SLTE Part 4: How it could be done better

Introduction

The three previous parts of ?this discussion of SLTE gave my own opinion about things discussed in Chapter 10 of the book I wrote with Mike Long (Jordan & long (2023) ElT: Now and how it Could Be. Thus, I used the pronoun “I”. This final part is an almost verbatim reprint of the last couple of pages, so here the pronoun “we” refers to Mike Long and me.

Here’s the adapted text of the final pages of Chpt 10. ???

We have already argued that current ELT is inefficacious because it is based on false assumptions about L2 learning – assumptions that inform the CEFR levels of proficiency, the syllabuses and coursebooks used by most teachers, and SLTE itself. In Chapter 8 we described the type of TBLT that we believe would lead to better results*. ?It follows that, in our opinion, improving both pre-service language teacher education and subsequent continuous professional development depends on basing them on our knowledge of how people learn an L2, and paying more attention to TBLT.

Dealing first with pre-service language teacher education, we do not think that a university degree should be a pre-requisite, but neither do we think that a 120-hour course like CELTA is adequate preparation. We recommend that the minimum length of a pre-service course should be 500 hours, and we think that the best option is a one-year, Post-secondary Vocational Education and Training (PSV) course. An interesting discussion of PSV courses run in Australia, Norway, Scotland, Italy and Spain can be found in the OECD publication edited by Jaana Puukka (OECD, 2012). Such courses are increasingly being offered by special university departments and by private institutions, and seem, in principle at least, to be the most appropriate for pre-service SLTE.

The course should consist of two parts. Not exactly "theory and practice;" more like essential background knowledge and practice. The two parts should run concurrently. Part One should begin with a unit devoted to a review of SLA research. We hope that Section 1 of this book makes a convincing case for the argument that teaching a second language efficaciously depends on a good understanding of how second languages are learnt, because of the special relationship that exists between declarative and procedural knowledge. The second unit should deal with descriptions of English, grammar, phonology and pronunciation, paying particular attention to the role of lexical chunks. Thirdly, syllabus design should be discussed, paying special attention to the differences between synthetic and analytic syllabus types. This unit should explain how a synthetic syllabus contradicts robust SLA findings and emphasise the superiority of analytic syllabuses. Next, there should be a unit on methodological principles and pedagogic procedures. A key component here should be a detailed discussion of the multiple ways in which teachers can give explicit instruction on various formal aspects of the language (focus on form as we refer to it) while concentrating on helping students participate in tasks where the focus remains on meaningful use of the L2. Finally, there should be a unit on assessment. The course could also offer a choice of options, such as young learners, materials development, and working in special environments.

The teaching practice component should involve the student teachers in a mixture of observing classroom-based and online classes taught by experienced teachers and actually teaching themselves. How the teaching practice is carried out is obviously crucial. All the limitations of the CELTA course, discussed above, must be avoided. We recommend that the student teachers, rather like students in TBLT courses, are led through a sequence of increasingly demanding tasks, starting with working in tandem with an experienced teacher on small parts of a session, culminating in planning and giving a complete class on their own. By far the most important, and most demanding part of this training will be dealing with the moment-by-moment decisions as a lesson unfolds. We fully recognize that by asking teachers to do without a coursebook and to rely instead on lesson plans and materials that are based on pedagogic tasks, we expect much more of teachers when it comes to providing help with the language. It is important to note that we do not expect teachers to design the tasks or the materials that go with them, but, nevertheless, expecting them to decide when and how to intervene most effectively, is, as they say "a big ask". In a one-year course of the type we recommend, student teachers will need to be re-assured that they will improve with practice, but training in the basic techniques of recasts, etc., is surely a good foundation.

A major issue is pre-service language teaching courses aimed at non-native English speakers, such as those offered in China and elsewhere, discussed in Part 2. As was explained, the first obstacle to improvement is the difficulties student teachers have in expressing themselves clearly and fluently in English, and the second is the ‘mismatch’ between the objectives of the course and the ways that the student teachers subsequently do their jobs in their local contexts. The student teachers’ language difficulties are largely the result of the way they themselves were taught, yet it is precisely this experience which, according to those who advocate a socio-cultural approach to SLTE, explains their unshakeable, or at least, very difficult to change "belief" that grammar-based teaching is the best way to do their job. We have argued that real, objective, contextual factors provide a fuller explanation, and that non-native speaker teachers in China, Korea, Finland, Brazil or wherever, are open to new ideas because anybody's beliefs and attitudes, pace socio-cultural arguments, can be changed by appeal to rational argument and evidence.

Our argument is that both the content and manner of delivery of pre-service language teaching courses needs to change radically. We appreciate the resistance there is to such change, but it is not a case of "all or nothing". If we can agree that there are severe limitations to current practice, if we can agree that coursebook-driven ELT is inefficacious, then we can move towards the model sketched above.

As for on-going professional development, this is primarily the duty of the employer.? Wherever teachers work, they should have the support of their employer, whose duty it is to foster on-going development. One of us was lucky enough to work for more than twenty years in a school where the staff room fizzed with the exchange of views and where collaboration among teachers was the norm. We helped each other to prepare classes and we regularly made planned visits to each other's classrooms. There were regular meetings among staff, peer observation of classes (voluntary and hugely popular), workshops by in-house teachers and by invited speakers, and financial grants to attend local, national and international conferences and to do post-graduate studies. That, surely, is a good example of organic on-going professional development. And why should it be regarded as exceptional, even "unthinkable" in so many teachers' lives? The expense is minimal (less than 1% of the school's expenses in the case cited), the employer's attitude towards developing the right culture among staff is what counts. Of course, the employer, if savvy enough, can employ a good director of studies to do the work. One example, among many, is Sandy Millin (personal communication) who, as director of studies at various schools, has consistently fostered a culture of inquisitive, collaborative in-house professional development. Millin demonstrates what can be done, given the right attitude, even in the belly of the beast.?

The once-ubiquitous policy of dealing with CPD by sending teachers to local IATEL or TESOL conferences and supplementing this with occasisional talks and workships delivered by the same cabal of publisher-backed, native speaker “experts” who do the gobal conference circuit is, happily, under serious attack. First, their credentials are suspect (quite simply, most of them aren’t experts in anything), and second, why incur the cost and environmental damage involved in using these people when so many better alternatives exist? The best alternative is surely to work locally, both inside an institution and among local institutions in any particular city or area, and grow networks at the local, regional, national and international level. A network of local teacher educators can offer a coherent program of in-house development activities (reading groups, peer teaching and peer observation, collaborative action research, and workshops), local and regional workshops and seminars, and national conferences.

Given our severe reservations about the work of the two biggest SLTE organizations, TESOL and IATEFL, whose teacher education special interest groups largely support a coursebook-driven ELT approach and sing from the same socio-cultural hymnbook, we recommend that teachers join independent local groups or cooperatives. The SLB cooperative in Barcelona is an example. Twenty teachers currently form the coop They provide and share resources, equipment and training and fight for equal opportunity, fair pay and fair working conditions for all teachers. They organize regular teacher education sessions (some held in their centre, others done online); they are building an impressive materials bank for teachers interested in designing pedagogic tasks; they sponsor members to attend conferences and workshops; and their website includes a Members Area where a wide range of up to date articles on instructed SLA and ELT practice are available for free download.

Summary

??????????? The dominant view of SLTE in 2024 is that it should be informed by a socio-cultural approach which seeks to explore teachers’ Beliefs, Assumptions, and Knowledge. The problem with this approach is that no clear picture emerges of the content of teachers’ BAKs, no clear way of evaluating them is provided, and no attempt is made to critically examine the current dominance of coursebook-driven ELT. As a result, pre-service SLTE remains in the hands of big commercial operators, or the ministries of education of national governments, while ongoing SLTE is left largely in the hands of globe-trotting teacher educators, most of whom have little interest in, or knowledge of SLA, coupled with a vested interest in promoting coursebook-driven ELT.

Improvement in SLTE depends on overhauling pre-service courses in the ways suggested above, and on developing networks of local teachers whose bosses pay them a fair price for taking responsibility for their own on-going professional development.??

*Note: Long’s version of TBLT is discussed fully in Long's (2015) TBLT and SLA. The following links are to two posts I wrote years ago that give very brief summaries:

https://geof950777899.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/task-based-language-teaching/

https://geof950777899.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/two-versions-of-task-based-language-teaching/

Reference

Puukka, J. (Ed.) (2012). Post-Secondary Vocational Education and Training: Pathways and Partnerships. OECD.