An important component of second language teacher education is the development of a set of personal principles which guide language teaching and learning. This study examines beliefs about language learning and the roles of language teachers among a group of 35 trainee teachers of languages other than English (LOTE) and English as a second language (TESL) in the initial stages of a Graduate Diploma in Education program. The student-teachers were asked to respond to a series of statements about language learning. These statements were revisited after the first teaching practicum experience. Responses to the survey were examined to identify the influences on student-teachers' conceptions of language teaching and learning. The views of LOTE and TESL method students were found to differ on three issues: whether or not teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time; whether or not parents correct young children when they make grammatical errors and whether or not students learn what they are taught. A piece of reflective writing also revealed differences in TESL and LOTE method student-teachers' perceptions of their students. The implications for language teacher education are discussed.
This study examines beliefs about language learning and the roles of language teachers. The subjects were student-teachers enrolled in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) method and Languages other than English (LOTE) method units in the Diploma of Education program in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. This is a one-year pre-service qualification for secondary teachers. All students had completed at least a three-year under-graduate degree before starting the course. Over the past few years there has been a shift in the make-up of the student group, with an increasing number of students having higher degrees and a variety of work experiences before they start the Diploma of Education program.
The course is the usual mix of theory and practice found in teacher education programs. Students take two foundation education subjects - Teaching and Learning and Social Foundations of Schooling - and two method subjects which provide the specialist knowledge needed for teaching two subjects in the secondary school curriculum. The Diploma in Education program runs for nine months with ten weeks of school based teaching practice.
The Diploma of Education program emphasizes the importance of students developing as reflective practitioners, that is as teachers who are able to articulate personal beliefs about teaching and learning, who are enthusiastic in exploring and questioning their own practice, who are open to alternatives, new approaches and new ideas and who are continually developing as both teachers and learners. The definition of teacher education given by Richards and Nunan (1990) encapsulates the philosophy of the program. They contrast teacher training and teacher education, defining teacher training as "characterized by approaches that view teacher preparation as familarizing student teachers with techniques and skills to apply in the classroom" (p.xi) and teacher education as "characterized by approaches that involve teachers in developing theories of teaching, understanding the nature of teacher decision making, and strategies for critical self-awareness and self-evaluation" (p.xi).
The task of language teacher educators is to probe students' conceptions about language teaching and learning to help them to make connections between their prior experiences as language learners and teachers and the experiences in language classrooms and in method seminars. The teacher educator's role is to facilitate the ways in which student teachers build new knowledge and understanding of their roles as language teachers.
The general theory of learning which underpins the TESL and LOTE method programs is the constructivist view of learning which is based on the view that learners draw on previous knowledge and accommodate new insights within an existing framework of knowledge. The individual learner constructs his or her own understanding. This construction is substantially influenced by what the learner already knows and believes (Gunstone, 1992). It is "...a cyclical process that involves learners extending, elaborating, and reorganising their knowledge frameworks" (Scarino, 1997: 7).
The intention of the TESL and LOTE method programs is to promote student teachers' ability to reflect on their own practice regularly and effectively. Activities include written reviews of lessons during each teaching round with a focus on identifying factors which contribute to successful language learning and teaching. Such activities are designed to build up a reflective approach to teaching and to introduce methods to facilitate such reflection.
In the first ten weeks of both the TESL and LOTE method seminar programs, students work through a series of activities which are designed to assist them in developing a set of personal principles for language teaching and learning. After the first teaching round, LOTE and TESL method students are asked to identify activities that worked particularly well in the classroom. They reach a consensus about the factors which contribute to successful language acquisition and then collaborate to develop a set of principles for language teaching and learning under the heading Learners learn a language best when.... These principles are used as a touchstone in evaluating the Eight principles of language learning from the Australian Language Levels (ALL) Guidelines (Scarino, et al, 1989). Student teachers are encouraged to explore the methodological implications of their principles for language teaching and learning in the second and third teaching rounds.
The aims of the TESL and LOTE method programs, therefore, include the development of skills that Schon (1983, 1987) calls "reflecting-in-action", in particular, during teaching rounds, and "reflecting-on-action" in method seminars where students are invited to assimilate new input into their prior conceptions of language teaching and learning (Schon, 1983; 1987).
The basis for the promotion of reflective approaches in pre-service programs is the argument that Kyriacou (1994) makes that initial teacher training cannot possibly produce LOTE and ESL teachers who know all they need to know about classroom practice. As such, it is vital that student teachers are helped to adopt an approach to thinking about their teaching which will provide a basis for further development.
Loughran (1994: 291) argues that student-teachers
Profiles of the 1998 cohort of LOTE and TESL method students showed that not only were these students very experienced language learners but also the majority of the group had had some experience as language teachers. A number of researchers (e.g. Joram and Gabriele, 1998; Bruner, 1996) have discussed the need to study pre-service teachers' prior beliefs and to take them into account when teaching. Prospective LOTE and TESL teachers have well developed beliefs about teaching and learning languages. These beliefs constitute what has been dubbed "folk pedagogies" (Bruner, 1996) as discussed in Joram and Gabriele (1998) or personal history based language theories (Holt-Reynolds (1992) in Joram and Gabriele (1998), meaning that student-teachers experiences as language learners and in most cases as language teachers, make up an "apprenticeship of observation".
The implications for teacher-educators, as Almarza (1996) argues, are that if they are able to develop an understanding of student teachers' knowledge, it may help them to design teacher education strategies and to specify the content of teacher education in ways which can develop that existing knowledge more effectively. Shulman (1988) has called for teacher educators to help learners make tacit knowledge explicit through reflection upon practical experience and theoretical understanding. Bruner (1996:46) argues that it is essential that teacher educators take prior beliefs into account because any new material taught will have to
Thus, the basic premise underlying pre-service teacher education programs is that the combination of methodological input, practical experience and student reflection results in growing understanding and shifting perspectives. But does this in fact happen?
For student-teachers with minimal teaching experience, what are the influences on their thinking about language teaching and learning? How strong is the influence of the "apprenticeship of observation", of their experiences as language learners on their perceptions of language teachers' roles and their beliefs about how languages are acquired?
In the case of student-teachers with prior experiences as language teachers, either in Australia, or overseas, how receptive are they to examining their assumptions about language teaching and learning? Freeman (1994:2) suggests that what teachers already know about teaching is "minimally affected by what they encounter in their professional education". He speculates that as teachers work in their classrooms, they draw upon sources of understanding other than those with which they have been equipped in teacher education programs. The question raised in the case of TESL and LOTE method students with years of teaching experience, is does this hold true?
The specific objectives of the study were to:
The study involved 23 TESL Method students and 22 LOTE method students. Since 10 of the participants were enrolled in both LOTE and TESL methods, the total group size was 35. The remaining 13 TESL Method students were enrolled in a mixture of second method units including English, maths, psychology, drama, Jewish studies and social studies. There were twenty- nine LOTE method students, twenty-two of whom participated in both stages of the study. Participants who completed only one stage were excluded from the study. The LOTE Method students were training to be teachers of Mandarin Chinese (1), French (3), German (3), Hebrew (1), Indonesian (6), Italian (3), Japanese (5) and Modern Greek (2). One student was enrolled in two language methods. Apart from combining LOTE method with TESL method, other method combinations ranged from General Science, to Chemistry, Jewish Studies, History, SOSE, Psychology and Maths.
Of the 23 TESL Method students, 19 were female and 4 male. Sixteen were born in Australia, 7 overseas. 15 were from an English-speaking background, 8 had backgrounds in languages other than English. All except one had already had some form of teaching experience. Many of them had worked as English language teachers, some for several years. Five of the students have the RSA certificate in language teaching. They had all studied another language.
The profile was similar for LOTE method with a group of 20 women and 2 men. Fourteen of the participants were born in Australia and 8 overseas. Fifteen students have English as their first language and 7 speak English as their second language. All except for five students have had some previous teaching experience.
A survey was selected as a means of collecting data on the student- teachers' preconceptions about language teaching and learning and changes, if any, in their views about second language acquisition and the implications for teaching. The survey was developed by Lightbown and Spada (1993: xv) to encourage teachers and teacher trainees reading their book, How Languages Are Learned, to reflect on their views about how languages are learned and what the implications are for how languages should be taught. The survey consists of twelve statements which represent a number of commonly expressed opinions about how languages are learned.
One of the purposes of using the Lightbown and Spada survey was to focus student-teachers' attention on second language acquisition research and its implications for pedagogy. As Ellis (1994: 182) argues, there is a case for "awareness raising in teacher development, as a complement to, and in some situations as an alternative to, experiential practices". The survey provided a starting point for discussion on central issues related to second language acquisition with the twelve statements canvassing views on issues relating to learner characteristics (for example, IQ and age), contexts of language learning (home, school) and the roles of the language teacher.
The survey was administered twice; before and after the first teaching round during regular method classes. On each occasion participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed/disagreed with each statement. Both groups of students were then asked to select one of the statements which they saw as being particularly important and to provide an open-ended response to that statement. They were not directed to respond to the same statement in phases one and two.
There were differences in the timing of the data collection. TESL method students completed the survey before the teaching round in the second week of the program, while LOTE method students completed the survey immediately before the round, in week five. In both cases, however, the students had had very little input from method lecturers so it was expected that the views which were being expressed would be very much a statement of personal belief based on their own experiences as language learners or for, many of them, on the work which they had already done as language teachers.
The process was repeated after the first teaching practicum. TESL method students completed the task in week nine, the first week back at university. The Easter vacation meant that LOTE method students were unable to complete the survey until week twelve which was the first seminar after the teaching round. In this second stage of data collection, the participants were given the same set of statements from stage one, and were asked once again to position themselves in response to the statements, to select one statement and to reflect on that statement in writing. Students were not given the opportunity to compare the first and second responses. Students enrolled in both LOTE and TESL methods were part of the process in both method areas. There was potential sample bias in the study as the respondents were not anonymous and they may have not been ready to say what they really thought. Anecdotal evidence from early TESL method classes was that TESL students saw grammar teaching as a central concern, yet they chose not to comment on this topic in the survey. In the first session for TESL method, students were given an outline of the program and were invited to comment on the areas which were to be covered. Grammar was to be given one session in term two of the course. Students were presented with the argument that grammatical competence is only one component of communicative competence. Many of the students were concerned at what they perceived as the marginalization of an important aspect of language learning.
The focus in using the survey was not so much on the product - that is where students positioned themselves - but on the process - that is, by requiring students to explicitly position themselves in relation to statements about language teaching and learning and then to reflect on this postioning both pre and post the teaching practicum experience, an increased awareness and understanding of the complexities of language acquisition and their role as language teachers was expected.
The opportunity to complete the survey both before and after the first teaching round was a means of encouraging student-teachers to reflect initially on their prior experiences as language learners, and in some case, language teachers, and then "reflect-on-action", to use Schon's term, as they drew upon their experiences in the first teaching round to adjust their thinking or confirm their hypotheses about how languages are learned.
There is some evidence that the difference in the timing of the survey for TESL and LOTE method students affected students' responses. As one student-teacher enrolled in TESL and LOTE (Indonesian) methods, indicated, the three week difference in timing for the administration of the first survey gave her the chance to develop her thinking about language and learning so that she approached the task with more confidence. In her words:
There was some level of group agreement among the TESL method students in the first response to the questionnaire. The majority of the students believed that languages were learned mainly through imitation, parents did not correct young children's grammatical errors and people with high IQs did not make the best language learners. Motivation was clearly the most important factor in successful language learning. Getting started early was also a good idea and mistakes were usually due to first language interference. Although teachers should not work through a progression of grammatical rules, simple language structures should come first. Immediate error correction was not necessarily a good thing. Nor was the use of materials limiting students to known structures. Learners did not pick up each others' mistakes in group activities and they did not learn what they were taught.
There was some change in positioning by the time of the second response to the questionnaire. Remember - this is after the first teaching round and students are fresh from their battles in the language classroom. Languages were still learned mainly through imitation, though this was not as strongly felt as it had been earlier in the year. Student-teachers were even more firmly of the view that parents do not correct their children's grammatical errors. People with high IQs were still not the best language learners. Everyone agreed that motivation was the most important factor. Getting started early was still a good idea and first language interference continued to cause the majority of learner mistakes. Students were split fairly evenly in their response to the issue of grammar but the balance had moved to agreeing rather than disagreeing with the statement that teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time. Students still felt that simple structures should be taught first. There had been a change on error correction - the majority of students now felt that errors should be corrected immediately. Students still felt that materials should not be limited to known language. Group work must have gone well during teaching practice - with an increased majority of students believing that group work did not result in sharing of learner mistakes. Teaching practice had also resulted in an even stronger belief that students do not learn what they are taught.
The responses of the LOTE method students for the first stage of the research showed that students were strongly of the view that imitation plays a key role in language acquisition. They were almost equally divided on whether or not parents correct grammar and whether or not there is a correlation between high IQ and good language learners. The respondents identified motivation as the most important factor in second language acquisition. The majority of students favoured an early introduction of LOTE programs in schools. Most respondents agreed that mistakes are due to interference from the first language and that grammatical items should be presented and practised one at a time. Similarly, respondents agreed that teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. Students were split fairly evenly over the issue of the timing and purpose of error correction. The group strongly disagreed that teachers should use materials that expose students only to those structures which they have already been taught. The majority of respondents disagreed that learners learn each others' mistakes in student centred activities. Before the teaching round, student-teachers were split down the middle on whether or not learners learn what they are taught.
Although the responses for most of the statements showed little change after the teaching round, there were some exceptions. Fewer students were convinced about the importance of imitation with the group now almost equally divided on whether or not imitation plays a key role. A higher proportion of students agreed with that statement that mistakes are due to first language interference. More students agreed that learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are made and that earlier is best in language learning. Fewer students agreed that grammar rules should be taught one at a time. More students disagreed with the statement that teachers should only expose learners to materials. Fewer students agreed that students learn what they are taught.
The reflective writing gave voice to student teachers' thinking about language learning and teaching. Students were asked to select one statement which they felt was important and then to write an open-ended response to the statement. These statements were used as a means of identifying the key influences on student-teachers' views about language teaching and learning before and after the first teaching round.
An analysis of the reflective comments for phase 1 revealed three patterns. The first was the very self-focussed nature of many of these comments. Students drew on their own experiences as language learners in discussion of their selected statement. Students who did this were clearly positioning themselves as learners, rather than as teachers. Comments focussed on the attraction of elements of popular culture such as songs, increased understandings of their first language through the study of a second, problems caused by direct translation from one language to another, the negative experience of being the failed language learner and the insights gained by a bilingual child.
A second strand came from those students who had previous experience as language teachers. These students were very definite in their responses - a student with some years experience as an English teacher in Japan opens her response (on the correction of learner error)
Another student, also with experience working in Japan is slightly less aggressive in her response but none the less clear - "I believe that teachers should always expose students to a level of language just above what they have learnt". Another response, again from a student with experience as a language teacher echoes this certainty - "Initially, that is, when a teacher is introducing a new language structure, it is best not to present material that has too much going on in it, that is, that has too many new structures". Note also that all of these students position themselves as language teachers, rather than as language learners.
Other reflective comments revealed a lack of certainty about anything at all. Responses were littered with 'maybes', 'perhapses' and 'mights'. A response from one of the younger members of the class, started with a rewording of the focus statement "When learners are allowed to interact freely they learn from each others' mistakes" to "When teachers are allowed to interact freely they learn from each others' mistakes" - and this may well be true. The student changed 'teacher' to 'teenager' and opened her reflective writing with the classic line - "As much as I agree with this statement, I also disagree with it".
So before the first teaching round, there were students drawing on their own experiences as learners for understandings of language learning and teaching, students already firmly positioned as language teachers with very clear views on the nature of language teaching and learning and students who were in a state of confusion and uncertainty.
Would experience in the classroom, where these students would be forced to put these understandings (or lack of them) into practice, result in a shift in the nature of the reflective comments?
In the phase two reflective writing students commonly used their experiences in the classroom as the basis for reviewing or establishing beliefs about language teaching and learning. In the case of the TESL method students, there was one voice dominant across the majority of the responses which positioned these students as TESL teachers with a clear sense of ownership of lessons, classes and students. In almost every response reference was made to 'my classes' and 'my students'. LOTE method students were also clearly seeing themselves as language teachers but there was a sense of distance which was not evident in the comments of the TESL method students. Ownership for LOTE method students, as expressed through these comments was ownership of the teaching round, rather than ownership of the students or the lesson.
Discussion was firmly grounded in the practicum experience, with students referring back to previous understandings which had been changed by experience.
"After round one I have realised that students tend to copy the TESL teacher...there is that trust from students and they think that the teacher is there to be copied" - this from a student who had argued, on the basis of her own experience as a language learner, that students did not imitate their teachers.
The rate of student learning was also cause for comment - "students take a long time to grasp language structures - longer than I used to think" - this was from a student who is a very successful language learner herself.
This process of coming to understand, of realising what is involved in language teaching and learning, of establishing beliefs based on experience is echoed in many of the comments. Links were also made with the content of lectures and the way in which these theoretical understandings were reinforced by practical experience.
Responses indicated that students were establishing a personal set of principles for language teaching and learning. Comments tended to follow a pattern of examples drawn from classroom experience followed by a statement of principle.
This study has provided an opportunity for language teacher educators to engage in collaborative research and explore, clarify and give voice to their views on effective language teacher education. The study has shown the importance of taking into account student-teachers' prior experiences as language learners and language teachers in planning and implementing pre-service programs. The apparent mismatch between student-teachers' views and the findings of second language acquisition research on the place of error correction, interference from the first language and strategies for teaching grammar are valuable pointers for the selection of content for method programs.
The study has also served to demonstrate the importance of providing opportunities for guided reflection in assisting student-teachers to make links between their experiences in the classroom and theoretical input. In making tacit understandings about language teaching and learning explicit, in being asked to verbalize their guiding principles and crystallise their thinking at various points in the program, student-teachers have been able to mesh prior experiences with new input.
This study provided preliminary data on the perceptions of TESL and LOTE method students on how languages are learned and best taught. Future research could focus on the following areas:
Almarza, G. (1996) Student foreign language teacher's knowledge growth. In Freeman, D. and J. C. Richards (Eds.) (1996) Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: C.U.P., pp.50-78.
Bruner, J. (1996) The culture of education. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994) Second language acquisition research and teacher development: the case of teachers' questions. In D. Li, D. Mahoney & J.C. Richards (eds) Exploring Second Language Teacher Development. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic, pp.175-194.
Freeman, D. (1994) Knowing into doing: teacher education and the problem of transfer. In D. Li, D. Mahoney & J.C. Richards (eds.) Exploring Second Language Teacher Development. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.
Gunstone, D. (1992) A tertiary educator's view In J. Baird and J. Northfield (eds) (1992) Learning from the PEEL Experience. Melbourne: The Editors and Contributors, pp. 283-291.
Joram, E. and A. Gabriele (1998) Preservice teachers' prior beliefs: transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education 14, 2: 175-191.
Kyriacou, C. (1994) Reflective teaching in a wider context. In A. Peck and D. Westgate (eds) (1994) Language Teaching in the Mirror. London: CILT, pp.3-7.
Lightbown, P. & N. Spada (1993) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loughran, J. (1994) Developing Reflection in Preservice Teacher Education Students. Melbourne, Australia: Unpublished thesis, Faculty of Education, Monash University.
Richards, J. and D. Nunan (eds) (1990) Second Language Teacher-Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scarino, A. (1997) Beyond ALL- Emphasising the cognitive dimension of language learning. Babel 32,3: 4-11.
Scarino, A. et al. (1989) Australian Language Level Guidelines. Canberra: Curriculum Corporation.
Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1988) The dangers of dichotomous thinking in education. In P. Grimmet and G. Erickson (eds.), Reflection in Teacher Education. New York: Teacher's College Press, pp. 31-39.
GO BACKto the ALAA Congress Proceedings page
GO BACK to the ALAA home page.
For problems regarding this site,
please contact
Peter
White
Centre for Language Teaching and
Research
The University of Queensland, Qld
4072
Australia Tel: +61 7 3365 6893;
Fax: +61 7 3365 7077