ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +44 2

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Training confident primary modern foreign language teachers inEngland: An investigation into preservice teachers’ perceptions

of their subject knowledge

Alexandra Woodgate-Jones�

School of Education, University of Southampton, Highfield, Hampshire SO17 1BJ, UK

Received 31 January 2006; received in revised form 3 October 2006; accepted 23 October 2006

Abstract

The National Languages Strategy, published in the UK in 2002 offers all primary school children an entitlement to learn

a Modern Foreign Language (MFL) by 2010. The supply of adequately trained teachers is one of the key determinants of

the success of this initiative. This paper presents findings from a study involving 18 teacher education institutions offering a

primary MFL specialism, focusing particularly on the preservice teachers’ confidence in their own subject knowledge. A

compulsory component of the specialism is a month of practicum abroad and this article explores the potential benefits

and difficulties associated with this experience, as reported by the preservice teachers through questionnaires and focus

groups.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher education; Modern languages; Preservice teachers; Subject knowledge; Foreign languages; Primary education

1. Background

In 2002, the Department for Education and Skills(DfES) published a new policy statement onlanguage learning, which outlined the government’sstrategy for modern foreign languages (MFLs) inEngland over the next decade. It has the ambitioustitle of: Languages for All: Languages for Life andone of the key policy changes it contains is thecommitment to offer all primary school children inEngland an entitlement to study an MFL through-out Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11 years) by the end of thedecade. This is not the first attempt in England toexpand MFL teaching and learning into primary

ee front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2006.10.008

380 598408; fax: +44 2380593556.

ess: acwj@soton.ac.uk.

education; an extensive pilot scheme was carried outin the 1960s and 1970s, introducing French intoprimary schools was discontinued after an influen-tial evaluation of its implementation was publishedin 1974 (Burstall et al., 1974). It was claimed thatone of the principal reasons for the failure of thescheme was the inadequate training of teachers andthis continues to cause concern as to the potentialsuccess of the renewed interest in introducing MFLsinto primary schools.

In order to begin to address this training issue, thePrimary Language Teacher Training Project wasestablished in 2001. Originally consisting of sixinitial teacher training (ITT) institutions in Eng-land, partnered with six in France, the number ofinstitutions, as well as the number of languages, hasincreased significantly. In 2005, there were 31

.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–132

providers offering the primary modern foreignlanguage (PMFL) specialism as part of their ITTcourses, catering for 756 preservice teachers; lan-guages included French, Spanish, Italian, Germanand Portuguese. The specialism can be integratedinto several different routes into teaching, but theresearch presented here focuses on the Primary PostGraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) whichconsists of one year of training. Preservice teachersfollowing the PMFL specialism on a PGCE coursereceive additional taught sessions in their ITTinstitutions (consisting of approximately 30 addi-tional hours), and are also required to spend aperiod of four weeks of practicum abroad, in thetarget country (teaching full time in a primaryschool in the host country). Apart from these keyelements, each ITT institution has had the freedomand the responsibility to devise its own teachingprogramme for the PMFL specialism. In much thesame way, those delivering PMFLs in primaryschools across the country have been developingtheir own methodology and content as there hasbeen no statutory guidance as to what the PMFLcurriculum should include. For the first time sincethe introduction of the National Languages Strat-egy in England, in November 2005 a new Frame-work outlining a suggested content andmethodology for teaching MFLs in Key Stage 2was made available to all primary schools in thecountry.

In order to teach any subject effectively, it isgenerally accepted that an adequate degree of subjectknowledge is required (see Schulman, 1986). However,a definition of exactly what subject knowledge isrequired to teach an MFL in primary schools is thesubject of debate and much depends on the type ofPMFL model being advocated. Some models empha-sise linguistic competence (for example, LanguageAcquisition Programmes and to a lesser extentSensitisation programmes) but others (for example,Language Awareness programmes) maintain thatcultural enrichment and general language awarenessare more appropriate (see Martin, 2000 for defini-tions). Clearly the former will require a higher degreeof linguistic proficiency on behalf of the teacher thanthe latter. However, irrespective of which model isbeing taught, it is generally accepted that a PMFLteacher’s subject knowledge base will need to includeboth linguistic competence and intercultural under-standing: ‘‘The teachers’ depth of knowledge of thelanguage and culture...are key issues in effectiveteaching.’’ (Driscoll et al., 2004, p. 5).

Regardless of such research, within the UK andthe European Union it is teachers’ linguisticproficiency that often appears to be the focus ofmost attention (Blondin et al., 1998, p. 23; OfSTED,2002, p. 2). Such research has suggested that anadequate degree of linguistic competence is essentialto teach children to become linguistically competentthemselves. However, the educational aims ofPMFL teaching and learning are broader than this.The new Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages isdivided into three strands: Oracy, Literacy andIntercultural Understanding. In order to teach theseaspects effectively it is clear that teachers will needto be confident not only in linguistic competence,but also in their intercultural understanding. Whatis less clear at present is whether this is indeedalready the case for preservice teachers and, if not,how these can most effectively be developed on analready very intensive PGCE course.

2. What is intercultural understanding (IU) and can

it be taught?

One of the difficulties when discussing the issue ofIU is that there are many different definitions andapproaches. There are those who would argue thatintercultural understanding is implicit in the teach-ing and learning of a foreign language and that thecultural element cannot be separated from thelinguistic element. Communicative language teach-ing itself is arguably inherently ‘cultural’ and cameabout because of a cultural imperative to develop amodel of language teaching and learning that wasinherently socio-cultural (see Kramsch, 1991). It hasbeen shown however that learning a foreignlanguage does not necessarily result in the successfuldevelopment of intercultural understanding. It ispossible to learn to speak a foreign language withmechanical perfection but to be constantly at cross-purposes with native speakers of that language (seeWringe, 1989) and so it may be necessary for thecultural dimension of MFLs to be considered andplanned for separately in order to develop learners’IU. This does not mean however that it should bedivorced from the development of linguistic compe-tence as the two can (and should) go hand in hand.

Some would argue that there are two key aspectsto culture. Lafayette refers to these as ‘‘Big C little

c’’ (Lafayette, 1997). ‘‘Big C’’ focuses on what mightbe termed the subject knowledge aspect e.g.;geographical monuments, historical events, majorinstitutions of a culture whilst ‘‘little c’’ refers to the

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 3

everyday cultural patterns e.g. eating habits, shop-ping, greeting people and other socioculturalaspects. Although other definitions and interpreta-tions exist (see Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003;Brooks, 1997; Cushner & Brislin, 1996) a patternemerges of two broad strands within ‘‘culture’’. Itcould be argued that the ‘‘Big C’’ strand can betaught and learnt using a more traditional approachwhilst the ‘‘little c’’ strand requires learners tointerpret, empathise and critically engage with theother culture as well as their own in order to beinterculturally competent. These skills and attitudesmay not be taught in the same way as the ‘‘Big C’’aspects but can be encouraged and developed by theclassteacher.

The IU strand in the new Key Stage 2 Frameworkfor Languages suggests that IU can be taught, andalso that it can be taught as a set of separateobjectives to those more focused on linguisticdevelopment. As this framework has been devel-oped to support the PMFL initiative in England,this is how IU is intended to be interpreted in thefollowing discussion.

2.1. Aims of the study

This article is a result of research carried out intowhat the educational aims of PMFLs are consideredto be and an investigation into preservice teachers’confidence in their linguistic competence and inter-cultural understanding. The focus of this article isthe latter. In particular I ask:

�

Are preservice teachers following the PMFLspecialism as part of a PGCE (Primary) courseconfident in their own subject knowledge (speci-fically their linguistic competence and intercul-tural understanding) by the end of their training?

Although some research has shown that con-fidence in ones own ability does not necessarilyequate with an independent observer’s assessmentof that competence (Driscoll, 2000; Luc, 1996), inmathematics education, Stipek et al. (2001) haveargued that a teacher’s self-confidence has a positiveeffect on their pupils: ‘‘...teachers’ self-confidence asmathematics teachers was significantly correlatedwith students’ perceptions of their own competenceas mathematics learnersy’’ (Stipek et al., 2001, p.224). There is no reason why such an understandingof the link between teachers’ self-confidence andstudents’ self-perceptions would not also equally

apply to the teaching of MFLs. Likewise a largebody of research exists on self-concept and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; McKenzie & Schweitzer,2001), which concludes that the belief that one willbe successful increases ones chances of being so andconfidence plays a big part in this. It has also beenshown that academic success within higher educa-tion is affected by ‘‘personal confidence and afeeling of competence in learning’’ (Wankowski,1991, p. 307) and that positive self-concept effectstask performance, with low perceived competenceoften resulting in task avoidance. Such studiesindicate that while confidence is not the only factorthat affects performance, it is an influential one.

To help foster and develop preservice teachers’linguistic abilities and intercultural understanding,all PMFL specialisms involve a period of practicumabroad. To understand how such cultural immer-sion experiences impact preservice teachers’ con-fidence, I ask:

�

What are the benefits to preservice teachers ofspending time in the target country? � What other issues arise from these experiences? � How can teacher education programs best

support preservice teachers to enable them tofully benefit from this opportunity?

3. Methods

In order to explore preservice teachers’ opinions,this study used both qualitative and quantitativedata gathering techniques, comprising a mixture ofwritten questionnaires, semi-structured interviewsand focus groups. At the time of this study 24 ITTinstitutions were offering a PMFL specialism and ofthese, 18 (self-selected institutions) participated inthe research. All preservice teachers following theMFL specialism as part of a PGCE (Primary)course at these institutions were invited to take part.Some data from PGCE course tutors were alsogathered in order to provide a point of comparisonand in some cases, these were used for triangulationpurposes.

The data were collected between November 2003and July 2004 using the following tools andprotocol:

�

an initial questionnaire (Q1) distributed to allcourse tutors in ITT institutions offering aPMFL specialism on a PGCE course (75%returned n ¼ 18),

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–134

�

first questionnaire (Q1) was distributed to allpreservice teachers following a PMFL specialismas part of a PGCE course at ITT institutions thathad agreed to take part (75% returned n ¼ 230)(see Appendix A), � six semi structured interviews conducted with a

representative sample of course tutors to validatethe data gathered from the questionnaires (anestablished and a new provider were chosen fromthe North, Midlands and the South of England),

� six focus groups with preservice teachers con-

ducted (using same sampling basis) to elicit anyadditional relevant information and to validatedata gathered from questionnaire (Q1),

� second questionnaire (Q2) distributed to all

course tutors who had returned the originalquestionnaire (64% returned n ¼ 12),

� second questionnaire (2) distributed to all pre-

service teachers from ITT institutions whoreturned Q1 (64% returned n ¼ 140) (see Ap-pendix B).

The structure of the questionnaires (whichincluded open ended questions and others requiringrespondents to identify responses on a Likert scale)ensured that quantitative data could be analysedusing SPSS, allowing correlational analysis to becarried out and statistical significance to be identi-fied.

Owing to the relatively small number of PGCEcourses running the PMFL specialism in England,there were a limited number of tutors available totake part in the research. It was therefore moreappropriate to analyse the data gathered from theirquestionnaires and interviews using mainly qualita-tive techniques. The responses were collated intothemes, allowing patterns and commonalities to beidentified. These themes are discussed in thefollowing section.

It is important to note that this study forms partof an ongoing investigation into preservice teachers’perceptions of their own intercultural understandingand linguistic competence and was not ‘‘verified’’ inany way by observing them actually teaching.Initially, the researcher was focusing on theirconfidence in their ability to teach linguistic skillsand IU, rather than whether this actually takesplace in practice (although as already discussed,some would question whether IU can be ‘‘taught’’).A useful follow-up to this study would be to trackwhat actually takes place in the classroom and howthis relates to the attitudes previously expressed. At

the time of this study, the timing was considered notappropriate as the guidance for teaching PMFLs inthe final version of the KS2 Framework had not yetbeen distributed.

4. Findings

4.1. Preservice teachers’ linguistic qualifications and

experience abroad

Initially the preservice teachers’ prior experiencesabroad and their linguistic qualifications at thebeginning of the PMFL specialism were audited. Itis generally accepted that PGCE courses areextremely intensive, with little time available todevelop an individual’s own linguistic competenceand intercultural understanding as well as develop-ing their understanding of PMFL pedagogy.

4.1.1. Qualifications

Just over half the preservice teachers had a degreein an MFL as their highest linguistic qualification atthe beginning of the PGCE course, with only 7%having a qualification that was equivalent or lowerthan a GCSE (see Fig. 1).

4.1.2. Prior experience of preservice teachers

Almost half the preservice teachers reportedhaving spent at least 6 months living abroad in acountry where the target language was spoken priorto the PGCE course beginning and almost a quarterof them had spent between 1 and 6 months.However, a significant minority (29%) had spentlittle or no time in the country where the languagethey are planning to teach was spoken (see Fig. 2).

The preservice teachers were asked to scorethemselves between 1 and 10 on a Likert scale withregards to their confidence in their linguisticcompetence and intercultural understanding, with1 being the least confident and 10 the most (see Fig.3). Over half of them rated themselves as 6.5 or lessin linguistic competence prior to their practicumabroad and a fifth of them scored as little as 0–3.This was not found to be the case with interculturalunderstanding, where they rated themselves morehighly both before embarking on a PGCE courseand after the period of practicum abroad. By theend of the PMFL specialism, 93% of preserviceteachers were very confident in their interculturalunderstanding.

Confidence in both linguistic competence andintercultural understanding (but particularly the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

none "GCSE" or

equivalent

"A" level

or

equivalent

Degree or

equivalent

Linguistic qualifications

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

en

t

Fig. 1. Preservice teachers’ linguistic qualifications.

0 mths 1-6 mths 7+ mths parent

bilingual

Experience abroad prior to PMFL specialism

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

Fig. 2. Preservice teachers’ experience abroad prior to PMFL

specialism.

A. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 5

latter) rose sharply after the period of practicumabroad. By the end of the course a very smallminority of preservice teachers rated themselves as

less than four in either linguistic competence orintercultural understanding (see Figs. 4 and 5).

Not surprisingly it was found that there was astrong positive correlation between the preserviceteachers’ linguistic qualification and their confi-dence in their linguistic competence (0.51). How-ever, it was also found that there was a lesssignificant correlation between their level of linguis-tic qualification and confidence in their interculturalunderstanding (0.30). The amount of time they hadspent abroad was found to be the strongestpredictor of both their confidence in their linguisticcompetence (0.54) as well as their understanding ofthe target culture (0.54) (see Fig. 6).

Even at the end of the PGCE course, thereremained a positive correlation between the amountof time spent abroad before the PGCE course andthe preservice teachers’ confidence in their linguisticcompetence (0.41) and intercultural understanding(0.37) when they qualified. For this sample size,these values of the Spearman’s rank correlationcoefficient are statistically highly significant(po0.01) (see Fig. 7).

4.2. Course design

Preservice teachers were asked whether/how thetaught course (excluding the practicum abroad) hadimproved:

�

their understanding of PMFL methodology; � their linguistic competence; � their intercultural understanding.

Developing an understanding of PMFL metho-dology was found to be the main focus of all thecourses studied. This was done through a variety ofmethods, including:

1.

Sharing activities to be carried out in the class-room.

2.

Delivering sessions on learning theories andspecifically second language acquisition theories.

3.

Exploring schemes of work. 4. Observing good practice through video footage.

Nearly half (44%) of the preservice teachers feltthat the taught course had not improved their ownlinguistic competence (although it is worth notingthat this course tutors did not identify this as a keyobjective in the taught element of the course).Finding the time on an already very intensive PGCE

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Score on Confidence Likert scale 0 – 3.5 7 – 10

Confidence in target language

pre Practicum abroad 20% 38% 42%

Confidence in target language

post Practicum abroad 2% 26% 72%

Confidence in understanding

target culture pre Practicum abroad 7% 35% 58%

Confidence in understanding

target culture post Practicum abroad 1% 6% 93%

4 – 6.5

Fig. 3. Preservice teachers’ confidence in subject knowledge pre- and post-SBT abroad.

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

Likert measures of confidence in linguistic competence

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

en

t

pre course

post course

Fig. 4. Preservice teachers’ confidence in their linguistic compe-

tence pre and post-PMFL specialism.

1.52.0

2.53.0

3.54.0

4.55.0

5.56.0

6.57.0

7.58.0

8.59.0

9.510.0

Likert measures of confidence in Intercultural

Understanding

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

en

t

pre course

post course

Fig. 5. Preservice teachers’ confidence in their intercultural

understanding pre- and post-PMFL specialism.

A. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–136

course, to develop preservice teachers’ own linguis-tic competence was frequently mentioned by tutorsas a serious difficulty, although there were twonotable exceptions where the course tutors providedextra language classes at lunchtimes. Where tutorshad incorporated this aspect into their courses, theyreported using the following methods:

1.

Self-study (26%) data from the focus groups andinterviews clearly showed that most institutionsprovided resources (access to language labora-

tories, etc.) for preservice teachers in order forthem to improve their own linguistic competence.However, they reported that finding the time touse them was proving extremely difficult, and inmany cases, impossible.

2.

Learning/revising classroom vocabulary intaught sessions (21%).

3.

Delivering lessons in the target language (9%).

The majority of preservice teachers (58%) feltthat the taught element of the course had notimproved their intercultural understanding. Most of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Correlational variables Spearman’s

coefficient of

correlation

Significance level

Linguistic qualification/confidence in

linguistic competence post course0.39 0.01

Linguistic qualification/confidence in

intercultural understanding post course 0.35

Experience abroad pre course/confidence in

linguisticcompetence post course0.41

Experience abroad pre course/confidence in

intercultural understanding post course

0.37

0.01

0.01

0.01

Fig. 7.

Correlational variables Spearman’s

coefficient of

correlation

Significance level

Linguistic qualification/confidence in

linguistic competence pre course

0.51

Linguistic qualification/confidence in

intercultural understanding pre course

0.30

Experience abroad pre course/confidence in

linguistic competence pre course

0.54

Experience abroad pre course/confidence in

intercultural understanding precourse0.54

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Fig. 6.

A. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 7

those that did (26%) mentioned spending timecomparing educational systems with 9% benefitingfrom watching films/videos and 4% having access tonative guest speakers.

A small minority of preservice teachers felt thattheir intercultural understanding and linguisticcompetence did not need to improve as they ratedthemselves very highly in these areas.

It is interesting to note that, according to thepreservice teachers, their PGCE courses would beimproved with:

1.

More input from practicing primary MFLteachers (30%).

2.

More information on progression in languagelearning (20%).

3.

More advice about coordinating PMFL inprimary schools (9%).

4.

More examples of cross-curricular links (6%). 5. More guidance on assessment (6%).

It is worth noting here that the preservice teacherswanted the practicing primary MFL teachers to bespecialists in PMFLs, rather than someone who hadnot been specifically trained. One preservice teachersummed it up by saying she would have benefitedfrom:

the opportunity to see more teachers of French inEngland. I have only seen 3 lessons and thesewere not given by a trained professional, rather, aparent.

This raises the issue of appropriate role modelsfor the preservice teachers to observe.

It is also interesting to note the responsibility feltby some of the respondents to take the PMFLagenda forward in schools. Some seemed very awarethat very quickly they could become the PMFLcoordinator in the schools in which they were goingto be starting their teaching career. Hence, therequest for more preparation as to how to go aboutthis:

We need more advice on how to market ourselvesand how to sell it to schools and also how to setup MFL in schools, because most schools don’thave MFL so we will be going in as specialists.

Another clearly felt the potential to becomerather isolated in their potential position of PMFLcoordinator:

I too think we need more on how to set up MFLcourses in school, cos there will be no one to askwhen we get to school.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–138

These are interesting considerations for thedevelopment of the PMFL specialisms in teachereducation institutions, however, the majority of thepreservice teachers did not see the need for thetaught course to develop their linguistic competenceor intercultural understanding as they felt thiswould be achieved through the practicum abroad.

5. Practicum abroad

Preservice teachers were asked to comment on allthe benefits to them of their period of the practicumabroad:

�

59% mentioned linguistic improvements; � 45% mentioned an improved understanding of

the educational system of the host country;

� 26% mentioned increased confidence in inter-

cultural understanding in general;

� 21% mentioned being able to compare the

theoretical underpinnings of the UK educationsystem with that of the host country enablingthem to compare the two;

� 11% mentioned increased confidence in general

teaching skills.

The following quote from one preservice teacheris representative of the sentiments of many. Heexplains how he benefited from the period of thepracticum abroad:

My language skills have improved and updatedyI am now able to see the British System from‘outside’yI am more culturally aware of France-especially the education system!

Smaller percentages of preservice teachers alsomentioned collecting resources, making contacts forthe future and an improved understanding ofbehaviour management strategies.

6. Discussion

6.1. Subject knowledge

6.1.1. Linguistic competence

Linguistic competence is clearly an essentialelement of a PMFL teacher’s subject knowledge.From their study on the feasibility of introducingthe teaching of an MFL into the KS2 curriculum,Powell et al. recommended that preservice teachersfollowing the PMFL specialism should have an‘‘element of foreign language learning (at the

equivalent of A level or higher) as part of theirdegree’’ (Powell et al, 2001). This study found that‘‘A’’ level (or equivalent) was generally the mini-mum requirement for most ITT providers forpreservice teachers wishing to follow the PMFLspecialism, although most also stated that degreelevel qualifications were preferable. Data show that92% of them did indeed have at least an ‘‘A’’ levelqualification (although not necessarily studied aspart of a university degree). This is an encouragingfinding if Powell et al.’s criteria are accepted as itappears that the majority of entrants to the PMFLspecialism do possess what is generally consideredto be the minimum recommended linguistic quali-fication. However, most ITT institutions stated thatthey preferred preservice teachers to have a degreelevel qualification and that they were still having torecruit 47% with a lower linguistic qualificationthan they would like. The doubts surroundingwhether ‘‘A’’ level (or equivalent qualifications)are adequate, are strengthened when one considersthat despite their qualifications, only 42% of thepreservice teachers rated themselves as 7 or above atthe beginning of the PGCE course and 20% gavethemselves 3.5 or below, which would indicate thata sizeable number were less than confident in theirown linguistic ability. By the end of the coursehowever, 72% rated themselves as 7 or above andonly 2% remained less than confident in their ownlinguistic competence. The course tutors themselvesreported having very few concerns regarding thepreservice teachers’ levels of linguistic competenceat the end of their course.

6.1.2. Intercultural understanding

Byram and Doye (1999) have argued that it isonly possible to attain an advanced level ofcommunicative competence through fieldwork andthat this is particularly the case for interculturalcompetence. They therefore recommend that pri-mary school language teachers should have anobligatory ‘year abroad’ in the same way assecondary school language teachers. Data gatheredfrom this study support the finding that experienceabroad is vital. It was found that the mostimportant determinant of preservice teachers’ con-fidence in their own linguistic competence, as well astheir intercultural understanding, was the amountof experience they had had abroad prior to startingthe course. It could be a concern therefore that somany preservice teachers were beginning theircourses with so little (only 44% had spent a period

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 9

in excess of six months in a country speaking thetarget language). This fact is supported by the lowratings that 42% of them gave themselves at thebeginning of their courses. Interestingly, althoughmost courses stipulated ‘‘A’’ level (or equivalent) asthe entry requirement to follow the PMFL special-ism on their PGCE courses, they were also flexibleand stated that sufficient experience abroad wouldalso be taken into account. The findings of thisresearch suggest that this period of time spent in thetarget country before the PGCE course beginsshould perhaps be regarded as important a require-ment as a linguistic qualification, particularly inview of the positive correlation between the amountof time has spent abroad and confidence inintercultural understanding and linguistic compe-tence. The counter argument could be that follow-ing the PMFL specialism is enough to raiseconfidence in intercultural understanding suffi-ciently (given that 93% of the preserevice teachersrated themselves as confident in their interculturalunderstanding (7 or above) by the end of thecourse).

Sharpe (1999) suggested that due to lack of timeon a PGCE course, in order to improve preserviceteachers’ subject knowledge it may be possible forITT providers to identify targets for improvementand then make it their professional responsibility tomeet them. Most institutions involved in this studydid indeed provide resources for self-study andsome conducted a linguistic audit with the pre-service teachers. However, precisely because of theintense nature of a PGCE course, many participantssaid that although the resources were available, theywere unable to make use of them. It would appeartherefore that preservice teachers are expected todevelop their linguistic competence and their inter-cultural understanding (where necessary) duringtheir practicum abroad. The increase in confidencereported by them at the end of the PMFL specialismwould appear to indicate that this is a successfulstrategy.

6.2. Practicum abroad

During the course, the mean average for thepreservice teachers’ confidence in their linguisticcompetence and intercultural understanding rosefrom 5.8 to 7.4 and 6.7 to 8.1, respectively. Theimprovements in the mean averages for confidencein both these aspects, coupled with the finding thatthey did not believe this was as a result of the taught

course would suggest that this is indeed a result ofthe practicum abroad.

Given these self-reported improvements, it isinteresting that when answering an open endedquestion about the benefits of spending a monthabroad, 59% of them specifically mentioned makinggains in their own linguistic competence with only26 % recognising an improvement in their inter-cultural understanding. One preservice teacherstated: ‘‘I think the end benefit of going abroadwas improving our language confidence.’’

It is possible that they did not value gains inintercultural understanding as highly due to the biasfound to exist towards linguistic competence inmost course designs. However, results from thisstudy also showed that the preservice teachersthemselves valued developing children’s linguisticcompetence more highly than developing their (thechildren’s) intercultural understanding. Their eva-luation of the benefits of the practicum abroad withregards to linguistic competence and interculturalunderstanding could be a reflection of their personalopinion as to the relative importance of these twoaspects in primary education. Another explanationfor this finding could be that they reported animproved understanding of the host country’seducation system as a separate entity to improvingtheir general intercultural understanding. Theyappeared to believe that learning about the hostcountry’s education system was not necessarily anaspect of intercultural understanding. Althoughreported on separately, it could be argued that thisshould be included in intercultural understanding ingeneral, and if this interpretation is used, then 71%reported making improvements. This finding is alsosupported by the tutors’ replies in the secondquestionnaire where very few reported concernsabout the preservice teachers’ intercultural under-standing by the end of the course.

Improvements in these aspects of subject knowl-edge were not the only benefits mentioned as a resultof the practicum abroad: 21% also mentioned beingable to compare the theoretical underpinnings of theUK education system with that of the host country.

One preservice teacher summed it up in thefollowing statement:

It (the practicum abroad) really emphasised all thetheories. I mean I didn’t really pay muchattention to all the theories before we went away,but when you go away and come back and gettaught about the theories it makes you think

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–1310

more, especially about differentiation in theclassroom and they talk about questioningdifferent children at different levels which theydon’t seem to do in France at all and when youcome back and see someone doing that youthink, oh yeah it all makes sense.

This benefit of teaching in the host country andhaving the opportunity to compare educationsystems appears to encourage preservice teachersto reflect on the link between theory and practice,and could begin to address the ongoing concern onbehalf of teacher educators about the elevation ofpractice over theory (Lawes, 2002). This replicatesfindings by Newman et al. (2004) who found thatpreservice teachers following the PMFL specialismwere able to question professional practice in theirown country as a direct result of having completed aperiod of practicum abroad.

It is often assumed that spending time teachingabroad will enhance a preservice teacher’s inter-cultural understanding and lead to a positiveattitude towards the host country. However, theprevious quotation also implies that, according tothis particular preservice teacher, pedagogical prac-tices in English classrooms (re differentiation andquestioning) are more appropriate than those theyhave observed abroad (in France in this case). Thisis just one example of how many of those returningfrom abroad compared the host country’s educa-tional system unfavourably with the English one towhich they were accustomed.

I think if you’ve only ever known one kind ofway of working you can just take it for granted,so just being able to see a much bigger picture iswhat I gained and I think I appreciate the Britishsystem a lot more than I did.

The following quotes taken from the focus groupswere representative of many made by preserviceteachers on returning from their practicum abroad:

We definitely learnt how not to teach!

They (the French teachers) seemed to be preparedto just write children off if you weren’t making acertain mark then they just repeated the year.

This does not appear to support further findingsby Newman et al. (2004) who state that thepreservice teachers involved in their study were alsoable to develop ‘‘a critical and analytical under-standing of the comparator culture, thereby acquir-ing what Byram and Doye (1999) have described as

‘savoir s’engager’, critical cultural awareness’’(Newman et al., 2004, p. 290).

The reason many of the preservice teachers in thesample for this study negatively evaluated the hostcountry’s education system could be as a result of aconcept often referred to as ‘‘culture shock’’:

The Culture Shock ‘hypothesis’ or ‘concept’implies that the experience of visiting or livingin a new culture is an unpleasant surprise orshock, partly because it is unexpected, and partlyit may lead to a negative evaluation of one’s ownand/or the other culture (Furnham, 1993, p. 94).

The findings of this study showed that partici-pants did not negatively evaluate their own culture(in terms of the educational practices) but, in thevast majority of cases, that of the host country. Thedifference in these findings and those of Newman etal could be attributed to the fact that Newman etal.’s study was based on eight English preserviceteachers and ten French who clearly suffered a lesserdegree of culture shock than many of those involvedin the sample for this study. Furnham (1993)concludes that training before going abroad is akey factor in the degree of culture shock felt by the‘‘visitor’’. The apparent disparity in findings couldtherefore be explained by the difference in theamount of preparation and training given to thatparticular cohort of preservice teachers.

7. Conclusion

For teacher educators, the most positive findingof this study was that by the end of their courses themajority of preservice teachers were confident intheir linguistic ability and their intercultural under-standing. This is heartening given that findingsclearly show that PMFL courses focused primarilyon the methodology of PMFL teaching and learningdue to a lack of time available on PGCE courses todevelop individuals’ linguistic competence andintercultural understanding. At the time of thisstudy, these aspects were mainly the responsibilityof the preservice teachers themselves to carry outthrough self-study or alternatively they were ex-pected to make the necessary improvements duringthe practicum abroad. The latter approach seems tohave been successful in the vast majority of cases. Inlight of the pejorative comments made by a largenumber on their return to England after theirpracticum abroad, findings of this project emphasisethe importance of fully preparing preservice

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 11

teachers before they go abroad with regard to therationale underpinning the educational system theywill encounter. Several ITT institutions focus onthis aspect of the experience abroad before theyleave and then revisit and explore their experienceson their return. This seemed to result in a morepositive and open minded approach to experiencesin schools abroad. This aspect of the taught course,therefore, is a key factor in encouraging thedevelopment of the preservice teachers’ interculturalunderstanding and goes some way to ensure that theaims of the practicum abroad are met.

The findings of this study have also shown that apreservice teacher’s experience abroad before thecourse even begins is the strongest predictor of theirconfidence in linguistic ability and interculturalunderstanding even at the end. This has implica-tions for recruitment and entry requirements andwould support the notion that ITE institutionsshould remain flexible regarding minimum linguisticentry requirements to PMFL specialism.

The publication of the Key Stage 2 Frameworkfor Languages is an important development for the

future provision of MFLs in England. The fact thatit is structured around the three equally weightedstrands of oracy, literacy and intercultural under-standing means that some ITT institutions mayneed to consider the balance of these elements ontheir courses. At the time of this study, although thecourse tutors themselves appeared to value inter-cultural understanding as an important element ofteaching and learning an MFL at primary school,this was not necessarily reflected in many coursedesigns and the preservice teachers themselvesconsidered linguistic competence to be a moreimportant element in PMFL teaching. If usedeffectively, the new Framework could go someway to ensuring the broader educational aims ofPMFLs are being met (or at least addressed) inschools. It will be interesting to follow the progressof MFLs in primary schools in England to trackwhether this does indeed happen. Findings from thisstudy suggest that the PMFL teachers of the futureare indeed confident enough in their own subjectknowledge to move primary language provision inEngland forward.

Appendix A. Primary language teaching in ITE

Your name:Course title:Name of institution:

(1) What language qualifications do you have? (2) What experience do you have of living/travelling in countries where the target language (i.e. the

language you are training to teach) is spoken?

(3) Why did you choose to follow the language specialism as part of your teacher training course? (4) On the scale below please indicate the point that in your opinion represents where you are in

terms of:

(a) accurate command of target language

low___________________________________high

(b) intercultural understanding

Low___________________________________high

(5) Do you think MFLs should be taught in primary schools?

Yes &

No &

Why?

(6) In your opinion which of the following do you think are important aspects of foreign language

learning for children aged 3–11?

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–1312

Please number the 6 boxes in order of importance 1 ¼ most important 6 ¼ least important.

( a) to develop linguistic competence in a foreign language &

(

b) to develop a general understanding of foreign languages that can be transferred to otherlanguages

&

(

c) to enhance understanding of the nature and usage of the English language &

(

d) to develop intercultural understanding &

(

e) to develop motivation for future foreign language learning &

(

f) other (please specify) &

(7) W

hat preparation would you like the course to provide in terms of your own: &

(

a) linguistic competence ( b) intercultural understanding

Appendix B. Primary language teaching in ITE

Your name:Name of institution:

(1) I n your opinion which of the following do you think are important aspects of foreign language learning

for children in Primary school?

P lease number the 6 boxes in order of importance 1 ¼ most important 6 ¼ least important.

(

a) to develop linguistic competence in a foreign language &

(

b) to develop a general understanding of foreign languages that can be transferred to otherlanguages

&

(

c) to enhance understanding of the nature and usage of the English language &

(

d) to develop intercultural understanding &

(

e) to develop motivation for future foreign language learning &

(

f) other (please specify) &

(2) H

as your understanding of the target culture improved during the year? Y es & N o &

O

n the scale below please indicate the point that in your opinion represents where you are in terms of: L inguistic competence l ow________________high

(3) H

as your understanding of the target culture improved during the year? Y es & N o &

O

n the scale below please indicate the point that in your opinion represents where you are in terms of: I ntercultural understanding l ow________________high

(4) I

n your opinion, how did you benefit professionally from spending a month abroad? (please be as specificas possible)

(5) E

xcluding the month abroad, in what ways did the course improve your own: ( a) Linguistic competence (please be as specific as possible) ( b) intercultural understanding (please be as specific as possible) ( c) understanding of primary MFL methodology (please be as specific as possible)

(6) I

s there anything else that you would have found beneficial to your professional development with regardsto teaching primary MFL?

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Woodgate-Jones / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1–13 13

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing

intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L.

Lange, & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives

on culture in second language learning. USA: Information Age

Publishing Inc.

Blondin, C., et al. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-

school education: A review of recent research within the

European Union. London: CILT.

Brooks, N. (1997). Teaching culture in the foreign language

classroom. In P. R. Heusinkveld (Ed.), Pathways to culture:

Readings on teaching culture in the foreign language class

(pp. 11–37). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Burstall, C., et al. (1974). Primary French in the balance. Slough:

NFER.

Byram, M., & Doye, P. (1999). Intercultural competence and foreign

language learning in the primary school. In P. Driscoll, & D.

Frost (Eds.), The teaching of modern foreign languages in the

primary school (pp. 138–151). London: Routledge.

Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A

practical guide (Vol. 9). Cross cultural research and methodol-

ogy series. Thosand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DfES. (2002). Languages for all: Languages for life. A strategy for

England. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Driscoll, P. (2000). Modern foreign languages in English primary

schools: An investigation of two contrasting approaches. Ph.D.

dissertation. Kent: Canterbury Christ Church University College.

Driscoll, P., et al. (2004). A systematic review of the character-

istics of effective foreign language teaching to pupils between

the ages 7 and 11. In Research evidence in education library.

London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute

of Education.

Furnham, A. (1993). Communicating in foreign lands: The cause,

consequences and cures of culture shock. Language, Culture

and Curriculum, 6(1), 91–109.

Kramsch, C. (1991). Culture in language learning: A view from

the States. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch

(Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective

(pp. 217–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lafayette, R. (1997). Integrating the teaching of culture into the

foreign language classroom. In P. R. Heusinkveld (Ed.),

Pathways to culture: Readings on teaching culture in the foreign

language class (pp. 119–148). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural

Press.

Lawes, S. (2002). Trends in modern foreign language initial

teacher education—the role of higher education. Language

Learning Journal, 25, 40–45.

Luc, C. (1996). Premiere Annee d’initiation a une Langue

Etrangere au cours Elementaire: Constats, Analyses, Proposi-

tions. Rapport integral du groupe de suivi mis en place a

l’INRP, Octobre 1995-Mars 1996. Paris: INRP.

Martin, C. (2000). An analysis of national and international

research on the provision of modern foreign languages in

primary schools. A report prepared for the Qualifications and

Curriculum Authority. Available at:/http://www.qca.org.uk/

downloads/3809_cmartin_rpt_mfl_primaryschools.pdfS.

McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001). Who succeeds at

university? Factors predicting academic performance in first

year Australian university students. Higher Education Re-

search and Development, 20(1), 21–33.

Newman, et al. (2004). ‘‘You just can’t do it like that-it’s just

wrong!’’ Impressions of French and English trainee primary

teachers on exchange placement in primary schools abroad:

the value of experiencing the difference. European Journal of

Teacher Education, 27(3), 285–298.

Ofsted. (2002). Primary Subject Reports 2000/01: Modern foreign

languages. Available at /http://www.ofsted.gov.ukS.

Powell, et al. (2001). QCA project to study the feasibility of

introducing the teaching of a modern foreign language into

the statutory curriculum at key stage 2. Available at /http://

www.qca.org.uk/downloads/3807_mfl_feas_ks2.pdfS.

Sharpe, K. (1999). In P. Driscoll, & D. Frost (Eds.), The teaching

of modern foreign languages in the primary school. London:

Routledge.

Schulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth

in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Stipek, D., et al. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to

mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education,

17(2), 213–226.

Wankowski, J. (1991). In S. Cassidy, & P. Eachus (Eds.) (2000),

Learning style, belief systems, self-report student proficiency

and academic achievement in higher education. Educational

Psychology 20(3), 307–322.

Wringe, C. (1989). The effective teacher of modern languages.

London: Longman.