




































 Burri 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

Making Sense of Theory:  

A Doctoral Student’s Narrative of Conceptualizing a Theoretical Framework 

 

Michael Burri 

University of Wollongong 

 

Abstract 

 

Making sense of theory plays an essential role in the life of a doctoral student. This 

autoethnographic study explores how I made sense of educational theory while conceptualizing 

the theoretical framework for my PhD proposal. A diary that I kept while designing the proposal 

serves as the data source to examine how my thinking about theory evolved. Findings 

demonstrate that the development of my thinking was a complex and circular process that 

progressed through nine phases. A particular challenge of conceptualizing a theoretical 

framework was the tight timeframe in which the proposal needed to be completed in order to 

start collecting data for my doctoral research. The paper concludes with a discussion about 

implications for language teacher educators and PhD supervisors. 

 

Introduction and Purpose of Paper 

 

Educational theory has always fascinated me. During my graduate studies at Trinity Western 

University (TWU) (2004–2008) in Langley, British Columbia, I enjoyed pondering over theory 

while attempting to connect it to second language (L2) and English as an additional language 

(EAL) pedagogy. Once I completed my MA in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other 

Languages) and worked in the International Student Entry Program at the British Columbia 

Institute of Technology, theory was something that teachers discussed in the staff room, 

sometimes quite passionately. Many of us felt strongly about justifying theories that informed 

our classroom practices. When I moved to Australia to commence my doctoral studies at 

University of Wollongong (UOW) in February 2013, the focus shifted from justifying theory in 

terms of pedagogical practices to viewing theory as the foundation of research. In the School of 

Education at UOW, PhD students are required to design a research proposal that is around 20 

double-spaced pages in length and consists of an introduction, research questions, literature 

review, a theoretical framework, a research timeline, and projected budget. The proposal needs 

to be presented to a panel of 3–4 faculty members within 12 months of the commencement of 

PhD studies. The presentation is open to the public and doctoral students are encouraged to 

attend. Presenting the proposal is a critical stage in the PhD program at UOW because a 

successful presentation enables a student to advance to his or her candidacy and carry out the 

research project.  

 

A substantial part of this research proposal consists of a theoretical framework. Having a 

strong theoretical framework is seen as essential because it identifies theoretical principles and 

philosophical assumptions that underpin the doctoral research. As the research proposal template 

for my PhD program at UOW states, the theoretical framework “provide[s] an indication of the 

ways in which the research and writing about research have framed the problem-setting, research 

design, the interpretations and explanations of the information collected.” The expectation is that 

the framework is about 3–5 pages long. The majority of doctoral students find the design of this 



 Burri 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

theoretical framework the most challenging part of the proposal. Some of them have never 

considered the possibility of theory underpinning research and so they struggle to identify a 

relevant theoretical construct that informs their research. 

 

My initial admission statement to the PhD program at UOW proposed a classroom-based 

pronunciation study. I had read several peer-reviewed papers and books on English 

pronunciation pedagogy prior to commencing my doctoral studies, but what I somehow 

neglected was to identify the theoretical principles that were embedded (often implicitly) in these 

articles. Subsequently, I soon realized the formidable challenge that designing a theoretical 

framework entailed. Adding to this challenge was the fact that in the first meeting with my two 

supervisors, it became apparent that my initially proposed mixed method, quasi-experimental 

classroom-based study exploring the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction in relation to 

teacher learning was interesting but not feasible due to the challenge of accessing suitable L2 

classrooms at UOW. Instead of the proposed research, the three of us decided that I should focus 

on pronunciation teacher preparation, an area that up to that point, besides Golombeck and 

Jordan’s (2005) study, had received little empirical attention. And so the aim of my doctoral 

research changed to an examination of the development of postgraduate student teachers’ beliefs, 

attitudes, perception, and knowledge (i.e., cognition) about pronunciation. UOW offered a 

pronunciation pedagogy course, but it was scheduled to start at the end of July and offered only 

once a year. This meant that I had to get my research proposal done within five months—and not 

the usual 12 months PhD students are given—in order to start collecting data. This added 

considerable time pressure and made the proposal development even more challenging. One of 

the most difficult aspects was choosing an appropriate theory, formulating, and then justifying its 

use in the research proposal. 

 

Thus, the purpose of this article is to explore how my own process of making sense of 

educational theory developed while designing the theoretical framework of my proposal. The 

decision to reflect on and write about this process was inspired by Canagarajah’s (2012) 

autoethnography in which he skillfully narrates his lived experiences of becoming a TESOL 

professional. Autoethnography is a newly emerging research approach in TESOL (Mirhosseini, 

2016). It diverges from other forms of empirical inquiry in that the researcher plays the dual role 

of researcher and sole participant in the study (Hughes & Pennington, 2017). Autoethnography, 

therefore, provides unique and compelling insights into personal accounts of how individuals 

comprehend themselves and how they perceive, experience, and live through events in particular 

social contexts. Following Struthers’ (2014) proposition, I foreground the use of first person 

singular throughout this paper to examine and narrate my journey of making sense of theory in 

the first few months of being a PhD student. This narrative is, of course, situated within an 

Australian context; however, the paper should also be of relevance to the BC TEAL community 

because theory is an essential part in the various graduate and doctoral programs offered in 

British Columbia. In the doctoral program in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser 

University (SFU), for example, theory plays a prominent role. At SFU, the foundational courses 

cover theory historically, but then subsequent courses approach theory through different lenses 

(personal communication with Karen Densky, September 12, 2017). In the MA TESOL at TWU, 

theory is embedded throughout the program and students must be able to articulate theory and 

connect it to practice (personal communication with Bill Acton, September 21, 2017). In the 

Language and Literacy Education (LLED) program at UBC, theory is incorporated into various 



 Burri 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

courses and seminars and not dealt with in isolation (personal communication with Mi-Young 

Kim, September 20, 2017). It is, therefore, my hope that this narrative paper is of value to the BC 

TEAL membership, particularly to members thinking about graduate studies, L2 teacher 

educators, current graduate students seeking guidance to better understand the theories they are 

learning, and faculty members that are currently supervising PhD students. The two questions 

that guide my exploration of theory are as follows: 

 

 How did my thinking about educational theory develop while designing the theoretical 

framework of my proposal? 

 What challenges did I encounter while designing my theoretical framework?  

 

Methodology 

 

An electronic diary (in MS Word format) that I kept while working on my research proposal is 

the data source for this paper. During the process of designing my theoretical framework, I 

decided to follow Mertens’ (2010) advice and keep a diary to record my thoughts about theory. I 

hoped that putting down my thoughts on a piece of paper facilitated my understanding of theory 

that could potentially underpin my doctoral research.1 Every time I read a publication (e.g., a 

journal article, book, or book chapter) that I thought was relevant to my research I composed a 

diary entry. The diary was also used to record some of the frustrations I experienced during this 

process of making sense of theory. Recording such emotions was a means to cope with stress, 

and, at the same time, leave some of the negative feelings at the office rather than carrying them 

home and letting them spill into my family life. Writing these diary entries occurred fairly 

regularly with each entry being about a paragraph in length. The first entry was made on April 8, 

2013, and the last one was recorded on May 30, 2013. In the end, the diary contained a total of 

27 entries.  

 

To answer the two guiding questions above, the entries were analyzed thematically in that 

I examined them for theory-related areas (e.g., sociocultural theory, second language teacher 

cognition), insights, tensions, and justifications for including a particular theory in my 

framework. Identified themes were then categorized, amalgamated, and arranged in a table to 

help me understand the process of how I conceptualized theory while designing the theoretical 

framework of my proposal (the table is included in Appendix A). Compartmentalizing themes 

also allowed me to identify some of the key moments and challenges I experienced while 

working on the theoretical framework. Lastly, with the help of the table, I designed a figure 

(Figure 1) that reflected my own personal process of making sense of theory. This figure is 

discussed in the following section of this paper. 

 

Findings 

 

The language teacher education literature and research suggest that teacher learning is a complex 

and non-linear undertaking (e.g., Burri, Baker, & Chen, 2017; Burri, Chen, & Baker, 2017; 

Aslan, 2015; Feryok, 2010; Kiss, 2012; Svalberg, 2015). The analysis of my diary data by and 

large confirmed this. As Figure 1 shows, the process of making sense of theory was circular in 

                                                      
1 Using this diary to write this article was not the intention at that time. 



 Burri 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

nature, with sociocultural theory (SCT) forming the point of departure as well as the centrepiece 

to which I returned three times (see phases 3, 5, and 8 described below) while designing my 

theoretical framework. The figure also shows that even though I revisited SCT three times, I 

explored various other theoretical constructs over a period of seven and a half weeks (April 8–
May 30, 2013).  

 

 
Legend: SCT = sociocultural theory; SLTC = second language teacher cognition;  
CLT = cognitive load theory; AT = activity theory 

 

Figure 1. Conceptualization of educational theory. 

 

As illustrated in Figure 1, the development of my thinking about and identification of 

appropriate theory progressed through nine phases, with the arrows and numbers representing 

this progression. The entire process began with a recommendation of my two supervisors to start 

reading about SCT. Consequently, my inquiry began by looking into SCT (phase 1) in that I read 

several papers discussing the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (e.g., Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 

1995; Ohta, 2005; Warford, 2011). SCT views learning as a social process, emphasizing that the 

prior experiences and history of an individual directly contribute to the learning process and to 

the development of the mind. The ZPD is a concept that highlights the difference between 

independent and guided task performance (Vygotsky, 1978). For a study exploring teacher 

learning, I considered the ZPD to be relevant because the construct implies that an expert (e.g., a 

teacher educator) facilitates a novice’s (e.g., a student teacher’s) learning process.  

 

After 10 days of reading about SCT, I then explored Borg’s (2003, 2006) notion of 

second language teacher cognition (SLTC) (phase 2). According to Borg, beliefs, knowledge, 

perceptions, and attitudes are all part of teacher cognition, and so I thought that cognition needed 

to be taken into account in my research. Up to that point I had only skimmed Baker’s (2011) 

dissertation, in which she used Borg’s framework to explore L2 instructors’ cognition about 

pronunciation teaching. For this reason, I was rather unfamiliar with SLTC and so I embarked on 

reading Borg’s (2006) book Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice 

to gain a better understanding of teacher cognition. I began to see that drawing on Borg’s work 

would help me examine the unobservable aspects of learning (i.e., participants’ beliefs, attitudes, 

and knowledge) in my research. Four days later, however, I put Borg’s book aside and returned 



 Burri 29 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

to SCT-related issues (phase 3). This time I focused on non-verbal communication, such as 

gestures and imitation (Harris, 2003; McCafferty, 2008). Non-verbal communication plays an 

important role in meaning making and language learning. Therefore, my thinking was that a 

study examining pronunciation teacher preparation would likely need to account for these 

aspects. What I did not expect was that through these readings I became more aware of the 

importance of identity in teacher learning. My diary entry on April 29, 2013, read: “I guess I will 

need to look into aspects of identity.” Subsequently, I began to read Norton (1997), Morita 

(2004), and Kurihara’s (2013) work on L2 learner and teacher identity (phase 4).  

 

Two days later, I once again returned to SCT (phase 5), but this time the focus was on a 

Vygotskian perspective on feedback provision to facilitate learning (Nassaji & Swain, 2000). 

Feedback is an important part of pronunciation teaching, and so I felt compelled to attain a better 

understanding about feedback in relation to the theory my supervisors encouraged me to read 

about (i.e., SCT). Shortly afterwards, a seminar I attended at UOW on cognitive load theory 

(CLT), in which working- and long-term memory were discussed, led me to briefly explore CLT 

(Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011) (phase 6). CLT refers to the amount of effort required to store 

information in the working memory. I thought memory was an essential part of teacher learning, 

and therefore CLT could be a potentially useful construct to underpin my research. After a day of 

reading, however, I was uncertain about the application of CLT to my study. I was unsure how 

CLT would help me examine my participants’ beliefs and knowledge about pronunciation. I also 

felt that obtaining an-depth understanding of this theory would require substantial reading and 

time. Hence, given that I was already facing considerable time pressure, I chose to abandon the 

idea of including this theory in my framework and move on. Although not selecting CLT was to 

some extent an epistemological decision (i.e., my lack of knowledge about the theory), the lack 

of time to read extensively about CLT ultimately prevented me from further exploring it. 

 

The next step in my thinking was that learning to teach pronunciation could be seen as an 

activity. Thus, the following day I began to explore activity theory (AT) (phase 7). Thorne 

(2004) suggested that “[t]he goal of activity theory is to define and analyse a given activity 

system, to diagnose possible problems, and to provide a framework for implementing 

innovations” (p. 65). Given Thorne’s proposition, the next five days were spent with reading 

several key pieces discussing AT (e.g., Engeström, 1999; Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 

1999). I was particularly interested in the appropriation (i.e., adoption) of tools in teacher 

development, because it could perhaps help me analyze my participants’ process of learning to 

teach pronunciation. Put differently, AT looked interesting because it could possibly be used as 

an analytic lens to examine student teachers’ uptake of course content (i.e., the adoption of 

pronunciation teaching techniques). At the same time I came to realize that AT was situated 

within the broader construct of SCT, and so I returned to SCT once again (phase 8).  

 

I read Chaiklin’s (2003) paper in which Vygotsky’s original formulation of the ZPD was 

discussed. This was a complex paper to digest, and I felt that my understanding of the ZPD was 

marginal at best. The question of how I could analyze and track the development of my student 

teachers’ learning to teach pronunciation remained. As a result, I began to look into literature 

discussing SCT positioned within the context of second language teacher education (SLTE). 

Johnson and Golombek’s (2011) book proved to be helpful as it included several SLTE studies 

encapsulating an SCT perspective. Kim’s (2011) and Ahn’s (2011) chapters caught my attention 



 Burri 30 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

because these two researchers used AT (which I explored in phase 7) to examine teacher 

learning. By now I was quite certain that AT was a useful theoretical construct that would help 

me explore how my participants learned to teach English pronunciation, and so I made the 

decision for Activity Theory to form the theoretical framework of my research proposal (phase 

9).  

 

The next four weeks were spent on finalizing the entire proposal, and on July 23, 2013, I 

presented it to a committee and a handful of doctoral students and lecturers that were interested 

in the topic. In the meeting following the presentation, the committee suggested that AT was not 

a particularly suitable construct for my study, because AT was mostly applied in the agency of 

innovation and not in the examination of teacher learning. The committee advised me to consider 

using Grounded Theory (GT) (e.g., Bryant & Charmaz, 2010) instead. GT is a systematic 

research approach that leads to generating theory. At first I disagreed with their suggestion, 

especially since Ahn’s (2011), Kim’s (2011), and Grossman et al.’s (1999) research all drew on 

AT to explore the process of L2 instructors learning to teach English. A subsequent meeting with 

my supervisors provided some much needed clarity in this regard, and we made the collective 

decision for my theoretical framework to be informed by SCT, rather than AT or GT. I 

purchased Lantolf and Thorne’s (2006) book Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second 

Language Development in an attempt to continue expanding my understanding of SCT.  

 

I spent the next 10 months with further reading, obtaining ethics approval, and collecting 

and analyzing data. The analysis of my qualitative data, as well as several discussions with my 

supervisors, gradually developed in me the belief that obtaining an in-depth understanding of 

pronunciation teacher preparation can only be achieved by having SLTC underpin my research. 

Reading Borg’s (2006) book and Baker’s (2011) dissertation in more depth also provided clarity 

and contributed to my decision of selecting SLTC. My standpoint now was that student teachers’ 

thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge (i.e., cognition) were vital components in language 

teacher preparation, and therefore I decided to draw on Borg’s (2006) work of language teacher 

cognition to inform my research. Settling with SLTC also enabled me to build my research on 

Baker’s (2011) dissertation exploring L2 instructors’ practices and cognition about 

pronunciation, and use her coding framework as a point of departure for my data analysis. 

Choosing SLTC as the main theory for my research is interesting because I considered using 

SLTC relatively early on in my journey of designing the theoretical framework (see Figure 1); 

yet, I took a significant detour and explored several other constructs before eventually returning 

to SLTC. The data clearly showed that the development of my thinking about theory was a 

circular process. 

 

What Figure 1 fails to display are the challenges I experienced while trying to make sense 

of theory and grappling with all the various theoretical constructs. The analysis of the diary data 

revealed that tension began to arise as the proposal presentation date (July 23, 2013) approached. 

For example, having worked on my theoretical framework for a month, my diary entry on May 

7, 2013 suggested that I was questioning my understanding of SCT, the ZPD, and the purpose of 

these two constructs: “The problem is that I feel that I really don’t understand the ZPD and its 

purpose.” The time pressure of having to submit the proposal in early July was increasingly 

becoming a concern. I felt quite reluctant to work with all these theories: “The time pressure is 

enormous. I have two months left to get my proposal ready, but there is so much left to do. I’m 



 Burri 31 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

feeling rather overwhelmed” (May 11, 2013). I saw myself as a practitioner rather than a theorist. 

Nevertheless, a few days later I felt “that my understanding [of activity theory] is gradually 

emerging and improving” (May 14, 2013) in spite of my tiredness. Yet, two weeks later (May 

27) I noted that AT was anything but clear to me. I felt exhausted and expressed little desire to 

work on any kind of theory. I was in need of a holiday, but that was not an option because I was 

scheduled to submit my proposal in six weeks. The end of the diary entry on May 27, 2013 read: 

“I need to persevere and pull through this.” Three days later I seemed to feel much more 

positive. The post on May 30 showed that I favored the idea of using AT as an analytical tool 

because it allowed me to take the history of an individual student teacher into account and 

analyze my study participants’ reaction to and uptake of course content. Nonetheless, the diary 

data also highlighted that I continued to feel uncertain about the various elements of AT and the 

overall purpose of this theory.  

 

Discussion and Implications 

 

Trying to make sense of theory while developing a theoretical framework under time pressure 

may appear to be a rather agonizing experience. Why I did not select SLTC right away (see 

phase 1) and stick with it is a legitimate question. Having analyzed the diary entries and drawn 

up Figure 1, I feel that exploring these different theories over a period of several weeks was a 

necessary and formative experience that allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of a 

variety of theoretical constructs that can inform L2 teacher preparation. As such, the challenging 

journey of making sense of theory and developing a theoretical framework within a tight 

timeframe shaped me profoundly. From an educator’s perspective, I believe that I am now able 

to better empathize with the struggles and potential frustrations of my graduate students as well 

as the PhD students I supervise. The insights gained from this small-scale study allow me to 

assist my doctoral students in their quest to make sense of theory and to design a theoretical 

framework underpinning their research. From a doctoral student’s perspective, the findings 

suggest that PhD students need to understand that making sense of theory and conceptualizing a 

theoretical framework is a lengthy process that requires patience and hard work. It might be a 

good idea to form a study group in which doctoral students are able to discuss theory, ask 

questions, and share insights they gained from their readings. I discussed theory with my fellow 

doctoral students on several occasions, but getting together more regularly would have perhaps 

minimized some of the struggles and frustrations I experienced. 

 

PhD supervisors, on the other hand, may want to guide their doctoral students’ 

exploration of theory within defined boundaries. In light of the circular nature of Figure 1, it is 

easy to imagine how exploring theory can spin out of control and become an overwhelming 

undertaking that impedes understanding and learning. I was fortunate to have been guided by 

two knowledgeable supervisors that had the ability to reign me in and occasionally remind me of 

the focus of my research. These regular meetings were essential in helping me conceptualize my 

theoretical framework, and, ultimately, in completing my research proposal.  

 

The findings generated by this inquiry have also implications for L2 teacher educators 

working in graduate programs. As illustrated in Figure 1 and in the ensuing discussion, L2 

teacher educators need to be aware that their students’ attempts to understand and to make sense 

of educational theory can be a multifaceted and lengthy process. Thus, having graduate students 



 Burri 32 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

keep some form of a logbook to record their thoughts about theory may enhance student 

teachers’ uptake of course content, and, at the same time, provide an outlet for students to put 

down on a piece of paper some of the frustrations they experience while trying to understand 

theoretical constructs. Using a reflective diary in SLTE programs could also facilitate students’ 

attempts to connect theory with classroom practice. Keeping a diary to facilitate learning is not a 

new concept in TESOL (Curtis & Bailey, 2009); however, reflecting on theory while 

documenting their thoughts (and their frustrations) about how to connect a particular theoretical 

construct to classroom teaching may broaden graduate students’ knowledge-base. 

 

Conclusion 

 

This narrative paper supports the notion that teacher learning is a complex endeavour. It should 

be noted, however, that the nine phases discussed in this short article were not as clear cut as 

Figure 1 suggests. Some of these phases were intertwined, in part due to considerable overlap 

that existed between the various theories I explored. Also, as most PhD students do, I read a 

significant number of other papers that contained aspects of theoretical constructs that are not 

discussed in this paper. The word count of this brief report does not allow me to discuss these 

papers in detail. It is also worth mentioning that there were days when I was unable to devote 

time to critically explore any theoretical constructs due to additional teaching and research 

assistant commitments. On the one hand, these breaks might have affected my understanding of 

theory somewhat negatively. On the other hand, they might have helped me process some of the 

theories in greater depth. The effects these breaks had on my understanding of theory are, of 

course, purely speculative, but it would be interesting for someone to replicate this study. Figure 

1 reflects my own, personal process of making sense of theory. The findings discussed in this 

paper are not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the study, but rather a reflection of the 

dialogic nature of narrative inquiry. That is, I interacted with the narrative data and came up with 

my own conclusion. Thus, were this small-scale study to be replicated by another doctoral or 

graduate student studying in a different context (e.g., in the Faculty of Education at SFU, the MA 

TESOL at TWU, or the LLED program at UBC), the model would most likely look different. 

That is because learning is, after all, an individual process (Burri, Baker, & Chen, 2017).  

 

Acknowledgments 

 

I would like to thank Winnie Pang and the three anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback 

on an earlier draft of this paper. 

 

References 

 

Burri, M., Baker, A., & Chen, H. (2017). “I feel like having a nervous breakdown”: Pre-service 

and in-service teachers' developing beliefs and knowledge about pronunciation 

instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 109-135. 

doi:10.1075/jslp.3.1.05bur 

Burri, M., Chen, H., & Baker, A. (2017). Joint development of teacher cognition and identity 

through learning to teach L2 pronunciation. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 128-

142. doi:10.1111/modl.12388 



 Burri 33 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

Ahn, K. (2011). Learning to teach under curricular reform: The practicum experience in South 

Korea. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher 

education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 239-253). 

London: Routledge. 

Aslan, E. (2015). When the native is also a non-native: "Retrodicting" the complexity of 

language teacher cognition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(3), 244-269. 

doi:10.3138/cmlr.2575 

Baker, A. A. (2011). Pronunciation pedagogy: Second language teacher cognition and practice. 

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, GA.  

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), 81-109. 

doi:10.1017/S0261444803001903  

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: 

Continuum. 

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2010). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles: 

SAGE Publications. 

Canagarajah, S. A. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. 

TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 258-279. doi:10.1002/tesq.18 

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and 

instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's 

educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Curtis, A., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Diary studies. On Cue Journal, 3(1), 67-85.  

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. 

Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-

38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Feryok, A. (2010). Language teacher cognitions: Complex dynamic systems? System, 38(2), 272-

279. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.02.001 

Golombek, P. R., & Jordan, S. R. (2005). Becoming "black lambs" not "parrots": A 

poststructuralist orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 513-

533. doi:10.2307/3588492  

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching 

English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of 

Education, 108(1), 1-29. doi: 10.1086/444230 

Harris, T. (2003). Listening with your eyes: The importance of speech-related gestures in the 

language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 36(2), 180-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-

9720.2003.tb01468.x  

Hughes, S. A., & Pennington, J. L. (2017). Autoethnography: Process, product, and possibility 

for critical social research. SAGE Publications, In. 

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2011). Research on second language teacher 

education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. London: Routledge. 

Kim, E. J. (2011). Ten years of CLT curricular reform efforts in South Korea: An activity theory 

analysis of a teachers' experience. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research 

on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional 

development (pp. 225-238). London: Routledge. 



 Burri 34 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

Kiss, T. (2012). The complexity of teacher learning: Reflection as a complex dynamic system. 

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education, 2(1), 17-35.  

Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics 

research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. The 

Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435-449. doi:10.1111/modl.12239 

Kurihara, Y. (2013). EFL teachers' learning: Transitional experiences from an overseas teacher 

education program to Japanese school settings. JALT Journal, 35(1), 51-72.  

Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal 

development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational 

Research, 23(7), 619-632. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1 

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language 

development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

McCafferty, S. G. (2008). Mimesis and second language acquisition: A sociocultural perspective. 

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 147-167. doi: 

10.1017/S0272263108080297 

Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity 

with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

Mirhosseini, S. (2016). An invitation to the less-treaded path of autoethnography in TESOL 

research. TESOL Journal. doi: 10.1002/tesj.305 

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic 

communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. doi:10.2307/3588281 

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The 

effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language 

Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. doi: 10.1080/09658410008667135  

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 

409-429. doi: 10.2307/3587831  

Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 

33(3), 503-517. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001 

Struthers, J. (2014). Analytic autoethnography: One story of the method. In J. Huisman & M. 

Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research II (pp. 183-202). Emerald 

Group Publishing Limited. 

Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2015). Understanding the complex processes in developing student teachers' 

knowledge about grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 529-545. 

doi:10.1111/modl.12241 

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer 

Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In K. van 

Esch & O. St. John (Eds.), New insight into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 

51-70). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 

Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher 

Education, 27(2), 252-258.  

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

 

  



 Burri 35 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 25-35 

Appendix A 

 

Overview of Conceptualizing Educational Theory 

 

Dates (2013) Phases Theories/Theoretical Constructs 

& References 

Summaries of Key Points in 

Diary Entries 

April 8-18 1 

Zone of proximal development 

(Lantolf & Aljaafrsh, 1995; Ohta, 

2005; Warford, 2011) 

The ZPD could perhaps be used to 

examine or characterize the 

effectiveness of teacher education 

April 19-20 2 
Second language teacher cognition 

(Borg, 2003)  

Beliefs and knowledge (i.e., 

cognition) are unobservable aspects 

that occur in a practitioner’s mind 

April 22-24 3 

Non-verbal communication (e.g., 

gestures and imitation) (Harris, 

2003; McCafferty, 2008) 

This plays an important role in 

meaning making and language 

learning 

April 29 4 

Identity in L2 learning and teaching 

(Kurihara; 2013; Morita, 2004; 

Norton, 1997) 

Identity needs to be considered in 

teacher learning 

April 30 5 
Feedback provision in ZPD (Nassaji 

& Swain, 2000)  
Form is essential in L2 learning 

May 2 6 
Cognitive load theory (CLT) 

(Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011) 

CLT’s central concepts of working 

memory and long-term memory 

might be relevant to SLTE 

May 3, 2013 7 

Activity theory(AT) (Engeström, 

1999, 2001); an appropriation of 

tools in teacher development 

(Grossman et al, 1999) 

A teaching technique could be 

classified as a tool, and an activity 

as a process of learning to teach 

pronunciation. AT could be used to 

examine participants’ perception 

and adoption of teaching techniques 

May 7-13 8 

Vygotsky’s original formulation of 

ZPD (Chaiklin, 2003); SCT in 

second language teacher education 

(SLTE) (Johnson & Golombek, 

2011) 

Simplify theoretical framework and 

roll ZPD and gestures into SCT. 

How do I analyze and track the 

development of teachers’ 

cognition? 

May 14-30 9 

Kim (2011) and Ahn’s (2011) 

application of AT to examine 

teacher learning 

AT appears to be a useful construct 

to explore contradictions and 

conflict within participants’ activity 

system/cognition development (i.e., 

learning to teach pronunciation) 

July 23 Proposal presentation 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 
Copyright rests with the authors. 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

