Unit 6 Language Development for teachers

Introduction 6
So far we have placed the main emphasis of Language Teacher Education on methodology. But
what about the teacher-in-preparations level of proficiency in the language itself? Language
Teacher Education groups are always mixed-ability in terms of language proficiency: some of
the course participants demonstrate linguistic strengths while others seem to be lacking in the
most rudimentary of language skills.

Illustration 6
Do you think the matter of a teachers language proficiency should be a concern? When do
teachers most need to deploy good language skills? Put yourself into this picture. Have any of
these been your own concerns?
A poor and rusty command of English undermines the teachers confidence in the classroom,
affects his or her self-esteem and professional status, and makes it difficult for him or her to
follow even fairly straightforward teaching procedures such as asking questions on a text, let
alone to fulfill the pedagogical requirements of new, more communicative curricula. Low levels
in English among the teaching force are thus not just a concern among the teachers themselves
but should also be a concern of those involved in planning, both pre-service and in-service
teacher training programmes. (Cullen, 1993)
It is naive to assume that a course participant with an entry level of low language proficiency
will gain mastery throughout the course if specific emphasis is not placed on his or her
weaknesses. This simply does not happen. Student teachers cannot improve their English
enough simply by studying methodology and preparing to be English teachers. Still, if
emphasis is placed on language development directly, the teachers-in-preparation will see
themselves more as language learners, and thus feel they are being de-skilled. Demotivation
can easily ensue, especially among those on an in-service course who have been practicing
teachers for some time.
In the articles that follow, two different models for an indirect approach to language
development are outlined. In the first, Murdoch offers three suggestions for strengthening
language support. Cullen, on the other hand, suggests four strategies for addressing learners
language needs.
Reading No. 11 : Murdoch, G. (1994) Language Development Provision in Teacher Training
Curricula in ELT Journal, Volume 48/3, July 1004, OUP
Reading No. 12: Cullen, R. (1993) Incorporating a Language Improvement Component in
Teacher Training Programmes in ELT Journal, February, 1993, OUP

Interaction
Answer the survey questions found in Appendix 1 at the end of Murdochs article. Then check
the results of the survey (Appendix 2) and compare them with your own reactions. Join with
other course members to compare their survey results with your own and to discuss which of
the two models you think would be more effective in your particular teaching situation.
Mary Spratt, equally concerned with having language development as a central focus on a
language teacher education course, has written a book containing units based on an indirect
approach. Read the chapter on Talking about Coursebooks.
Reading No. 13: Spratt, M. (1994) English for the Teacher, CUP, pp. 29-36

Reflection 6

Reflection
It is clear that teachers will learn a lot about the importance of and the procedures for choosing
the most appropriate coursebook for their learners by going through the unit in Spratts book.
What areas of linguistic knowledge are being developed as well? Which of the strategies
outlined by Murdoch and Cullen are being deployed? Do you think the grammar focus is one of
relevance for teachers-in-preparation?

Submission status
Submission status

No attempt

Grading status

Not graded

Due date

Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 11:55 PM

Time remaining

24 days