Microsoft Word - Petrocelli_8.1.docx E-­‐JournALL,  EuroAmerican  Journal  of  Applied  Linguistics  and  Languages   Volume  8,  Issue  1,  March  2021,  20–52   ISSN  2376-­‐905X     http://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.13.227   www.e-­‐journall.org   ©  Petrocelli  2021.  This  work  is  licensed  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  License.       Pre-­‐service  teacher  education:  Observing  senior  teachers  through  the   theoretical  lens  of  Ellis’s  principles  of  instructed  language  learning         EMILIA  PETROCELLI     Università  per  Stranieri  di  Siena     Received  20  October  2020;  accepted  after  revisions  6  January  2021   ABSTRACT EN The study is based on a training project completed in Italy as part of a qualifying course for high school teachers of L2 English. The project moves around the framework that Rod Ellis proposed in 2010 on the relationship between Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy and it argues the need for student teachers (STs) to take the role of classroom researchers during their learning process and carry out critical observations through a solid theoretical lens, such as the 10 principles for instructed language learning by Ellis (2005a, 2005b). Three case studies are analyzed to explore how STs observed classroom activities armed with the knowledge of the principles. Data is based on feedback they gave during seminar discussions and remarks made in written reports. Moreover, a follow-up survey of informants after five years’ in-service practice questions whether and how this experience influenced the quality and degree of their understanding of teaching and learning. Considering these results, suggestions are made for future implementations of this kind of project. Key words: INSTRUCTED LANGUAGE LEARNING, SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION, LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY, COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH, ITALIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL, ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) ES El estudio se basa en un proyecto de capacitación realizado en Italia como parte de un curso de cualificación para profesores de inglés como L2 de educación secundaria. El proyecto se inspira en el marco que Rod Ellis propuso en 2010 sobre la relación entre la adquisición de segundas lenguas y la pedagogía lingüística, y sostiene que los profesores en formación necesitan asumir el papel de investigadores dentro del aula durante su proceso de aprendizaje y realizar una observación crítica a través de una lente teórica sólida como los 10 principios para el aprendizaje de idiomas instruido de Ellis (2005a, 2005b). El análisis de tres estudios de caso explora cómo los estudiantes observaron las actividades de aula armados con el conocimiento de dichos principios. Los datos se basan en los comentarios que hicieron durante los debates del seminario y en las observaciones realizadas en los informes escritos. Además, una encuesta de seguimiento de los informantes después de cinco años de docencia cuestiona si esta experiencia influyó, y de qué manera, en la calidad y el grado de comprensión de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Teniendo en cuenta estos resultados, se hacen sugerencias para futuras implementaciones de este tipo de proyectos. Palabras clave: APRENDIZAJE DE IDIOMAS INSTRUIDO, CAPACITACIÓN DE PROFESORES DE SEGUNDAS LENGUAS, ENSEÑANZA DE LA LENGUA, ENFOQUE COMUNICATIVO, EDUCACIÓN SECUNDARIA ITALIANA, INGLÉS COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA IT Lo studio si basa su un progetto di tirocinio inserito in un corso di abilitazione per docenti d’inglese nella scuola superiore (TFA). Il progetto si ispira al quadro teorico proposto da Rod Ellis nel 2010 sul legame tra acquisizione della L2 e didattica delle lingue e si basa sull’idea che i tirocinanti debbano effettuare le osservazioni in classe vestendo i panni di ricercatori, con una lente teorica solida come i 10 principi per l’insegnamento delle lingue di Ellis (2005a, 2005b). L’analisi esplora il processo di formazione dei tirocinanti in tre casi studio e le modalità in cui essi si sono mossi nell’osservazione delle lezioni di lingua, armati della conoscenza dei principi di Ellis. I dati includono le riflessioni dei tirocinanti durante le discussioni seminariali e nelle loro relazioni di fine percorso. Inoltre, dopo cinque anni d’insegnamento di ruolo, quegli stessi tirocinanti sono stati intervistati per ricevere informazioni su se e come questa esperienza abbia influenzato la qualità e il livello della loro consapevolezza dei processi d’insegnamento e apprendimento. Sulla base dei risultati, vengono avanzate alcune proposte per lo sviluppo di questo tipo di progetti. Parole chiave: APPRENDIMENTO DELLA LINGUA, FORMAZIONE PER DOCENTI DI LINGUA, DIDATTICA, APPROCCIO COMUNICATIVO, SCUOLA SECONDARIA ITALIANA, INGLESE COME LINGUA STRANIERA *  Emilia  Petrocelli,  Università  per  Stranieri  di  Siena                  petrocelli@unistrasi.it http://www.e-journall.org PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        21   The   focus   of   this   paper   is   the   need   to   situate   second   language   teacher   education   (SLTE)   in   Italy   within   a   theoretical   framework   which   can   be   accessed   and   shared   by   second   language   acquisition   (SLA)   researchers,  teacher  educators,  and  language  teachers.  The  study  recounts  a  2015  training  project  designed   for  those  aspiring  to  teach  English  as  a  second  language  in  high  school.  Specifically,  the  project  consisted  of  a   group   of   seminars   held  within   a  wider   course   on   EFL   teaching  methodology.   This   course  was   part   of   the   Italian  Tirocinio  formativo  attivo  (TFA,  active  formative  training),  a  now  defunct  one-­‐year  teacher  qualifying   course  which  included  up  to  400  hours  of  school  practicum.   The  outline  of   the  project   followed  the  framework  that  Professor  Rod  Ellis  (2010)  created  to  guide   the   relationship   between   SLA   and   language   pedagogy   (LP),   arguing   that   there   is   a   need   to   “design   and   implement  an  SLA  course  for  teachers  that  can  be  […]  investigated  empirically”  (p.  197).  The  theoretical  lens   through   which   classrooms   were   observed   during   this   training   course   was   guided   by   Ellis’s   principles   for   successful  instructed  language  learning  (2005a,  2005b),  which  “draw  on  a  variety  of  theoretical  perspectives   and   are   offered   as   ‘provisional   specifications’   for   a   learning-­‐centered   language   pedagogy”   (Ellis,   2005b,   p.   209).   Trainees’   reflections  on  observations  of   senior   teachers’  practices  during   the  course  and   five  years   later  were  analyzed  to  investigate  the  effect  that  this  kind  of  learning  experience  had  on  the  student  teachers   (STs).   The   purpose  was   to   find   out  what   the   STs   gained   as   a   result   of   applying   the   theoretical   lens   of   the   principles   for   instructed   language   learning   (Ellis,   2005a,   2005b)  both   in   their   immediate  observations   and   afterwards,  as  they  became  in-­‐service  teachers.  An  examination  of  the  data  will  help  determine  whether  this   model  can  be  transferrable  and  applicable  elsewhere.   This  research  attempts  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  the  Italian  teacher  training  and  enrolment  scheme,   which  has  not  had  the  opportunity  to  stabilize  itself  into  a  solid  and  well-­‐rooted  system  because  of  frequent   governmental   alternation   between   left-­‐   and   right-­‐wing   parties.   Each   winning   coalition   often   nullified   decisions  taken  by  the  preceding  rival  one  without  considering  the  impact  this  instability  would  have  on  the   efficiency  of  the  teacher  training  system  and  on  the  creation  of  a  shared  set  of  values  for  teachers’   identity.   Over   the   years,   practicums   have   been   included   sporadically   in   teacher   education   plans;   simultaneous   and   consecutive  models  have  alternated  and  even  coexisted;  universities  have  been  involved  intermittently;  pre-­‐ service   courses   (when   included)   have   varied   in   terms   of   length   and   enrolment   requirements;   procedures   have   changed.   A   teacher   training   project   like   the   one   proposed   here   could   help   solidify   the   collaboration   between   SLA   research   and   LP   in   the   shaping   of   educational   pathways   to   train   teachers  who   can   critically   assess  teaching  practices  and  make  choices  with  methodological  awareness.   A   theoretical   tool   for   observations   in  pre-­‐service   school   practicum   is   offered   to  prevent   STs  being   sent   into   teaching   apprenticeships   without   any   tools   to   assess   senior   teachers’   practices   as   sometimes   happens  (cf.  Richards,  1998;  Richards  &  Nunan,  1990;  Singh  &  Richards,  2006;  Ur,  1996;  Wallace,  1991).  The   reason  why  Ellis’s  principles  (2005a,  2005b)  were  chosen  is  because  they  were  drafted  upon  the  request  of   educational  institutions  (the  Ministry  of  Education  in  New  Zealand)  and  thus  were  specifically  conceived  for   the   learning   of   languages   in   schools.   Guidelines   have   been   proposed   by   others,   but   they  were   focused   on   somehow  propaedeutic  issues  to  the  principles  and  on  the  quality  of  language  teaching  in  general  classroom   contexts   (Brown,   2000,   2001;   Lightbown,   2001)   or   in   the   university   context   (Allwright,   2003).   Also,   since   Ellis’s   principles   are   offered   as   “provisional   specifications”,   they   are   open   to   be   discussed,   interpreted,   investigated   so   teachers   can   access   them   actively   and   critically.   In   this   regard,   it   is   argued   that   Ellis’s   principles   for   successful   instructed   language   learning   (2005a,  2005b)   could   favorably  be  used  by   a   shared   community  of   educators   in  SL   (second   language)   teacher  preparation   courses  as   a   solid   tool   for   classroom   observation,  as  an  aid  to  strengthen  STs’  background  knowledge,  as  an  enforcement  to  their  self-­‐assessment   and  as  a  point  of  reference  in  their  later  teaching  career.     1.  The  theoretical  models  of  the  study   1.1.  Bridging  the  divide  between  SLA  and  LP  through  teacher  education   The   following  outline  covers   the   theoretical  background  of   this  study,  presenting  studies   that  have   attempted  to  bridge  the  gap  between  SLA  and  LP  within  the  context  of  teacher  education.  Particular  attention   is  given  to  a  fundamental  element  that  structured  my  project:  the  features  of  the  nexus  Ellis  proposed  in  2010   to  guide   the  relationship  between  SLA  researchers,   classroom  researchers,   teacher  educators  and   language   teachers.  Also,  particular  reference  is  made  to  Erlam’s  research  in  teacher  education  contexts  which—like  my   project—was  based  on  Ellis’s  nexus  (2010)  and  more  specifically  on  the  principles   for   Instructed  Language   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    22   Learning  (Ellis,  2005a,  2005b),  used  both  as  a  filter  to  access  SLA  theoretical  knowledge  and  as  the  model  for   evaluation  of  teaching  practices.   The  divide  between  SLA   research  and  LP  has  been  widely   acknowledged.   Stewart   (2006)  and  Han   (2007)  relate  that  the  Teaching  English  to  Speakers  of  Other  Languages  (TESOL)  organization  attempted  to   bridge   this   gap.   The   SLA   researchers,   mostly   teachers   themselves,   were   increasingly   concerned   with   the   growing  range  of   issues  brought   to   light  by   the  research  but  which  were  not  always  raised   for  pedagogical   reasons  (Ellis,  1997;  Erlam,  2008).     If   on   the  one  hand,   some  argue   there   can  be  no  divide   since   theory   is   in   fact  practice,   then  on   the   other,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  theory  and  practice  are  conceived  and  performed  differently  in  SLA  and   in  LP.  For  example,  the  theory  of  the  researchers  is  more  explicit  and  involves  technical  knowledge  whereas   the   theory   of   teachers   is   often   translated   in   terms   of   the   action   it   provokes;   it   is   implicit   and   based   on   practical  knowledge  (cf.  Ellis,  2008,  2010;  Schon,  1983).  Undoubtedly  researchers  and  teachers  communicate   through   different   discourses   (Gee,   1990)   and   have   different   perspectives   and   needs,   related   to   their   own   distinct   contexts.   Clarke   (1994)   sees   a   kind   of   dysfunction   in   this   theory/practice   discourse   caused  by   the   peripherical  position  assigned  to  teachers  who  are  often  seen  only  as  disciples  of  theoreticians.  He  argues  this   dysfunction   can   be   resolved   if   teachers   value   themselves  more   and   put   their   own   experience   of   language   teaching  first.   In  search  of  ways  to  bridge  the  divide  between  theory  and  practice,  Ellis  (2010)  proposes  a  number   of   strategies   that   can   be   used   by   SLA   researchers   to   facilitate   “the   process   by  which   technical   knowledge   about  SLA  can  interface  with  teachers’  own  practical  knowledge  of  teaching”  (p.  198).  Strategies  can  be  based   on   implications   sections   of   research   reports,   the   preparation   of   summaries   or   stories   accessible   to   practitioners,   collaborative   research   among   researchers   and   teachers,   action   research   and   exploratory   practice.  These  strategies  are  mutually  supportive.  Still,  they  raise  questions  regarding  what  SLA  can  offer  to   teachers  and  how  it  can  have  a  meaningful  impact  on  what  teachers  do.  Seeking  answers,  Ellis  examines  the   nexus   between   SLA   and   LP   that   connects   SLA   researchers,   classroom   researchers,   teacher   educators   and   language   teachers.   Teacher   education   is   the  most   appropriate   field   of  mediation  between   SLA   and  LP,   and   teacher   educators   can   play   several   functions:   they   can   share   information   about   SLA,   mentor,   and   raise   awareness.  Researchers  can  take  the  role  of  teacher  educators  and  teachers  can  act  as  classroom  researchers.   With  this  perspective,  he  proposes  a  set  of  eleven  principles  that  can  guide  the  relationship  between  SLA  and   LP.     The  principles  are  meant  to  be  used  as  a  guide  to  design  an  SLA  course  for  foreign  language  teaching   programs.  They  identify  which  SLA  topics  may  be  relevant  to  teachers  and  explain  how  theory  and  technical   knowledge  can  interface  with  teachers’  practical  knowledge.   Principle  1  states  that  teachers  should  be  helped  to  develop  or  modify  their  own  existing  theory  on   the  way  in  which  learners  acquire  the  L2  under  instructed  learning.  Ellis  adds  that  the  theory  that  teachers   develop   should   be   explicit.   Principle   2   addresses   the   topics   covered   in   SLA   courses,   which   need   to   be   demonstrably   relevant   to   teaching.   To   assess   relevance,   handbooks   for   teachers   could   be   consulted   or   teachers  themselves  could  be  invited  to  identify  the  topics  that  fit  their  needs  the  most.  Principle  3  holds  that   topics  should  consist  of  “ideas”  rather  than  “models”.  Principle  4  stresses  that  texts  must  be  comprehensible   to   teachers.  The  articles  proposed  should  primarily  be  reports  of   classroom  research  (Principle  5)  and  any   proposition  arising  from  SLA  theory  should  always  be  presented  as  a  “provisional”  specification  (Principle  6).     According  to  Principle  7,  the  SLA  course  should  encourage  teachers  to  experience  and  reflect  on  the   process  of  learning  another  language  or  create  debates  where  they  can  relate  what  they  learn  in  the  course  to   their   own   experience   of   teaching   an   L2.   To   solidify   the   link   between   technical   and   practical   knowledge,   awareness-­‐raising  tasks  based  on  L2  data  or  on  SLA  texts  can  be  used  (Principle  8).  These  can  guide  teachers   to  discover  and  reflect  on  the  “ideas”  presented   in  the  text.  Ellis  highlights  Erlam’s  (2008)  report  of  her   in-­‐ service  workshop  for  teachers  as  a  good  example  of  awareness  raising  activities.   Principle  9  argues  for  the  need  for  teachers  not  only  to  become  users  of  SLA  research  but  also  to  be   researchers  in  their  own  classroom.  This  can  be  done  through  collaborative  research  with  an  SLA  researcher,   action  research  or  exploratory  practice.  It  is  important  that  the  issues  relate  to  teachers’  own  understanding   of   language   pedagogy.   As   for   the   role   of   the   SLA   researcher,   it   “should   be   that   of   facilitating   the   teacher’s   research   by   providing   relevant   information   from   SLA   and   helping   to   develop   appropriate   data   collection   instruments   and  procedures”   (Ellis,   2010,  p.  196).  Ellis   suggests   encouraging   teachers   to  disseminate   their   own  research  through  presentations  or  other  forms  of  reporting.  This  is  important  to  bridge  the  gap  between   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        23   “researchers”   and   “teachers”.   Principle   10   highlights   the   ideal   that   the   teacher   is   the   one  who   “ultimately   determines   the   relevance   of   SLA   constructs   and   findings   for   teaching”   (p.   197)   and   that   it   is   the   SLA   researcher  who   determines   the   relevance   of   the   findings   of   teacher   research   for   SLA.   Lastly,   Principle   11   implies  that  teacher  educators  need  to  evaluate  their  courses  to  establish  which  “ideas”  were  more  useful  to   help  teachers  develop  or  modify  their  beliefs  on  instructed  language  learning.   In   brief,   in   order   to   bridge   the   divide   between   SLA   and   LP,   it   is   necessary   that,   whenever   SLA   researchers   operate   as   teacher   educators,   they   abandon   the   working   structure   of   the   academy   and   allow   teachers  to  have  their  say.  On  the  other  hand,   teachers  should  recognize  the  validity  and  importance  of   the   technical   knowledge   that   SLA   research   can   convey.   In   this   respect,   Ellis   (2010)  points   out   that   “somewhat   surprisingly,  there  have  been  relatively  few  studies  of  how  teacher  educators  approach  SLA  when  functioning   in  these  different  roles  and  even  less  of  what  impact  they  have  on  teachers”  (p.  193).     McDonough   (2006)   investigated   whether   teacher   education   had   any   effect   on   trainees’   actual   teaching.  She  involved  a  group  of  teaching  assistants  in  action  research  within  a  graduate-­‐level  seminar.  After   she   provided   the   students   with   experience   in   conducting   classroom   research,   they   demonstrated   an   expanded  view  about  research  and  understood  the  distinction  between  qualitative  and  quantitative  research.   They   used   the   experience   to   change   their   teaching   practice   and  worked   on   action   research   even   after   the   seminar.   Other   studies   predominantly   investigated   the   effects   that   knowledge   of   SLA   can   have   on   trainees’   beliefs   about   language   learning.   Badger,   McDonald,   and   White   (2001)   elicited   the   beliefs   about   language   learning   of   students   taking   an   undergraduate   course   in   SLA.   The   students   were   asked   to   respond   to   Lightbown  and  Spada’s   (1993)  questionnaire  at   the  beginning  and   the  end  of   the  course.  While   the  control   group  not   taking   the   course  did  not   show  any   significant   changes,   the   students   involved   in   the  SLA  course   demonstrated   a   shift   from  a   stronger   to   a  weaker   behaviorist   view   in   that   they   became   less   convinced   on   issues  related  to  imitation  and  L1  interference.  Peacock  (2001)  performed  a  longitudinal  study  on  teachers’   beliefs   about   L2   learning.   A   cohort   of   146   pre-­‐service   teachers   were   followed   for   three   years   through   classroom   observations   and   instruments   which   included   self-­‐report   questionnaires.   The   investigation   showed   that   the   beliefs   of   these   STs   actually   varied   very   little   over   the   three   years.   Peacock   suggests   that   trainers  should  actively  guide  reflection  among  trainees  to  challenge  STs’  beliefs  over  time.     Farrell   (2003,   2006)   investigated   the   transition   from  a   teacher   education  program   to   life   in   a   real   classroom   for   a   first-­‐year   English   language   teacher   in   Singapore.   Beginning   language   teachers   are   often   shocked   by   the   gap   between   their   idealized   visions   of   teaching   and   the   realities   of   the   classroom;   Farrell   suggests  that  the  use  of  a  “story  structure”  framework  (setting  –  complication  –  resolution)  may  be  one  way   of   avoiding   the   disillusionment   created   by   some   first-­‐year   teaching   experiences.   Angelova   (2005)   also   examined   the   development   of   a   mixed   group   of   teacher   trainees.   They   were   asked   to   follow   some   short   lessons  in  Bulgarian,  a  language  they  did  not  know,  to  complete  a  journal,  and  to  take  over  some  discussion   after  the  lessons.  Although  data  showed  few  overall  changes  in  the  vision  of  teaching,  the  trainees  found  the   short  lessons  they  were  given  more  useful  than  traditional  teacher  education.     Watzke  (2007)  investigated  the  variation  of  pedagogical  content  knowledge  across  time.  He  analyzed   the  beginning   teaching   experiences  of   nine   teachers   of   French,  German,   and   Spanish  during   their   first   two   years  of  teaching  at  the  high  school  level  through  reflective  journals,  classroom  observations,  and  interviews.   The   results   show   that   the   theoretical   knowledge   supporting   communicative   language   teaching   (CLT)   develops  as  pedagogical  content  knowledge  through  a  process  of  teaching,  conflict,  reflection,  and  resolution   which  is  specific  to  the  in-­‐service  classroom  context.     Erlam’s   (2008)   study   focuses   on   the   attempt   to   bridge   the   divide   through   the   mediation   of   the   teacher  educator  and  also  examines   the  necessary  background  knowledge  needed   for  successful  CLT.  First,   she  gathered  case  studies  of  senior   language  teachers  who  showed  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  principles  for   instructed   language   learning   (Ellis   2005a,   2005b)   in   their   teaching   practices   (Erlam,   Sakui,   &   Ellis,   2006).   Then,  during  a  workshop  for  support  services  language  advisors  in  New  Zealand  (NZ),  taking  the  role  of  both   teacher   educator   and   researcher,   she   gave   a   key  word   for   each   principle   and   opened   a   discussion   on   the   reasons  why   some  principles  had  not  been  evidenced   in   the   case   studies.  The  discussion  also   included   the   relevance  of  each  principle  and  the  constraints  to  each  in  the  context  of  day-­‐to-­‐day  work  (Erlam,  2008).  The   participants   chose   to   use   the   principles   in   professional   development   sessions   with   both   primary   and   secondary   school   language   teachers.   Once   advisors   started   to   use   the   principles   in   their   observations   and   evaluations  of  teaching  practice,  they  met  again  and  were  encouraged  to  discuss  in  small  groups  the  relevance   they  gave   to   specific  principles.   It  was  also  agreed   that  advisors   should   take  one  principle  as  key   focus   for   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    24   each  year  and  enforce  its  use  amongst  teachers.  When  later  the  Ministry  of  Education  (MOE)  in  NZ  promoted   a   further   project  with   the   aim   of   helping   language   teachers   in   primary   schools,   advisors   chose   to   use   the   principles   as   a   key   component   of   the   program.   They   first   presented   the   principles   to   teachers,   who  were   encouraged  to  do  action  research  to  test  the  application  of  the  principles  in  class,  then  they  used  a  “progress   standard”  document  designed   to   assess   the  participants’   teaching  practice   according   to   the  principles.   The   outcomes  of  this  project  have  substantial  implications  for  teacher  education  which  here  played  a  central  role   in  linking  theory  to  practice.   Other  studies  have  been  carried  by  Erlam  on  SLTE  which  focused  on  the  observation  of  teachers  in  a   year-­‐long   professional   learning   program   (Teaching   Professional   Development   Program   -­‐   TPDL)   that   she   directed  in  New  Zealand  for  several  years.  What  is  important  for  the  design  of  my  study  is  that  Erlam  (2016)   designed   this   course   around   Ellis’s   principles   for   instructed   language   learning   (Ellis,   2005a,   2005b).   The   TPDL   program   that   Erlam   (2016)   described   aimed   to   encourage   teachers  who  were   already   fluent   in   one   language   to   learn   another,   so   that   they   could   be   beginner   language   learners   again,   reflect   on   this   learning   experience   with   the   eyes   of   teachers,   and   sit   international   language   exams.   Also,   it   aimed   to   empower   practitioners  with  general  as  well  as  specific  SLA  pedagogical  skills  through  a  course  run  at  a  university  for  a   total   of   eight   days,   in   four   blocks.   Moreover,   teachers   were   offered   ‘in-­‐school   support’   in   that   they   were   visited   four   times   over   the   course   of   the   year   by   an   In-­‐School   Support   Facilitator   (ISSF),   who   recorded   meaningful   utterances   to   discuss   them   with   the   teacher   through   two   evaluation   tools,   the   EPS   and   the   Progress   Standards.   The   tools  were   adapted   from   the   case   studies   carried   out   by  Erlam  et   al.   (2006)  with   regard  to  the  application  of  Ellis’s  principles  (2005a,  2005b).  In  2015,  Erlam  reported  that  about  48  primary   and  secondary  school  language  teachers  who  had  completed  the  TPDL  (2015a).  During  the  program,  they  had   been   introduced   to   TBLT   and   they   had   tried   out   language   tasks   in   their   classroom   practice.   Facilitators   observed  them  and  helped  them  assess  their  practices.  A  telephone  interview  was  conducted  one  year  after   this   experience   to   re-­‐evaluate   it   and  detect  difficulties   teachers  might  have   come  across.  This  was  done   to   draw  conclusions  on  what  could  be  better  implemented  in  the  future  SLA  pedagogy  courses  based  on  TBLT.   Erlam  was   able   to   evaluate   the   effectiveness   of   the   professional   development   program   and   determine   the   aspects   of   task-­‐design  which  were  difficult   for   teachers,   in   order   to  dismantle   any   risk  of   ambiguity   in   the   process  of  teaching  task  criteria  (see  also  Erlam,  2015b).   The  problem  space  for  my  work  is  situated  within  the  studies  mentioned  above.  It  tries  to  implement   an   SLTE   project   based   on   Ellis’s   principles   (2005   a,   2005b)   and   make   it   adherent   to   the   Italian   national   context  and  requirements.  It  tries  to  expand  Erlam’s  (2008,  2015a,  2016)  studies,  shifting  from  education  for   teacher   advisors   or   for   in-­‐service   teachers   to   one   for   STs   and   from   the   context   of   a   workshop   or   a   professional  development  course  to  the  context  of  a  qualifying  course.  My  study  examines  the  effects  of  a  set   of   seminars   in   the   TFA   course,   designed   within   Ellis’s   framework   (Ellis,   2010)   on   STs’   methodological   awareness  and  beliefs.   It   argues   that   students  need   to  be   co-­‐researchers  during   their   learning  process  and   practicum   and   to   be   offered   a   solid   theoretical   lens   to   do   critical   observations,   like   the   ten   principles   for   instructed   language   learning   (Ellis,   2005a,   2005b).   The   principles   are   presented   below,   together   with   the   studies  which  investigate  their  application  in  the  classroom  and  their  perceived  applicability  for  teachers.  The   principles  are  thus  held  to  be  a  valuable  theoretical  lens  for  observations  in  pre-­‐service  school  practicum.     1.2.  The  principles  for  instructed  language  learning  (Ellis  2005a,  2005b):  A  theoretical  lens  for   pre-­‐service  teachers’  classroom  observations   Ellis’s  principles  for  instructed  language  learning  (2005a,  2005b)  can  be  seen  as  a  general  education   document  of  quality  teaching  derived  from  SLA  research.  They  are  offered  as  “provisional  specifications”  (in   line   with   Stenhouse,   1975)   and   therefore   they   are   not   self-­‐imposed,   but   rather   lend   themselves   to   be   something   that   teachers   and   teacher   educators   can   discuss,   interpret,   trial,   and   engage  with   (Erlam   et   al.,   2006,  p.  2).  Research  has   largely  attempted   to  direct   teachers   in  second   language  classroom  practices  with   specific   guidelines   drawn   by   scientific   investigation   (cf.   Allwright,   2003;   Brown,   2001,   2002;   Lightbown,   2000)   but  what  makes   the   principles   a   particularly   appropriate   theoretical   lens   in   pre-­‐service   courses   for   school   teachers   is   that   they  originate   from  the  precise  needs  and  requests  of  educational   institutions.  They   are  thus  conceived  for  all  second  language  teachers  but  particularly  for  those  practicing  in  schools.     The   principles   were   outlined   within   a   project   commissioned   by   the   New   Zealand   Ministry   of   Education  (MOE)  in  2005.  The  research  project  had  two  main  objectives.  As  for  the  first,  Professor  Rod  Ellis   was  asked  to  present  an  overview  of  Second  Language  Acquisition  (SLA)  and—in  light  of  that—introduce  a   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        25   set   of   principles   that   could   help   teachers   direct   themselves   towards   effective   classroom   practices   and   evaluate  their  own  language  teaching  (Ellis,  2005a,  2005b).  The  second  objective  was  to  present  case  studies   of   teacher   practices   and   beliefs   to   find   evidence   of   the   ten   principles   in   the   classroom   and   to   investigate   second  language  pedagogy  in  light  of  these  beliefs  and  practices  (Erlam  et  al.,  2006).   The  two  projects  attempted  to  bridge  the  gap  between  SLA  and  LP  (e.g.,  Erlam,  2015,  2016)  and  were   soon   followed   by   the   publication   of   new   specific   guidelines   for   learning   languages   in   New   Zealand.   These   guidelines   replaced   those   from   the   former   curriculum   (e.g.,   East,   2012;  Ministry   of   Education,   2007,   2010,   2011).  The  principles  have  also  been  disseminated  beyond  NZ  to  research  areas  in  Ghana,  Iran,  Vietnam  and   South  Korea,  as  will  be  later  discussed.   The  10  principles  are  listed  here.  Ellis’s  discussion  will  be  summarized  further  on  in  the  analysis.       Principle   1   -­‐   Instruction   needs   to   ensure  that   learners   develop   both   a   rich   repertoire  of   formulaic  expressions  and  a  rule-­‐based  competence.   Principle  2  -­‐  Instruction  needs  to  ensure  that  learners  focus  predominantly  on  meaning.   Principle  3  -­‐  Instruction  needs  to  ensure  that  learners  also  focus  on  form.   Principle  4  -­‐  Instruction  needs  to  focus  on  developing  implicit  knowledge  of  the  second  language   while  not  neglecting  explicit  knowledge.   Principle  5  -­‐  Instruction  needs  to  take  into  account  the  learner’s  built-­‐in  syllabus.   Principle  6  -­‐  Successful  instructed  language  learning  requires  extensive  second  language  input.   Principle  7  -­‐  Successful  instructed  language  learning  also  requires  opportunities  for  output.   Principle   8   -­‐   The   opportunity   to   interact   in   the  second   language   is   central   to   developing   second  language  proficiency.   Principle  9  -­‐  Instruction  needs  to  take  account  of  individual  differences  in  learners.   Principle  10  -­‐  In  assessing  learners’  second  language  proficiency,  it  is  important  to  examine  free   as  well  as  controlled  production.     Each   principle   is   sustained   by   guidance   on   how   to   apply   it   and   by   a   variety   of   theoretical   perspectives,  the  main  one  being  the  computational  model  of  second  language  learning  (Lantolf,  1996),  which   holds   that  acquisition  works  by  way  of   cognitive  processing  of   input  and  output.  CLT  conceived  within   the   framework  of  task-­‐based  language  teaching  (TBLT)  methodology  is  the  baseline  to  the  whole  set  of  principles   and   the  MOE  guidelines   supported   the   idea  of  moving   from   less  effective   communicative   teaching   towards   TBLT  (e.g.,  East,  2012).   Ellis   (2005a,   2005b)   acknowledged   the   limitations   of   the   computational   model,   which   does   not   include   reflections   on   the   sociocultural   aspects   of   learning.   He   admitted   that   there   were   sometimes   controversial   aspects   to   SLA   and   all   these   considerations   led   him   to   caution   that   the   principles   should   be   considered  as  provisional  specifications,  citing  Stenhouse  (1985).  Ellis  reviewed  the  principles  in  2014  within   the  context  of  sociocultural  theory,  for  which  learning  takes  place  within  social  interaction.  Interaction  is  not   seen  only  as  an  input-­‐output  process  but  more  as  an  important  mediator  for  language  acquisition  because  the   simple   act   of   “talking   about   language   leads   to   learning”   (Ellis,   2014,   p.   42).   As   a   result   of   this   review,   Principles  11  and  12  were  added.     Principle  11  –  Learners  need  to  engage  collaboratively  in  talk  about  linguistic  problems  and  try   to  agree  on  solutions  to  them.   Principle   12   –   Instruction   needs   to   take   into   account   the   subjective   aspect   to   learning   a   new   language.     As  mentioned  above,  a  second  project  was  funded  by  the  NZ  MOE  in  2005,  which  studied  teachers’   beliefs  and  classroom  practices  in  light  of  the  ten  principles  (Erlam  et  al,,  2006).  Six  teachers  were  invited  to   participate.  The  participants  of  the  research  were  two  teachers  of  French  as  a  foreign  language  (FL)  and  two   of   Japanese   FL.   These   teachers   were   considered   by   the   MOE   to   be   models   of   “best   practice”.   Meaningful   common   aspects   emerged   from   the   case   studies,   although   each   teacher   translated   their   conception   of   pedagogy   into   different   classroom   practices.   As   for   the   main   findings,   there   appeared   to   be   no   clear   understanding   of   “built-­‐in   syllabus,”   and   this   led   to   the   conclusion   that   “the   easiest   way   to   ensure   that   teaching  is  compatible  with  the  learner’s  built-­‐in  syllabus  is  not  to  follow  a  structural  syllabus”  (Erlam  et  al.,   2006,   p.   40).   When   reporting   the   results   connected   to   Principle   2,   researchers   pointed   out   that   teachers   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    26   seemed   to  make   little   use   of   tasks,   especially   in   junior   classes.   Given   the  misconception   that   tasks  mainly   involved  free  production,  these  were  postponed  to  later  years  when  they  could  be  performed  more  easily  by   learners.   This  may  be   connected   to   the   fact   that   opportunities   for   output   (Principle   7)   seemed   to   increase   according   to   the  proficiency   level  of   learners,  who  were  on  occasion  asked   to  produce  mostly  oral  but  also   written   texts,   and   that   interaction   (Principle   8)   seemed   to   take   place   mainly   in   modelled   conversation   patterns   where   little   evidence   of   negotiation   of   meaning   was   found,   although   teachers   were   agreeable   to   scaffolding   learners  while  producing  texts.  Also,   tasks  were  sometimes  confused  with   language  exercises  as   role-­‐plays.  According  to  Erlam  et  al.    (2006),  there  was  “a  need  […]  for  teachers  to  think  through  more  fully   what  a  ‘task’  is  and  how  they  can  incorporate  them  into  lessons  for  learners  at  all  levels”  (p.  39).   Research   studies  were   carried  out   to   investigate   teachers’   adherence   to   the   ten  principles   and   the   challenges  and  difficulties  language  instructors  faced  in  implementing  language  teaching  efficiently.  They  all   globally  confirmed  the  conclusions  drawn  by  Erlam  et  al.  (2006)  regarding  the  application  of  the  principles,   despite  the  obvious  divergences  emerging  in  the  different  contexts.  Howard  and  Millar  (2009),  for  example,   pointed   out   that   teachers   in   South   Korea   had   concerns   about   priority   issues,   which   they   saw   as   major   obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  the  principles:  secondary  school  and  university  placement  examinations,   the  high  student/teacher  ratios,  and  the  teachers’  level  of  proficiency  in  English.  What  is  more,  the  teachers  in   the  study  had  never  received  meaningful  training  on  language  acquisition  theories,  group  work  management   or   issues   related   to   individual   differences.   CLT   appeared   to   them   as   incompatible   with   the   South   Korean   socio-­‐cultural  background.  The  same  concerns  applied  to  the  Indonesian  context,  investigated  by  Kartikawati   and  Andriani  (2017),  and  the  Iranian  context,  analyzed  by  Bagheri  and  Mehrnoush  (2013),  where  lack  of  time,   number  of  students  per  class,  the  national  testing  system,  and  the  structure  of  language  books  came  out  as  the   most  meaningful   constraints.  Another   conclusion   that  Bagheri   and  Mehrnoush  drew  was   that,   surprisingly,   teachers  in  private  schools  had  a  stronger  awareness  of  the  principles  and  disseminated  them  more  widely  in   classes.   Connor  and  Nazari  (2020)  studied  the  perceived  relevance  and  applicability  of  the  ten  principles  in   adult   English   foreign   language   (EFL)   learning   environment   in   Qatar,   this   time   including   students   in   the   analysis.   Results   showed   that   students   and   teachers   agreed   on   the   importance   of   some   principles   but   not   others,  especially  those  regarding  focus  on  meaning  vs.  focus  on  form.  Teachers  in  Qatar  seemed  to  make  use   of  the  “strong”  version  of  CLT  (Howatt,  1984)  while  students  seemed  partial  to  the  “weak”  version,  which  is   blended  with  more  traditional  methods   like  explicit  grammar   lessons.  Furthermore,  despite  being  aware  of   the  importance  of  interaction,  many  learners  felt  embarrassed  when  interacting  in  English  in  groups.     Elsewhere,   I  have  presented   similar   research   focusing  on   the  practices  applied  by   fifteen  EFL  high   school  teachers   in  Italy  according  to  the  principles  (Petrocelli,  2020,   in  press).  The  challenges  that  teachers   faced  in  implementing  the  specifications  were  mainly  the  high  number  of  students  per  class  and  the  structure   and   requirements   of   General   English   (GE)   certification   exams.   As   for   the   application   of   the   principles,   the   results  present  a  complex  picture,  indicating  the  existence  of  two  macro  groups  of  practitioners.  One  smaller   group  was  made   up   of   four  more   traditional   teachers  who   advocated   the   use   of   grammar-­‐translation   and   more  structured  methods  of  teaching  whereas  the  other  consisted  of  seven  teachers  who  aligned  with  more   communicative   approaches   and   applied   task-­‐based   teaching,   despite   sometimes   having   a   low   level   of   awareness   and   without   always   applying   all   the   task   components,   especially   the   need   to   achieve   a   clearly   defined,   non-­‐linguistic   goal.   Between   these   two   macro   groups   stood   the   four   remaining   teachers,   who   alternated  between  approaches.  The  internal  constraints  of  the  most  traditional  group  of  teachers  seemed  to   block  them  from  rearranging  their  teaching  methodology  into  a  more  communicative  approach.  Their  initial   teacher   education   background,   which   occurred   at   the   beginning   of   their   30-­‐year   long   career,  may   further   complicate   this  unwillingness  or   inability   to  adapt   to  CLT.  This   imprint  was  evidently  hard   to   redefine  and   update  in  subsequent  years.   Thus,  varying  contexts  clearly  have  an  impact  on  the  quality  of  teachers’  performance  but  what  we   mainly  see  from  the  data  is  that,  globally,  there  is  little  awareness  of  the  theory  that  leads  to  a  solid  form  of   CLT  practice.  This  originates  not  only   from  contextual  constraints  but  also   from  a   lack  of  cohesive,  organic,   clear,   and   straightforward   plan   of   transmission   of   theory   to   practice   through   pre-­‐service   and   in-­‐service   teacher  education  pathways.   The   reason   for   the   success   of   the   NZ   project   “is   that   it   made   technical   knowledge,   that   is,   SLA   research,  accessible  to  teachers”  (Erlam,  2008,  p.  263),  as  Widdowson  (1993)  had  suggested.  The  principles   for   instructed   second   language   learning   give   teachers   access   to   the   knowledge   of   the   community   of   SLA   researchers,   never   before   available   to   them,   in   an   immediate   and   direct   way.   The   principles   offer   clear   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        27   concepts   in   a   commonly   accepted   basic,   but   substantial,   technical   language   that   teachers   can   easily   comprehend  and  share  amongst  all  SLA  professionals,  whether  examining  their  own  practices  autonomously   or  with  the  guidance  of  a  mediator  such  as  an  advisor  or  teacher  educator.   This   is  the  reason  why  I  decided  to   implement  a  qualifying  course  for  pre-­‐service  teachers  offering   the  principles  for  instructed  language  learning  (Ellis  2005a,  2005b)  as  the  bulk  of  the  necessary  knowledge   toolkit   for  SL  teachers  and  why  I  decided  to  shape  the  course  according  to  the   framework  that  Ellis   (2010)   proposed,  meant  to  solidify  the  nexus  between  SLA  and  LP  through  the  mediation  of  teacher  education.  We   have  seen  from  previous  research  how  strongly  the  imprint  of  pre-­‐service  teacher  education  can  influence  the   identity   of   practitioners   and   how   difficult   it   sometimes   has   been   for   some   to   rearrange   their   approach   to   conform  to  new  theories.  This  is  why  I  think  it  is  fundamental  that  early  bird  teachers  start  their  service  in  an   educational   environment   that   offers   them   a   solid   theoretical   lens   through   which   they   can   construct   their   methodological   awareness,   reflect  on   their   teaching  beliefs   and  perform  structured  observations  of   second   language  classes  in  their  practicum.     Field  observation  within  the  classroom  practicum  plays  a  key  role  in  this  qualifying  course.  Research   has   shown   that   the   focus  of  most  SLTE  programs  has  primarily  been  on   subject  knowledge   rather   than  on   pedagogy.   In  many   cases,   STs   are   sent   into   teaching   apprenticeships  without   any   tools   to   critically   assess   senior   teachers’   practices   and   with   the   understanding   that   they   are   simply   apprentices,   whereas   the   practicing   teachers   are   complete   experts,   which   is   not   necessarily   true   (cf.   Burns   &   Richards,   2018).   The   presence  of  a  practicum  in  a  qualifying  course  for  pre-­‐service  teachers  has  a  significant  role  in  that  it  involves   active   learning  and  allows  STs   to  view  SLA   ideas  applied   in  real   teaching  contexts.  This   is  essential   to  help   shape  their  professional  identity,  facilitate  cooperation  with  teachers  and  supervisors,  establish  relationships   with  students  and  colleagues  and  help  manage   the  classroom  (Burns  &  Richards,  2018).  Unfortunately,   the   presence  of  a  practicum  has  been  quite  unstable  in  Italy,  and  thus  STs  have  not  had  the  chance  to  grow  and   develop   within   such   a   framework.   As   stated   above,   the   Italian   teacher   education   system,   which   will   be   outlined   in   the   next   paragraph,   is   characterized   by   a   substantial   instability   for   both   the   teacher   education   system   and   the   enrolment   procedures,   given   the   frequent   governmental   turnovers.   This   study   in   fact   emerged  from  an  attempt  to  contribute  to  the  creation  of  solid  educational  pathways,  which  can  both  shape   new  teachers  and  eventually  also  nurture  in-­‐service  ones  during  their  career.     1.3.  Pre-­‐service  teacher  education  in  Italy   As  Ellis  (2010)  points  out  when  outlining  the  relationship  between  the  actors  involved  in  the  SLA-­‐LP   nexus,   the  roles   they  perform  “are,   to  some  extent  at   least,  determined  by   the  wider  context   in  which   they   operate”   (p.   191)   and   therefore   it   is   necessary   to   outline   the   latest   history   and   policies   of   the   Italian   educational   system   in   order   to   understand   how   a   more   solid   connection   between   SLA   researchers   and   language  pedagogy  in  the  teacher  education  field  could  be  beneficial  to  teachers’  education.     The   Italian   type   of   enrolment   for   new   teachers   has   frequently   varied   over   past   decades.   This   has   prevented  mentoring  institutions  from  stabilizing  organic  forms  of  initial  teacher  education  and  identifying  a   shared  set  of  background  knowledge  and  competences  for  new  teachers,  second  language  teachers  included.   As  Barbieri  (2010)  points  out,  in  the  last  two  decades  there  has  been  a  frequent  alternation  of  left-­‐  and  right-­‐ wing  parties  and  the  turn-­‐taking  winning  coalition  frequently  nullified  previous  legislation.  The  impact  of  this   instability  on  the  teacher  training  system  was  not  taken  into  account  by  decision  makers.  As  a  result  of  this   marginalization,  the  Italian  teacher  education  system  remains  underdeveloped,     [lacking]  sound  experiences  in  order  to  make  decisions,  and  very  weak,  and  it  is  exposed  to   the  wind  of  political  changes:  instead  of  growing  as  an  autopoietic  system,  able  to  give  itself   the  rules  of  working,   it  depends  on  external  decisors,  often   in  strong  distony  with   the  real   need  of  a  school  system  and  a  teacher  training  system  strictly  connected  and  functionally  co-­‐ operating  (Barbieri,  2010,  p.  24).       This   is  because  while  political  decision-­‐making  tends  to   focus  on  the  short   term,   teacher  education   needs  a   long   time   to  stabilize   innovation.  What   is  more,   for  decades,   the  national   training  system  has  been   alternating  between  the  so-­‐called  simultaneous  model,   in  which  the  professional  skills  are  embedded  in  the   whole   educational   curriculum,   and   the   consecutive   model,   where   a   strong   disciplinary   competence   is   required,  followed  by  a  one-­‐  or  two-­‐year  program  of  teaching-­‐oriented  curriculum.  This  ultimately  increases   the  discrepancy  and  decreases  the  uniformity  in  teacher  education  across  all  levels.   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    28   In  1999  an  opportunity  for  uniformity  arose  when  all  future  secondary  teachers  in  the  Italian  school   system  were  to  receive  a  consistent  type  of  academic  training.  A  consortium  of  universities  in  each  region  was   created  with  the  institution  of  the  Scuola  di  specializzazione  all'insegnamento  secondario  (SSIS,  Interacademic   graduate   school   of   secondary   school   teacher   training.).   This   decision   allowed   the   implementation   of   commonly   shared   educational   pathways   among   universities   as   well   as   between   mentors   from   both   the   academic  world   and   secondary   schools.   This   exchange   permitted   universities   to   offer   a   strong   theoretical   disciplinary  knowledge  and  high   schools   to  offer   the  possibility   for   STs   to  put   these   theories   into  practice.   This  collaboration  had   little   time  to  be  nurtured  and  metabolized  because   it  only   lasted  until  2009  when   it   was  suspended  by  political  turnovers.   Fortunately,   the   collaboration   between   universities   and   secondary   schools   continued   through   Tirocinio   formativo   attivo   (TFA,   Active   formative   training),   which   replaced   SSIS   courses   in   2010,   with   a   shortened  time  span  of  one  academic  year.  TFA  programs  were  managed  by  universities  in  collaboration  with   regional  authorities.  STs  carried  out  their  practicum  under  guidance  of  a  school  tutor  in  host  schools.  Course   topics  were  defined  at   the  national   level   and   included  pedagogical   competences,  disciplinary   contents,   and   active   training   and   observation   in   schools   for   approximately   400   hours.   Unfortunately,   this   attempt   at   a   uniform   and   standardized   approach   to   teacher   education   was   also   eradicated   by   subsequent   political   decisions.     Today  there  is  no  longer  pre-­‐service  training  for  secondary  school  teachers  since  entry  requirements   for   the   teaching  career  were  redefined  by  Law  107   in  2015.  Based  on   the  results  of  a   compulsory  national   competitive   examination   taken   after   graduation,   the   top   tier   of   competitors   is   awarded   teaching   contracts   that   last   three   years   during   which   a   sort   of   apprenticeship   must   be   carried   out.   In   the   first   year,   newly   employed  teachers  are  required  to  complete  50  hours  of  compulsory  training,  20  hours  of  which  through  an   online  platform  offering  opportunities  for  communication,  discussion,  and  exchange  of  materials  among  other   apprentices.  This  is  followed  by  a  two-­‐year  paid  internship  at  the  end  of  which  secondary  school  teachers  are   awarded  a  permanent  national  contract.   This  whole  system  implies   that  new  teachers   learn  predominantly  by  doing  and  therefore   they  are   not  exposed  to  teaching  methodologies,  nor  are  their  beliefs  questioned  or  discussed  before  they  start  their   teaching   career.   Not   only   did   this   ministerial   move   eliminate   the   chance   to   experiment   and   stabilize   the   innovations  carried  out  by  former  legislation  but  it  also  blocked  the  avenues  of  collaboration  that  had  been   established   among   researchers,   teacher   educators   and   schools   through   either   SSIS   or   TFA   courses.   This   means   that   now,   Italy   is   arguably   taking   a   risk   by   sending   new   teachers   into   class   without   any   tools   to   critically  self-­‐assess  their  teaching  practices.   The  Education  and  Training  Monitor  by  the  European  Commission  (2019)  has  reported  that  Italy   is   among   countries   that  will   have   to   replace   around  half   of   their   secondary   school   teaching  workforce   in   the   next   decade.   This   implies   that   there   is   and   there  will   be   a   need   to   train   new   teachers   and   it   is   evermore   necessary  to  share  practices  and  pursue  common  forms  of  second  language  teacher  education.   The   European   Profile   for   Language   Teacher   Education   (EPOSTL,   2007)   reflects   this   urge   toward   uniformity   not   only   in   Italy   but   in   the   whole   of   Europe   in   the   specific   field   of   second   language   teacher   education.   While   offering   a   frame   of   reference   through   descriptors   that   provide   a   systematic   way   of   considering  competences,  the  profile  advises  that  these  descriptors  should  not  be  considered  as  a  checklist  of   dos  and  don’ts  but  rather  as  a  stimulus  for  researchers,  teacher  educators,  STs  and  teachers  to  discuss  what   learning  and  teaching  principles  feed  into  each  competence.  In  other  words,  the  EPOSTL  does  not  address  the   theoretical  background  needed  for  STs  to  understand  that  the  behaviors  and  practices  they  apply  respond  to   specific  theoretical  views  and  have  specific  effects  on  language  learning  processes.  As  said  before,  my  work   tries  to  offer  this  background  knowledge  through  Ellis’s  (2005a,  2005b)  principles  for  successful   instructed   language   learning  within   the   framework  of  a  course  design  that  has  specifically  been  created  to  strengthen   the  nexus  between  SLA  and  language  pedagogy  (Ellis,  2010).     1.4.  Purpose  of  the  study  and  research  questions   The   purpose   of  my   study   is   to   examine   the   effects   of   a   group   of   seminars   designed  within   Ellis’s   (2010)  framework  and  held  within  a  qualifying  teacher  course  to  encourage  STs’  methodological  awareness.  I   will   examine   what   the   STs   learned   to   determine   whether   this   project   is   transferrable   and   applicable   elsewhere.   In   particular,   STs’   observations   of   senior   teachers’   classroom   practices   through   the   theoretical   lens   of   the   principles   for   instructed   language   learning   (Ellis   2005a,   2005b)   will   be   taken   as   evidence   of   the  evolution  of  the  students’  capabilities  to  recognize  and  understand  successful  language  teaching  practices   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        29   and   to   apply   the  principles   later   on   in   their   career.   Their   understanding   of   the   contextual   constraints   that   shape  those  practices  will  also  be  considered.  As  mentioned  earlier,  the  study  argues  that  students  need  to  be   co-­‐researchers   during   their   learning   process   while   being   offered   a   solid   theoretical   lens   to   do   critical   observations.     Thus,  I  can  frame  my  research  questions  in  the  following  terms:     - What   did   the   STs   gain   by   being   asked   to   learn   and   apply   the   theoretical   lens   of   the   principles   for   instructed  language  learning  (Ellis  2005a,  2005b)  in  their  observations  of  senior  teachers’  practices?   - How  have  these  STs  evolved  into  in-­‐service  teachers  in  terms  of  their  own  understanding  of  language   teaching  practices  through  the  lens  of  the  principles?     2.  Methodology   2.1.  Design  for  the  group  of  seminars  on  the  principles  in  pre-­‐service  teacher  education   The   project   that   I   present   draws   on   a   reflective   model   of   teacher   education   integrated   into   a   craft/apprenticeship  model.  The  approach  acknowledges  that  the  participants  are  mostly  un-­‐experienced  STs   who   have   not   thoroughly   engaged   with   practices   in   classrooms   nor   hold   strong   beliefs   to   sustain   these   practices.   I  organized  a  group  of  seminars  on  the  principles  (Ellis,  2005a,  2005b)  within  a  wider  course  I  held   on  EFL  teaching  methodology  for  the  TFA  teacher  qualifying  course  held  at  the  University  for  Foreigners  of   Siena  in  2015.  This  course  was  held  fully  in  English  and  designed  for  postgraduates  in  English  language  and   literature  who  wanted  to  become  EFL  teachers  in  Italian  lower  and  upper  secondary  schools.  Seven  STs  took   part  in  the  course.  The  seminars  were  cyclical  and  were  focused  on  specific  principles  each  time.  Each  cycle  of   seminars  included  these  phases:     Preparatory  phase:   Students   read   excerpts   from   articles   related   to   the   principles   that   would   be   presented   in   the   following   cycle   of   seminars.   This   phase  helped   familiarize  with   the   issues   raised  by   each  principle   and  warm  up  on  the  specific  vocabulary  (e.g.,  built-­‐in  syllabus,  focused  task,  …).       Phase  1:   The   principles   were   presented   by   the   trainer   and   discussed   in   the   group.   Students   thus   had   the   chance   to   match   the   concepts   shown   in   the   readings   with   the   principle   presented.   The   following   debate  gave  way  to  clarification  of  doubts  and  sharing  of  ideas.     Phase  2:   Field  observations  were  carried  out  through  a  questionnaire  on  the  principles.  When  needed,  specific   teaching  behaviors  or  possible  exchanges  of  ideas  with  the  observed  teachers  were  jotted  down  on  a   notebook.  This  was  done  to  increase  the  trainees’  awareness  of  the  theory  behind  teachers’  practices   and  their  ability  to  observe  classroom  behaviors  critically  and  with  solid  argumentation  drawn  from   SLA  research.  Also,  trainees  had  the  chance  to  envisage  the  challenges  teachers  face  every  day,  which   can  create  obstacles  to  the  application  of  some  CLT  practices.     Phase  3:   Trainees   gave   their   feedback   on   field   observations   through   group   discussion.   This   activity   was   a   chance  for  the  trainee  to  check  whether  their  understanding  of  the  practices  in  light  of  the  principles   were   shared   by   everyone,   to   clarify   doubts,   to   leave   issues   open   for   re-­‐discussion   after   new   observations.       Phase  4:   Trainees  wrote  their  final  report  on  the  overall  experience.  The  aim  of  this  activity  was  to  help  STs   structure  the  narrative  of  their  learning  activities  and  in  so  doing  evaluate  the  experience  according   to  what  was  particularly  beneficial  for  their  growth  and  development  as  qualified  teachers.         PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    30   Ellis’s  (2005a,  2005b)  principles  were  introduced  at  a  stage  where  STs  had  already  become  familiar  with  the   CLT   approach   and   the   methods   and   techniques   connected   to   it.   In   particular,   STs   had   come   across   the   presentation,  production  and  practice  (PPP)  paradigm,  which  combines  CLT  with  more  traditional  methods,   and   the   TBLT   paradigm,   which   is   the   baseline   for   the   principles   in   that   it   more   effectively   addresses   the   demands  of  a  student-­‐centered  classroom  where  language  is  used  as  it  is  in  natural  communication  (cf.  Ellis,   2003).  Despite  some  adaptation,  the  overall  criteria  for  the  outline  of  the  group  of  seminars  I  hereby  present   are  derived  from  Ellis  (2011,  p.  19),  in  which  he  gives  a  practical  example  of  a  unit  on  corrective  feedback  as   part  of  an  SLA  course  for  teachers  within  the  framework  for  the  SLA-­‐LP  nexus.       Aim:   The   aim   was   to   introduce   content   concepts   through   the   principles   (Ellis,   2005a,   2005b)   and   then   encourage  STs  to  observe  senior  teachers’  practices  through  the  theoretical  lens  offered  by  the  specifications.   The  purpose  was   to  give   students  a  practical   tool  derived   from  SLA   theory   to  do   critical  observations,  and   thus  to  develop  their  capability  to  recognize  and  understand  successful  language  teaching  practices,  as  well  as   to  understand  the  contextual  affordances  and  constraints  that  shape  those  practices.       Text   (in   the   Preparatory   phase):   Ellis   (2005a)   -­‐   students   were   told   about   the   principles   that   would   be   presented   in   the  next   seminar   and   they  were   asked   to   read   excerpts   from   the   following   studies   related   to   each  principle  as  preliminary  work  on  the  topic.     Principle  1:  Lewis,  1993;  Foster,  2001;  Myles,  2004.     Principle  2:  DeKeyser,  1998;  Ellis,  2003;  Long,  1996.   Principle  3:  Ellis,  2001;  Richards,  2007.   Principle  4:  DeKeyser,  1998;  Ellis,  1993  ;  Krashen,  1981.   Principle  5:  Krashen,  1981;  Pienemann,  1989.   Principle  6:  Krashen,  1981.   Principle  7:  Ellis,  2003;  Skehan,  1998;  Swain,  1995.   Principle  8:  Lantolf,  1996,  2000;  Long,  1996.   Principle  9:  Dörnyei,  2001.   Principle  10:  Ellis,  2003;  Norris  &  Ortega,  2000.     Supporting   research   articles   (in   Preparatory   phase   and   in   Phase   1):   Excerpts   from   studies   and   theory   related  to  each  principle  were  offered  to  help  STs  identify  key  constructs  and  empower  them  with  technical   vocabulary  (input,  output,  interaction,  types  of  tasks,  etc.).  Reference  to  these  excerpts  was  made  during  the   trainer’s  presentation  of  the  principles  in  the  seminar  as  to  make  the  connection  clear  between  the  excerpts   and  the  principles.  Particular  attention  was  given  to  the  principles  outlined  in  Ellis  2005b  across  the  whole   series  of  seminars.  Most  of  the  reading  was  carried  out  during  the  seminars.     Evaluation  of  “ideas”  (in  Phase  1):  After  the  lecture  where  supporting  literature  was  examined,  examples  of   good   practices   were   raised   in   problem-­‐solving   activities   on   the   applicability   of   each   specification.   Each   principle  was  discussed  and  the  STs  were  invited  to  give  their  feedback  or  hypothesize  possible  modifications   according  to  their  beliefs.       Awareness-­‐raising  task  (in  Phase  2):  STs  were  asked  to  trace  evidence  of  the  application  of  the  principles   during  their  practicum,  which  consisted  of  EFL  classroom  observation  in  lower  and  upper  secondary  schools.   The   seven   STs  were   primed   to   use   the   questionnaire   during   theory   classes.   During   field   observation   they   were  also  asked  to  jot  down  descriptions  of  specific  student  and  teacher  behaviors  related  to  the  use  of  the   principles  and  to  exchange  views  of  beliefs  on  instructed  learning  with  the  observed  teachers.     Questionnaire   (Appendix):   The   questionnaire   was   composed   of   yes/no   questions,   some   of   which   were   followed   by   scaled   questions.   The   questions   were   drawn   from   the   description   of   the   principles   that   Ellis   proposed,  with  guidance  on  how  to  operationalize  them  (2005a,  2005b).  The  questions  were  discussed  with   STs  before  observations  so  that  they  could  raise  questions  or  propose  adjustments.  Entries  were  structured   simply   to  aid  STs   to  detect  behaviors  clearly.  STs  observed  a   total  of  15   teachers  during   their   lessons   for  a   minimum  of  10  hours  for  each  teacher.       PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        31   Research   project   (Phase   3):   The   results   of   the   observations   were   discussed   in   plenary   sessions   of   the   seminars.  Each  principle  was  analyzed  in  terms  of  whether  the  senior  teacher  appeared  to  have  used  it  and   with  which  practice   or   strategy.  Moreover,   since   some   teachers  were   observed  by  more   than  one   ST,   data   were   compared   and   any   form   of   discrepancy   in   responses   was   examined   through   vivid   and   constructive   discussion,  which  offered  STs  the  possibility  to  further  increase  their  awareness  of  teaching  methodologies.       Evaluation  (Phase  4):  At  the  end  of  the  course,  STs  were  asked  to  produce  a  written  report  on  this  experience   in  which  they  were  asked  to  present  the  theory  that  they  had  learned,  describe  the  most  significant  practices   observed,  comment  on  to  those  practices,  and  reflect  on  how  their  beliefs  and  level  of  awareness  had  changed   over  the  course  of  the  seminars.       2.2.  Data  collection   Data  was  collected  through  the  following  methods  and  during  the  following  phases  of  the  seminars.     2.2.1.  Questionnaire  on  the  application  of  the  principles  (during  Phase  2)     STs  were   asked   to   trace   evidence   of   the   application   of   the   principles   during   their   observations   by   way   of   a   questionnaire   designed   to   elicit   such   practices   (Appendix).   They   were   primed   to   use   the   questionnaire  during  theory  classes.     2.2.2.  In-­‐depth  discussions  after  observations  (during  Phase  3)   A  field-­‐observation  notebook  was  used  during  discussions  with  a  single  page  for  each  principle.  The   researcher  completed  a  set  of  field  notes  for  each  plenary  class  of  the  seminar  by  jotting  down  observed  STs’   comments   relevant   to   each   principle.   In   terms   of   research   ethics,   prior   consent   was   obtained   from   informants.       2.2.3.  Student  teachers’  written  reports  (during  Phase  4)   In  their  final  reports,  STs  were  asked  to  describe  and  comment  on  the  most  meaningful  practices  they   observed   in   class.   The   students’   qualitative   notes   provide   evidence   of   the   growing   sophistication   in   STs’   understanding  of  teaching  and  learning  through  Ellis’s  principles  along  with  heightened  awareness  regarding   the  contextual  constraints  facing  teachers.  The  seminars  were  held  in  English  but  the  report  was  written  in   Italian,  so  the  quotes  from  reports  will  be  translated.     2.2.4.  Questionnaires  to  three  of  the  STs  after  five  years’  in-­‐service  experience     Five  years  after  the  TFA  course,  three  of  the  seven  teachers  were  asked  to  respond  to  a  questionnaire.   Questions  were  related  to  the  role  the  principles  had  played   in  their   teaching  approach,  how  they  felt   their   teaching   competencies   had   developed   during   the   course   and   after   it,   and   the   way   in   which   classroom   observations  contributed  to  the  development  of  their  methodological  awareness.  They  were  also  asked  if  they   were  satisfied  with  the  seminars  and  if  they  would  transfer  the  model  to  other  teacher  qualifying  courses.   2.3.  Case  studies   Data   is   shared   through   the  case  studies  of   three  STs.  The  objective   is   to  discover   if   the  STs,  armed   with  the  knowledge  of  the  principles,  were  able  to  observe  classroom  activities  through  that  theoretical  lens   and   whether   and   how   it   then   influenced   the   quality   and   degree   of   their   understanding   of   teaching   and   learning.  The  most  meaningful  feedback  that  they  gave  during  the  seminar  discussions  and  the  remarks  that   they  made  in  the  written  reports  were  used  as  qualitative  notes.   Studying  the  answers  on  the  questionnaires  completed  after  five  years’  in-­‐service  experience  aided  in   understanding  if  these  former  STs  actually  saw  a  reward  in  having  received  this  type  of  pre-­‐service  education.   Did  they  find  that  the  principles  were  actually  useful  for  their  teaching  orientation?  Do  they  remain  useful?   Benedetta,  Chiara,   and  Giuseppe’s   cases  were   chosen  because   they  narrate   three  different   learning   stories  and  offer  three  different  perspectives  on  the  principles.  Benedetta  was  particularly  interested  in  the   teaching  of  English  for  Specific  Purposes  (ESP),  so  she  was  able  to  envision  the  principles  being  used  in  this   kind  of  context.  She  also  had  the  chance  to  observe  particularly  good  practices  by  teachers  who  implemented   TBLT.  Chiara’s   story   is   interesting  because  she  observed   two   teachers  with  diametrically  opposed   teaching   styles   and   had   the   chance   to   increase   her   awareness   of   the   dos   and   don’ts   of   CLT   practices.   This   also   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    32   happened  to  Giuseppe,  who  enriched  the  discussions  with  insightful  comments  related  to  assessment  as  well   as  to  the  influence  of  GE  certification  exams  on  classroom  teaching  practices.  Importantly,  the  comments  they   raise,  especially  Giuseppe’s,  often  integrate  not  only  SLA  but  also  pedagogical  insights.  Therefore,  these  case   studies  could  be  regarded  as  “a  means  of  bridging  theory  and  practice  and  demonstrating  the  complexity  of   teaching  as  a  profession”  (Crandall,  2000,  p.  40).     3.  Data  analysis   3.1.  Case  study  A  (Benedetta)   3.1.1.  Feedback  after  classroom  observations   When  Benedetta  started  her  TFA  course,  she  had  taught  EFL  in  a  private  language  school  for  a  total  of   55  hours  at  an  elementary  and  advanced  level,  so  she  had  had  minimal  teaching  experience.  Benedetta  spent   10  hours  observing  in  a  lower  high  school  and  150  in  an  upper  high  school,  which  was  divided  into  two  areas:   a  lyceum  focused  on  applied  science  and  a  technical  college.  Secondary  education  in  Italy  lasts  eight  years  and   is   divided   in   two   stages:   scuola   secondaria   di   primo   grado   (lower   secondary   school),   also   known   as   scuola   media,  and  scuola  secondaria  di  secondo  grado  (upper  secondary  school).  The  middle  school  lasts  three  years   from  the  age  of  11  to  age  14,  and  the  upper  secondary  from  14  to  19.  The  first  two  years  of  upper  high  school   are   compulsory;   the   remaining   three   years   are   voluntary.   There   are   three   types   of   scuola   secondaria   di   secondo  grado  and  students  can  choose  what  type  to  attend:  liceo  (lyceum),  istituto  tecnico  (technical  college),   istituto  professionale  (vocational  college).   In  her  practicum,  Benedetta  observed  classes  and  taught  some  lessons  under  guidance  of  her  school-­‐ tutors.  Since  she  was   interested   in  ESP,  she  chose  to  observe  also  some  of   these  classes,  so  she  was  able  to   spot  the  presence  of  principles  in  this  specific  context.  She  carried  out  her  observations  in  the  last  three  years   of  Italian  secondary  school,  where  students  are  required  to  learn  general  and  specialized  language  uses.  They   study  English  literature  in  the  lyceum  or,  if  they  attend  a  technical  school,  they  must  learn  the  ESP  related  to   their   field   of   study   (Chemistry,   Electronics,   Information   Technology,   Mechanics,   Energy,   etc.).   Benedetta   observed  ESP  classes  in  a  lyceum  with  one  teacher,  and  at  a  technical  school  in  the  specialization  of  Chemistry   and  Mechanics  with   another   teacher.   Although   she   observed   four   teachers   in   total,  most   of   her   comments   regard  two  who  both  taught  in  upper  high  school  classes.  She  pointed  out:     Excerpt  1.     I  was  particularly   interested   in   two  classes  of   the  second  biennium  of  upper  high  school   (3rd  and  4th  year),  both  with  a  B1  level  going  to  B2  (CEFR  -­‐  Common  European  Framework,   Council  of  Europe,  2001).  The  approach  used  can  be  defined  as  CLT  since   the  priority   is   that  students  speak  English  in  real  and  active  contexts.     As  for  Principle  1,  Benedetta  saw  that  formulaic  chunks  were  used  as  a  type  of  recast  (Long,  1996,  p.   436)  for  higher-­‐level  students.  She  noticed  the  two  teachers  tended  to  change  the  sentence  components  that   were   structured   incorrectly   without   interrupting   the   flow   of   speech   and—once   the   oral   production   was   finished—asked   the   students   to   repeat   the   utterance   to   help   them   memorize   the   correct   pattern.   During   seminars,  Benedetta  said  she  thought  teaching  formulaic  chunks  would  be  a  monotonous  activity   for  either   teachers   and   students,   but   seeing   senior   teachers   performing   activities   like   the   ones   mentioned,   she   understood   how   formulaic   chunks   could   be   also   simply   presented   through   the   repetition   of   the   correct   word/phrase  in  teachers’  feedback,  in  a  way  that  she  thought  useful  but  not  invasive.   She   also   noticed   how   these   two   teachers   performed   practices   which   were   primarily   meaning-­‐ oriented  (Principle  2).  One  of  them,  in  particular,  stressed  that  her  main  concern  was  to  keep  communication   going.   Benedetta   recounted   the   experience   of   seeing   these   teachers   perform   tasks   in   ESP   classes.   For   example,   in   the   fourth  year  of   the   lyceum,  students  usually   study  Shakespeare’s  Hamlet.  The   teacher  asked   her  class  to  watch  the  Zeffirelli  version  of  the  tragedy,  then  divided  it  into  groups  and  asked  each  to  analyze   one  character  and  present  it  to  the  rest  of  the  class.  The  goal  was  to  outline  the  actions  of  each  character  and   determine  which  had  the  greatest  responsibility  for  the  tragic  end.  To  do  this,  a  class  discussion  was  opened,   and  students  were  asked  to  use  their  own  linguistic  resources  to  express  their  opinion  and  come  to  a  common   decision.   A  teacher  in  the  Mechanics  ESP  class  proposed  a  task  on  “Pros  and  Cons  of  the  Electric  Engine.”  The   teacher  reported  students’  feedback  on  the  whiteboard.  She  then  divided  the  class  into  four  groups,  who  were   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        33   asked  to  write  two  lists,  each  with  five  pros  and  five  cons.  Finally,  students  had  to  debate  in  plenary  to  make  a   shared   decision   on   the  most   relevant   advantages   and   disadvantages.   Students  were   then   asked   to  write   a   brief  summary  on  the  topic  discussed  in  class.  In  the  same  class,  the  teacher  presented  the  topic  “Alternative   and  Green  Fuels,”  and  students  were  asked  to  prepare  a  presentation  in  groups  with  the  aid  of  the  Internet   and  their  mechanics  books.  The  presentation  had  to  include  elements  like  types  of  fuel,  ways  of  production,   and  costs.  Each  group  had  to  choose  a  speaker  to  present  their  findings.  Benedetta  commented:     Excerpt  2.     The   meaning-­‐oriented   activities   in   these   ESP   classes   show   how   the   student-­‐teacher   interaction  can  be   less  asymmetrical   than   in   the  GE  classes,   since  often  students  are   the   experts  of   the  meanings  conveyed.  What   is  more,  being  your   teacher’s   teacher  definitely   increases  motivation  and  self-­‐esteem.     Benedetta  reported  having  seen  these  teachers  insert  focus  on  form  activities  (Principle  3)  at  the  end   of   this   kind  of   lessons,  mostly   by  writing   the   frequent  mistakes  of   the   students   on   the  blackboard,   thus   to   favor  reflection  strategies  and  metalinguistic  awareness.  She  recounted  having  viewed  a   lesson  where  form   was  retrieved  from  students’  implicit  knowledge  (Principle  4).  Benedetta  said  she  was  captivated  by  the  way   in   which   one   of   the   two   teachers   presented   future   prediction   through   a   brainstorming   activity   on   “What   worries  you  about  the  future?”  She  recorded  students’  feedback  on  the  whiteboard  and,  in  doing  so,  elicited   expressions  and  structures  used  for  this  function.  Whenever  students  produced  non-­‐targeted  utterances,  the   teacher  would  simply  write  them  correctly  on  the  whiteboard  to  encourage  students’  autonomous  processing   of   language  data.  She  then  divided  the  class  into  four  groups.  Each  group  was  asked  to  create  two  lists,  one   with   five  negative  predictions  and  one  with   five  positive  ones.   Students   then  had   to  debate   in  plenary  and   agree  on  the  best  and  the  worst  prediction  for  the  future.  It  was  only  at  the  end  of  the  task  that  the  teacher   took   a  moment   to   reflect   on   the   explicit   knowledge   about   the   future   tense   that   had   arisen   spontaneously   through  the  exercise.     Benedetta   commented   that   this   teacher   showed  consideration  of   the  built-­‐in   syllabus   (Principle  5)   since   she  only  presented  new   input  when   students  were  developmentally   ready;   the   teacher   also  used   the   advantages  of   the   inductive  approach  by   leading   the   learners   through   the  discovery  of  grammar  by  way  of   tasks.   She   showed   appreciation   for   the   approach   used,   which   clearly   promoted   students’   interaction,   participation,  critical  thinking  for  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  language.  Benedetta  pointed  out  that  the  two   teachers  made  extensive  use  of  English   in  class   (Principle  6),   complete  with  videos  and  realia.   Instructions   were  provided  in  English  and  repeated  several  times  until  completely  understood  but  this  does  not  mean  that   Italian  was  completely  avoided.  These  teachers  used  it  after  having  tried,  with  no  success,  to  make  themselves   understood  through  rephrasing  and  miming.  Also,  Italian  was  used  when  the  teacher  or  the  students  wanted   to  capture  each  other’s  attention  at  an  emotional  or  affective  level,  for  example  by  telling  jokes.     As   for   the   output   (Principle   7),   Benedetta   noticed   that   the   teachers   who   advocated   for   the   importance   of   communicative   approaches   tended   to   use   scaffolding   techniques   to   co-­‐construct   the   output   with  their  students  and  help  them  develop  fluency  and  automaticity.  They  tried  to  use  some  specific  language   elements  during  the  lesson.  For  example,  Benedetta  reports  about  expressions  that  related  to  the  main  topic   of  the  lesson,  like  pre-­‐modified  elements  that  are  typical  of  ESL  uses  (“a  compact  battery-­‐operated  black  and   white   printer”)   and   did   not  mind   students   using   them   in   the   output   even   if   deep   understanding   of   these   elements  had  not  taken  place  yet.  As  for  interaction,  Benedetta  realized  how  challenging  it  was  for  students  to   be  involved  in  it  and  for  teachers  to  promote  it  in  class.  She  wrote  on  her  final  report  (Principle  8):     Excerpt  3.     The  complexity  of  interlocution  derives  from  multiple  challenging  factors:  you  cannot  plan   what   you   are   going   to   say,   you  must   negotiate,   you  must   be   ready   for   the   unexpected.   What  is  more,  the  spoken  language  is  more  fragmentary,  more  immediate,  with  a  weaker   cohesive   structure   than   the  written   language.   It   is   not   surprising   to   see   that   interaction   represents  the  major  challenge  for  both  the  teacher  and  the  learner.         PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    34   Benedetta  reported  two  experiences  that  were  significant  illustrations  of  how  any  situation,  moment   or  form  of  input  can  become  a  catalyst  for  valuable  interaction.  She  mentioned  having  seen  teachers  start  the   lesson  with  themes  like  “The  Secrets  of  a  Longer  Life”  or  “Healthy  Food  vs  Junk  Food”  asking  students  to  give   their  ideas,  thus  giving  way  to  debates  that  were  so  involving  that  they  lasted  almost  the  whole  lesson.  In  this   way,  Benedetta  said,  “meaning  is  actively  co-­‐constructed  through  the  negotiation  of  each  interlocutor.”   These  teachers  also  helped  students  participate  in  language-­‐related  activities  that  were  beyond  their   current  level  of  proficiency  and  offered  a  full  range  of  contexts  for  learners’  interaction.  Benedetta  reported   on   the   use   of   authentic   materials   (newspaper   articles,   literary   texts,   films,   TV   series,   etc.)   to   start   conversation   activities,   in  which   the   teacher   encouraged   the   use   of  words   and   expressions   newly   learned   through  the  input.  This  happened  often  in  the  ESP  classes,  where  on  some  occasions  students  were  already   familiar  with  the  topics  presented  in  the  input  materials  (in  fact,  sometimes  they  were  more  knowledgeable   than  the  teachers)  but  had  not  yet  learned  the  terms  in  English.  Benedetta  reflected  on  how  interaction  can   only  occur  under  these  conditions:       Excerpt  4.     a   positive   environment,   harmonious   relationships   among   interlocutors,   interest   for   the   topic,   which   lower   the   affective   filter   (Krashen,   1981)   and   increase  motivation,  making   communication  become  more  effective     She   was   therefore   able   to   realize   how   important   it   is   to   take   account   of   individual   differences   in   learners   as  well   as   of   their   preferences   (themselves,   their   life,   their   tastes,   their   opinions)   (Principle   9).   She   mentioned  how  in  the  final  year  of  lyceum,  a  teacher  introduced  a  module  on  “The  Dystopian  Novel”  asking   students  to  read  and  comment  on  excerpts  by  Orwell,  Huxley,  Bradbury  and  Golding.  The  teacher  explained   that  students  in  this  class  were  particularly  interested  in  this  type  of  novel  and  were  eager  to  find  out  about   novels  that  they  had  not  come  across  in  their  personal  reading.  Benedetta  commented,       Excerpt  5.     In  this  way,  the  approach  to  literature  becomes  more  student-­‐centered.     As  for  analysis  or  assessment  (Principle  10),  Benedetta  stated  that  in  her  short  teaching  experience   she   had   never   given   her   students   open   tests,   especially   task   completion   or   role-­‐plays.   But   during   the   observations,   she  watched   students   perform  both   oral   and  written   free   productions   and   seen  moments   in   which  students  were  asked  to  present  a  PowerPoint  presentation  to  their  peers.  She  said  that  this  helped  her   to  have  a  clearer  idea  of  how  to  assess  free  production.     3.1.2.  Feedback  5  years  after  the  TFA  course   In   2016,   soon   after   the   TFA   course,   Benedetta   and   all   the   trainees   who   followed   the   TFA   course   became   in-­‐service   teachers   after   passing   a   competitive   public   exam.   Benedetta   ended   up   teaching   in   the   upper  high  school  where  she  had  done  her  practicum,  so  she  had  the  chance  to  collaborate  with  her  former   tutors.   She  states  that  the  knowledge  of  the  principles  helped  improve  her  teaching  practices:     Excerpt  6.     especially   in   adopting   a  more  meaning-­‐oriented   approach   through   task-­‐based   activities   (e.g.,   internet  projects,  web  quests)  and  in  giving  students  more  opportunities  for  output   in   the   classroom   (e.g.,   role-­‐plays,   class   discussions,   referential   questions)   as   well   as   providing  corrective  feedback  when  needed  (e.g.,  recasting)  (Principles  2,  3,  and  7).     Before  becoming  a  qualified  teacher,  she  claims  she  instinctively  applied  principles  6,  8,  and  9.  In  fact   she  regularly  exposed  students  to  real-­‐life  input  and  gave  them  opportunities  to  interact  and  negotiate  input   through  cooperative  learning.  She  was  also  particularly  attentive  of  students’  different  learning  strategies,  so   she  would  encourage  them  to  share  their  learning  techniques  through  the  VARK  test.  This  test  was  primarily   developed  by  the  Lincoln  University  of  New  Zealand  in  1998  (Fleming,  2009).  It  helps  learners  identify  their   learning  styles   through  visual,  aural,   reading,  writing,  and  kinesthetic   (VARK)   instruments.  This  experience   sensitized  Benedetta  to  the  fact  that  identifying  and  employing  appropriate  learning  styles  can  help  select  the   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        35   right  teaching  styles  for  everyone.  On  the  other  hand,  Benedetta  did  not  have  awareness  of  Principles  1  and   10   before   the   seminars.   So,   after   the   seminars   she   started   to   adopt   more   rote-­‐learning   strategies   with   beginning  and  intermediate  students  within  the  framework  of  a  lexical  approach  (e.g.,  teaching  them  a  lexical   chunk   as   one   unanalyzed   item).  When   it   comes   to   assessment,   she   says   she   now  uses   open   tests   like   task   completion  or  role-­‐plays,  which  she  did  not  often  employ  before  the  TFA  course.  At  present,  she  would  like  to   apply  Principle  5  more.  She  could  not  imagine  teaching  without  a  textbook  and  admits  that  could  be  a  mental   and  structural  constraint  so  she  hopes  that  she  can  become  more  detached  from  it  as  her  expertise  grows.   Benedetta   claims   the   seminars   helped   her   become  more   aware   of   the   importance   of   applying   the   principles  during  the  learning  and  teaching  process  and  she  feels  that  all  principles  are  useful.     Excerpt  7.     The  questionnaire  was  a  powerful  observation   tool  during  my  year  as  a   student   teacher   since  it  helped  me  notice  many  aspects  of  which  I  would  not  otherwise  be  aware.  It  was  a   consciousness-­‐raising  tool  as  it  made  me  deeply  aware  of  my  own  teaching  style.     She   is   grateful   to   have   been   given   the   opportunity   to   observe   senior   teachers   in   the   classroom   environment  because  she  learned  so  much  from  their  expertise  in  every  aspect  of  language  teaching  and  she   thinks  the  principles  could  definitely  help  other  STs  develop  their  teaching  skills.       Excerpt  8.     It  was  a  fundamental  step  in  becoming  the  teacher  that  I  am  today      It   is   important   to  highlight   the   fact   that  none  of   the   senior   teachers  observed  were  native  English   speakers.   There   are   often   strong,   unjustified   prejudices   against   non-­‐native   English   teachers   despite   their   qualification   and   experience.   It   is   meaningful   to   see   that   no   specific   reflections   on   the   topic   were   raised,   neither  by  Benedetta  nor  by  the  other  trainees  on  their  beliefs  associated  with  native  speakerism;  this  could   be  a  sign  of  their  general  appreciation  of  the  professional  role  and  the  competence  in  English  of  their  senior   teachers.     3.2.  Case  study  B  (Chiara)   3.2.1.  Feedback  after  classroom  observations   When  Chiara  started  her  TFA  course,  she  had  had  some  experience  teaching  Italian  as  an  SL  and  EFL   in   two   Italian   private   schools.   She   then   spent   eight   months   as   teaching   assistant   in   Germany.   The   only   teaching  experience  she  had  held  in  Italian  high  schools  was  in  a  lyceum  for  three  weeks,  when  she  oversaw   six  classes.  Chiara  did  her  practicum  in  an  upper  high  school  and  in  a  lower  high  school,  but  since  she  spent   only   one  week   in   the   latter,  most   of   the   remarks   she  made   in   the   seminar   discussions   and   in   the   reports   regard  her  experience  in  upper  high  school.  This  school  was  a  lyceum,  divided  into  two  sections,  one  focused   on   languages,   the  other  on  biology.   Chiara  had   the   chance   to  both   view   lessons   and   try  out   some   teaching   practices  with  the  supervision  of  her  tutors.   During  classroom  discussions,  Chiara  explained  she  had  become  particularly  intrigued  by  the  sharp   differences  of   the  practices  of   two  teachers  who  worked   in  the  same  school  and  taught   in  the  same  grades.   Therefore,  she  raised  many  comments  on  these  differences.  These  two  teachers  will  be  referred  to  as  A  (with   a  stronger  CLT  approach)  and  B  (more  inspired  by  traditionalist  views).   As   for   Principle   1,   Chiara   said   that   Teacher   B   did   not   seem   to   push   students   to   learn  memorized   patterns.  She  tended  to  interrupt  them  to  correct  their  pronunciation  or  translate  words  they  did  not  know.   Chiara   commented   that   this   clearly   did   not   increase   student   self-­‐esteem   or   the   development   of   their   communicative   strategies.   Teacher   A   instead   helped   students   build   a   repertoire  of   formulaic   expressions.   Words  and  phrases  were  written  on   the  whiteboard,  and  students  were  asked   to  keep  record  of   them   in  a   copybook.  Chiara  pointed  out  that  this  was  a  great  help  for  them  to  memorize  the  words.   As  for  Principle  2,  Chiara  did  not  give  accounts  of  activities  that  respond  to  the  criteria  of  a  task.  For   example,  students  were  asked  to  prepare  and  present  projects  in  group  work.  During  their  presentations,  the   teacher   encouraged   students   to   use   their   own   linguistic   resources   to   communicate   effectively   but   these   exercises  in  situational  language  practice  cannot  be  considered  as  plain  communicative  tasks  because  there  is   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    36   no   information   gap   and   no   non-­‐linguistic   outcome.   Despite   this,   Chiara   described   teacher   A’s   practices   as   mostly  focused  on  communicative  skills  in  real  life  situations,  and  she  claimed:     Excerpt  9.     As  Lakoff  (1999)  argues  with  his  theory  of  embodiment,  you  learn  if  you  use  the  language,   not  if  you  memorize  grammar  rules  mechanically.       Chiara   recounted   how   Teacher   A   made   sure   that   content   related   to   form   (Principle   3);   this   was   presented   through   referential  questions   that  pushed   students   to   elicit   language  practices  and   thus  become   more   aware  of   them.   She  preferred   to   guide   students   through  awareness  of   form  by  way  of   focused   tasks.   Chiara  also  witnessed  moments  of  corrective  feedback  followed  by  guided  reflection  of  grammar  mistakes  in   activities   that  were  not  primarily   aimed  at   the   improvement  of   grammar  mastery.   For   example,   Teacher  A   spent   much   time   correcting   students’   open   written   responses   connected   to   a   reading   activity.   Regarding   Teacher  B,  Chiara  pointed  out:     Excerpt  10.     Grammar  rules  are  presented  briefly  in  Italian,  often  with  no  examples  on  the  whiteboard   but  only  reading  the  rule  on  the  textbook.  Students  are  just  pushed  to  learn  from  the  book   at   home.   These   are   episodes   of   focus   on   forms,   which   involve   a   primary   emphasis   on   linguistic  structures.     As  for   implicit  knowledge  (Principle  4),  Teacher  A  was  well  practiced  in  negotiating  meaning  to  fill   linguistic  gaps  that  might  block  communication.   In  so  doing,  she  used  elicitation  or  clarification  requests  to   help  learners  process  the  language  data  of  the  input  and  become  aware  of  the  choice  of  language  necessary   for   effective   communication.   If   needed,   when   students   had   finished   speaking,   she   spent   time   encouraging   awareness.  In  case  mistakes  were  made  only  by  distraction,  she  did  not  insist  on  reflection  but  recast  only  to   reformulate   the   utterance   into   a   correct   version   without   interrupting   communication.   On   the   contrary,   Teacher  B   tended   to   interrupt   students   frequently   to   correct   them  when   they   spoke   (“No,   that’s  wrong!”).   Self-­‐correction  was  not  encouraged,  and  learners  were  not  invited  to  question  how  structural  features  work.   Online  planning  was  not  allowed  when  students  were  pushed   to  verbalize   their   implicit  knowledge.  Chiara   adds:     Excerpt  11.     The  explanation  of  grammar  rules   is  done  in  Italian  through  a  constant  comparison  with   Italian   structures,   which   on   the   one   hand   facilitates   the   learning   of   the   rule   but   on   the   other  tends  to  create  confusion  in  learners,  in  my  opinion.     Chiara   noticed   that   peer   correction   helped   students   retrieve   information   from   their   implicit   knowledge  of  form.  She  argued:     Excerpt  12.     The  explanation  students  can  have  from  their  peers  becomes  a  sort  of  scaffolding  for  them.   Also,   those   who   explain   can   benefit   from   this   activity   because   they   have   the   chance   to   revise  forms  and  make  ideas  clearer  for  themselves.     Teacher  A  seemed   to   take  consideration  of   the  built-­‐in  syllabus  by  making  sure   that   learners  were   developmentally   ready   to   acquire   specific   features,   but   she   preferred   to   expand   the   time   needed   to   teach,   rather  than  modify  the  order  of  the  syllabus  in  the  textbook  (Principle  5).  For  example,  Chiara  recounted  that   the   teacher   changed   the   topic   of   a   class   when   she   realized   her   students   had   never   come   across   some   preparatory   content   in   the   years   before.   To   Chiara,   this   showed   “a   great   level   of   expertise   and   flexibility.”   Instead,  an  excessive  use  of  textbooks  was  made  by  Teacher  B.  Chiara  observed  students  who  were  correcting   a  reading  activity  for  homework:         PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        37   Excerpt  13.     Every  activity  is  corrected  entirely  by  one  student.  Turns  are  taken  according  to  the  order   of  desks  in  the  room.  The  students  in  the  other  part  of  the  room  are  thus  sure  it  will  not  be   their   turn   to   correct  until   the   following  15  minutes,   so   they  do  not   feel  motivated   to  be   focused   on   what   the   rest   of   the   class   is   doing.   These   activities,   if   presented   in   a   more   involving  way,  would  be  very  useful  for  the  development  of  students’  comprehension  skills   but   instead   in   this   way   they   only   aid   the   ‘best   ones   in   class’,   also   because   they   are   corrected  quickly  with   the   rush   of   reaching   the   end  of   the  unit,   independently   from   the   actual  needs  of  the  students.     In  terms  of  input  exposure  (Principle  6),  Chiara  pointed  out  that  Teacher  B,  whose  practices  seemed   to  cling  more  to  grammar-­‐translation  methods,  made  little  or  no  use  of  English  in  class.  She  intended  to  wait   to  use  L2  until  students  had  reached  a  level  of  communicative  autonomy.  Opportunities  for  exposure  to  input   were   more   often   proposed   by   Teacher   A.   The   same   happened   for   the   output   (Principle   7).   The   more   traditional   teacher   seemed   to   constantly   push   students   to   produce   correct   output   and   did   not   always   collaborate   to   sustain   their   productions.   Teacher   A,   conversely,   promoted   interaction   (Principle   8)   and   tended   to   use   scaffolding   techniques   to   co-­‐construct   the   output  with   her   students   and   help   them   develop   fluency  and  automaticity:     Excerpt  14.     Teacher   A   collaborates   with   her   students   in   negotiation   of   meaning   to   solve   communication   breakdowns.   She   suggests   possible   solutions   in   English   to   finish   the   sentence  the  student  might  be  trying  to  say.       At   higher   levels,   Chiara   reported   several   moments   of   real   interaction   and   collaborative   communication.   In   the   lyceum,   students   were   often   asked   to   give   personal   opinions   on   the   historical   or   literary  works  studied  and  this  gave  way  to  fruitful  debate.  Some  teachers  were  prone  to  modify  the  spatial   setting  of  the  seats  to  create  a  more  communicative  setting  to  aid  circle  time  or  group  work  activities.  Teacher   B   did   not   create   contexts   where   students   had   a   reason   to   attend   to   language,   which   means   she   did   not   stimulate  students  to  speak  for  a  real  communicative  purpose,  but  for  the  purpose  of  simplistic  exercises.  For   example,   she   asked   students   to   perform   a   role-­‐play   in   pairs.   The   dialogue   was   scripted   in   the   language   coursebook  in  an  area  dedicated  to  word  expansion.  The  subject  was  food  shopping.  It  included  blank  areas   that  students  had  to  fill  in  with  the  newly  learnt  names  of  groceries.  Thus,  interaction  was  confined  to  some   degree   of   text/input   manipulation,   which   could   not   be   considered   as   a   task.   As   for   Principle   9,   Chiara   considered  individual  difference  firstly  in  terms  of  the  relationship  that  teachers  establish  with  their  students.     Excerpt  15.     Teacher  A  enters  class  with  a  smile,  asks  students  to  take  their  seats  with  an  affectionate   mood;   she   calls   students   by   their   names   and   sometimes   with   nicknames   derived   from   their  names  or   surnames   (e.g.,   “Can  you  please   stop   talking,  Rebecchina,   darling?”).   It   is   totally   the   opposite   with   Teacher   B   instead,   who   enters   the   classroom   only   sometimes   smiling.   Sometimes   she   looks   indifferent   and   she   does   not   seem   to   have   the   same   good   relationship  with  her  students  as  the  other  teacher  has.     Also,  Chiara  raised  an   interesting  comment  on  the  motivational  constraints   that  can  emerge  with  a   grammar-­‐translation  method  applied  to  young  students:     Excerpt  16.     This   approach   only   works   when   students   show   strong   intrinsic   motivation,   they   are   willing  to  deepen  their  knowledge  by  practicing  outside  of  school  but  surely  this  does  not   have   a   positive   effect   on   weaker   and   less   motivated   students,   since   it   does   not   take   account  elements  like  cognitive  styles  or  learning  strategies.  This  means  that  often  weaker   learners  of  English  start  hating  English,   thinking   it   is  a   “difficult”   subject,  and  raise   their   affective   filter.  Learning  a   language   instead  should  occur   in  a   relaxing  environment  with   no  anxiety.       PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    38   As  for  assessment  (Principle  10),  Chiara  observed  that  no  task-­‐based  assessment  was  used  in  either   written  or  oral  texts.  Also,  Chiara  reported  having  seen  much  grammar  assessment  performed,  especially  by   the   classes   of   Teacher   B,   who   asked   students   to   prepare   and   present   group   projects.   During   their   presentations,  the  teacher  corrected  them  in  pronunciation  and  grammar.  Feedback  was  given  in  Italian.  At   the   end   students  were   asked   to   read   but   the   teacher   constantly   interrupted   their   reading   to   correct   their   pronunciation.  In  her  final  reports  Chiara  pointed  out:       Excerpt  17.     The   idea   that   teaching   must   regard   practical   language   uses   through   CLT   is   still   not   commonly   spread   among   all   teachers.   To   this   end,   I   hope   there   is   soon   going   to   be   a   turnover  of  EFL  teaching  staff.     3.2.2.  Feedback  after  5  years  from  the  TFA  course   Chiara  has  become  a   lower  high  school   teacher.  Five  years  after   the  TFA  course,  she  acknowledges   that  the  principles  helped  her  improve  her  teaching  approaches  and  practices:     Excerpt  18.     …because   before   getting   to   know   them,   I   actually   did   not   have   almost   any   teaching   experience  at  all.  So,  I  had  the  chance  to  start  teaching,  having  the  principles  in  mind,  and  I   could  use   them  as  a  point  of  reference  when  I  didn’t  know  exactly  how  to  react   to  some   students’  response  or  how  to  manage  certain  situations.     Chiara  said  that  she  did  not  know  the  principles  at  the  start  of  the  seminars  and  she  found  Principle  4   particularly  interesting,  as  she  had  never  reflected  on  the  difference  between  implicit  and  explicit  knowledge   and  learning  process  in  the  students’  minds.  Before  the  seminars  she  intuitively  followed  Principles  9  and  10   without   actual   knowledge   of   them.   For   example,   she   understood   instinctively   that   teachers  must   take   into   account  that  each  student  has  his/her  own  language  level  and  cognitive  styles,  but  she  had  never  thought  of   that  explicitly  and  actually  put  these  thoughts  into  words:       Excerpt  19.     Before  attending  the  TFA  course,  I  did  not  know  much  about  learning  theories  or  didactic   methods  and  through  my  studying  of  the  principles  and  the  observation  of  other  teachers;   I  realized  that  teaching  material  can  be  modified  and  adapted  to  the  students’  needs.  Their   “built-­‐in-­‐syllabus”   changes   due   to   different   factors   and   they   may   not   be   ready   to   start   learning  a  certain  topic  one  year,  differently  from  other  students  of  the  same  age  attending   the  same  class.     The  questionnaire  was  useful  as  an  observation  tool  to  Chiara  in  that  when  observing  the  classes  of   senior  teachers,  she  knew  that  she  could  not  base  her  judgement  exclusively  upon  her  own  ideas,  so  having  a   questionnaire  as  a  point  of  reference  was  very  useful  to  take  notes  in  class  and,  consequently,  to  increase  her   teaching  competence  level.       Excerpt  20.     When  I  observed  senior  teachers,  I  learned  a  lot  both  from  what  I  considered  to  be  actions   I  would   not   implement   (such   as   too  much   grammar   during   a   lesson   or   boring   and   long   homework   corrections),   but   also   from   the   good   practices   of   those   I   considered   “good   teachers.”  Some  examples  of  good  practices  could  be  motivating  the  students  with  songs,   poetry  reading  or  videos  or  using  everyday  life  references  to  explain  grammar  rules.     The  observation  questionnaire  became  a  point  of  reference  in  Chiara’s  future  teaching  career.  When   she  started  teaching  on  her  own,  she  studied  it  carefully  and  felt  more  prepared  to  enter  the  classes,  knowing   better  what   to   expect   from   students   and   how   to  manage   the   various   learning   situations.   Chiara   considers   communication   among   students   a   vital   element   to   learn   a   foreign   language   so   she   would   like   to   apply   principles  6  and  8  more  extensively.  However,  one  constraint  to  their  application  is  that  teenage  students  are   not   always   happy   to   speak   English   in   front   of   the   teacher   and   other   Italian   classmates,   because   they   fear   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        39   making  mistakes  and  “losing  face”.  Another  constraint  that  she  sees  is  difficulty  using  the  target  language  as  a   medium  of  instruction  due  to  the  average  level  of  lower  high  school  students  and  the  significant  presence  of   learners  with   special   needs.   Chiara   thinks   that   seminars   organized  within   this   framework   should  be  made   available  to  student  teachers,  because  she  thinks  it  is  vital  to  be  offered  the  opportunity  to  observe  someone   else’s  classes  before  starting  to  teach.  She  strongly  believes  the  principles  could  be  used  as  good  guidelines   for  student  teachers  in  their  learning  process  in  the  future:       Excerpt  21.     …because  they  represent  the  perfect  decalogue  to  refer  to  when  experiencing  teaching  for   the  first  time,  when  doing  observations,  when  trying  to  put  theory  into  everyday  practice.     3.3.  Case  study  C  (Giuseppe)   3.3.1.  Feedback  after  classroom  observations   At  the  start  of  the  TFA  course,  Giuseppe  had  had  a  one-­‐year  teaching  experience  in  a  private  language   school  and  he  had  also  gained  some  degree  of  experience  assisting  special  needs  students.  Giuseppe  spent  10   hours  observing  in  a  lower  high  school  and  150  in  the  same  upper  high  school  as  Benedetta.     Giuseppe  was  particularly  interested  in  issues  related  to  assessment  as  well  as  in  the  influence  of  GE   Certification   exams   on   classroom   teaching   practices.   GE   certifications   awarded   by   accredited   international   exam  groups  like  Cambridge  Assessment  and  are  often  requested  by  universities  and  in  the  business  world  in   Italy.  In  fact,  Italian  universities  require  B1  or  B2  level  certification  before  undergraduate  degrees  are  given,   and  many   private   companies   consider   the   possession   of   a   certification   as   a   prerequisite   for   employment.   According   to   Italian   teaching   guidelines,   learners   should,   on   average,   reach   A1+/A2   at   the   end   of   lower   secondary  schools,  A2+/B1  after  the  first  two  years,  and  B2  by  the  end  of  upper  secondary  school  (at  the  age   of   18).   So,   although   the   guidelines   are   well-­‐structured   according   to   the   CEFR,   secondary   school   final   certificates  are  unfortunately  not  given  much  value  by  either  universities  or  businesses.  Therefore,   schools   are  pushed  by  families  and  executives  to  either  use  textbooks  aimed  at  preparing  for  certification  exams  or,   ideally,  to  run  extra  courses  in  the  afternoon  to  train  students  for  this  kind  of  exam.     There  is  a  problem  associated  with  the  management  of  these  courses.  For  bureaucratic  and  economic   reasons,   internal   teachers   are   generally   favored   for   extra   courses,   but   some   are   unwilling   to   teach   them   because   they   are   already   overloaded   by   the   work   with   the   curricular   classes.   If   this   happens,   since   the   employment  process  of  external  teachers  is  quite  complicated  and  expensive,  schools  sometimes  choose  not   to  implement  extra-­‐curricular  courses,  which  pushes  students  to  private  language  schools.  Nevertheless,  the   teaching  autonomy  advocated  in  the  Italian  guidelines  is  undeniably  influenced  by  the  need  to  help  students   familiarize  themselves  with  the  structure  and  requirements  of  certification  exams.  Giuseppe  said  that  the  first   thing  that  struck  him  about  the  school  was  its  formulation  of  two  main  objectives.  The  first  was  to  constantly   try   and   improve   the   quality   of   the   curriculum   to   help   every   single   student   with   every   single   cultural   background,   attitude   or   ability   reach   his/her   highest   potential.   The   second   was   to   prepare   students   for   European   skills   certification   exams   run  by   companies   external   to   the   school   (ECDL,  GE  Exams,   Cisco,   etc.),   defined  as  a  necessary  passport  to  the  world  of  university  and  business.   As  Giuseppe  pointed  out,   the   first   objective   is   clearly  pedagogical,   but   the   second  one   includes   the   issue   of   certifications.   He   argued   that   the   dichotomy   of   these   objectives   was   reflected   in   the   consequent   dichotomy  residing  in  the  sometimes-­‐divergent  teaching  approaches  of  the  EFL  teachers  in  the  school.  To  give   evidence  of  this  he  often  raised  the  example  of  two  teachers  he  observed,  whom  I  will  refer  to  as  Teachers  C   and  D.  Teacher  C  was  particularly   interested  in  certification  and,  according  to  Giuseppe,  he  seemed  to  align   more  with   a   structuralist   approach   and   the   PPP  model.   As   for   teacher   D,   she  was  more   likely   to   use   CLT   practices,  TBLT,  and  student-­‐centered  pedagogical  approaches.   Giuseppe   reports   that   this   difference  was   visible   in   the  way   in  which   the   two   teachers   related   to   formulaic   expressions   (Principle   1).   Teacher  D   preferred   to   push   students   to   use   formulaic   expressions   in   class  to  make  learners  internalize  the  chunks  while  using  them.  Teacher  C,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  seem  to   encourage   their   use,   and   the   rule-­‐based   competence   of   the   students   was   significantly   challenged   by   his   corrections,  especially  regarding  the  way  students  pronounced  words.  Giuseppe  commented:         PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    40   Excerpt  22.     I  do  not  agree  with  this  approach.  Teacher  C  continuously  corrects  pronunciation  mistakes   with  reference  to  the  standard  British  accent  and  sometimes  these  corrections  are  out  of   place  because  they  relate  to  areas  which  do  not  regard  the  efficacy  of  the  message  and  so   they  seem  to  me  rather  aimed  at  the  teacher’s  own  self-­‐pleasing  need,  really.     As  for  Principle  2,  Giuseppe  said  that  concern  about  classroom  control  discouraged  Teacher  C  from   using  communicative  approaches.  He  consequently  proposed  more  structured  activities  which  tended  to  play   a   double   role:   on   the   one   hand,   they   allowed   learners   to   build   up   a   well-­‐rooted   knowledge   of   linguistic   elements   and   on   the   other,   they   permitted   strong   control   over   students,   keeping   them   focused   and   quiet.   What,   according   to   Giuseppe,   characterized   Teacher   D   was   that   she   instead   gave   primary   importance   to   meaning  practices.  Giuseppe  recalled  having  seen  the  teacher  divide  the  class   into  groups  and  propose  that   each  create  a  video  project.  In  the  video,  students  were  required  to  reproduce  a  scene  from  a  movie  they  liked   or  from  a  script  they  were  free  to   invent  and  write  collaboratively.  Giuseppe  particularly   liked  this  practice   and  commented  as  follows:     Excerpt  23.     -­‐ Students  are  encouraged  to  express  their  own  creativity.   -­‐ Students  learn  through  cooperation.   -­‐ Their   talents,   either   visual,   auditive   or   kinesthetic,   are   respected   and   used   for   the   benefit  of  the  group.   -­‐ Students   can   give   their   contribution   no  matter  what   their   level   of   English   is   and   can   adapt  parts  of  the  script  with  their  own  language  resources.   -­‐ Each   student   can   offer   his/her   competence   in   extra-­‐linguistic   skills   like   acting   skills,   editing  skills,  or  social  skills,  for  the  benefit  of  the  group.   -­‐ Students  learn  more  vocabulary  and  discover  new  communicative  contexts  through  the   watching  and  the  making  of  movie  scenes.     Teacher   C   made   intensive   use   of   corrective   feedback   and   was   particularly   careful   towards   non-­‐ formative   utterances   whereas   the   other   intervened   little   and   only   when   there   was   a   communication   breakdown  because   of   the   use   of   non-­‐targeted   forms.   She   believed   that   structuring   lessons   excessively   on   specific  linguistic  forms  could  be  counterproductive  to  the  language  learning  process.  In  his  report,  Giuseppe   commented:     Excerpt  24.     Teacher   D   explains   grammar   rules   […]   but   her   explanations   always   arise   from   communicative  contexts,  be  it  through  the  reading  of  a  text  that  does  not  revolve  around   language   forms,   or   listening   to   a   conversation   or   to   a   song,   etc.   While   explaining   how   structures  work,  she  leads  students  to  reflect  on  how  they  have  been  used  in  the  context   given.     Regarding   issues   related   to   implicit   and   explicit   knowledge   (Principle   4),   Giuseppe   pointed   out   in   discussions  that  he  saw  Teacher  C  enforce  explicit  knowledge  by  asking  students  to  memorize  grammar  rules   from  the  book  at  home  and  do  the  related  exercises,  which  were  then  discussed  and  corrected  in  class.  When   this  happened,  the  lessons  revolved  around  one  topic  of  grammar  and  the  use  of  metalanguage  (either  in  L1   or  L2)  was  significant.   Self-­‐correction  was  not  encouraged,  and   learners  did  not   tend   to   raise  questions  on   how   structural   features  work.   Teacher   D   instead   negotiated  meaning   and   allowed   online   planning   to   help   learners  retrieve  information  from  their  implicit  knowledge  and  increase  their  awareness  of  them.  Giuseppe   observed   that   she   treated   language   as   an   object   to   study   when   she   proposed   a   type   of   “irregular   verbs   challenge”   game,   where   students   were   divided   into   teams   and   in   turns   had   to   guess   the   meaning   and   paradigm  of  irregular  verbs  to  win.     As   mentioned   before,   Giuseppe   was   particularly   interested   in   the   influence   GE   exams   have   on   teaching  practices   in  school  and  in  the  discussion  about  Principle  5  many  issues  were  raised  regarding  this   aspect.  First,  Giuseppe  mentioned  the  choice  that  teachers  make  with  regard  to  the  textbook.  He  pointed  out:     PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        41   Excerpt  25.     In  his   first   year   in   a  new  school,   a   teacher  will   be   in   charge  of   several   classes,   each  one   with  a  heterogeneous  identity.  His/her  task  in  an  upper  high  school  will  be  to  help  these   students   reach   a   B2   level   of   communicative   competence.  With   great   probability,   in   this   new  school   the  department  will   have   chosen   to  use   a  GE  exam  preparation   coursebook.   This  means  that  all  the  exercises  and  the  activities  in  the  coursebook  will  be  modelled  on   GE   certification   standards.   So,  what  will   be   the   challenges   that   this   teacher  will   have   to   face?  On  the  one  hand,  he/she  will  have  to  come  to  terms  with  the  fact  that  surely  weaker   students  will  not  be  able  to  do  all  the  activities  and  keep  pace  with  the  coursebook  units.   On   the   other,   if   the   teacher   decides   to   readjust   the   syllabus   for   the   benefit   of   weaker   students,  he/she  will  have  to  give  reasons  to  school  superiors  and  department  colleagues   for  this  decision.     There  was  some  mismatch  between  what  teachers  taught  from  textbooks  and  what,  in  fact,  students   took  in.  But  the  need  for  teachers  to  work  organically  as  a  department  with  the  goal  of  leading  students  to  B2   evidently  did  not  make   them   feel   at   ease  with   the   idea  of   reorganizing   the   syllabus   in   their   classes.  As   for   Teacher  C,  Giuseppe  noted  that  his  objective  was  solely  that  his  students  succeed  in  doing  the  activities  well,   and   he   did   not   pay   much   attention   to   the   development   of   their   general   competences,   which   consist   of   knowledge,  skills,  existential  competence,  and  ability  to  learn  (Council  of  Europe,  2002).  Giuseppe  says:     Excerpt  26.     I  think  this  teacher  is  a  certifier,  rather  than  an  educator  and  in  my  opinion  this  approach   does  not  fulfill  the  school’s  educational  mission.     Teacher  D  made  sure  that  her   lessons  were  structured  according  to  her  students’  actual  needs  and   attitudes,  so  she  adjusted  the  syllabus  or  her  practices  to  align  to  her  classes’  abilities  and  requirements.  As   for  language  input  (Principle  6),  again  Giuseppe  noticed  that  Teacher  C  used  very  little  English  as  opposed  to   Teacher  D  who  made  her  best  efforts  to  maximize  her  use  of  English.  She  made  wide  use  of  gestures  and  facial   expressions  to  avoid  instructing  in  Italian  especially  in  early  years,  and  this  contributed  to  create  a  joyful  and   relaxing  atmosphere.  Giuseppe  noticed  attention  to  both  written  and  oral  output  (Principle  7)  across  all  levels   for  both  teachers.  For  Teacher  C,  many  activities  were  connected  to  GE  certifications.  For  example,  students   were  asked  to  observe,  describe,  and  compare  two  pictures,  and,  for  the  written  output,  they  were  asked  to   write   essays,   reports,   articles,   and   reviews,   as   requested   in   the   First   Certificate   Exam   by   Cambridge   Assessment.     When  dealing  with  Principle  8,  Giuseppe  had  interesting  reflections  on  what  actually  aids  interaction   and   again  he   emphasized  one   central   idea:   students   are  more   apt   to   interact   if   the   environment   that   their   teacher  offers  is  welcoming,  warm  and  non-­‐judgmental.  Looking  at  the  non-­‐verbal  communication  of  the  two   teachers,  he  argued  that  the  approach  and  the  amount  of  interaction  they  proposed  was  proportional  to  their   own  willingness  to  establish  a  communicative  relationship  with  their  students.     Excerpt  27.     Teacher  C:     enters  the  classroom  without  looking  at  the  students;  says  hello  silently  and  quickly  takes   the  coursebook  from  his  handbag;  puts   teaching  objects  (book,  bag,  CD  player,  …)  on  his   teaching   desk   that   in   a   way   create   a   barrier   between   him   and   his   students;   calls   the   students  by  their  surname  (rarely  by  their  first  name).     Excerpt  28.     Teacher  D:   enters  the  classroom  and  smiles  at  her  students;  she  stops  and  waits  until  they  all  say  hello   and  then  while  standing,  she  asks  how  everybody  is  doing;  she  makes  it  so  that  the  desk  is   emptied  of  any  object  that  might  create  a  barrier  between  her  and  the  class  but  she  rarely   sits   because   she   prefers   to   be   closer   to   the   students;   sometimes   she   sits   amongst   the   students;  she  calls  everybody  by  name  or  with  nicknames  deriving  from  their  surname.     PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    42   These  reflections  automatically  led  to  considerations  related  to  Principle  9.  The  grammar-­‐translation   approach  and  the  lexical  approach,  exemplified  by  Teacher  C,  were,  according  to  Giuseppe:       Excerpt  29.     …less   “empathetic”   approaches   because   they   require   less   interaction   amongst   learners   and  do  not  involve  their  individual  aspects  and  motivational  components.       Giuseppe   argued   that   assessment   (Principle   10)   is   the   area   where   the   dichotomy   between   CLT   approaches  and  more  traditional  approaches  is  more  evident.     Excerpt  30.     One   the   one   hand  we   have   teachers  who   almost   exclusively   use   grammar   tests;   on   the   other   we   have   teachers   who   make   up   their   own   tests   according   to   the   needs   and   backgrounds  of   their   learners.  Through   these   tests   they   can  obtain   information  on   their   students’  progress  and  thus  plan  activities  accordingly.     For   Teacher   C,   grammar   tests,   gap-­‐filling,   and   GE   certificate   exams   were   a   basis   for   much   of   the   written  and  oral  assessment.  For  example,  Teacher  C  extensively  prepared   first  or   second  year   students   to   observe  a  photograph  and  then  talk  about  the  themes  related  to  the  photos.  Teacher  D,  instead,  was  observed   by  Giuseppe  giving  her  students  a  test  she  had  created  specifically  for  them.  Students  were  asked  to  listen  to  a   pop   song   whose   lyrics   expressed   feelings   of   frustration   and   doubt.   Teacher   D   asked   students   to   find   connections  between  the  song  and  the  sentimental  world  of  Hamlet,  a  character  they  had  previously  studied.   After   listening   to   the   song,   students  were   given   a   handout  with   the   lyrics   and   had   to   fill   in   the   gaps  with   words  from  a  list.  Then,  sentences  taken  from  parts  of  the  lyrics  had  to  be  transformed  using  a  key  word  that   needed   to   be   inserted   in   a   second   sentence,   which   had   a   gap   in   it.   Students   had   to   use   the   key   word   to   complete   the   second   sentence   so   that   it  would   have   the   same  meaning   as   the   first.   This   activity  was   also   structured  as  practice  for  the  writing  part  of  GE  certificate  exams,  but   instead  of  being  standardized,   it  was   customized   for   those   specific   students.   After   this   kind   of   priming   activity,   students  were   asked   to   answer   open  questions  that  guided  them  to  the  analysis  of  the  text  and  the  similarities  that  could  be  found  between   Hamlet’s  feelings  and  their  own  feelings.   It  was  clear  to  Giuseppe  why  the  classes  taught  by  Teacher  C  had  not  reached  the  same  assessment   level   as   the  ones  of  Teacher  D.   In  his   opinion,   it   all   depended  on   these   two   totally  different   approaches   in   assessment.       3.3.2.  Feedback  after  5  years  from  the  TFA  course   According  to  Giuseppe,  the  knowledge  of  the  principles  helped  him  improve  his  teaching  approaches   and  practices.  Before  learning  them:     Excerpt  31.     I  used  to  teach  in  a  less  reflective  way,  sometimes  neglecting  the  importance  of  a  balance   between   focus   on   meaning   and   focus   on   form.   Now   I   try   to   take   into   proper   account   learners’  built-­‐in  syllabus  in  order  to  plan  lessons  that  can  be  stimulating  on  both  aspects   and   that   include   an   assessment   phase   made   also   of   uncontrolled   performance   through   which  I  can  get  a  clearer  idea  of  their  second  language  learning  process.     Before   the  TFA  course,  he  had  not  been   formally   introduced   to  many  of   the  principles  because   the   course  was  his  first  opportunity  to  study  SLA  theories.  Despite  this,  he  instinctively  applied  Principles  1,  2,  6,   7,   and   8.   He  mentions   that   he   had   had   some   ideas   about   the   importance   of   respecting   learners’   different   learning  styles  but  had  never  really  reflected  on  how  this  could  be  part  of  lesson  planning.  He  used  to  focus   more  on  the  object  of  learning,  the  language,  and  little  on  the  learning  process.  The  observations  through  the   theoretical  lens  of  the  principles  gave  him  the  opportunity  to  understand  that:       Excerpt  32.     …even   senior   teachers   should   be   open   and   ready   to   reconsider   their   approaches   and   practices  when  they  are  not  successful   PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        43   They  also  helped  him  understand  that  successful  instruction  is  based  on  prior  accurate  planning  and   successful  interaction  in  the  classroom.     Excerpt  33.     I   learned   that   there  are  no  one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all   teaching  practices,   that   teachers   should  keep   their   eyes   and   ears   open   to   students   at   any   time,   that   teachers   should   never   feel   good   enough   to   teach  everybody  everything  but   they   should  be   ready   to   learn   from  students,   show   them   their   feelings,   create   a   favorable   learning   atmosphere,   have   no   prejudices   towards  learners  and,  finally,  that  every  day  is  a  good  day  to  put  on  a  smile  and  show  the   learners  that  learning  can  be  fun.     Giuseppe   thinks   that   no   principle   is   less   useful   than   the   others   and   that   any   prospective   teacher   should   learn   to   observe   their   own   and   other   teachers’   practices   through   Ellis’s   principles.   Today,   while   teaching,  he  says  he  always  tries  to  leave  enough  space  for  interaction,  both  teacher-­‐learner  and  peer-­‐to-­‐peer.   In  addition,  he  tries  to  dedicate  more  time  to  students’  performances  without  focusing  too  much  on  errors,  at   least  at  an  early  stage.  He  would  like  to  apply  Principle  10  more  extensively:     Excerpt  34.     sometimes   having   too   many   students   in   the   same   classroom   with   different   levels   of   proficiency  can  represent  a  constraint  due  to  the  fact  that  free  productions  require  more   time  and  effort  to  be  prompted  and  then  analyzed.  I  wish  I  could  have  less  paperwork  to   do  and  more  time  to  set  the  scene  for  more  creative  work  with  the  learners.     Giuseppe  strongly  disagrees  with  the  ministerial  decision  to  stop  the  TFA  course  because  in  second   language  learning  both  theoretical  background  and  classroom  observation  are  fundamental  for  a  prospective   teacher.   He   hopes   that   the   practicum  will   be   reintroduced   because,   in   his   experience,   teaching   cannot   be   improvised,  rely  solely  on  traditional  methods  or  be  accomplished  through  rote  repetition.     4.  Conclusions     As  we  have   seen,   the  way   in  which   SLTE   for  pre-­‐service   teachers   is   generally   organized  has   some   limitations.  Researchers,   teacher  educators,  and  school-­‐tutors  do  not  usually  manage  to  work  cooperatively   because  courses  and  practicums  are  often  organized  separately.  This  means  that  STs  do  not  receive  enough   structured   preparation   to   maximize   the   learning   experience   of   their   practicum.   Furthermore,   practicums   have   been   offered   quite   sporadically   in   TE   programs,   since   conflicting  ministerial   decisions   have   at   times   removed   them   from   pre-­‐service   qualifying   courses.   As   we   have   seen,   at   present   Italy   has   no   pre-­‐service   courses  whatsoever.   Competitors  win   teaching   positions   and   start   their   practicum  while   teaching,  without   having  received  prior  theoretical  knowledge  or  technical  knowledge  apart  from  their  own  personal  studies  or   experience  that  they  may  have  gained  through  supply  teaching  jobs.   The  project  that  I  proposed  was  an  attempt  to  bridge  the  gap  between  SLA  and  LP  through  teacher   education.   It   privileged   classroom   observation,   putting   STs   in   the   role   of   co-­‐researchers  who   investigated   teaching   practices   through   the   solid   theoretical   lens   of   the   ten   principles   (Ellis,   2005a,   2005b).   This   was   possible  because  the  Italian  TE  system  was  living  a  virtuous  moment,  in  that  it  offered  TFA  courses,  based  on   the   idea   of   an   active   practicum   (tirocinio   attivo)   being   the  main  way   to   attain   an   educational   background   (formativo).  A  positive  characteristic  of  this  project,  as  reported  by  STs,  is  that  it  gave  them  the  chance  to  view   what  was  really  happening  in  Italian  schools,  not  to  learn  from  results  derived  from  external  contexts.  But,  for   this  model  to  be  further  applicable  in  the  Italian  context,  different  decisions  must  be  made  in  Italy  and  pre-­‐ service   teacher   education  with   practicum  must   be   reintroduced.   Evmorfia,   another   ST   of   the   group  whose   feedback  has  always  been  very  deep  and  straightforward,  comments:     Excerpt  35.     As   far   as   the   enrolment   issue   is   concerned,   I   believe   it   is  wrong   to   create   soft   and  hard   paths  to  recruitment  and  we  need  a  coherent  and  unified  mode  of  teaching  qualification.   The  lack  of  unified  admission  requirements  has  led  to  different  thoughts  of  teaching.  This   multi-­‐ramification   sometimes   impedes   communication   among   teachers,   as   we   talk   and   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    44   think  in  different   languages.  The  TFA  has  been  a  highly  selective  competition  and  can  be   kept   like   that   but   we   need   to   standardize   it.   Finally,   I   believe   that   when   the   course   is   organized   by   valid   organizations   and   supported   by   competent   personnel,   it   can   be   extremely  useful  for  teachers  not  only  as  “corso  abilitante”  (qualifying  course)  but  also  as   Life  Long  Learning  and  training  for  in-­‐service  teachers.     The  problems  connected  to  SLTE  are  widely  discussed  in  literature,  as  is  the  lack  of  solid  and  organic   learning   experiences   through   practicum   (cf.   Richards,   1998;   Richards   &   Nunan,   1990;   Singh   &   Richards,   2006;  Ur,  1996;  Wallace,  1991).  Practicums  are  often  based  on   the  assumption   that   senior   teachers  can  be   models   to  STs  but,   in   fact,   teachers  are   individuals  who  often  make  different  choices   from  what  SLA  would   prescribe.   Apart   from   Italy,   the   experience   outlined   in   this   study   could   be   applicable   in   other   countries,   especially  in  Europe,  with  the  necessary  modifications  linked  to  each  national  context.  The  recent  survey  data   of  the  2019  Education  and  Training  Monitor,  which  contains  a  dedicated  analysis  of  school  teachers  in  the  EU,   stresses  the  importance  of  induction  and  mentoring  programs  at  the  early  stages  of  careers  and  the  necessity   for  solid  structured  practices,  since  European  education  systems  are  confronted  with  a  number  of  challenges   relating   to   teachers   and   several   countries   already   face   or   are   about   to   face   shortages.   In   this   regard,   the   Education  and  Training  Monitor  states  that:     A   high-­‐quality   induction   with   classroom   experience,   good   opportunities   for   professional   trainings   and   appraisal   methods   focused   on   teachers’   development   needs   have   been   identified  as  three  common  policy  elements  in  countries  where  learning  outcomes  are  good.   (European  Commission,  2019,  p.  26)     I   found   inspiration   from  studies   like  Erlam  (2008)  and  Ellis  (2010)  to  present  a  project  where  SLA   research  “was  not  seen  as  a  set  of  studies  conducted  by  a  group  of  experts,  but  a  process  that  teachers  could   be   encouraged   to   join   in   and   contribute   to,   as  well   as   researchers”   (Tarone  &   Allwright,   2005,   as   cited   in   Erlam,  2008,  p.  264).  This  was  done  by  presenting   the  principles   (Ellis,  2005a,  2005b)   in  seminar   lectures,   discussing   them,   operationalizing   them   through   an   observational   questionnaire   and   then   giving   STs   the   chance  to  observe  senior  teachers’  practices  through  this  theoretical   lens.  STs  were  encouraged  to  view  the   principles   as   a   source   of   open   reflections   which   could   take   several   directions   and   perspectives   along   the   SLA/LP  continuum.  This  is  why,  as  seen  from  the  case  studies,  each  ST  reflected  on  either  methodological  or   pedagogical  concerns  depending  on  their  areas  of  interest.     This  is  in  line  with  what  Erlam  (2008)  did  when  she  shared  discussion  on  the  principles  and  former   case  studies  (Erlam  et  al.,  2006)  with  teaching  advisors  in  NZ:  “the  view  of  knowledge  was  process-­‐oriented   (Korthagen   et   al.,   2006);   that   is,   knowledge   was   seen   as   a   subject   that   could   be   created   by   the   learners   themselves  (Freudenthal,  1978)  rather  than  as  a  created  subject.”  (Erlam,  2008,  p.  264).  STs  had  the  chance  to   become   classroom   researchers,   learn   the   rigor   and   efficacy   of   research,   investigate   the   psychological   and   structural  constraints  on  teaching,  and  make  discoveries  about  their  own  beliefs  and  identities.  The  aim  was   to  make   them   the   protagonists   of   their   learning   experience   and   not   simply   containers   to   be   filled   in  with   notions.   Another  positive  outcome  of  the  project  was,  of  course,  that  it  gave  STs  a  horizon  of  reference  in  their   later  career.  As  seen,  all  STs  in  the  case  studies  confirmed  that  seminars  on  the  principles  were  fundamental   to   supporting   intuitive   knowledge  with   specific   scientific   knowledge.   They   gained   confidence   through   this   type   of   observation   and   all   of   them  mentioned   that   the   principles   were   extremely   useful   for   their   future   teaching  choices.  It  might  be  surprising  to  find  out  that  before  the  TFA  course,  trainees  were  not  so  familiar   with  SLA   theories   applied   to   the   language   classroom.  This  definitely  depends  on   their  university   curricula,   which   focused   more   on   issues   related   to   literature   and   general   linguistics,   as   is   the   case   for   almost   all   prospective   EFL   teachers   in   Italy.   A   wider   offer   of   SLA   related   content   would   be   advisable   for   university   curricula  designed  for  English  language  experts  who  wish  to  specialize  in  teaching  EFL.   The  discussions  carried  out   in  the  seminars  also  gave  STs  the  opportunity  to  reflect  on  and  discuss   the  practices  observed;  this  is  something  that  they  often  have  little  time  or  chance  to  do  with  their  peers  now   that   there   are   enrolled   teachers.   The  most   positive   result   of   the  project  was   that   all   seven  of   the   STs  who   followed  the  seminars  passed  the  subsequent  State  competition  against  a  huge  number  of  competitors  vying   to  be  assigned  a  permanent  teaching  contract.  This  means  that  their   level  of  preparation  fully  responded  to   national  requirements.     PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        45   In   light  of   these  results,  projects   like  these  could  be  carried  out   in  other  SLTE  pre-­‐service  contexts.   What  should  be  guaranteed  is  a  solid  integration  between  the  theoretical  course  and  the  practicum,  as  well  as   the  meaningful  involvement  of  host  schools  with  motivated  senior  teachers  who  align  to  CLT  practices.   Implications   for   SLTE   training   beyond   this   project   are   logical   not   only   for   pre-­‐service   but   also   in-­‐ service  education.  As   seen   in  previous   studies,   those   in-­‐service   teachers  who  embrace  CLT  mostly  have  an   intuitive  approach  to  its  practices  rather  than  formal,  technical  training  on  the  principles,  so  structuring  more   courses  on  the  principles  could  definitely  help  homogenize  teacher  beliefs  and  CLT  practices  in  school.  Senior   observations   through   the   lens   of   the   principles   could   be   substituted   in   favor   of   peer-­‐to-­‐peer   observations.   These   could   be   later   discussed   through   reflective   talks   amongst   colleagues   and   a   tutorial   leader.   The   principles  could  be  favorably  used  for  self-­‐assessment  along  the  whole  teaching  career.  Obviously,  since  what   is  lacking  today  is  a  convergent  and  organic  pathway  which  would  contribute  to  and  strengthen  the  identity   of  CLT  in  schools,  it  goes  without  saying  that  ministries  should  collaborate  with  SLA  and  LP  experts  in  order   to  implement  a  unitarian  educational  pathway  for  all  language  teachers.     To   improve   the  design  of   the  project,  more  hours   should  be  dedicated   to   the   seminars  unless   SLA   theories   were   included   in   the   university   curricula   designed   for   prospective   EFL   teachers,   as   it   would   be   advisable.  Unfortunately,  as  stated  above,  in  Italy  most  undergraduate  educational  pathways  for  prospective   teachers   of   EFL   tend   to   focus   primarily   on   literature   and   general   linguistics,   so   teacher   trainees   approach   courses  without  an  adequate  prior  knowledge  of  SLA  theories.  The  principles,  in  fact,  relate  to  a  whole  world   of   theories   of   SLA   which   cannot   be   summarized   or   studied   solely   as   an   overview.   A   limitation   is   that   Principles   11   and   12,  which  Ellis   added   in   2014,  were   not   included   in   the   seminar   discussions,   nor   in   the   observations,  so  seminar  time  should  be  added  to  accommodate  discussion  of  these  additions.  Not  doing  so   would  definitely  be  a  loss  since  these  last  two  principles  refer  to  relevant  issues  that  were  raised  by  STs  based   on   an   implicit   level   of   knowledge   and   it   would   be   appropriate   to   promote   formal   reflective   talks   and   observations  on  them.         Acknowledgements   My  deep  gratitude  goes  to  Professor  Rod  Ellis  for  inspiring  me  along  the  course  of  my  studies  in  New   Zealand   and   for   offering   SLA   and   Language   Pedagogy   such   useful   guidelines   as   the   principles.   My   appreciation  also  extends   to  Rosemary  Erlam  who  kindly  offered  me  valuable  background  material   for   this   analysis.  Lastly,  this  study  would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  precious  work  and  feedback  offered  by   all   the   trainees   involved   in   the   TFA   course,   especially   Benedetta   Burroni,   Chiara   Di   Maria,   Evmorfia   Kalovidouri  and  Giuseppe  Trotta  for  this  article.         References   Allwright,  Dick  (2003).  Exploratory  practice:  Rethinking  practitioner  research  in  language  teaching.  Language   Teaching  Research,  7(2),  113–141.   Angelova,  Maria  (2005).  Using  Bulgarian  mini-­‐lessons  in  an  SLA  course  to  improve  the  KAL  of  American  ESL   teachers.   In   Nat   Bartels   (Ed.),   Applied   Linguistics   and   teacher   education   (vol.   4):   Educational   linguistics  (pp.  27–43).  Springer.   Badger,   Richard,   McDonald,   Malcolm,   &   White,   Goodith   (2001).   Second   language   acquisition   courses   and   student  teachers’  values.  Academic  Exchange  Quarterly,  5,  3.   Bagheri,  Mohammad  Sadegh,  &  Mehrnoush,  Marzieh  (2013).  The  application  of  Ellis’s  principles  for  effective   instructed   foreign   language   learning   in   Iranian   language   institutes   and   high   schools.   Journal   of   Studies  in  Learning  and  Teaching  English,  2(1),  139–168.   Barbieri,   Nicola   (2010).   Teacher   training   in   Italy.   In   Konstantinos   G.   Karras,   &   Carl   C.   Wolhuter   (Eds.),   International   Handbook   on   Teacher   Education   Worldwide.   Issues   and   Challenges   for   Teacher   Profession,  vol.  I.  (pp.  315–339).  Atrapos  Editions.   Brown,  H.  Douglas  (2001).  Teaching  by  principles:  An  interactive  approach  to  language  pedagogy.  Longman.   PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    46   Brown,  H.  Douglas   (2002).  English   language   teaching   in   the   “post-­‐methods”   era:  Towards  better  diagnosis,   treatment   and   assessment.   In   Jack   Richards,   &   Willy   Renandya   (Eds.),   Methodology   in   language   teaching:  An  anthology  of  current  practice  (pp.  9–18).  Cambridge  University  Press.     Burns,  Anne,  &  Richards,  Jack  C.  (Eds.).  (2018).  The  Cambridge  guide  to  learning  English  as  a  second  language.   Cambridge  University  Press.   Clarke,  Mark  (1994).  The  dysfunctions  of  theory/practice  discourse.  TESOL  Quarterly,  28(1),  9–26.   Crandall,  Joann  (2000).  Language  teacher  education.  Annual  Review  of  Applied  Linguistics,  20,  34–55.   Connor,   Owen,   &   Nazari,   Ahmad   (2020).   EFL   teachers’   and   learners’   perspectives   on   the   principles   of   instructed  language  learning:  Conflict  or  consensus?  LLT  Journal,  23(1),  59–79.   Council   of   Europe   (2001).  Common   European   framework   of   reference   for   languages:   Learning,   teaching,   assessment.  Press  Syndicate  of  the  University  of  Cambridge.   DeKeyser,  Robert   (1998).  Beyond   focus  on   form:  Cognitive  perspectives  on   learning   and  practicing   second   language   grammar.   In   Catherine   Doughty,   &   Jessica   Williams   (Eds.),   Focus   on   form   in   classroom   second  language  acquisition  (pp.  42–63).  Cambridge  University  Press.   Dörnyei,  Zoltan  (2001).  Motivational  strategies  in  the  language  classroom.  Cambridge  University  Press.   East,  Martin  (2012).  Task-­‐based  language  teaching  from  the  teachers’  perspective.  John  Benjamins  Publishing.   Ellis,  Rod  (1997).  SLA  research  and  language  teaching.  Oxford  University  Press.   Ellis,  Rod  (2001).  Investigating  form-­‐focused  instruction.  Language  Learning,  51,  Supplement  1,  1–46.   Ellis,  Rod  (2003).  Task-­‐based  language  learning  and  teaching.  Oxford  University  Press.   Ellis,   Rod   (2005a).   Instructed   second   language   learning:   a   literature   review.   Research   Division,   Ministry   of   Education.   Ellis,  Rod  (2005b).  Principles  of  instructed  language  learning.  System,  33(2),  209–224.   Ellis,  Rod  (2008).  The  study  of  second  language  acquisition  (2nd  ed.).  Oxford  University  Press.   Ellis,  Rod  (2010).  Second  language  acquisition,  teacher  education  and  language  pedagogy.  Language  Teaching,   43(2),  182–201.   Ellis,  Rod  (2011).  A  principled  approach  to  incorporating  second  language  acquisition  research  into  a  teacher   education  programme.  Reflections  on  English  Language  Teaching,  9(1),  1–17.   Ellis,   Rod   (2014).   Principles   of   Instructed   Second   Language   Learning.   In  Marianne  Celce-­‐Murcia,  Donna  M.   Brinton  &  Marguerite  A.  Snow  (Eds.).  Teaching  English  as  a  second  or  foreign  language  (4th  ed.)  (pp.   31–45).  National  Geographic  Learning.   Erlam,   Rosemary,   Sakui,   Keiko,   &   Ellis,   Rod   (2006).   Instructed   second   language   acquisition:   Case   studies.   Learning  Media.   Erlam,  Rosemary  (2008).  What  do  you  researchers  know  about  language  teaching?  Bridging  the  gap  between   SLA  research  and  language  pedagogy.  Innovation  in  Language  Learning  and  Teaching,  2(3),  253–267.   Erlam,   Rosemary   (2015a).   ‘I’m   still   not   sure  what   a   task   is’:   Teachers   designing   language   tasks.   Language   Teaching  Research,  20,  275–299.     Erlam,  Rosemary  (2015b).  ‘New  tricks’:  Teachers  talk  about  task-­‐based  language  teaching.  Babel,  50(1),  5–11.   Erlam,   Rosemary   (2016).   ‘Using   evaluation   to   promote   change   in   language   teacher   practice’.   Papers   in   Language  Testing  and  Assessment,  5(1),  41–65.   Erlam,  Rosemary,   Sakui,   Keiko,   and  Ellis,   Rod   (2006).   Instructed   second   language   acquisition:   Case   Studies.   Learning  Media.   European  Commission  (2019).  Education  and  training  monitor  2019.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union.   Farrell,  Thomas  S.  C.  (2003).  Learning  to  teach  English  language  during  the  first  year:  Personal  influences  and   challenges.  Teaching  and  Teacher  Education,  19,  95–111.   Farrell,  Thomas  S.  C.  (2006).  The  first  year  of  language  teaching:  Imposing  order.  System,  34,  211–221.   Fleming,   Neil   (2009).   VARK.   A   guide   to   learning   styles   2009.   Available   from:   http://www.vark-­‐ learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire.   Foster,  Peter  (2001).  Rules  and  routines:  A  consideration  of  their  role  in  task-­‐based  language  production  od   native  and  non-­‐native  speakers.   In  Martin  Bygate,  Peter  Skehan,  &  Merril  Swain  (Eds.),  Researching   pedagogic  tasks:  Second  language  learning,  teaching,  and  testing  (pp.  75–97).  Pearson  Education.   http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        47   Freudenthal,  Hans  (1978).  Weeding  and  sowing:  Preface  to  a  science  of  mathematical  education.  Reidel.   Gee,  James  P.  (1990).  Social  linguistics  and  literacies:  Ideology  in  discourses.  Falmer.   Han,  ZaoHong  (2007).  Pedagogical  implications:  Genuine  or  pretentious?  TESOL  Quarterly,  41(2),  387–393.   Howard,  Jocelyn,  &  Millar,  Susan  (2009).  Applicability  of  principles  for  instructed  second  language  learning:  A   South  Korean  perspective.  Asian  EFL  Journal,  11,  31–57.   Howatt,  Anthony  (1984).  A  history  of  English  language  teaching.  Oxford  University  Press.   Kartikawati,   Laksmi  D.,   &  Andriani,   Suzanna,   (2017).   The   applicability   of   Ellis’   principles   for   instructed   L2   learning:  an  Indonesian  perspective.  Cahayalingua,  6(2),  101–114.   Korthagen,   Fred,   Loughran,   John,   &   Russell,   Tom   (2006).   Developing   fundamental   principles   for   teacher   education  programs  and  practices.  Teaching  and  Teacher  Education,  22,  1020–1041.   Krashen,  Stephen  (1981).  Second  language  acquisition  and  second  language  learning.  Pergamon.   Lakoff,  George,  &  Johnson,  Mark  (1999).  Philosophy  in  the  flesh:  the  embodied  mind  and  its  challenge  to  western   thought.  Basic  Books.   Lantolf,  James  (1996).  Second  language  theory  building:  letting  all  the  flowers  bloom!  Language  Learning,  46,   713–749.   Lantolf,  James  (2000).  Second  language  learning  as  a  mediated  process.  Language  Teaching,  33,  79–96.   Lewis,  Michael  (1993).  The  lexical  approach.  Language  Teaching.   Lightbown,  Patsy  (2000).  Anniversary  article:  Classroom  SLA  research  and  second  language  teaching.  Applied   Linguistics,  21(4),  431–462.   Lightbown,  Patsy,  &  Spada,  Nina  (1993).  How  languages  are  learned.  Oxford  University  Press.   Long,   Michael   (1996).   The   role   of   the   linguistic   environment   in   second   language   acquisition.   In   William   Ritchie,  &  Tej  Bhatia  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  second  language  acquisition  (pp.  413–468).  Academic  Press.   McDonough,  Kim  (2006).  Action  research  and  the  professional  development  of  graduate  teaching  assistants.   The  Modern  Language  Journal,  90(1),  33–47.   Ministry  of  Education  (2007).  The  New  Zealand  curriculum.  Wellington  learning  media.   Ministry   of   Education   (2010).   Learning   languages   –   curriculum   guides.   Retrieved   May   15,   2020,   from   http://learning-­‐languages-­‐guides.tki.org.nz/  .   Ministry  of  Education  (2011).  New  Zealand  curriculum  guides  senior  secondary:  Learning  languages.  Retrieved   May  15,  2020,  from  http://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz/Learning-­‐languages.   Myles,   Florence   (2004).   From   data   to   theory:   The   over-­‐representation   of   linguistic   knowledge   in   SLA.   Transactions  of  the  Philological  Society,  102,  139–168.   Newby,   David,   Allan,   Rebecca,   Fenner,   Anne-­‐Brit,   Jones   Barry,   Komorowska,   Hanna,   &   Soghikyan,   Kristine   (2007).  European  portfolio  for  student  teachers  of  languages.  European  Centre  for  Modern  Languages.   Norris,  John,  &  Ortega,  Lourdes  (2000).  Effectiveness  of  L2  instruction:  a  research  synthesis  and  quantitative   meta-­‐analysis.  Language  Learning,  50,  417–528.   Peacock,  Matthew   (2001).   Pre-­‐service  ESL   teachers’   beliefs   about   second   language   learning:  A   longitudinal   study.  System,  29,  177–195.   Petrocelli,  Emilia  (2020).  Riflessione  sui  principi  di  Ellis  per  l’insegnamento  delle  lingue:  indagine  qualitativa.   Lend.  Lingua  e  Nuova  Didattica,  4,  7-­‐35.   Petrocelli,  Emilia  (in  press).  The  application  of  Ellis’s  principle  of  instructed  language  learning  in  Italian  lower   and   upper   secondary   schools.   In   Francesca   Gallina   (Ed.),   Itinerari   di   formazione:   l’apprendimento,   l’insegnamento  e  la  valutazione  di  lingue  seconde.  IANUA.  ETS.   Richards,  Jack,  &  Nunan,  David  (1990).  Second  language  teacher  education.  Cambridge  University  Press.   Richards,  Jack  (1998).  Beyond  training:  perspectives  on  language  teacher  education.  Cambridge  University  Press.   Richards,   Jack   (2007).  Materials   development   and   research:   toward   a   form-­‐focused   perspective.   In   Sandra   Fotos  &  Hossein  Nassaji   (Eds.),  Form-­‐focused   instruction  and   teacher   education.  Studies   in  Honor  of   Rod  Ellis  (pp.  147-­‐160).  Oxford  University  Press.   Schon,  Donald  (1983).  The  reflective  practitioner.  Basic  Books.   Singh,  Gurmit,  &  Richards,  Jack  (2006).  Teaching  and  learning  in  the  language  teacher  education  course  room:   A  critical  sociocultural  perspective,  RELC  Journal,  37,  149–175.   http://learning-languages-guides.tki.org.nz/ http://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz/Learning-languages PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    48   Skehan,  Peter  (1998).  A  cognitive  approach  to  language  learning.  Oxford  University  Press.   Stenhouse,  Lawrence  (1975).  An  introduction  to  curriculum  research  and  development.  Heinemann.   Stewart,  Tim  (2006).  Teacher-­‐researcher  collaboration  or  teachers’  research.  TESOL  Quarterly,  40(2),  421–429.   Swain,   Merril   (1995).   Three   functions   of   output   in   second   language   learning.   In   Guy   Cook,   &   Barbara   Seidhofer  (Eds.),  For  Henry  G.  Widdowson:  Principles  and  practice   in  the  study  of   language   (pp.  125-­‐ 144).  Oxford  University  Press.   Tarone,   Elaine,   &   Allwright,   Dick   (2005).   Second   language   teacher   learning   and   student   second   language   learning:  Shaping   the  knowledge  base.   In  Diane   J.  Tedick   (Ed.),  Second   language   teacher   education:   international  perspectives  (pp.  5–23).  Lawrence  Erlbaum.   Ur,  Penny  (1996).  A  course  in  language  teaching:  Practice  and  theory.  Cambridge  University  Press.   Wallace,   Michael   J.   (1991).   Training   foreign   language   teachers.   A   reflective   approach.   Cambridge   teacher   training  and  development.   Watzke,   John   L.   (2007).   Foreign   language   pedagogical   knowledge:   Toward   a   developmental   theory   of   beginning  teacher  practices.  Modern  Language  Journal,  91,  63–82.   Widdowson,  Henry  (1993).  Innovation  in  teacher  development.  Annual  Review  of  Applied  Linguistics,  13,  260– 275.       PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        49   Appendix QUESTIONNAIRE ON INSTRUCTED SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN ITALIAN HIGH SCHOOLS - BASED ON ELLIS (2005B) Name of observer: _____________________Type of school: Scuola secondaria di I grado / II grado Classes where observation was carried out: medie / primo biennio / secondo biennio / quinto anno PRINCIPLE 1 - Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule- based competence 1. Does the teacher engage students in the use of formulaic expressions? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 2. Are students required to learn rote-memorized patterns of grammar? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 2 - Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning 3. Does the teacher propose activities in which students focus on the meaning of lexical items? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 4. Does the teacher propose activities in which students focus on the meaning of grammatical structures? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather / extensively 5. Does the teacher propose activities in which students focus on pragmatic meaning (i.e. the highly contextualized meanings that arise in acts of communication)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 3 - Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form 6. Is form taught through lessons designed to teach specific grammatical features? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 7. Is form taught through focused tasks (i.e. tasks that require learners to comprehend and process specific grammatical structures in the performance of the task)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 8. Is there incidental attention to form through corrective feedback? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 4 - Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge 9. Are there any attempts to verbalise students’ implicit knowledge as to make them consciously aware of how a structural feature works? YES / NO PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    50   If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 10. Are students pushed to use metalanguage (either in L1 or L2), that is the ability to understand and do explanation of rules? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 11. Does the teacher allow time for online planning as to facilitate students’ access to their own explicit knowledge? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 12. Does the teacher engage learners in consciousness-raising tasks, i.e. in thinking and communicating about language, so that the language point becomes the topic that is talked about? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 5 - Instruction needs to take into account the learner’s ‘built-in syllabus’ 13. Does the teacher adopt a zero grammar approach that makes no attempt to predetermine the linguistic content of a lesson (i.e. a Task-Based approach)? YES / NO 14. Does the teacher ensure that learners are developmentally ready to acquire a specific target feature before introducing it? YES / NO 15. Does the teacher reorder and restructure the syllabus sequence proposed in the textbook? YES/NO 16. Does the teacher focus the instruction on explicit rather than implicit knowledge as the former is not subject to the same developmental constraints as implicit knowledge? YES / NO PRINCIPLE 6 - Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input 17. Is the target language the medium as well as the object of instruction? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 18. Does the teacher create opportunities for learners to receive input outside the classroom (i.e. through graded reading, surveys, activities which require the use of internet, …)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather / extensively PRINCIPLE 7 - Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output 19. Does the teacher make learners perform both in written and oral output? YES / NO If so, to what extent? WRITTEN - a little / much / rather /extensively ORAL - a little / much / rather /extensively 20. Does the teacher create opportunities for learners to produce pushed output (when learners are pushed to use the TL accurately and clearly)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 21. Does the teacher create opportunities for learners to produce structured output in the development of activities that encourage learners to use newly learned TL? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 22. Are learners required to use their own linguistic resources when producing output? PRE-­‐SERVICE  TEACHER  EDUCATION   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52        51   YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 23. Are learners required to use a predetermined set of forms? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 8 - The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency 24. Does the teacher create contexts of language use where students have a reason to attend to language? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 25. Does the teacher provide opportunities for learners to use the language to express their own personal meanings? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 26. Does the teacher help students to participate in language-related activities that are beyond their current level of proficiency? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 27. Does the teacher offer a full range of contexts for learners’ interaction? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PRINCIPLE 9 - Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners 28. Does the teacher employ strategies to develop and maintain their students’ intrinsic motivation? YES / NO 29. Does the teacher try to teach at a pace that is not too fast and not too slow? YES / NO 30. Does the teacher use a variety of learning activities? YES / NO PRINCIPLE 10 – In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency it is important to examine free as well as controlled production 31. Does the teacher assess language by way of metalinguistic judgement (e.g. grammaticality judgment test)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 32. Does the teacher assess language by way of selected response (e.g. multiple choice)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 33. Does the teacher assess language by way of constrained constructed response (e.g. gap filling exercises)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively 34. Does the teacher assess language by way of free constructed response (e.g. a communicative task)? YES / NO If so, to what extent? a little / much / rather /extensively PETROCELLI   E-­‐JournALL,  8(1)  (2021),  pp.  20–52    52   Emilia Petrocelli,  Università per Stranieri di Siena petrocelli@unistrasi.it EN Emilia Petrocelli is an upper secondary school teacher of English as a foreign language. In 2017-2018, she was assigned the role of lecturer of Italian language and culture in South Korea by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She has been an adjunct professor in English language and translation strategies for the University for Foreigners in Siena as well as a teacher trainer on issues related to EFL teaching methodologies, CLIL methodology, and Italian second language acquisition. She holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics and teaching methodology of Italian as a second language from the Università per Stranieri in Siena. Part of her Ph.D. research was carried out under the supervision of Professor Rod Ellis at the University of Auckland (New Zealand), where she also worked as a research assistant and teacher of Italian as a second language. ES Emilia Petrocelli es profesora de inglés como lengua extranjera en educación secundaria. En 2017-2018, fue lectora de lengua y cultura italiana en Corea del Sur a través del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores italiano. Ha sido profesora adjunta de lengua inglesa y estrategias de traducción en la Universidad para Extranjeros de Siena, así como formadora de profesores en temas relacionados con las metodologías de enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera, la metodología del Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras (CLIL) y la adquisición del italiano como segunda lengua. Es doctora en lingüística y metodología de enseñanza del italiano como segunda lengua por la Universidad para Extranjeros de Siena. Una parte de la investigación para su tesis doctoral se realizó bajo la supervisión del profesor Rod Ellis en la Universidad de Auckland, en Nueva Zelanda, donde también trabajó como asistente de investigación y profesora de italiano como segunda lengua. IT Emilia Petrocelli  è docente di Lingua e civiltà inglese nella scuola secondaria. Nel 2017-2018 è stata lettrice di Lingua e Cultura italiana in Corea del Sud su mandato del Ministero degli affari esteri. È docente a contratto di Lingua e Traduzione inglese all’Università per Stranieri di Siena e formatrice su temi legati ai metodi d’insegnamento delle lingue seconde seconda e Clil. Ha conseguito il dottorato in Linguistica e didattica della lingua italiana a stranieri presso l’Università per Stranieri di Siena. Una parte del lavoro di ricerca per la sua tesi di dottorato è stata condotta sotto la supervisione del Professor Rod Ellis all’Università di Auckland, in Nuova Zelanda. In questa stessa Università ha lavorato come assistente di ricerca e insegnante di italiano come lingua seconda.