larger
units of curriculum planning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank two anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers for helping to
develop this article. They are in no way responsible for the final claims.

THE AUTHOR
May Pang is an assistant professor in EFL/ESL methodology and curriculum in
the Department of English Language Education at the Hong Kong Institute of
Education. Her research interests include grammar teaching and task-based learn-
ing, developing reading comprehension, second language teacher development,
and dispositions in teachers agency in practice.

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. (1997). Metalinguistic awareness and teacher explanation. Language

Awareness, 6(23), 147161. doi:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959924
Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon
pedagogical practice. Language Awareness, 10(23), 7590. doi:10.1080/
09658410108667027
Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge
base of the L2 teacher. Language Awareness, 12(2), 8195. doi:10.1080/
09658410308667068
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualita-
tive study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 938. doi:10.2307/3587900
Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teach-
ing. System, 27, 1931. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00047-5
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2),
81109. doi:10.1080/09658410308667069
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 10(1), 331. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr182oa

258 TESOL QUARTERLY

Celce-Muria, M., D ornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Lin-
guistics, 6(2), 635. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2928w4zj
Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., Lim, K. M., & Chong, S. (2013). Beginning teachers
perceptions of their pedagogical knowledge and skills in teaching: A three year
study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 6879. doi:10.14221/
ajte.2013v38n5.6
Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In
M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3749). New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learn-
ing to teach: A perspective from North American educational research on
teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1
13. doi:10.1017/S0261444801001720
Goldfus, C. (2012). Knowledge foundations for beginning reading teachers. Annals
of Dyslexia, 62, 204221. doi:10.1007/s11881-012-0073-5
Halbach, A. (2012). Adapting content subject tasks for bilingual teaching. Encuentro,
21, 3441. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262414180
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The col-
lected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol. 9). London, England: Continuum.
Irvine-Niakaris, C., & Kiely, R. (2015). Reading comprehension in test preparation
classes: An analysis of teachers pedagogical content knowledge in TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 49, 369392. doi:10.1002/tesq.189
Johnson, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language
teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 56, 437468. doi:10.3138/cmlr.56.3.437
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2011). Re-exploring the knowledge base of language teaching:
Four ESL teachers classroom practices and perspectives. TESL Reporter, 44(1 &
2), 2541.
Kourieos, S. (2014). The knowledge base of primary EFL teachers: Pre-service and
in-service teachers perceptions. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5,
291300. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.2.291-300
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions.
ELT Journal, 58, 319326. doi:10.1093/elt/58.4.319
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based learning in East Asian class-
rooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243249.
Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curricu-
lum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, 338355. doi:10.1080/
1554480X.2010.521630
Macalister, J. (2012). Pre-service teacher cognition and vocabulary teaching. RELC
Journal, 43(1), 99111. doi:10.1177/0033688212439312
Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. The
Modern Language Journal, 90, 4866. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00384.x
Newman, M., & Hanauer, D. (2005). The NCATE/TESOL Teacher Education Stan-
dards: A critical review. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 753764. doi:10.2307/3588536
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sanchez, H. S., & Borg, S. (2014). Insights into L2 teachers pedagogical content
knowledge: A cognitive perspective on their grammar explanations. System, 44,
4553. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.02.005
Sch on, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York, NY: Basic Books.

TEACHING ISSUES 259

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 122. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2010). TESOL/
NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher
Education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association (TESOL).
Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/books/the-revised-tesol-ncate-stan-
dards-for-the-recognition-of-initial-tesol-programs-in-p-12-esl-teacher-education-
(2010-pdf).pdf?sfvrsn=0
Thibeault, C. H., Kuhlman, N., & Day, C. (2010). ESL teacher-education pro-
grams: Measuring up to the TESOL/NCATE yardstick. CATESOL Journal, 22(1),
4859.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2012). The dialectics of theory and practice in teacher knowledge
development. In J. H uttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl, & B. Schiftner
(Eds.), Theory and practice in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 1637).
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Walker, E. (2010). A systemic functional contribution to planning academic genre
teaching in a bilingual education context. Language Awareness, 19(2), 7387.
doi:10.1080/09658410903431721
Wyatt, M., & Borg, S. (2011). Development in the practical knowledge of language
teachers: A comparative study of three teachers designing and using commu-
nicative tasks on an in-service BA TESOL programme in the Middle East. Inno-
vation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 233252. doi:10.1080/
17501229.2010.537340
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of
knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.),
Exploring teachers thinking (pp. 104124). London, England: Cassell.

APPENDIX

A Task-Based Lesson Planning Template for EFL/ESL

Teaching: Scaffolds for Pedagogical Reasoning

Aim
This lesson-planning template aims to scaffold student teachers to
plan communication-oriented language practice (Littlewood, 2004) in
EFL/ESL teaching. It assumes a planning problem with a certain lan-
guage area as the teaching task in focus. The student teachers under-
standing of the critical elements of language use involved is essential,
and hence this should be made the focal point around which to reason
for the key elements of the task eventually designed as well as for the
pedagogical skills required to teach the cycle thus planned. The scope,
foci, and extent of exploration can also be varied to meet the needs of
in-service teachers concerns in lesson planning.

260 TESOL QUARTERLY

Section I: Lesson Context

This section requires you to map out the context of teaching and
learning before lesson planning begins. Essential contextual informa-
tion for lesson planning includes:
1. background information of the lesson (e.g., grade level and
duration of the lesson or task cycle);
2. curricular information of the target language area and EFL/
ESL orientation (e.g., module/unit theme, intended lesson
goals or task/s, how the current lesson fits into the learning of
the unit/module, and EFL/ESL teaching philosophy); and
3. profile of target student features (e.g., learner needs, styles, and
anticipated difficulties in such areas as background knowledge,
language skills, and motivation).

Section II: Task and Material Design

This section is designed to guide you in comprehending and trans-
forming the target language content area under reasoning into appro-
priate task-based and/or language practice activities for communicative
and/or focused practice. It mainly deals with the conceptual dimension
of content transformation for teaching.

Part A: Comprehension and critical analysis for task design. Ana-

lyze the target area/s of language learning and summarize your under-
standing of the critical elements of language use involved to help you
select, sequence, and scaffold task/s and enabling practice activities in
the lesson. Each of the following aspects should be considered.
1. Identify an appropriate context of language use.
2. Identify appropriate gaps and genres of communication to moti-
vate interaction.
3. Identify a task outcome and related processes for completion.
4. Match task demands with learner abilities and identify scaffold-
ing strategies.
5. Identify critical features of language use in the intended com-
munication as foci of feedback.

Part B: Development of task workplan and materials. Use practical

strategies to provide the intended language practice experiences in
the instruction phase of the reasoning cycle. The following three

TEACHING ISSUES 261

tasks guide you through to complete your reasoning from transform-
ing your target language content into a task workplan, a sequence of
activities and steps, and a set of instructional materials.
1. Give a task synopsis: Describe a workplan for the task, including
key elements involved such as descriptions of context (i.e., set-
ting, topic, roles, and language mode), communication prob-
lem/s, outcome/s to achieve, input to be provided, steps or
processes involved, and foci of task transaction (if appropriate)
which the whole plan leads toward upon completion. Specific
focus of learning as extending complexity/accuracy or fluency
can also be highlighted.
2. Identify input, enabling activities/tasks, and a logical sequence
of steps that can guide students through to task completion (if
appropriate).
3. Prepare task instruction and support materials (e.g., task work-
sheet/s, support for pretask planning if appropriate, and sup-
port for interaction if appropriate.

Section III: Preparation of Instructional Action in a Plan

This section aims to facilitate the practical dimension of the trans-

formation prior to the instruction phase of the teaching cycle. It aims
to focus your attention on how to stage an effective flow of communi-
cation as performance of teaching planned. Your attention to the com-
municative process of teaching (i.e., to the use of classroom language,
and provision of language samples or models as input) is required.
The section ends with guidance on your writing up of the reasoning
decisions in a lesson plan.

Part A: A delivery plan.

1. Lesson introduction: Identify strategies for an effective lead-in
and establishment of the task context.
2. Lesson development: Check relationships among lesson objec-
tives, choices of input and enabling activities, learner abilities
and outcome demands, and so on to ensure coherence and fit-
ness for learning; make such relationships explicit to students;
and identify strategies to manage students motivation and disci-
pline as well as strategies to manage resources while delivering
the lesson.
3. Lesson closure: Conclude learning in the lesson.

262 TESOL QUARTERLY

 Part B: Classroom discourse and language model/s. Prepare sam-
ples of language models for both students modeling practice and your
use in interaction with students with a focus on learning, and consider
how to communicate with students about the objectives identified
using effective classroom discourse.

Part C: The lesson plan. Present the above reasoned decisions for
the lesson in a clearly laid-out plan as a reference for action and as a
documentation of the pedagogical reasoning done for subsequent
evaluation and discussion. The following information should be
included in this documentary text of lesson planning:
1. lesson information (e.g., school, class, duration, module/topic,
teacher);
2. content and design (e.g., content/objectives/outcomes, task/ac-
tivities, generic skills, rationale/description of critical features of
learning/key principles of teaching if any);
3. process of teaching and learning (e.g., schedule of steps/teach-
ing activities, process and content of individual learning activi-
ties, specific instructional focus/objectives, resources, samples of
teacher and learner language); and
4. resources (a sample set of teaching and learning materials).

Section IV: Evaluation and Reflection

This section focuses on the evaluative and reflective dimensions of
the transformation cycle with a focus on learning from the conceptual
and practical processes experienced. Evaluation/self-evaluation of and
reflection on the teaching completed should include the following
dimensions (the components of which can be referred to in the previ-
ous sections of this template):
1. comprehension and critical analysis of content (details of which
can be found in Section IIA);
2. task and material design (details of which can be found in Sec-
tion IIB);
3. instructional performance and classroom discourse (details of
which can be found in Section III); and
4. management of learning and giving feedback (details of which
can be found in Section IIA and Section III).

TEACHING ISSUES 263