training v development 11

8/12/2019 Training v Development 11

1/12

BE YOND TRA NNG APPROACHES TO TE CHER EDUCATI ON

1 Approach

I N L NG U G E TEACHNG

J ack C Ri chards

Two approaches have emrged i n second and f orei gn l anguage teacher educat i on

programms i n recent years One i s educat i on as t r ai ni ng , a model that hascharacteri zed t radi t i onal approaches to teacher educat i on and whi ch s t i l l repre-sents the mai nst ream of current practi ce econd approach i s ref erred to as devel opmnt The contrast between tr ai ni ng and devel opmnt (wth the t erm educati on bei ng a more genera and i ncl usi ve term i s a useful way of character-i zi ng and descri b ng opti ons i n teacher educat i on ( Lange, 1983, R chards 1987,Freeman 1989) , and i n thi s paper i t w l l be used t o descri be al ternat i ves ava l ab et o those p anni ngteacher educat i on programms To c l a r i f y the di f f erencebetween these t wo approaches and the i mp i cati ons f or teacher educat i on pro-gramms, I w l l examne 5 aspects of teacher educat i on, contrasti ng a t r ai ni ngversus devel opmnt perspect i ve f or each one They are Approach, Content ,Process, Teacher Ro es, and Teacher- Educat or Rol es

TE CHER EDUC T ON AS TRA N NG

By approach I refer to the conceptua f ramwork or ph l osophy underl yi ng theprogramm, that i s , the theory and assumpt i ons about teach ng and t eachereducat i on t hat provi de the s t ar t i ng po nt f or programme devel opmnt numberof i nterrel ated t hems characteri ze a t ra ni ng perspect i ve Many of these arei mpl i c i t rather than overt and have to be teased out or i nf erred f rom ooki ng atthe programms themel ves and how hey are i mp emnt ed

( i ) The f i r s t assumpt i on i s that student teachers or teachers- i n- servi ce enter theprogramme wth def i ci enci es of di f f erent ki nds ( Breen et al 1989) These may bedef i ci enci es of knowedge about the sub ect matter ( e . g the Eng i sh l anguage,Curri cul um Desi gn, Readi ng, ESP) or l ack of spec i f i c s k i l l s or competenci es ( e . g i n theuse of comput ers or the a b i l i t y t o teach process wi ti ng)

i i ) The second assumpt i on i s that the character i sti cs of ef f ec t i ve teach ng areknown and can be descri bed i n di screte term, of ten as s k i l l s or competenci es Teach ng i s not vi ewed as mai nl y i ndi vi dua or i nt ui t i ve but as somth ng reduci -b e to genera rul es and pri nci pl es and deri ved f rom pre- exi sti ng knowedgesources O ten these character i sti cs are i dent i f i ed wth a s peci f i c mt hod ofteach ng Teachers shoul d set out t o i mprove t hei r teach ng throughmatch ng

* eynote address g ven at a workshop on Second Language Teacher Educa-t i on, Macquari e Uni versi ty, Sydney, 15 J une 1989


2/12

t hei r teach ng s tyl e t o that of a proven teach ng mthod, or by l earni ng what i t i sthat successf ul teachers do The approach i s , hence, prescri pti ve

i i i ) el ated assumpt i on i s that teachers can and shoul d be changed, and thatthe di recti on of change can be l a i d out i n advance, p anned for, moni tored, andtested

( i v ) Last l y, the teacher educat i on programme i s es sent i al l y theory dri ven and t op-down Experts may be the source of the new nf ormati on, s k i l l s , and theory wh chunderl y the programm, or i t may be based on new di recti ons i n app i ed l i ngui s -t i cs, second l anguage acqui s i t i on, or mt hodol ogy

2 Content

By content , mean the goal s, t opi cs, and sub ect mat ter that the programmeaddresses Wen teacher educat i on i s thought of as t r ai ni ng, goa s are t ypi cal l ystated i n term of perf ormance, and content i s i denti f i ed wt h s k i l l s and t ech-ni ques and the theoreti ca rati ona e f or those s k i l l s and techni ques Content i sgenera l y pre- determned by the teacher educator Theprogramme addressesobservab e, teachab e, and testab e aspects of teach ng whi ch are of ten l i nked tospec i f i c s i t uat i ons Pre- and post- tra ni ng di f f erences can then be masured t odetermne the programm s ef f ecti veness For examp e, bef ore t r ai ni ng, teachersmght be tested t o see what t hei r t y pi c al wa t- ti m behavi ours are when usi ngquest i ons Fol l owng a workshop i n wh ch teachers are t ra ned t o moni t or thei ruse of quest i ons, the teachers are tested t o see t o what extent thei r behavi ourshave been modi f i ed as a resul t of trai ni ng Or, f o l owng a workshop on how omake thei r cl assroom more commni cat i ve, teachers are observed i n t hei rschoo s t o see t o what extent thei r cl asses are now characteri zed by a greater useof group work and l ess of a dependence on t eacher- f ronted and teacher- di rectedact i vi t i es

3 Process

Process refers t o the means by whi ch the content of the programme i s transmt-t ed, that i s , the techni ques, act i vi t i es and experi ences used t o i mpart new know-edge and s k i l l s to the teachers i n t rai ni ng number of techni ques are wel l sui tedt o a t r ai ni ng perspect i ve Some ref l ect a vi ew of l earni ng as model i ng st udentteachers mode the behavi ours of master teachers or ef f ec t i ve teachers or theymodel proven techni ques of teach ng For examp e, mcroteach ng offe rs t r ai n-er s a chance t o model new behavi ours t o teachers and t hen f or teachers t o prac-t i c e and l earn the new s k i l l s Observat i on (ei ther of teachers i n the cl assroom orof model l essons on vi deo) si ml arl y a l ows st udent teachers t o l earn t hroughmodel i ng or i mtat i on Demonst rat i on, si ml ati on, and rol e p ay are al so proce-dures t hat can be used t o hel p teachers master new echni ques, wth the hope thatthey w l l l ate r t r y t hem out i n t hei r own cl assroom, i ncorporate t hem nto thei rrepert o re of teach ng st r at egi es and, hence, becom better teachers

4 Rol e of the teacher

Wat i s the teacher- i n- t rai ni ng s rol e i n the process of teacher educat i on f romthe tr ai ni ng perspecti ve? Essent i al l y, the teacher i s vi ewed as a techni ci an


3/12

Accordi ng t o Zei chner and Li ston (1987, 27) , t he teacher as techni ci an woul d beconcerned pri mari l y wt h the successf ul accomp i shmnt of ends deci ded byothers The ef f ect i ve teacher i s al so vi ewed as a s k i l l e d perf ormr of a number ofprescri bed tasks Trai ni ng i s i ntended t o expand the teacher s repert o re of tasksand t o i mprove the ef f ecti veness wt h whi ch t asks are used The prospecti veteacher i s hence t reated as an apprenti ce, and as a passi ve reci p ent of i nforma-t i o n and s k i l l s passed on to hi m or her by experts - - the teacher educators The

t eacher s ch ef r es pons i bi l i t y i s t o t r y to suppress o d hab ts and rep ace t hemwth new ones, and t o mat ch hi s or her teach ng s tyl e t o that prescri bed by a newmt hod or guru The teacher i s al so expected t o observe and i mtate accuratel y,usua l y wthout quest i oni ng the new wsdom Part i ci pants i n audi o- l i ngua t r ai n-i ng workshops or i n Gateggno s Si l ent Wy Workshops w l l recal l the i nsi stenceon suspend cri ti ci sm do i t our way, and you l l see we are r i ght . Much of what theteacher a ready knows i s seen as a h ndrance and w l l need to be supressed,supp anted, changed, or modi f i ed

5 Rol e of the teacher educator

From a tr ai ni ng perspecti ve, the teacher educator i s seen as an expert , as a cata-l yst f or change, as a model teacher, and as the source of new deas and i nforma-t i on H s or her pri mary f uncti ons are t o provi de i deas and suggest i ons, t o sol veprobl em, and t o i ntervene and po nt out better ways of doi ng th ngs

Li mtat i ons of tra ni ng

The tr ai ni ng perspect i ve characteri zed above exi st s i n a vari ety of f orm, andadvocates of tra ni ng can attest t o i t s ef f ect i veness I t does not take a very soph s-t i cated research desi gn t o demonst rate that f or som aspects of teacher educa-t i on, t r a i ni ng works Teachers behavi ours can be changed, of ten as a resul t ofr el at i vel y short peri ods of trai ni ng For examp e, i n a study of the effec t s of t r ai n-i ng on teachers quest i oni ng s k i l l s (Borg Kel l ey, Langer, al l , 1970, p 82) a

mni - course that consi sted of a f i l m exp a ni ng the concepts and tra ni ng i n thef orm of model i ng, sel f - f eedback, and mcroteach ng, brought about s i gni f i cantchanges i n the teachers use of quest i ons Trai ni ng i s wel l sui ted t o the t reatmntof s k i l l s , techni ques, and rout i nes, part i cul arl y those that requi re a r el at i vel y l owl evel of p anni ng and ref l ecti on There are ti ms when a tr ai ni ng approach maybe al l t hat i s requi red, such as when a group of teachers i n a schoo request ademonst rat i on or workshop on the use of new comput er sof tware f or the teach ngof wi ti ng But desp te these advantages, a number of l i mtati ons are apparent

1 Trai ni ng ref l ec t s a very l i mted vi ew of teachers and of teach ng, one thatreduces teach ng t o a techno ogy and vi ews teachers as l i t t l e more than techni -ci ans I t l i kewse presents a f ragmnt ed and part i al vi ew of teach ng, one wh chf a i l s to capture the ri chness and comp exi ty of cl assroom i f e and the teacher sr o l e i n i t I t t reats teach ng as somth ng atomsti c rather t han hol i s t i c ( Br i t t en,1985)

2 I t f o l ows that tr ai ni ng l i m t s i t s e l f t o those aspects of teach ng that are t r ai n-ab e and does not address more subt l e aspects of teach ng, such as how heteacher s va ues and at t i tudes shape hi s or her response t o cl assroom events Yetthese are cruci al di mnsi ons of teach ng and shoul d not be i gnored i n teachereducat i on

3 Tra ni ng i s not cl assroom based The content chosen f or i ncl usi on i n the t r ai n-


4/12

i ng programm i s typi cal l y pr e- det er m ned and sel ected accor di ng t o trends i ncurrent theory e . g t he appl i cat i on of i nsi ght s from second l anguage acqui si t i onresearch), or accor di ng t o current vogues i n mthodo ogy The f ocus f or t r ai ni ngi s not on an expl or at i on of t he actual processes emp oyed by teachers i n c l a s s s r o o m s

andheirsignificanceenceitsunlikelythatherogrammewilladdressissuesh tareentraltoherealxperienceoteachers

4 Wth t rai ni ng, t he l ocus of responsi bi l i tyf or devel opmnt l i e swi t h t he

t eachertr ai ner, rather t han wi t h teachers t hemsel ves

Let us now compare a tr ai ni ng perspect i ve w t h a t eacher devel opmnt p er s p ec t i v e

TEACHER EDUCATI ON AS DEVELOPMENT

1 Approach

A number of second l anguage t eacher educat ors have cont r i but ed t o cl ari f yi ngt he di f f erence between t rai ni ng and educat i on or t rai ni ng and devel opment(see Larsen- Freeman 1983, Ri char ds 1987, Penni ngt on 1989, Freeman 1989) Lange ( 1989) descri bes the term t eacher devel opmnt as descri bi ng a process ofcont i nual , i ntel l ectual , exper i ent i al , and at t i t udi nal growt h He di st i ngui shes i tf rom rai ni ng as bei ng more encompassi ng and al l ow ng f or cont i nued growt hboth pr i or t o and t hr oughout a career The di sti ncti on i s not a new one i n teachereducation;t tesbacktleastoDewey snfluenceoneducationatheurnof t he century ( Haberman 1983) At t he l evel of appr oach, som of t he ma nconcept ual f eat ur es of t eacher devel opmnt are :

i ) Teacher s are not vi ewed as ent er i ng t he programm wi t h def i ci enci es Althoughthere reo viously re socontentth tte chersm ynotbef mili rwith

and may wi sh t o l earn about , more emphasi s i s pl aced on what teachers know and

do and on pr ovi di ng tool s wi t h whi ch t hey can more f u l l yexpl or e t hei r own be l i e f sttitudesnpr ctices

i i ) Whi l e t eacher devel opmnt acknowl edges a theory of t eachi ng as cent ral tot he process of pl anni ng and i mpl ement i ng a t eacher educat i on programm( Ri chards 1987, Freeman 1989), such a theoreti cal basi s serves not as a source ofdoct r i ne whi ch i s used t o shape and modi f y t eachers, br i ngi ng t hemmore cl osel yt o an i deal model , but serves as a start i ng poi nt I t s rol e i s t o hel p teachers

xp lordefinendcl rifytheirowncl ssroomprocessesndtheirindividu lt heor i es of t eachi ng and l earni ng The appr oach i s hence, non- pr escri pt i ve Teachi ng i s acknowedged t o be an i n t u i t i v e ,i ndi vi dual , and per sonal r esponse t ocl assr oom si t uat i ons and event s

i i i )Theprogramm does not start wi t h t he i dea t hat teachers must change ordi scard current practi ces As Freeman ( 1989, 38) obser ves,

Change does not necessari l y man doi ng somet hi ng di f f erentl y ;i t can be an af f i rmat i on of current pract i ce : The t eacher i s[ perhaps] unaware of doi ng somethi ng that i s ef f ecti ve

The f ocus i s t hus, more on expandi ng and deepeni ng awar eness


5/12

( i v ) Theprogramme i s di scovery ori ented and i nqui ry based, and bot t omuprather t han t op- down I nst ead of the programme bei ng dependent upon externaknowedge and expert i se, externa i nput serves as onl y one source of i nf ormat i onI t i s compl emnt ed by teacher i nput , and both i nteract t o hel p teachers under-st and thei r own at t i t udes, val ues, knowedge base, and practi ces, and t hei r i nf l u-ence on cl assroom i f e

2 Content

Wen teacher educat i on i s approached f rom he perspect i ve of devel opmnt ,a though som of the content areas i ncl uded i n t ra ni ng- based programms arenot necessari l y precl uded, the content base i s expanded both i n breadth anddepth and a di f f erent t reatmnt of techni ques and s k i l l s i s requi red At the samt i me, goa s and content have to be art i cul ated that gobeyond s k i l l s and tech-ni ques and address h gher l evel i ssues, i ncl udi ng conceptua , at t i tudi nal , andaf f ec t i ve aspects of teach ng These i ncl ude such h dden di mnsi ons of teach ngas the f o l owng

( i ) the deci si on- maki ng and p anni ngprocesses emp oyed by teachers

i i ) the cul ture of teachers, that i s , the concepts, va ue system, knowedge,bel i ef s , and at t i tudes that f orm the basi s f or teachers cl assroom acti ons

i i i ) teachers vi ews and percept i ons of themel ves

( i v ) teachers characteri zati ons of t hei r own approaches to teach ng andthei r underst andi ng of ef f ec t i ve teach ng

( i v ) rol es of teachers and l earners i n the cl assroom

Wi ght ( i n press) sees a f ocus on teacher and l earner rol es i n the cl assroom as the

cent ral and essent i al f ocus of teacher educat i on programms i n l anguage teach-i ng The di s t i nct i on between the recei ved rather than the negoti ated or r ef l exi vecurri cul um s al so rel evant here

On the one hand, a curri cul um that f o l ows a recei ved perspect i ve presentsknowedge wt h the i nt ent that student teachers accept i t as predomnant l ynon- negot i abl e

Student teachers are t o be r el at i vel y passi ve reci pi ents of that wh ch i si mparted, whether the source i s the w sdom of experi enced practi ti oners orthe l atest f i ndi ngs of research on teach ng On the other hand, a r ef l exi vecurri cul umdoes not t ot al l y predetermne that whi ch i s to be l earned butmakes provi si ons f or sel f - determned needs and concerns of studentteachers as wel l as the creati on of persona mani ng by students A ref l ex-i ve curri cul um al so i ncl udes provi si ons f or the negoti at i on of contentamong teachers and l earners Zei chner and Li ston 1987, 27

Hence, goa s and content are requi red that engage teachers i n r ef l ect i ng c r i t i c a l l yon thei r own teach ng andon thei r own rol es i n the cl assroom At the sam ti m,opportuni t i es are provi ded f or student teachers and teachers- i n- servi ce to devel -op the a b i l i t y t o make j udgemnt s about the content and process of t hei r work,and t o act and react - - t o i ni t i at e and respond ( Roderi ck 1986, 308)


6/12

Ref l ect i on i s a key component of teacher devel opmnt The s k i l l of s el f - i nqui r yand cr i t i cal th nki ng i s seen as centra f or cont i nued prof essi ona growh ( Zei ch-ner 1982) , and i s desi gned t o hel p teachers move f rom a l evel where they may begui ded l argel y by i mpul se, i ntui t i on, or routi ne, t o a l evel where t hei r act i ons aregui ded by ref l ecti on and cr i t i cal th nki ng Zei chner and Li ston, (1987, 24) de-scr i bi ng the rati ona e f or a r ef l ect i ve model of teacher educat i on bei ngi mp e-mnt ed at the Uni versi ty of Wsconsi n, observe

Uti l i zi ng Dewey s (1933) concept of r ef l ect i ve acti on as the organi zi ngpri nci p e of i t s curri cul um the programme l i t er at ur e expresses a desi re t odevel op i n student teachers those ori entati ons and s k i l l s wh ch l eadt o r ef l ect i ve act i on The cont i nui ng devel opmnt of techni ca s k i l l i n teachi ng i s al so addressed, but onl y wthn t hi s broader context of r ef l ect i veacti on

Devel opmnt does not, theref ore, necessari l y seek to bri ng about any s peci f i cchanges i n teachers behavi ours, but t o i ncrease awareness, to deepen under-st andi ng of causes and consequences, and t o broaden percepti ons of what i s andi s not possi b e

3 Process

The di f f erent ki nds of goa s needed wt h a t eacher- devel opmnt approach r e-qui re a reth nki ng of the whol e process by wh ch t eacher educat i on i s conductedThe h gher- l evel cogni t i ve and af f ec t i ve di mnsi ons of teach ng t hat the approachseeks t o address cannot be ach eved through model i ng, practi ce, i mtat i on ormastery l earni ng Ot her al ternat i ves are theref ore needed

umber of di f f erent ki nds of l earni ng experi ences are bei ng emp oyed i n anatt empt t o move beyond ski l l s- t r ai ni ng i n teacher educat i on ( R chards and Nunani n press) These i ncl ude

( i ) va ues cl ar i f i cat i on : act i vi t i es that engage teachers i n examni ng thei rown va ues, at t i t udes, and bel i ef system These may be ei ther r el at i vel yi nf orma ( e . g di scussi on groups, f ocus groups, brai nst ormng) or mor ef ormal ( e . g questi onna re, structured i ntervi ews)

i i ) observat i on act i vi t i es i n wh ch teachers observe ei ther other teachersat work or themel ves throughvi deo recordi ngs, i n associ ati on wt h act i vi -t i e s that are desi gned t o hel p teachers exp ore the si gni f i cance of patternsof behavi our i denti f i ed ( Nunan, i n press ( a )) Observat i on i s emp oyedhere not i n order to demonst rat e good teach ng, but t o provi de data f orref l ecti on and anal ysi s

i i i ) s el f - r ef l ect i on j ourna and di ary accounts can be used t o provi deopport uni t i es f or student teachers to use the process of wi ti ng about thei rown teach ngexperi ences as an anal yt i cal tool and t o provi de i nf ormat i onf or l ate r ref l ecti on ( Roderi ck 1986, Ba l ey i n press, Porter et al . , i n press)

( i v ) sel f - report i ng the use of sel f - repor t s and i nventori es or check l i s t s , i nwh ch teachers record i nf ormat i on about what they di d duri ng a l esson anddescri be what worked or di dn t work (R chards, i n press)


7/12

( v) pro ect work : i ndi vi dua or co l aborati ve pro ects i n wh ch teachersaddress s peci f i c cl assroom ssues and t hen desi gn pro ects around t hem

(v i ) probl em so vi ng sessi ons i n whi ch parti ci pants bri ng examp es ofprobl em that have ari sen out of thei r cl assroom experi ence, ref l ect onpossi b e causes, and desi gn st r at egi es t o address the probl em

( vi i ) act i onresearch sm l -sca e cl assroombased pro ects i n whi ch teach-ers i dent i f y an aspect of thei r own cl assroom hat they want t o l earn moreabout and then devel op an acti on research programme i nvo vi ng datagatheri ng i nterventi on, moni tori ng, and eva uat i on Such research i s notdesi gned t o produce genera i zab e theori es and uni versa truths but i si ntended t o provi de a basi s f or practi cal cl assroom act i on Kemms andMcTaggart 1982, Nunan i n press (b ) )

4 Rol e of the teacher

Teachers take on di f f erent rol es and r es pons i bi l i t i es i n a programme wh chcenters

on devel opmntrather than

tr ai ni ng The teacher i s

nol onger

i n a sub-servi ent or subordi nate rol e, passi vel y and anxi ousl y awa ti nggui dance, di r ec-t i on, and suggest i ons f or change and i mprovemnt Rather, the teacher i s i n aco l aborati ve rel ati onsh p wt h the teacher educator The teacher i s an i nvest i ga-t or of hi s or her own cl assroom and hi s or her rol e i n i t and determnes whataspects of the cl assroom he or she wants t o know more about The teacher, ratherthan the teacher educator now assums the responsi bi l i ty f or i denti f yi ng pr i or i -t i es f or observati on, anal ysi s and, i f necessary, i nterventi on The teacher-educator s rol e i n thi s rel ati onsh p i s t o hel pby provi di ng i nf ormat i on and r e-sources t hat w l l assi st i n the process As Breen et al (1989) emphasi ze, theteacher rather t han the teacher tra ner i s the agent f or change, and the teacher scl ass and the l earners i n i t are the source f or i nf ormat i on out of wh ch a cl ass-roomcentered theory of ef f ec t i ve teach ng and l earni ng are devel oped

5 Rol e of the teacher educator

Changes i n the r o l e of the teacher i n teacher devel opmnt necessari l y i nvo vechanges i n the rol e of the teacher educator The teacher educator has t o movef rom the r o l e of expert , t r ai ner, or supervi sor, t o t hat of co l aborator, consul tant,or f aci l i t at or No l onger mrel y a t ransmtter of i nf ormati on, knowedge, andsk i l l s , the teacher educator i s now nvo ved i n a co l aborati ve and i nteract i verel ati onsh p Freeman (1989) sees the teacher educator s r o l e as pri mari l y t r i g-geri ng change t hrough the teacher s awareness, rather than t o i ntervene di rect l ySi m l ar l y, Roderi ck (1986, 308) descri bes teacher educators and st udent teachers

as co- parti ci pantsi n

and co- const ructors of educat i ona experi enceThe di f f erences between the tr ai ni ng and devel opmnt approaches i n teachereducat i on can now be summari zed


8/12

TRAI N NG AND DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTI VES ON TEACHER EDUCA-TI ON

TRAI N NG DEVELOPMENT

APPROACH def i ci ency vi ew devel opment vi ew

met hods based ongoi ng processexternal knowl edge i nt ernal knowl edge

i mpr ovement or i ent ed awar eness or i ent ed

prescr i pt i ve non- prescri pt i ve

atomsti c appr oach h o l i s t i cappr oach

t op- down bottomup

CONTENT nar r ow br oad

per f or mance based val ues based

s k i l l sand t echni ques process based

r ecei ved cur r i cul um negot i at ed curr i cul um

PROCESS model i ng i nqui ry based

practi ce r e f l e c t i v e

i mtat i on acti on research

short term l ong term

TEACHER t echni ci an knower

ROLE appr ent i ce i nvest i gat or

passi ve a c t i v e

subordi nat e co- par t i ci pant

TEACHER- expert col l aborat orEDUCATOR

model par t i ci pant

i nt ervent i oni st f a c i l i t a t o r


9/12

I MPLEMENTI NG TE CHER DEVE LOPMENT P PRO CH

have argued that a teacher devel opmnt approach to teacher educat i on repre-sents a more appropri ate model than a tra ni ng perspect i ve because ( a) i t offe rs ari cher and truer conceptua i zat i on of teach ng, ( b) i t represents a more democrat i c di vi s i on of st udent - teacher and teacher educator rol es, and ( c) i t has moreval i d goa s However, what probl em can be expected when we t r y t o i mp emnt

such an approach? The f o l owngare som of the i ssues that may have to be r e-sol ved

Devel op ng teacher educators

undamntal probl em s f i ndi ng f acul ty who are w l l i ng or ab e t o make themove f rom teacher tr ai ni ng t o teacher devel opmnt Unf ortunatel y, most f acul tyi n uni versi ty-based graduate TESOL programms have no tr ai ni ng i n teachereducati on and are of tenunwl l i ng t o see i t as rel evant t o thei r work They aretypi cal l y sub ect- matter speci al i s t s who abandoned second l anguage teach ngyears ago i f they ever di d any) i n f avour of more f ash onabl e research on Eng i shsynt ax, second l anguage acqui si ti on or s oc i ol i ngui s t i c s They of ten ho d the vi ewt hat by g vi ng teachers i ncreasi ng y soph sti cated knowedge about l anguage andl anguage l earni ng theory, or by t rai ni ng teachers i n quanti tati ve research mth-ods, thei r a b i l i t i e s as teachers w l l i mprove But as Freeman comment s (1989, 29) ,

A though app i ed l i ngui s t i cs , research i n second l anguageacqui s i t i on, and mt hodol ogy al l contri bute t o theknowedge on whi ch l anguage teach ng i s based, they are not ,and mst not be conf used w th, l anguage teach ng i t s e l f They are, i n fact , anci l l i ar y to i t , and thus they shoul dnot be the pri mary sub ect mat ter of l anguage teachereducat i on

2 Prepari ng teachers f or devel opmnt

Thenew ol es requi red of teachers i n a devel opmnt- f ocussed approach may notbe ones wh ch teachers expect, are f aml i ar w th, or may f eel comortabl e wt hSome teachers pref er bei ng t ol d what to doandwhat works best, and are morei nterested i n bei ng taught t o use a mt hod than t o devel op t hei r own resources asteachers

An essent i al phase i n p anni ng a newprogramme i s , hence, i n provi di ng teacherswt h an underst andi ng of the nature and process of teacher educat i on and t hei rr ol e i n i t , negoti at i ng appropri ate goal s, and bui l di ng r e a l i s t i c expectat i ons

3 Bui l di ng schoo support

programme that i nvo ves cl assroom research co l aborati ve pro ect work, andother schoo - based i ni t i at i ves , i s dependent upon the good w l l of co l eagues andsupervi sors f or i t s successf ul i mp emntat i on Does the schoo see the va ue ofsuch an approach and provi de the necessary support and encouragemnt ? I f not,we may be s et t i ng out t o prepare teachers to carry out a r o l e wh ch t hei r schoodoes not want t hem o assum Li ason and networki ng wt h schoo s and engag ngsupervi sors and other schoo personnel i n the p anni ng phase of programmedevel opmnt can hel p address thi s probl em


10/12

4 Eva uati ng programme accomp i shmnt s

Because programme goa s i n teacher devel opmnt are l ong- term ongo ng, andof ten not masurabl e di rect l y, rather than short - term masurabl e and perf ormance based, i t i s di f f i cul t t o determne i f and when such goa s have been atta nedEf f ects may not be i mmdi atel y apparent, creati ng an aura of f uzzi ness andmaki ng eva uati on di f f i cul t to accomp i sh Case st udi es, ethnograph c and l ongi -

tudi na approaches may theref ore be needed to hel p f o l owthe effects of theprogramme on di f f erent di mnsi ons of teacher devel opmnt

These l i mtati ons shoul d not, however, di scourage us f rommovi ng second l an-guage teacher educat i on i nto a new and more f rui t f ul phase of i t evol ut i on, onewhi ch i s characteri zed by l ess of a rel i ance on app i ed l i ngui st i cs, l ess of anemphasi s on t r ai ni ng, and more attenti on to the nature and process of teach ngand to teacher sel f - devel opmnt and conti nui ng growh Too many teachers l eavesecond l anguage teacher educat i on programms ei ther burst i ng wt h i napp i cab etheory or wt h a bag of t r i cks that offe rs onl y part i al so uti ons t o the comp exi ssues they conf ront i n the real worl d W mst do better The cha l enge f or us i nteacher educat i on i s to equi p teachers wt h the conceptua and anal yti cal tool sthey need t o move beyond the l evel of s k i l l e d techni ci ans and t o become maturel anguage teach ng prof essi ona s


11/12

Ref erences

Ba l ey K I n Press Teacher di ar i es i n teacher educat i on program I n Ri chardsand Nunan

Borg, R M Kel l ey, P Langer and M Ga l 1970 The Mni Course : A Mcroteach ng Approach to Teacher Educat i on Beverl y Hi l l s, CA Col l i er-

Macml l anBreen, M C Candl i n, L . Dam and G Gabri el sen 1989 The evo uti on of a teach

er t rai ni ng program I n R K. J ohnson (edi tor) The Second LanguageCurri cul um Cambri dge Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press 111-135

Br i t t en, D 1985 Teacher tr ai ni ng i n ELT (Partl ) Language Teachi ng 18 . 2 112- 128

Freeman, D 1989 Teacher t r ai ni ng, devel opmnt , and deci si on maki ng a modelof teach ng and rel ated st r at egi es f or l anguage teacher educat i on TES OLQuarterl y, 23, 1, 1989 27-46

Haberman, M 1983 Research on pre- servi ce and cl i ni cal experi ences I mp i ca-t i ons f or teacher educat i on I n K Howey Gardner ( Eds . ) , The Educati on of Teachers New York : Longman 98- 117

Kemms, S and R McTaggart 1982 The Act i on ResearchPl anner V ctori aDeaki n Uni versi ty Press

Lange, D 1983 Teacher devel opmnt and cer t i f i cat i on i n f orei gn l anguagesWere i s the f uture? Modern Language J ournal 67, 374- 381

I n press A b uepri nt f or the desi gn of a t eacher devel opmnt programi n second l anguage educat i on I n Ri chards and Nunan

Larsen- Freeman, D 1983 Trai ni ng teachers or educat i ng a teacher : I n J . Al at i s,H H . St ern, Strevens (Eds), Georget own Round Tabl e on Lan-guages and Li ngui sti cs 1983 Wsh ngton, DC Georget own Uni versi tyPress 264- 274

Nunan, D I n press ( a) Act i on research i n the l anguage cl assroom I n Ri chardsand Nunan

I n press (b) Underst andi ng Language Cl assroom : a Gui de f orTeacher I ni t i ated Act i on I n press New York Prenti ce Ha l I nt er -nati ona

Penni ngton, M 1989 Facul ty devel opmnt f or l anguage program I n R K. J ohnson (edi tor) The Second Language Curri cul um Cambri dge Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press 91- 110

Porter, P L Gol dst ei n J Leatherman and S . Conrad An ongoi ng di a og l earni ng l ogs f or teacher- tra ni ng I n Ri chards and Nunan

R chards, J . C 1987 The di l emma of teacher educat i on i n TESOL TESOLQuarterl y, 21, 2, 209- 226


12/12

I n press The teacher as sel f - observer sel f - moni tori ng i n teacherdevel opmnt I n J . C. R chards, The Language Teach ng Matri x NewYork : Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press

and D Nunan (edi tors) I n Press Second Language Teacher Educa-t i o n New York Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press

Roderi ck, J 1986 D al ogue wi ti ng context f or ref l ecti ng on sel f asteacher and researcher J ournal of curri cul um and supervi si on 1, 4,305- 315

Wi ght , T I n press Underst andi ng cl assroom ol e rel ati onsh ps I n R chards andNunan

Zei chner, K 1982 Ref l ecti ve teach ng and f i el d- based experi ence i n teachereducat i on I nterchange, 12, 4 1- 22

Zei chner, K nd D Li ston 1987 Teach ng student teachers to ref l ect HarvardEducat i onal Revi ew 57, 1, 23-48

training v development 11

Documents