The Preparation of Teachers of English as an Additional Language around the World: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice 9781788926164

Citation preview

The Preparation of Teachers of English as an Additional Language around the World

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Founding Editor: Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK Series Editors: Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA and Joel Windle, Monash University, Australia. Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. What are the implications for language education of new ‘semiotic economies’ and communications technologies? Of complex blendings of cultural and linguistic diversity in communities and institutions? Of new cultural, regional and national identities and practices? The New Perspectives on Language and Education series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. New proposals, particularly for edited volumes, are expected to acknowledge and include perspectives from the Global South. Contributions from scholars from the Global South will be particularly sought out and welcomed, as well as those from marginalized communities within the Global North. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 94

The Preparation of Teachers of English as an Additional Language around the World Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Edited by

Nihat Polat, Laura Mahalingappa and Hayriye Kayi-Aydar

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/POLAT6157 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Polat, Nihat, editor. | Mahalingappa, Laura, editor. | Kayi-Aydar, Hayriye, editor. Title: The Preparation of Teachers of English as an Additional Language around the World: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice/Edited by Nihat Polat, Laura Mahalingappa and Hayriye Kayi-Aydar. Description: Bristol; Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, [2021] | Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 94 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book fills a critical gap in a neglected area in current educational research: international teacher education. The chapters focus on the preparation of teachers of English as an additional language (EAL) in established teacher education programs in 11 countries”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021015232 (print) | LCCN 2021015233 (ebook) | ISBN 9781788926157 (hardback) | ISBN 9781788926140 (paperback) | ISBN 9781788926164 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788926171 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: English language—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. | English teachers—Training of. Classification: LCC PE1128.A2 P697 2021 (print) | LCC PE1128.A2 (ebook) | DDC 428.0071—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015232 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015233 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-615-7 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-614-0 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2021 Nihat Polat, Laura Mahalingappa, Hayriye Kayi-Aydar and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by SAN Publishing Services. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by NBN.

Contents



Contributors

vii

1 Introduction 1 Nihat Polat, Laura Mahalingappa and Hayriye Kayi-Aydar 2  Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Dilma Mello, Valeska Souza and Viviane C. Bengezen

13

3 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Farahnaz Faez and Michael Karas

32

4 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Guofang Li, Chunmei Yan and Qiang Wang

52

5 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

74

6 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Evdokia Karavas and Christina Gkonou

92

7 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Martin East, Jocelyn Howard and Constanza Tolosa

114

8 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Yuliya Ardasheva and Natalia V. Sabelnikova

134

9 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice  Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Maha Al-Shahrani, Ahmed Al-Shlowiy and Connie Mitchell

v

158

vi  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

10 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Ho-Ryong Park, Deoksoon Kim and Tae Youn Ahn

188

11 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Hayriye Kayi-Aydar and Betil Eröz

206

12 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Laura Mahalingappa and Nihat Polat

223

13 Conclusions and Future Directions Laura Mahalingappa, Hayriye Kayi-Aydar and Nihat Polat

242

Index 251

Contributors

Brazil

Dilma Mello is a Professor in the Institute of Language and Linguistics at the Federal University of Uberlândia, Brazil. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and carried out her post-doc on Narrative Inquiry and Inclusive Education at the University of Alberta, Canada. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in the areas of teacher education, assessment, inclusive practices and narrative inquiry. Dilma is a member of the narrative research SIG at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and coordinates the Narrative Inquiry and Teacher Education Research Group (GPNEP) in Brazil. She coordinated the graduation program on Linguistics for four years (2012–2016) at her university, and was the Vice-President of the Brazilian Association of Applied Linguistics (2015–2016). Dilma has published books, papers and book chapters on narrative inquiry, teacher education and inclusive education. Valeska Souza is a Professor in the Department of English as an Additional Language (EAL) at the Federal University of Uberlândia, Brazil. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and carried out her post-doc on Narrative Inquiry and Gaming. She teaches undergraduate courses in the areas of academic writing, teacher education and international relations. Valeska currently coordinates the national student exchange program and the educational, research and community outreach program for internationalization (ProInt). Her research interests relate to using digital technology for language learning, innovative pedagogical practices and the process of internationalization. She has published seven books for distance learning EAL undergraduate courses and over 25 peer-reviewed journal articles, among others. Viviane C. Bengezen is a Professor in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the Federal University of Catalão, Brazil. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and developed part of her doctoral studies at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada. She teaches both graduate and ­ undergraduate courses in the areas of anti-racist language teacher

vii

viii  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

e­ducation, EFL teaching and learning, Portuguese as an additional ­language and Portuguese for indigenous students. Viviane is a consulting editor for the Teaching and Teacher Education Journal and is also a member of the Narrative Inquiry and Teacher Education Research Group (GPNEP) in Brazil. She also coordinates the Graduation Program on ­Linguistics at her university, and has published books, papers and book chapters in the fields of teacher education and narrative inquiry. Canada

Farahnaz Faez is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. Her research interests include second language pedagogy, language teacher education, teacher efficacy, teacher proficiency and non-native English speaking teachers. Farahnaz is the co-editor of TESL Canada Journal. Michael Karas is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. His research interests include language teacher cognition, proficiency and learner silence. Michael has taught English in South Korea, China and Canada. China

Guofang Li is Professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Transnational/Global Perspectives of Language and Literacy Education of Children and Youth in the Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Canada. Her recent research interests span longitudinal studies of immigrant children’s bicultural and bi-literacy development through school, children and youth’s new literacies practices in and out of school, technology-enhanced language teaching in primary and secondary schools, pre- and in-service TESOL teacher education, and current language and educational policy and practice in globalized contexts. Chunmei Yan is Professor of Language Education and Director of the Language Teacher Education Research Centre in the School of Foreign Languages at the Central China Normal University. Her research interests include English teaching methodology, language teacher development and educational management. Qiang Wang is a Professor and Director of the Centre for Foreign Language Education and Teacher Education, School of Foreign Languages and Literature at Beijing Normal University. She is also a member of the First National Steering Committee for Basic Education. Her research interests include English for young learners, language teacher education, ELT methodology and English curriculum studies.

Contributors ix

Finland

Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty has a PhD in Education. She currently works as a Senior Lecturer of Applied Linguistics at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, and has 10 years’ experience as a language teacher educator in supervising teaching practices, teaching language education courses and supervising master’s theses. Maria has published a number of peer-reviewed international journal articles and book chapters on pre- and in-service teacher education and development. Her expertise is centered around questions of language teacher identity, agency and emotions as part of teacher development. Greece

Evdokia Karavas is Associate Professor in the Faculty of English Studies at the University of Athens, Greece, Co-coordinator of the Pedagogic and Teaching Competence Programme, Scientific Coordinator of the Teaching Practice Course and Mentor Education Programme and Assistant Director of the RCeL (Research Centre for Language Teaching, Testing and Assessment of the University of Athens). Within the wider context of the research, evaluation and development work undertaken by RCeL, Kia is responsible for the training of oral examiners and markers for the KPG exams in English (Greek state language proficiency exams) and is the scientific coordinator of the training programme for primary school EFL teachers. Her research interests include language teacher education and development, curriculum/programme evaluation and implementation research. Christina Gkonou is Associate Professor of TESOL and MA TESOL Programme Leader in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex, UK. She is also Deputy Director of Education in the same department. She convenes postgraduate modules on teacher education and development and on psychological aspects surrounding the foreign language learning and teaching experience. Christina is co-editor of New Directions in Language Learning Psychology, New Insights into Language Anxiety: Theory, Research and Educational Implications and The Emotional Rollercoaster of Language Teaching, and co-author of MYE: Managing Your Emotions Questionnaire. New Zealand

Martin East is Professor of Language Education in the School of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Prior to this, he was a language teacher educator in the university’s Faculty of Education and Social Work. He contributes substantially to the university’s BA TESOL and MTESOL programmes, the latter being a flagship professional development qualification principally for EAL teachers

x  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

working outside New Zealand. Martin is the author of numerous articles in the field of language pedagogy and assessment. His latest book, Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching (Routledge, 2021), explores innovative practices for and beyond the EAL classroom. Jocelyn Howard is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Teacher Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. She is closely involved in the EAL community in New Zealand, and has extensive experience developing customised programmes for international in-service EAL teachers. She currently works with pre-service early childhood, primary and secondary teachers to integrate EAL within their mainstream teaching programmes. Jocelyn’s research incudes an evaluation of pastoral care for international EAL students for the New Zealand Ministry of Education, the use of technology in language education, and the applicability of principles for language learning in specific international EAL contexts. Constanza Tolosa is a Senior Lecturer in Language Education and a language teacher educator in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Constanza teaches primarily on the University’s Graduate Diploma in Teaching qualification, designed for pre-service teachers preparing to work in international languages and/or TESOL in the secondary education sector in New Zealand. Constanza’s research interests include language learning and teaching at school levels, in particular the development of interculturality and the use of technologies in language education. Russia

Yuliya Ardasheva is an Associate Professor of English as a Second Language/Bilingual Education (ESL/BL) at Washington State University, USA. Her research focuses on: (a)  ESL/BL teacher preparation, practices and beliefs; (b) contributions of individual differences to language learning; and (c) the interplay between second language and academic development. Yuliya has contributed book chapters to such volumes as ResearchDriven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of Language Skills (Routledge), Teaching Science to English Language Learners: Preparing Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers (Palgrave Macmillan) and Views from Inside: Languages, Cultures, and Schooling for K-12 Educators (Information Age Publishing). Natalia V. Sabelnikova is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Barnaul State Pedagogical University, Russia. Her research focuses on attachment, academic development, values and self-concept. Natalia has taught EAL teacher preparation psychology courses in the Department of Foreign Languages for over 10 years. Natalia is a Fulbright Fellowship recipient; her international collaborations resulted in a monograph entitled Theory and Methodology of Attachment Research in Russia and Abroad. She has

Contributors xi

published her work in such Web of Science indexed journals as Psychological Journal (Psikhologicheskii Journal), Psychological Science and Education (Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie) and Behavioral Sciences. Saudi Arabia

Ali H. Al-Hoorie is an Assistant Professor in the English Language Institute, Education Sector, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. He completed his PhD at the University of Nottingham under the supervision of Professors Zoltán Dörnyei and Norbert Schmitt. He also holds an MA in Social Science Data Analysis from Essex University, UK. Ali’s research interests include motivation theory, research methodology and complexity. His publications have appeared in a number of journals including Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, ELT Journal, Language Teaching Research and Learning and Individual Differences. He is also the co-author (with Phil Hiver) of Research Methods for Complexity Theory in Applied Linguistics and co-editor (with Peter D. MacIntyre) of Contemporary Language Motivation Theory: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert (1959). Maha Al-Shahrani holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics. She is currently working as an educational consultant in the Center for English Language of the Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia. She has more than 20 years of experience in various educational positions such as teaching, supervision, training, planning and curriculum development. Ahmed Al-Shlowiy is an Assistant Professor of English in the English Language Institute, Education Sector, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. He holds a PhD in Educational Linguistics from the University of New Mexico (2016), an MA in TESL from Flinders University of South Australia (2008) and a BA in English Education from Umm Al-Qara University (1999). Ahmed has taught English in Saudi Arabia since 1999. His research interests include applied linguistics, sociocultural theories, language teaching and learning, second language acquisition, bilingualism, online learning, blended learning, educational research, curriculum design, assessment, innovation and emerging technologies. Connie Mitchell currently holds two positions at Prince Sultan University: Vice Dean of the College of Humanities and Director of the Teaching and Learning Center. She is also a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (PFHEA). Connie has 22+ years of teaching experience in the United States and in the Middle East and has taught English as a second or foreign language courses, TEFL courses and linguistics courses. She is a reviewer for NCAAA, TESOL/CAEP and SAQF. Her research interests lie in professional development and quality assurance in higher education, program assessment, accreditation, linguistics, TESOL, TEFL, teacher training and formative/summative assessment styles.

xii  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

South Korea

Ho-Ryong Park is an Associate Professor of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the Department of English and Philosophy at Murray State University, USA. His teaching and research interests focus on TESOL/ESOL education, second language acquisition and literacy (reading) development and technology incorporation in diverse learning contexts. Ho-Ryong has published in Computers and Education, CALICO Journal, International Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Reading Education and Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, among others. He has carried out research, teaching and professional development in South Korea and the United States. Deoksoon Kim is an Associate Professor at Boston College, USA. Her research focuses on second language literacy, incorporating instructional technologies into teacher education and language learning through social media. She has edited one volume, and published 40 peer-reviewed articles/chapters in outlets including Computers and Education, Language Learning Journal, CALICO and Journal of Educational Computing Research. Deoksoon’s current work includes collaboration with the Lemelson-MIT Program to implement science invention curricula, research on the integrated student support intervention CityConnects, and design experiments using digital storytelling with middle school students. She has carried out research, teaching and professional development in South Korea, the UK, Canada and the United States. Tae Youn Ahn is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Liberal Arts and Science at Korea National Sport University in Seoul, Korea. Her research interests include teacher competence development, classroom discourse analysis and teaching English to underachieving students in EFL settings. As a former research associate at Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Tae Youn participated in many research projects to help English teachers enhance their classroom instruction. Her work was published in Language and Intercultural Communication, System and the British Journal of Educational Technology. She is currently involved in developing a competence-based training program for pre-service English teachers in Korea. Turkey

Hayriye Kayi-Aydar is a teacher educator and an Associate Professor of TESOL at the University of Arizona, USA. Her research focuses on teacher identity and agency. Her publications have appeared in various journals and edited volumes. Hayriye is the author of the monograph Positioning Theory in Applied Linguistics: Research Design and Applications (Palgrave MacMillan, 2019) and co-editor of Theorizing and A ­ nalyzing Language Teacher Agency (Multilingual Matters, 2019).

Contributors xiii

Betil Eröz received her BA in English Language Teaching from Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. She received her MA in English Language and Linguistics/ESL and her PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona. Currently, Betil is an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Language Education at Middle East Technical University, where she educates prospective English teachers and supervises graduate research. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, qualitative classroom research, teacher education, teacher identity and second language writing. USA

Laura Mahalingappa holds a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin and is an Associate Professor of ESL Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University, USA. Her teaching and research interests include teacher education and training, first and second language acquisition and sociolinguistics. Laura’s recent work on teacher preparation to support culturally and linguistically diverse students and the development of syntactic complexity has appeared in L ­ anguage and Education, Action in Teacher Education, International Multilingual Research Journal and Applied Linguistics. She has co-authored a book (with Terri L. Rodriguez and Nihat Polat) entitled Supporting Muslim Students: A Guide to Understanding the Diverse Issues of Today’s Classrooms (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017). Nihat Polat holds a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin and is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University, USA. His research focuses on additional language learning, teaching and assessment, as well as teacher education, and the education of immigrant and under-served populations in K-12 schools. Nihat has published two books (monographs) and over 30 peer-reviewed journal articles. His work has appeared in journals including Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, Modern Language Journal and System, among others. With Tammy Gregersen and Peter MacIntyre, he recently published an edited volume entitled Research-Driven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of Language Skills (Routledge, 2020).

1 Introduction Nihat Polat, Laura Mahalingappa and Hayriye Kayi-Aydar

Explorations of macro-level issues in teacher education at the international level have been a trending topic in educational research for a while now. Among others, one reason for this interest is the strong correlation between teacher quality related measures and student learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012). This topic has, however, gained more attraction in recent years (Darling-Hammond, 2017), with a particular focus on the teacher education enterprise as a whole. Because as educators we know that ‘good teachers are made, not born that way’, the rationale to learn from how the ‘making’ of high-quality teachers happens throughout the world is self-evident. The following sequence of logic proves this point: (1) learning and teaching occur in every country around the world; (2) high-quality student learning is correlated with high-quality teaching; and (3) high-quality teachers are ‘made’ (not born that way). Therefore, to become better at ‘making high-quality’ teachers in our countries, it only makes sense that we find out how other people ‘make’ them in their countries. Teacher educators and researchers have emphasized the importance of documenting and sharing ‘best’ policies and practices in teacher education programs in different parts of the world. Most recently, DarlingHammond (2017), a prominent teacher educator, has underscored this very point, outlining different teacher education (in general) policies, practices and potential challenges in progressive change moving forward. Darling-Hammond (2017) cites two reasons why understanding the nature of teacher education around the globe is so important: ‘First, they [such comparative studies] broaden the view of what is possible. Further, international comparisons show how ideas work in practice at the system level’ (Darling-Hammond, 2017: 291). For this to happen, we need to understand global ‘perspectives’ on teaching and explore teacher education and development as a ‘system’, with all of the relevant parts that constitute it at both the initial preparation and in-service professional development levels, including policy, human resources, standards and curriculum, accreditations and quality assurance, among others.

1

2  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

This edited volume fills a critical gap in a highly neglected area of current educational research: international teacher education. This is an area that has great potential for the cross-pollination of ideas and actions. Within this genre, this volume focuses on the preparation of teachers of English as an additional language (EAL) in several world regions. In doing so, it takes a cross-national, comparative approach around four major focus areas: policy, research, curriculum and practice, offering critical implications that can help improve EAL teacher education programs in different parts of the world. We have taken this multifaceted approach because we believe that a true understanding of high-quality teacher education is possible only when all major factors contributing to its overall strength are explored simultaneously. Along these lines, the scope of the content covered in each chapter is rather comprehensive in order to allow for a holistic understanding of the big picture. Each chapter offers analytic reviews and syntheses to illuminate the current status of the EAL teacher preparation programs in their country. The volume consists of chapters by highly accomplished researchers in well-established teacher education programs from 11 countries, offering a wide array of geographically and socioculturally diverse examples. These countries include Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Greece, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey and the USA. While it is practically impossible to identify objective criteria that would ensure a full representation of these programs in all parts of the world, the expert authors, in each chapter, present thorough information based on multiple national and institutional data sources regarding the state of the EAL teacher preparation programs in their contexts. A good question here could be: Why these countries? What criteria and process did we use to determine the sample selection? Undoubtedly, no matter how hard one tries, in a volume like this, no criteria could be adequate to justify reasons for including some countries and not others. All assumptions we could make, and believe us, we tried many, resulted in numerous ‘buts’. For example, going with geographical location was an easy choice we considered, ‘but’ it implies a deterministic assumption based on location. Such an approach, we thought, would not allow us to recognize the differences among countries within the same region. For example, the Middle East alone comprises more than 15 countries. While they may share a common history at one point in time as well as some cultural and moral values, there are significant differences among them. Being in the same geographical region obviously does not determine the educational values or systems for those countries. That said, we aimed for a meaningful representation for each geographical region in our selection, although we must point out again that such selection is not meant to be a representation of each country within that region. Another route would be to select countries known for producing EAL teachers of the highest ‘quality’. We could not find solid research that would justify the use of this

Introduction 3

‘quality’ criterion. Ultimately, taking a ‘principled eclecticism’ approach, we settled on three criteria that made the most sense given the main purpose of this volume. Our first criterion was a pragmatic one. Because we could not include the whole sample (all countries in the world), we tried to offer the broadest selection of countries we could. In this way, if some of the hypotheses listed above are somewhat correct (e.g. regional differences), we still get to offer a wide selection of different regions. For example, from North (Canada) to South America (Brazil), Oceania (New Zealand) and Europe (Greece) to transcontinental countries like Russia and Turkey, this volume offers a very rich buffet of EAL programs. Our second criterion was also pragmatic. We asked which countries we are most familiar with (e.g. the USA, Turkey) as far as these aspects (see the chapter format) of EAL teacher education are concerned. Although all three of us work in the USA, Hayriye and Nihat are both graduates of English language teacher education programs in Turkey. With our third criterion, we considered which countries we found particularly interesting due to certain social, cultural, economic, political, etc., differences. For example, in addition to its sociocultural particularities, Saudi Arabia’s new initiative Vision 2030 is intriguing with regard to potential transformations in the educational sphere. Beyond its size and the millions of English learners (perhaps the largest number of EFL learners in the world), its Confucian philosophy and cultural heritage make China a country of interest, especially in comparison with its geographical neighbor, South Korea. Finally, as researchers and educators who consider the learning of additional languages as an empowerment tool and teachers as agents of progressive change for a more socially just and equitable world, we could not help but include Brazil, the country of the great critical pedagogue Paulo Freire, in this selection. Indeed, we are very excited about the potential critical contrasts readers of this volume can make, for example, between EAL in Brazil, from the global south, the periphery of late capitalism, and the USA, known as a ‘central’ country of the global north. As such, the inclusion of countries like Finland, the envy of many nations for its unique approach to teacher education, and New Zealand, a highly diverse nation built on its colonial past, makes this volume a very valuable collection. We hope that this book will be a useful resource not only for teachers, teacher educators and government officials, but also for researchers interested in comparative teacher education in various world regions. We are not naïve about the moderating effects of sociocultural differences in any form of education, nor are we suggesting blanket (over)generalizations of the ‘great ideas’ or ‘signature pedagogies’ that the chapters included here might offer. Rather, as we describe later in this chapter, we claim these implications, acknowledging the caveat mindful of the particularities,

4  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

practicalities and possibilities of each unique setting where these programs might be (Johnson & Golombek, 2016; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). In what follows, we describe the goals of this volume, followed by brief sections about why this book is needed, who its target audience is, and the values and theoretical views guiding EAL teacher education in different settings. 1. Goals of the Book

The goal of this book is to help teacher educators, policymakers, researchers and state education professionals, as well as teacher candidates and in-service EAL teachers, learn more about how EAL teachers are educated in different settings around the world. Needless to state, the purpose for such learning is to synthesize emerging themes from these comparisons and identify and use the ideas and practices that have crossnational implications to improve teacher education programs in our own context. It is true that public discussions around this commonsensical idea (why don’t we learn from other countries?) have been gaining more and more attention lately. Likewise, more and more teacher education programs are now acknowledging the importance of international teacher education through study-abroad programs. Nevertheless, academic publications, like this volume, that offer opportunities for cross-cultural work involving specific areas of comparison are meager at best. With this aim in mind, this volume covers several highly critical areas of comparison, including current research, policies and standards, as well as curriculum and practice. We value such an integrative and multidimensional perspective, because theory and research-driven L2 pedagogy that is mindful of affordances of individual settings is an approach that research in the field has been promoting for decades now (Johnson & Golombek, 2016; Polat et al., 2019). To ensure that we meet this rather comprehensive goal in a systematic fashion, all authors take the same multidimensional approach (chapter format) to the kind of data sources (e.g. policy documents, curriculum) that they utilize in writing their chapters. More specifically, in addition to (1) a brief summary, each chapter in this volume covers content related to five major topics, including (2) a brief description of English language education and policies and (3) the English learning system and practices in the setting, as well as sections on (4) the status of EAL teacher education programs, (5) the quality assessment systems for these programs, and (6) professional development activities for in-service teachers. In synthesizing content for these topics, for example, authors respond to questions such as: What is the current national policy for the English language education system? What standards and competencies guide the curriculum for EAL teacher candidates? What are the qualifications of the teacher educators working in these programs? What kind of professional

Introduction 5

development support do these teachers receive when they start working in the field? To make the content more accessible to its target international audience, all chapter authors critically analyze each data source and consider issues of cultural and ecological validity as situated within the particularities, practicalities and possibilities (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) of each country. In other words, the authors make a concerted effort to define and describe, where appropriate, all concepts and practices that are unique to their context. To achieve these goals, all the chapters in this volume strictly follow the outline below to maximize the opportunities for point-by-point comparisons across the 11 countries. (1) Chapter summary (2) Brief introduction (3) Description of English language education in the context (a) Historical context (b) Current national policy (learners’ grade level, curriculum goals, etc.) (c) Current EAL learner population (e.g. grade level, L1 background, etc.) (d) Current EAL teacher demographics (e.g. L1 background, degrees, etc.) (4) Description of the EAL teacher education programs (e) Research foundation/methods (e.g. reading research articles, taking research methods courses) (f) National policy (e.g. laws, recruitment, compensation, professional degrees and credentials, quality benchmarks) (g) Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators (h) Curriculum mandates/standards/competencies (e.g. textbooks used, knowledge, skills, dispositions by credit hours, etc.) (i) Practicum (clinical experience, fieldwork) (5) Quality assurance (j) Accreditation and accountability (k) Formative and summative review and assessment (6) In-service professional development activities 2. Why Is This Book Needed?

Given the goals described above and the contents we have covered to meet these goals, there are several reasons why this book fills a critical void in the field of L2 teacher education. First, with rapidly changing English learner populations due to reasons related to pursuing an education (undergraduate or graduate) in English speaking countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, USA, UK), increased investment in bilingual education in such multilingual societies, and global immigration and mobility

6  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

around the world, teacher education programs face new challenges and are expected to meet these changing demands in the area of English language teaching. Just as we had experienced major changes in English learners’ goals (e.g. English for specific purposes), needs (e.g. general versus academic English, academic achievement) and expectations (e.g. sociocultural/sociopragmatic competence) post-World War II (Richards, 2017), with the widespread use of technology (e.g. online or hybrid options) and residency programs (e.g. study-abroad, extended clinical experience in school sites) in teacher education, new challenges and opportunities have arisen (Darling-Hammond, 2017). We believe that one of the most effective ways to tackle these global challenges and equip teachers to meet new demands is for teacher education programs to build effective communication channels among them and learn from each other. In recent years, more and more teacher educators and researchers have been interested in co-constructing knowledge by more effectively communicating and sharing effective practices in teacher education in order to improve teacher education and ultimately better prepare and support in-service teachers and teacher candidates (DarlingHammond, 2017; Mahalingappa & Polat, 2013). Among these commonly asked important questions are: What does teacher education look like in other countries and how can we learn about it? What are the ‘best practices’ or ‘signature pedagogies’ and why? Which of these ‘best practices’ are applicable to our setting and context? However, such discourse is missing in the publishing industry. Second, as far as current work on this topic is concerned, to the best of our knowledge there is no other book on the market that has studied the situation of EAL teacher education programs in a wide array of countries in different geographic regions (e.g. Karatsiori, 2016). For example, one of the very few books (a great resource) that has taken a global perspective to L2 teacher education was authored by Kumaravadivelu (2011). However, as per its goal, that book focuses on perspectives on how to make L2 teacher education better aligned with the needs of teachers in a global society; it does not aim to study EAL teacher education in different countries around the world. In fact, surprisingly, there is only one book (Kamhi-Stein et al., 2017) that has examined EAL teacher education in international contexts. Nevertheless, although it redresses a critical void in the field, the book is only regionally focused (it includes some countries in South America), and has a scope beyond just teacher preparation in these settings, including chapters solely devoted to narrowly defined aspects of L2 teaching and learning (e.g. the use of films in L2 teaching). In addition, in the last few decades, a number of policy centers (Wang et al., 2003) have conducted research on the preparation of teachers in different grade levels in various counties, arguing that ‘comparative educational research can provide a useful function by placing educational systems in context’ (Ingersoll, 2007: 12). For example, a study done by

Introduction 7

Ingersoll (2007) as part of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education on elementary and secondary teacher education programs in seven countries (e.g. the USA, Korea, China) reported ‘both commonalities and differences in the preparation and qualifications of teachers among the seven systems’ (Ingersoll, 2007: 12). No doubt, the implications of such findings for the cross-pollination of ideas and the potential impact of such work on the improvement of teacher education can be colossal. Thus, there is certainly a great need for a volume like this, which assembles such examples in one place in a format that allows for teacher educators, researchers, teachers, policymakers and so forth to make comparisons and learn from these cases. We do not essentialize; nor do we label any ideas or practices presented in any chapter as lesser than or superior to others. With this in mind, this edited volume aims to just do this by identifying ‘effective policy and systems’, ‘effective research foundations’ and ‘effective curriculum and instructional practices’ in EAL teacher education programs in different contexts, as well as current pressing issues and future directions, all of which will help advance EAL teacher education worldwide. By utilizing this opportunity to engage in critical comparisons that are mindful of issues of sociocultural particularities and ecological validity (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), readers of this volume will avoid overgeneralizing and essentializing practices that imply that ‘something good anywhere can work everywhere’. Finally, as editors, we strongly believe in the importance of ‘mindfulness’ towards the educational, cultural, sociopolitical and economic realities of any given setting (Johnson & Golombek, 2016). In fact, this is one of the reasons why we have initiated this project; we want to challenge the ‘self-proclaimed supremacy’ of educational research and practice in any one setting. We believe that all acts of educational ‘doing’ are regulated by the dominant powers and are ideological (see ‘ideological becoming’, Bakhtin, 1981), whether they be (neo)liberal or conservative, or in the East or West, or South or North (Kubota & Miller, 2017). Simply put, we argue that educators are doing great things in other parts of the world and we need to learn from them – just as they need to learn from us – to educate better teachers and contribute positively to their professional identity development as well as their agentic decisions and actions in their own teaching contexts (Kayi-Aydar et al., 2019). We believe that this volume offers a great platform to do just this. 3. Who Is This Book For?

As described above, this volume intends to improve the situation of EAL teacher education programs by providing examples of such programs from different settings around the world. To make the cross-national comparisons among these programs more systematic and useful, all chapters have been structured around the same sections as described in the

8  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

chapter outline above. No existing volume, to our knowledge, has addressed the situation of EAL teacher education programs, capturing a comprehensive view of different world contexts. Neither have any books followed a format – even for one particular country – in such a comprehensive and multifaceted way as this proposed volume. Given this goal and scope, this volume appeals to a rather broad audience base. It has one primary and one secondary group of target audiences. The first group includes teacher educators, policymakers, state department of education professionals and researchers who study EAL and L2 teacher education. For example, teacher educators will benefit from cross-national examinations of current theory, research and curriculum in different socioculturally diverse locations to identify ‘best practices’ (e.g. competencies covered in the curricula) to improve current EAL teacher education programs in their contexts. Likewise, for instance, this volume offers researchers the ability to identify cross-nationally common themes in knowledge, skills and disposition systems in EAL programs, which then allow them to use it as a basis for re-envisioning or refocusing their research agenda in exploring different variables in EAL teacher education. In addition, policymakers and state department of education professionals can learn from the policy pertaining to issues of legal mandates, teacher recruitment and compensation, in-service professional development, degree requirements (BA versus MA) and quality benchmarks, as well as accreditation and quality assurance requirements and practices in these settings. They can also learn more about how foreign language education systems work around the world and improve the systems in their own country. Questions are addressed such as: At what age do other countries start the education of additional languages? What goals constitute the curriculum goals? As such, the second group, pre- and in-service EAL teachers, can also benefit from the cross-comparisons of these international programs, learning about the kinds of professional competencies their peers pursue in different parts of the world. 4. Values and Theoretical Views Guiding EAL Teacher Education in Different Settings

Well-established conceptual frameworks or core values help teacher educators see the interconnections among varying pedagogical elements underlying knowledge, skills and disposition domains. They guide educators to weave all of these elements into a coherent framework that holds everything together. Without implying causation, based on available research in this area, we can confidently make a case for ‘theory-driven pedagogy’ or ‘pedagogy-driven theory’. However, as documented in previous research (see Basturkmen, 2012, for a comprehensive review), moderate relationships exist between teacher cognition (e.g. beliefs) and practice

Introduction 9

(e.g. Farrell & Kun, 2008; Hart & Lee, 2003). Sometimes educators do what they value or believe (about what learning is, roles of learners, etc.); at other times what they have been doing (as learners and educators) comes to inform their values or theoretical views (e.g. pedagogical belief systems). Such work helps us not only understand the importance of instituting core values in teacher education curricula, but also how critical it is that we are systematic and systemic in infusing them into all domains of educator preparation. Unequivocally, one theory that does not need proof is that no theory, or value system, regardless of the strength of its assumptions and the research evidence supporting it, works in every setting, at least as effectively as it may in others. This is simply because people and the habitats they build for themselves are arguably equally as different from each other as they are similar. Thus, our ‘knowings and doings’ are informed by the particularities and practicalities of the context where we grow up, how we are educated, and so forth. Because we all live on the same planet called earth, our ‘knowings and doings’ are also informed by others beyond our immediate context. As such, below, we describe how the programs included in this volume are informed by some unique (context-dependent) and some rather similar theoretical principles and core values. In the Brazilian context, sociocultural theory and critical pedagogy are particularly emphasized in EAL teacher education. As cited by Mello et al. (Chapter 2), Szundy and Leung (2018: 185) argued that the education of EAL teachers ‘is largely framed by a socio-interactional view of teaching-learning additional/foreign languages, a socio-historical perspective of language, and a critical stance towards (multi)literacies’. In line with the views of the great critical pedagogue Paulo Freire, these guiding principles are grounded in the ultimate goals of empowerment of teacher ‘agency’ (Kayi-Aydar et al., 2019), especially indigenous teachers, and the promotion of certain ideals ‘… related to socio-environmental and diversity … among other areas, as a way of providing social equality’ (Mello et al., Chapter 2, p. 20). In China, teacher education programs focus on guiding principles that help teachers develop a sense of purpose (Li et al., Chapter 4) for building China as a socialist country that educates ‘wellrounded people who possess positive attitudes, a sense of ethical nationalism, and a love of mankind …’ (Chapter 4, p. 55). In highly diverse contexts like Canada (Faez & Karas, Chapter 3), multicultural and pluralistic values seem to be emphasized in all teacher education programs. While not described specifically as ‘culturally responsive pedagogy’, many of these elements that could be characterized as such are cited as essential professional values that the EAL teachers are expected to acquire. For example, the Professional Learning Framework for teachers in Ontario (Ontario College of Teachers, 2016: 27) highlights ‘a lived theory of action for understanding the complex, holistic, interrelated, self-directed, contextual and evolving nature of relevant and

10  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

meaningful ongoing professional learning’. Similarly, in the USA, beyond just professional obligations to offer culturally relevant education, equity for and inclusion of all students in a rigorous and accountable education system is protected by federal law (Mahalingappa & Polat, Chapter 12). Other principles that are highlighted in EAL teacher education programs include ‘critical self-reflection’, ‘advocacy for the education of diverse students’ and ‘parental and community engagement’. Like in Canada, in New Zealand (East et al., Chapter 7), where there are no national curricular mandates for EAL teacher education, programs follow core values that all teachers are expected to attain. These values, which are described in the Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession (New Zealand Teaching Council, 2019), include personal cultural identity, culturally responsive education, good leadership skills, self-reflection, and sensitivity to contextual particularities to ensure respect for students and their diverse communities and heritages. As outlined in the goals for teacher competences in their Development Programme for Teacher Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016), in Finnish EAL teacher education a value-laden system is consistently promoted. Such programs are ‘characterised by Finnish societal values building on trust and the autonomy of teachers’ (Ruohotie-Lyhty, Chapter 5, p. 74). While these values empower teachers, they also inculcate in them a great sense of a ‘holistic professional’ who is mindful of their professional identity, pedagogical responsibilities, self-confidence, self-competence and self-reflection. Similarly, in the Korean context (Park et al., Chapter 10), having ‘a sense of mission to develop and maintain professionalism’ is one of the core values of EAL teacher education. There is also a noticeable focus on responsiveness to the well-being of students, including students with special needs and issues of school violence. In nation-states like Greece, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, English education is considered a critical skill for socioeconomic success and integration (in science, technology, etc.) with the rest of the world. Thus, EAL teachers are considered as ‘agents of change’. In Greece, EAL teachers are prepared to ensure social equity to improve social sensitivity and social consciences in an egalitarian society ‘so that they can realize their potential as active citizens and critique cultural practices and ideologies’ (Karavas & Gkonou, Chapter 6, p. 99). In Russia, while not specific only to EAL teachers, the national curriculum guidelines highlight ‘fostering friendly and tolerant attitudes towards the values ​​of other cultures, optimism, and self-awareness in relation to cultural differences in the life of peers in other countries’ (Ardasheva & Sabelnikova, Chapter 8, p. 140) in teacher education. In the Turkish context, national policies highlight appreciation of cultural diversity in teacher education while also highlighting the promotion of key values such as ‘friendship, justice, honesty, self-control, patience,

Introduction 11

respect, love, responsibility, patriotism and altruism’ into pedagogical practice in a separate section called ‘values education’ (Kayi-Aydar & Eroz, Chapter 11, p. 210). Finally, in Saudi Arabia, currently, EAL teachers can benefit from a new initiative called ‘Khiberat (experiences), which provides complete immersion up to six months in a different culture’ (Al-Hoorie et al., Chapter 9, p. 175) to help increase their intercultural awareness. References Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (ed.) (C. Emerson and M.  Holquist, trans.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp. 269–422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Basturkmen, H. (2012) Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System 40, 282–295. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017) Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education 40, 291–309. Darling-Hammond, L. and Lieberman, A. (2012) Teacher Education Around the World: Changing Policies and Practices. New York: Routledge. Farrell, T.S. and Kun, S.T.K. (2008) Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29, 381–403. Hart, J.E. and Lee, O. (2003) Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal 27, 475–501. Ingersoll, R. (2007) A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in six nations. See http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/145. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (2016) Mindful L2 Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective on Cultivating Teachers’ Professional Development. New York: Routledge. Kamhi-Stein, L.D., Diaz Maggioli, G. and de Oliveira, L.C. (eds) (2017) English Language Teaching in South America: Policy, Preparation and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Karatsiori, M. (2016) European profile for language teacher education: Meeting the challenge for sharing common competences, knowledge, strategies and values. Cogent Education 11, 99–125. Kayi-Aydar, H., Gao, X., Miller, E.R., Varghese, M. and Vitanova, G. (eds) (2019) Theorizing and Analyzing Language Teacher Agency. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kubota, R. and Miller, E.R. (2017) Re-examining and re-envisioning criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 14, 129–157. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40, 59–81. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2011) Language Teacher Education for a Global Society: A Modular Model for Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing. New York: Routledge. Mahalingappa, L. and Polat, N. (2013) English language teacher education in Turkey: Policy vs. academic standards. European Journal of Higher Education 3, 371–383. Ministry of Education and Culture (2016) Teacher Education Development Programme. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. See https://minedu.fi/documents/ 1410845/4583171/Opettajankoulutuksen+kehittämisen+suuntaviivoja+-+Opettajanko ulutusfoorumin+ideoita+ja+ehdotuksia (accessed 8 January 2020). New Zealand Teaching Council (2019) Our Code, Our Standards. See https://teachingcouncil. nz/professional-practice/our-code-our-standards/ (accessed 15 July 2019).

12  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Ontario College of Teachers (2016) Professional Learning Framework for the Teaching Profession. See https://www.oct.ca/-/media/PDF/Professional%20Learning%20 Framework/framework_e.pdf. Polat, N., Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P.D. (eds) (2019) Research-Driven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of Language Skills. New York: Routledge. Richards, J.C. (2017) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press. Szundy, P.T.C. and Leung, C. (2018) Teaching English as an additional language in Anglophone and Brazilian contexts: Different curriculum approaches. In P. Seargeant, A. Hewings and S. Pihlaja (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Studies. London: Routledge. Wang, A., Coleman, A., Coley, R. and Phelps, R. (2003) Preparing Teachers Around the World. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

2 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Dilma Mello, Valeska Souza and Viviane C. Bengezen

Chapter Summary

This chapter focuses on Brazilian teacher education programs for English as an additional language (EAL). We first describe the historical context related to English learning and teaching, highlighting national policy guidelines and presenting demographics for both learners and teachers of EAL. We then describe teacher education programs and the national policies regarding these programs. We describe how teacher educators are qualified and prepared for their role in this area, tackle the standards typical of the curriculum and clarify how field experience is carried out. In terms of quality assurance, we go through accreditation and accountability reviews in Brazil and discuss how programs ensure that they are providing effective education for future teachers through formative and summative review and assessment. Before presenting our final remarks, we demonstrate how in-service professional development has been executed in our context. 1. Brief Introduction

Since English teacher education programs were first offered in Brazil, many researchers, teacher educators and professionals have discussed language theories, teacher practices and language teaching methods as well as approaches, assessments and the learning process. During the 1980s, English for specific purposes (ESP; Celani et al., 2005, 2009), the use of information and communication technologies (ICT; Leffa, 1987, 1991; Collins & Ferreira, 2004; Menezes, 2019), reflexive teaching (Celani, 2002; Magalhães, 2004) and autonomy (Leffa, 1999a; Paiva, 2005) were 13

14  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

some of the main points discussed and investigated in our context. Nowadays, professionals from the field tend to focus their efforts on understanding inclusive matters, global and local knowledge, new literacies and emotion and storytelling, among other important issues. Although all these subjects are relevant, it seems that we have not concentrated on teacher education programs as a whole. The extremely different realities lived from the north to the south of Brazil could make it difficult to maintain educational unity. However, the government-developed educational policies are an attempt to achieve this. On the other hand, linguistics and applied linguistics national associations strongly pursue having their voices heard. These national associations of researchers and practitioners, such as ABRALIN,1 ALAB2 and ANPOLL, 3 try to influence the decision-making process by advising on government-developed educational policies whenever possible. Unity among English teacher education programs has been established mainly through the Law and Guidelines of the Brazilian Educational System (LDB), among other national documents. Given the number of universities and colleges spread out across the country, it is interesting to map our national English teacher education landscape. Below, we seek to provide a holistic picture of EAL teacher education programs in Brazil. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education

In this section, we first present the historical context of EAL teaching in Brazil, including the regulatory and structuring instruments that rule Brazilian education. Afterwards, we present the current national policies, such as learners’ grade level and curriculum goals, among others. Finally, we present the current EAL learner population and teacher demographics. 2a. Historical context

Brazil is the largest country in South America and is an extremely complex country in terms of education policies and regulations. It has a very large population (approximately 202 million inhabitants in 2019) and strong economic disparities among its regions. It is the only country in South America where Portuguese is the official language. Until the 1500s, the indigenous peoples who lived in Brazil spoke more than 1000 different languages. Brazil’s first colonizers were met by the Tupinamba people, one of the native groups. When the first European settlers arrived, the indigenous population was believed to have numbered more than 3 million; today there are scarcely more than 400,000, who speak 274 indigenous languages (Werá, 2019). Through colonization, Portuguese became Brazil’s official language, and the need to study the English language stemmed predominantly from

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  15

international trade, academic and scientific practices, diplomacy and business issues. Given its status as an international language and considering the demands for internationalization, English is a highly valued additional language in Brazil, and its influence is often linked to greater access to better jobs and to both national and global markets. As such, federal curricular standards require that all students in Brazilian public schools study English as a foreign language from Grades 6 through 9 in elementary school.4 Formal English language teaching (ELT) in Brazil started with the decree signed on 22 June 1809 by D. João VI, Prince of Portugal, ordering the creation of a French and English language school. At that time, ELT was based on the teaching model of dead languages, focusing on text translation and grammatical analysis (Leffa, 1999b). Several reforms have alternated compulsory and optional EAL teaching in school curricula since 1800. In 1930, President Getúlio Vargas created the Ministry of Education and Health and implemented a successive curriculum, compulsory attendance and the adoption of the direct method for the teaching of foreign languages. In 1940, the Capanema Reform was consistent with EAL guidelines; classical and modern languages were taught, and the teaching of Latin, English, French, Spanish and Greek was highly valued. Later, according to LDB 1961, English teaching was no longer mandatory, right when the prestige of the English language was on the increase. Brazilian education has been based on regulatory and structuring instruments such as the new LDB (Brasil, 1996), the Brazilian National Curricular Parameters for Foreign Language (PCN; Brasil, 1998) and, more recently, the Common National Curricular Base (BNCC; Brasil, 2017). The new LDB was passed in December 1996. This law clarified the responsibilities of national, state and municipal government levels. Municipalities are responsible for the lower levels of basic education (daycare centers, kindergartens and fundamental schooling; 0–10 years), the states are responsible for the intermediate and higher levels of basic education (11–17 years) and the federal government is responsible for higher education (undergraduate and graduate programs). This law is relevant to foreign language teachers, as it made the offering of at least one foreign language in the curriculum mandatory and set 2007 as the deadline for all Brazilian basic education teachers to have certificates of higher education. According to Almeida (2012), the publication of the PCN (Brasil, 1998) for the teaching of foreign languages at the basic education level marked an important movement carried out by EAL researchers and teachers for EAL teachers in regular Brazilian schools. Inspired by the work of Maria Antonieta Alba Celani and her Brazilian ESP project (Celani, 2005), EAL teachers focused on reading while also working on other skills whenever they were relevant in specific contexts. The PCN valued teachers’ autonomy without prescribing any specific methods or

16  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

content and instead promoted teachers’ agency. According to Szundy and Leung (2018: 185), it ‘is largely framed by a socio-interactional view of teaching-learning additional/foreign languages, a socio-historical perspective of language, and a critical stance towards (multi)literacies’. Rodrigues et al. (2019) observed that, under Brazilian federal law, English is a mandatory curricular requirement for all, including indigenous students. These authors presented arguments for the development of ELT curricula and methodology in collaboration with indigenous teachers in order to prioritize their communities, cultures and traditional knowledge. Following their perspective on the diversity of students and teachers of English all over the country, we next discuss the Brazilian current national policy. 2b. Current national policy

When it comes to the current national policy for English language learning and teaching from the government’s perspective, the BNCC section on Language, Codes and their Technologies made the teaching of English at elementary school compulsory and set its curricular goals (Oliveira, 2019). The BNCC is an official document which defines the set of essential learning skills that every student should develop in basic education. Since 2015, it has been defined by the Ministry of Education (MEC), with two previously published versions available for consultation, debate and negotiation. The preliminary version was made available between October 2015 and March 2016 and received millions of contributions from individuals, organizations and education networks across the country, including members of the academic community. However, the most recent version, which was finally approved and published in 2017 for elementary school and in 2018 for high school, was deeply influenced by governmental changes, leading to a different version – this time, framed by a neoliberal ideology that focuses on individual ­priorities, competition, market and cognitivism, instead of economy, ­sustainability, human rights and indigenous and African cultures, for example. In terms of the English language, the BNCC focuses on oral skills and digital technologies, with less emphasis on critical thinking development. Although there are official documents to guide EAL teaching in schools, such as the BNCC, the Brazilian Law for Inclusion (Lei Brasileira de Inclusão – LBI) and Federal Laws 10.639/2009 and 11.645/2008 (which made the study of Afro-Brazilian and indigenous history and culture in Brazil mandatory across our territory), the implementation and impacts of these policies have not been as successful as we had wished. Teacher and researcher associations and social movements have been trying to promote the value of diversity in Brazilian classrooms, fighting discriminatory, sexist and racist practices that still exist in our education system

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  17

and that have historically excluded black, indigenous, disabled, poor or LGBTQ people, in order to guarantee the right for qualitative EAL teaching for every citizen. The biggest challenge we face is related to political and big corporations interests, which defend high-quality education for those who can pay school and university fees – since the Portuguese colonization, our education system has valued European-origin peoples and traditions. ‘This Eurocentric-based ethnocentrism, as well as the diffusion of a superiority of peoples, races, and cultures, have produced, on the one hand, the culture of racism, exclusion, marginalization, and on the other hand, an opposition that prompted movements of struggling and resistance’ (Guimarães, 2015). 2c. Current EAL learner population

According to MEC, in 2018, 48 million students attended 181,000 schools in Brazil, including public and private schools. Since the English language is compulsory from Grades 6 to 9 (elementary school 2), 12,007,550 students studied English for at least two hours a week at this time. A statistical survey of schools that offered sixth to ninth grades that year indicated that 77.84% were public and free of fees (30.8% were state, 46.97% were municipal and 0.06% were federal), while 22.16% were private. Of the approximately 40,000 private schools, 1200 are bilingual (Portuguese and English), representing 3% of the private schools. Thus, approximately 9 million students, or 18.4% of the 48 million students (at all levels), attend private schools. Of these, between 3% and 4%, or 300,000 students, attend bilingual schools. In addition, Brazil has about 50 private language schools (franchise networks), with more than 6000 branches spread throughout the country. There is a strong belief in Brazil that it is impossible to learn English in public schools; thus, students with high income typically take classes in private English schools. Despite data showing that most students finish school with little knowledge of the language, there are many examples of successful experiences of teaching and learning English in public schools. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

According to the MEC, in 2018 schools employed 434,000 teachers, of which 45,000 taught English. A British Council survey (2014) found that 81% of English teachers are women, and more than 50% are older than 40. In terms of their degrees, 87% had completed a graduation course but only 39% were English majors. In addition to the English teachers who work in regular schools, some teach in the 6000 branches of franchised schools (i.e. English schools). Generally, such schools do not require teachers to have a degree; they train teachers to follow the specific methodology of their schools.

18  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

In this section we first describe some EAL teacher education programs in Brazil. After presenting the research foundation, Brazilian national policies are highlighted to discuss educator qualifications for preparing EAL teachers and the mandatory curriculum in some Brazilian institutions. Finally, an overview of practicum activities is presented. 3a. Research foundation/methods

Arns (1983) and Baranov (1983) indicate that at the beginning of 1938 pre-service teachers were expected to learn classical English literature. According to Mello (2005), pedagogical topics started to be mandatorily introduced into English teacher education programs after 1969 as part of the Brazilian government’s new national rules. Later, in the 1980s and during the 1990s, experts in the field underscored the need to learn not only language, literature and pedagogical issues, but also reflective teaching and research as in second language acquisition (SLA) research (Liberali, 1996; Magalhães, 1997; Magalhães & Celani, 2001; Schön, 1983). Since then, being an English teacher has come to mean also being a self-reflective researcher addressing issues related to the teaching and learning processes, assessment, agency, autonomy, collaborative teaching, teacher identity, imperialism and post-method era, among others. With the increased attention paid to ESP in Brazil during this period (Celani, 2005), pre-service teachers were taught to engage in research inquiry in this area as well. Since this ‘reflective turn’, many professors teaching in EAL teacher education programs have included a research foundation as part of all of their courses. In addition to the research foundation practice mentioned, some EAL programs in Brazil offer one or more specific courses on research foundation as shown in the examples in Table 2.1. In general, these courses and activities offer the students a chance to learn about general, foundational research methods such as ethnography, self-ethnography, narrative inquiry, case study, web ethnography and phenomenology, among other research paths, so that they are able to carry out their own scientific studies. In some programs, students are required to write a monograph and present it at the end of their program, which is the reason why they are offered a course in this subject. Besides the courses listed here, both the faculty members and teacher candidates are encouraged to engage in research activities throughout the education process in the EAL program. They can develop independent research or engage in research projects carried out by a professor, who can serve as their supervisor for one or two years. Students might also be members of an educational tutorial program in which they are required to carry out research in any area of literature, linguistics or applied linguistics fields. There is also a program named PIBID (Programa

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  19

Table 2.1  Research foundation University A

Academic-scientific-cultural activities

One or more terms

University B

Scientific Investigation I, II and III

Three terms

Universities C and D

Monograph

One or two terms

University E

Language research methods

One term

Source: Based on information available on public universities’ websites.

Institucional de Bolsa de Iniciação à Docência), a common institutional program that provides opportunities for students to explore initial teaching activities at public schools in order to conduct research on their own practices, from their third to the last term in the EAL program. Finally, it is important to highlight that in many EAL programs the courses designated to cover content on applied linguistics have been an important space for exploring research foundations within the field of EAL teacher education. 3b. National policy

In public institutions, recruitment for EAL programs is carried out through two main avenues. High school students from public schools can apply for the national exam at the high school level (i.e. Exame Nacional do Ensino Medio – ENEM), created in 1998 by MEC, or another kind of national entrance exam that everyone can take. Both are administered once a year, and successful candidates can enroll in EAL and other programs according to the scores they receive. Private institutions may recruit students through these two entrance exams as well, but they also have a private system for accepting applications. Both kinds of institutions still offer the possibility of entering an EAL program for college graduates regardless of their degree. In addition, neither pathway requires candidates to be fluent in English, although English reading skills are part of the exams. Private institutions might not offer any compensation for their EAL students. However, in 2004 the University for All Program (ProUni) was created, through which undergraduate students can get a partial (50%) or full scholarship. They then have a specific number of years after graduating to pay the scholarship amount back to the government. The situation in public institutions is completely different. Public EAL students do not pay any tuition for any part of the program, and at some state and federal universities they can even apply for free university housing. Any EAL students who are members of any research or extension programs can get a grant and make from R$400 to R$1000 (in Brazilian currency) per month, depending on the inquiry or community outreach program in which they are engaged.

20  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Most state and federal universities in Brazil have teacher educators who hold PhD and master’s degrees. Once contracted, professors can improve their qualifications by undertaking postdoctoral studies abroad or at different institutions in Brazil, and every five years federal professors can spend three months on professional development or attend conferences. In private institutions, only a small number of teacher educators in EAL programs are PhD holders; some of them have a master’s degree while others hold a bachelor’s degree in English teaching. Professionals from private institutions are not given free time for professional development as in public institutions. At Catholic universities throughout the country, the reality is somewhat similar to that of public universities in terms of financial and professional development opportunities. Those still preparing to be an EAL teacher educator can follow one of three possible paths: completing an 18-month specialization course; earning a master’s degree; or earning a PhD in the areas of linguistics, applied linguistics, literature or a similar field. English language institutes also offer language teacher training courses for their professionals, but these are not enough for them to become teacher educators according to Brazilian educational policies. Recently, some public universities have offered their professionals and students a chance to study and get a language proficiency certificate such as TOEFL and IELTS, but these certificates are not mandatory for those interested in becoming teacher educators at public universities. 3d. Curriculum mandates/standards/competencies

In 2002, the National Council of Education determined that language teachers should be able to teach using ICT and a collaborative approach, while also providing space in which students can construct their autonomy. Later that year, the undergraduate ELT program and other courses were required to have a curriculum completed in no fewer than 2800 hours. Almost 10 years after that, the government established new directions for the EAL teacher education programs. According to a resolution published by the National Council of Education (Resolution CNE No. 2, 2015, Articles V and VI), teacher education programs were required to add courses on the teaching of Brazilian Sign Language and topics related to socio-environmental and diversity (ethics, ethnics, racism, gender, sexuality, religion), among other areas, as a way of providing social equality. The number of hours of an EAL course was also increased to a total of 3200 to be completed in four years, as shown in Table 2.2. Linguistics and Literary Studies and Studies on Applied Linguistics (marked with an asterisk in Table 2.3) represent a group of subjects that can be taught according to the instructors’ choice each time the sixth and

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  21

Table 2.2  Hours for EAL curriculum In 2002

Almost 10 years later

400 hours – Teaching practice 400 hours – Practicum 1800 hours – Scientific-cultural contents 200 hours – Other academic-scientific-cultural activities

400 hours – Practice 400 hours – Practicum 2200 hours – Teacher education activities/ courses 200 hours – Theoretical and practical

seventh terms are offered. For example, the applied linguistics group includes five subjects: assessment processes within foreign language teaching, discourse and teaching, language and identity, digital and assistive technologies within the English teaching course, and English language – everyday discursive practices. We have considered the EAL programs offered only by state and federal universities. Most private institutions have not offered this program lately, and a few of them have offered it as distance education. Although students in private institutions are supposed to complete the same number of hours required by MEC, their courses are completed in just three years. It is also important to point out that some EAL distance education programs have been offered by federal universities for teachers (from public schools) who are teaching English without a degree in ELT. Teacher educators typically choose to work with grammar books, dictionaries and textbooks produced by US and/or British authors. On the other hand, many EAL programs have decided to transform English teacher education in the country by integrating academic discussions on the ideas of postmethod (Kumaravadivelu, 2006), local and global knowledge (Rajagopalan, 2005), World Englishes, issues of identity and other poststructural and sociocultural topics into the teacher education curriculum. Thus, one of the first changes made was to produce teaching materials that help develop Brazilian students’ identity, local culture and social contexts in learning English. This has helped prevent student-teachers from being the only consumers of English speaking countries’ cultures, instead encouraging them to develop critical thinking and become producers of knowledge and teaching materials using a variety of digital technologies. 3e. Practicum

According to Law No. 11.788, Article 1m (25 September 2008), ‘the practicum aims at learning competences of the professional activity and the curriculum contextualization, aiming at the student’s development for citizen life and for work’. Jorge (2001) points out that, in addition to communicative competence, students need to develop some other competences such as: theoretical knowledge of English learning and its articulation;

22  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Table 2.3  Example of an EAL curriculum from a Brazilian federal university (2019) Semester

Subject matter

1st

•  Descriptive Studies in English Language: Lexis and Morphology •  Literature Theory I •  Language Studies I •  Education Policy and Management •  Integrated English Language Skills I •  ESP (Reading)

2nd

•  Literature Theory II •  Language Studies II •  Educational Psychology •  Integrated English Language Skills II •  English Language: Translation (Distance Learning)

3rd

•  Interdisciplinary Project •  Classical Studies: Introduction to Latin Literature •  Descriptive Studies in English Language (Syntax and Semantics) •  General Didactics •  Language Research Methodology •  English Language: Reading and Writing (Online Course)

4th

•  Integrated Project II •  English Literature: From the Beginning to the Renaissance Period •  Descriptive Studies in English Language (Argument and Rhetoric) •  Brazilian Sign Language •  English Language (Listening and Speaking) •  Literacies Studies

5th

•  English Literature: Enlightenment and Romanticism •  English Language: Speaking and Writing •  Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching •  Teaching Methods and Approaches to English Language Teaching •  English Language Teaching and Digital Technologies

6th

•  Linguistics Studies* •  Literature Studies* •  Distance English Teaching: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches •  Practicum I •  Pedagogical Material Creation in EFL

7th

•  Studies on Applied Linguistics* •  English Literature: Victorian and Contemporary Eras •  Optional Course •  Practicum II •  English Language: Academic Discursive Practices •  Monograph Work

8th

•  Optional Course •  North-American Literature •  Literary Critical Studies •  Practicum III •  Practicum IV •  Monograph Work

Source: Based on information available at a Brazilian federal university website.

analytical skills related to the educational context so as to be capable of some necessary interventions; course planning skills; teaching approaches; skills for creating teaching materials; and the ability to plan a continuing education program.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  23

Table 2.4  Single degree versus double degree practicum Single degree: Mandatory practicum

Double degree: Mandatory practicum

Practicum I: General English (105 hours) Practicum II: General English (105 hours) Practicum III: English for Specific Purposes (105 hours) Practicum IV: English in the Context of Distance Learning and/or Blended Learning (105 hours)

Practicum: Literature of Portuguese Language (96 hours) Practicum: Portuguese Language (128 hours) Practicum: English Language I (64 hours) Practicum: English Language II (112 hours)

Source: Summarized by authors based on information available at the institution’s website.

The most recent curriculum reforms determined that a minimum of 400 hours must be designated for practicum and field experience, which is usually done two or three terms prior to graduation. In many institutions it is divided in two parts, Practicum I and Practicum II; however, it can be different depending on each institution and its internal policies. For example, in the case of a double major (English-Portuguese), the teaching field experience is divided into two blocks of 200 hours for each language. Using examples of how the practicum is developed at two federal universities, we compare a double degree and a single one in Table 2.4. While in both cases it is preferred that the practicum be conducted in public schools, it can also take place in private ones or at university settings through an extension project targeting the local community, particularly in the case of ESP. In addition to these mandatory practicums, students can add a non-mandatory practicum during the EAL program if they are engaged in any kind of extension project related to English teaching practices. Although the practicum is mandatory, students may face some difficulties completing it, as school principals and teachers sometimes do not accept student-teachers at their school or in their classrooms. 4. Quality Assurance

There is no centralized source of information about the content and quality of undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation programs currently offered in Brazil. Thus, we have examined various initiatives intended for courses in general, with a caveat that they directly affect EAL teacher education in terms of accreditation, accountability, review and assessment. We also explore some initiatives that are specific to the EAL field. 4a. Accreditation and accountability

Brazilian higher education institutions and their undergraduate courses are currently accredited by a process adopted by the MEC called the National Higher Education Assessment System (SINAES). It was

24  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

created in 2004 to measure and ensure quality. Courses are assessed for their opening acts, recognition and renewal through SINAES. Three components are considered: institutional evaluation by a committee of specialists; educational environment evaluation; and the National Assessment of Student Achievement (ENADE). The National Institute for Educational Studies and Research ‘Anísio Teixeira’ is responsible for the actions that impact accreditation and accountability, including: coordinating SINAES; conducting the Higher Education Census; evaluating institutions and careers by on-site visits; and – since 2004 – designing and applying ENADE. ENADE assesses undergraduate courses through an exam, focusing on graduating students. It is administered every three years for each program, and programs are grouped into three representative areas as determined by a committee from the preceding year. Content of the EAL courses was last assessed in 2017 and will be assessed again in 2020. The first section of ENADE for EAL undergraduate courses consists of two open-ended and eight multiple-choice questions in Portuguese that test students’ general knowledge (clarity, cohesion, coherence, argumentation, reading comprehension and language accuracy in writing). The second part considers specific EAL knowledge and includes three open-ended and 27 multiple-choice questions (mostly in English, but some in Portuguese). The open-ended questions provide texts in English and ask students to write in Portuguese about topics related to languages and teaching/learning. The Brazilian government exercises authority over the undergraduate programs that educate prospective teachers through program approval and student assessment. However, if the institution and the course are accredited and students meet the requirements set by the program, graduates are automatically eligible for teaching positions. Let us consider the two types of accountability that directly affect teacher education, according to the committee that studied teacher preparation programs in the USA (National Research Council, 2010). One type is related to programs and the other is related to teachers: ‘1. the direct monitoring of teacher preparation programs, by means of program approval and accreditation, and 2. the monitoring of individual teachers, through certification and licensure’ (National Research Council, 2010: 153). Similar to other teacher education courses, but different from courses offered at medical and law schools, EAL teaching does not generally require specific accreditation and certification processes to practice the profession. Once they have a degree, English teachers can apply for jobs at public and private basic education schools (K–12) and language centers. Some private schools and language centers may require prospective teachers to provide internationally recognized English proficiency test results, such as the TOEFL, the IELTS or the Cambridge exams, or even English teaching certification (e.g. TEFL, TESOL, CELTA, TKT), but this depends exclusively on the employing institution as there is no policy

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  25

mandating certification for licensure. With the steady growth of bilingual schools in Brazil, certification will probably become more requested in the near future. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

As no formal reviews or assessment processes are required of EAL programs, we will discuss how programs ensure that they are providing effective education for future teachers. In this area, one of the main concerns relates to the profile of the students who enroll in EAL undergraduate courses. Brazil has recorded a decrease in the number of students willing to study additional language teacher education. Another issue is the reduced social status attributed to language teachers after they graduate. Such issues lead researchers and educators to try to understand entering students’ profiles better in order to overcome possible obstacles that may hamper effective education. Rodrigues (2014) examined the profiles of EAL undergraduate newcomers by analyzing their English proficiency levels, how they viewed the teaching-learning process, and their interest in continuing studying. A general finding from such studies is that programs should pay more attention to the heterogeneity of enrolling students. There is no English proficiency test prior to admission, so students may begin their EAL major with competent/fluent use of the language, but many are at basic or pre-intermediate levels and need to learn English during the program of study. Various initiatives in Brazil aim to understand assessment as a significant indicator of knowledge-building in the EAL higher education context. The Test of Oral Proficiency in English (TEPOLI) experience is one example. Using TEPOLI as an analysis instrument, Consolo (2004) conducted a research project with the goal of investigating the issue of EAL undergraduates’ oral language proficiency. The researcher highlighted an assessment problem recurrent in EAL pedagogical proposals: the need for clearer aims referring to the desired oral proficiency profile of undergraduate students by the time they complete their major. Almeida (2016) also studied assessment tools in order to understand how university professors choose to follow their students’ learning processes. Although the proposals varied, the results clearly showed a connection between course content and assessment goals. The researcher pointed to the importance of choosing evaluation criteria that encourage learning and that consider individual learners. Almeida concluded that special attention should be given to diagnostic assessments, but that results should not be the only reference when setting parameters. Both studies illustrate that Brazilian undergraduate and graduate programs acknowledge the need to improve their assessment and review proposals even though they have not established national standards to be followed, allowing for professors’ and institutions’ agency and freedom.

26  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

What currently happens is that professors submit a course plan including an assessment proposal at the beginning of the term and report the results by the end of the course to ensure sustained quality. All in all, the quality assurance measures for EAL teacher education programs in Brazil do not seem adequate. We believe that government educational policymakers and the higher education community should work together to define clearer guidelines for quality assurance. These guidelines should not resemble a straitjacket, but they should at least provide a more explicit unity in terms of performance and standards. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

Recent reports on in-service professional development in Brazil (Moriconi, 2017) have highlighted the steady growth of continuous teacher education through activities such as courses and workshops, qualification programs, individual and collaborative research, education conferences and seminars, networks and other activities that may contribute to teacher professional development. Some of these efforts have happened because ‘initial teacher education courses, in particular, often have insufficient training due to the poor quality of basic education offered to them’ (Brasil, 1999: 25). Yet professionals are encouraged to review their knowledge when they move along in their professional practice. The government encourages in-service initiatives, providing full or partial leave and offering salary-related benefits. Although induction into the teaching profession in Brazil is not ruled by a mandatory policy as in some European and Asian countries (OECD, 2006), it does have a few institutionalized programs. André (2012) reported promising initiatives in an attempt to reduce the problems faced by beginning teachers, provided by city (student-teacher scholarships), state (literacy scholarships) and federal actions. These, for example, include the Institutional Program for Scholarships for Beginning Teachers (PIBID) run by MEC, and the Committee for Post-Graduate Courses in Higher Education (CAPES). PIBID sets up a partnership between universities and schools, engaging in-service English teachers and university professors who interact with the novice teachers in actions and projects developed with students in public schools. National policies that encourage EAL in-service professional development affect both state and city teacher education actions. The National Net of English Teachers Continuing Formation (RENAFORM) is one example. For instance, in a study, Oliveira and Lago (2015) investigated the perceptions of the participant teachers and teacher educators of RENAFORM in a specific Brazilian state. They concluded that the participants had a high acceptance of the course contents provided by RENAFORM, yet they still believed there should be clearer and more effective public policies concerning English teachers.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  27

Effective partnerships among different governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders have been at the core of EAL in-service professional development. One example is a partnership between LAEL-PUC-SP and the language school Cultura Inglesa, initiated in 1995 by Professor Celani, which benefitted around 4000 public school English teachers in the state of São Paulo, enabling them to reflect on their practice and act as multipliers of knowledge built in the program for two decades. A second example is the Tocantins English Project (TEP), in which the state Department of Education partnered with the British Council to offer middle and high school English teachers professional development comprising language and methodology from 2002 to 2011. According to Turcato (2011), TEP cultivated a more positive perspective, from both teachers and students, towards the learning of English in public schools. However, there has been negative feedback concerning this kind of partnership. For details, see Almeida (2016), who reported on the partnership between the state of Rio de Janeiro and the language school Cultura Inglesa for Rio Global Child 2016. Although a legal partnership, it did not include a public call for projects, as most partnerships between public and private sectors do in Brazil. The researcher called for caution regarding noncritical beliefs about the excellence of private institutions and the need for public institutions to have a say in these matters. Many initiatives for Brazilian EAL in-service programs come from universities. Some of these take the shape of formal proposals from graduate students/candidates who decide to conduct their research in basic education schools. Souza (2007), for example, examined the use of a digital literacy course for EFL teachers enrolled in the in-service program entitled English for All Pro, investigating how they acquired competency in using technological resources. Also related to graduate courses and in-service opportunities is the Professional Master’s Degree Program in Letters (PROFLETRAS), offered nationwide, a postgraduate course within the Open University of Brazil (UAB) system, whose target audience is Portuguese teachers, but favoring those accredited to teach both Portuguese and English. Along the same lines as PROFLETRAS, but with a focus on undergraduate courses, the Brazilian government has financed the National Plan for Elementary Education Teacher Formation (PARFOR). The target audience includes active state and city school teachers who do not have a college degree that certifies them for the profession. Some in-service teacher development opportunities are available overseas. The Program for English Teachers Development in the United States (PDPI) is part of the Brazilian government’s strategic plan to improve EAL teacher education in all states of Brazil. Funded by CAPES and administered by the Institute of International Education and the Brazilian Fulbright Commission, this six-week experience includes a dynamic mix of coursework, seminars and service-learning activities. Gimenez et al.

28  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(2016) published a comprehensive review of goals and achievements with regard to PARFOR, English without Borders, PDPI and Policy for Diversity and Inclusion, which may complement the ideas discussed in this chapter. Conclusion

We began this chapter with the aim of providing an overall picture of EAL teacher education programs in Brazil, focusing in particular on public institutions, as the number of programs offered in this field has decreased over time and many private institutions no longer offer them. The number of enrolled students has also decreased at public universities, while the courses are still offered as a political and educational act of resistance. EAL teacher education programs in Brazil have always been a challenging experience due to the national and regional diversity, the number of students, the national and financial policies and the lack of social recognition of the field of additional language education in general. Several different academic advocacy groups, including researchers, are fighting to make English education programs stronger. Although the rationale behind the current teacher education programs in Brazil proposes anti-racist, inclusive and anti-oppressive perspectives, it loses power over the newly graduated teachers when they start teaching and face the challenges of the school system. For instance, some principals, supervisors and teachers do not engage with the school neighborhoods and the students’ families – mostly blaming them for the school failure. Unfortunately, the lack of this kind of community integration is often part of Brazilian culture. Another challenge is that most public schools are in very bad physical condition and they are extremely gated – there are bars in every window, like a prison. There is no outside space and the rooms are very small. Broken fans, chairs and desks are, ­unfortunately, a common scenario. As a result, some principals believe that the main school problem is poverty, and sometimes the dangerous neighborhoods. Considering these problems, a couple of principals think that building higher walls is the only possible solution ... Despite the existing discrepancies, the picture we have painted in this chapter hopefully offers an accurate description of our Brazilian English teacher education program landscape. While writing this chapter, we have learned substantially as we reconsidered knowledge about our own context. We became aware of the amount of important information about the reality of EAL, which led us to ask: How can we fight for better conditions if we do not know more about our current status? Another point is related to international certification issues: How can we go local if we still have to follow the global path? Undoubtedly, the answers to these questions show how important this and other chapters in this volume are. Despite living in such a fragile democracy as Brazil, teacher educators have tried

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  29

their best to make the English teacher education programs powerful so they can provide future and in-service teachers with a critical and contemporary teacher education. However, many challenges have yet to be overcome. Notes (1) ABRALIN, the Brazilian Linguistics Association, is an organization whose goal is to bring together professionals in the field of linguistics in order to promote, develop and disseminate information about theoretical and applied linguistics in Brazil. (2) ALAB stands for Associação de Linguística Aplicada do Brasil, and is the national Applied Linguistics organization member of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA). (3) ANPOLL is the National Association for Graduate Studies and Research in Languages, Literature and Linguistics. At the core of the association’s intellectual and academic activity is the work of the thematic working groups (WGs). The authors of this chapter are members of the Teacher Education in Applied Linguistics and the Language and Technology WGs. (4) In Brazil, education is divided into three levels: pre-school education (educação infantil), basic education (ensino básico) and higher education (ensino superior). Basic education is mandatory for those between the ages of six and 17. It consists of elementary school 1 and 2 (ensino fundamental 1 e 2) – Grades 1–5 (ensino fundamental 1) and Grades 6–9 (ensino fundamental 2) – and high school (ensino médio), with Grades 1–3.

References Almeida, R.L.T. (2012) The teaching of English as a foreign language in the context of Brazilian regular schools: A retrospective and prospective view of policies and practices. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 12 (2), 331–348. See http://www. scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-63982012000200006 (accessed 31 October 2019). Almeida, R.L.T. (2016) ELT in Brazilian public schools: History, challenges, new experiences and perspectives. Education Policy Analysis Archives 24 (81). See https://epaa. asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2473 (accessed 31 October 2019). André, M. (2012) Policies and programs to support beginning teachers in Brazil. Cadernos de Pesquisa 42 (145). See http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S010 0 15742012000100008&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en (accessed 31 October 2019). Arns, O. (1983) Currículo de Letras. In Anais do V ENPULI, v. 1 (pp. 139–149). São Paulo: Pontifical Catholic University. Baranov, U.G. (1983) A Reformulação do Currículo Mínimo de Letras nas Universidades Brasileiras – um breve histórico recente, criticas e sugestões. In Anais do V ENPULI, v. 1 (pp. 151–157). São Paulo: Pontifical Catholic University. Brasil. Ministério da Educação (1996) Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional. Lei número 9394, 20 de dezembro de 1996. Brasil. Ministério da Educação (1998) Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: Quinta a oitava séries do ensino fundamental – língua estrangeira. Brasília: MEC/SEF. Brasil. Ministério da Educação (1999) Fundamentos para formação de professores da educação básica. See http://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/basica.pdf (accessed 31 October 2019). Brasil. Ministério da Educação (2017) Base Nacional Comum Curricular (versão final). Brasília: Ministério da Educação. See http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/abase (accessed 31 October 2019).

30  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Brasil. National Council of Education (2015) Resolution CNE No. 2 of 1 July. British Council (2014) Learning English in Brazil: Understanding the Aims and Expectations of the Brazilian Emerging Middle Classes (1st edn). São Paulo: Report for the British Council by Data Popular Institute. See https://www.britishcouncil.org. br/sites/default/files/learning_english_in_brazil.pdf. Celani, M.A.A. (2002) Professores e formadores em mudança: Relato de um processo de reflexão e transformação da prática docente. Campinas: Mercado de Letras. Celani, M.A.A. (2005) Introduction. In M.A.A. Celani, A.F. Deyes, J.L. Holmes and M.R. Scott (eds) ESP in Brazil: 25 Years of Evolution and Reflection (pp. 13–26). Campinas: Mercado de Letras. Celani, M.A.A., Deyes, A.F., Holmes, J.L. and Scott, M.R. (2005) ESP in Brazil: 25 Years of Evolution and Reflection. Campinas: Mercado de Letras. Celani, M.A.A., Freire, M.M. and Ramos, R.D.C.G. (2009) A abordagem instrumental no Brasil: Um projeto, seus percursos e seus desdobramentos. São Paulo: EDUC. Collins, H. and Ferreira, A. (2004) Relatos de experiência de ensino e aprendizagem de línguas na Internet. Campinas: Mercado de Letras. Consolo, D.A. (2004) A construção de um instrumento de avaliação da proficiência oral do professor de língua estrangeira. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 43 (2), 265–286. See http://www.scielo.br/pdf/tla/v43n2/a05v43n2.pdf (accessed 31 October 2019). Gimenez, T., Ferreira, A.J., Basso, R.A.A. and Cruvinel, R.C. (2016) Policies for English language teacher education in Brazil today. Profile 18 (1), 219–234. See http://www. scielo.org.co/pdf/prf/v18n1/v18n1a12.pdf (accessed 31 October 2019). Guimarães, S. (2015) The teaching of Afro-Brazilian and indigenous culture and history in Brazilian basic education in the 21st century. Policy Futures in Education 13 (8), 939–948. doi:10.1177/1478210315579980 Jorge, M.L.S. (2001) Prática de Ensino de Inglês: O estágio como experiência integradora da teoria, reflexão e prática. In M. Grigoletto and A.M.G. Carmagnani (eds) Inglês como língua estrangeira: identidade, práticas e textualidades [English as a Foreign Language: Identity, Practice and Textuality]. São Paulo: Humanitas/FFLCH/USP. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leffa, V.J. (1987) O uso do computador na produção de material didático. Tecnologia Educacional 16 (77), 20–26. Leffa, V.J. (1991) O computador no ensino de linguas; Estado da arte e tendencias. Tecnologia Educacional 20 (102/103), 23–28. Leffa, V.J. (1999a) Autonomy in Language Learning. Porto Alegre: Editora Universidade, UFRGS. Leffa, V.J. (1999b) O ensino de línguas estrangeiras no contexto nacional. Contexturas, APLIESP 4, 13–24. Liberali, F.C. (1996) O desenvolvimento reflexivo do professor. The Especialist 17 (1), 19–37. Magalhães, M.C.C. (1997) O professor de lingua inglesa: Um profissional reflexivo. Boletim APLEPAR VIII, 31. Magalhães, M.C.C. (2004) A Formação do Professor com um Profissional Crítico – Linguagem e Reflexão. São Paulo: Sollus Distribuidora. Magalhães, M.C.C. and Celani, M.A.A. (2001) Reflective sessions: A tool for teacher empowerment? Congresso sobre gênero, 2001, Oslo. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 5, 135–160. Mello, D.M. (2005) Histórias de subversão do currículo, conflitos e resistências: Buscando espaço para a formação do professor na aula de Língua Inglesa. PhD thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. Menezes, V. (2019) Tecnologias digitais no ensino de línguas passado, presente e futuro. Revista da ABRALIN 18, 1. See https://revista.abralin.org/index.php/abralin/article/ view/1323.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Brazil  31

Moriconi, G.M. (ed.) (2017) Formação continuada de professores: Contribuições da literatura baseada em evidências. Relatório de pesquisa. São Paulo: Fundação Carlos Chagas. National Research Council (2010) Accountability and quality control in teacher education. In Preparing Teachers Building Evidence for Sound Policy (pp. 153–218). Washington, DC: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2006) Professores são importantes: Atraindo, desenvolvendo e retendo professores eficazes. São Paulo: Moderna. Oliveira, A.B.C. (2019) ENEM and the language policy for English in the Brazilian context. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, Belo Horizonte 19 (2), 361–383. See http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-63982019000200361 (accessed 31 October 2019). Oliveira, V.G. and Lago, N.A. (2015) RENAFORM as locus of English teachers’ formation – a case study. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 54 (1). Paiva, V.L.M.O. (2005) Práticas de ensino e aprendizagem de inglês com foco na autonomia. Belo Horizonte: Faculdade de Letras da UFMG. Rajagopalan, K. (2005) The language issues in Brazil: When local knowledge clashes with global knowledge. In A.S. Canagarajah (ed.) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rodrigues, B.G. (2014) O perfil do alunos ingressantes em um curso de Letras Inglês: Expectativas e metas para a formação de professores. Revista L@el em (Dis-)curso 6 (2), 52–71. Rodrigues, W., Albuquerque, F.E. and Miller, M. (2019) Decolonizando o Ensino de Língua Inglesa para Populações Indígenas Brasileiras. Educação e Realidade 44 (2). Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Souza, V.V.S. (2007) Letramento digital contextualizado: Uma experiência na formação continuada de professores. Master’s dissertation, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Szundy, P.T.C. and Leung, C. (2018) Teaching English as an additional language in Anglophone and Brazilian contexts: Different curriculum approaches. In P. Seargeant, A. Hewings and S. Pihlaja (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Studies. London: Routledge. Turcato, A.C. (2011) A formação continuada dos professores de língua inglesa do estado de Tocantins: Do projeto ‘Tocantins English Project’ aos dias atuais. Anais do SILEL 2 (2). Uberlândia: EDUFU. Werá, K. (ed.) (2019) Kaká Biraci Yawanawá. Coleção Tembeta. Rio de Janeiro: Beco do Azougue Editorial.

3 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Farahnaz Faez and Michael Karas

Chapter Summary

This chapter provides an overview of EAL teacher preparation in Canada and presents the various pathways to becoming a certified EAL teacher for the adult and kindergarten through Grade 12 (K–12) sector in Canada. By drawing on the local, historical and political contexts in which EAL teacher preparation functions in the country, this chapter illuminates the complexities that govern the accreditation and certification of EAL teachers. The chapter starts with a description of the historical context, the status of teaching EAL in Canada, existing national and provincial policies, EAL learner profiles, and demographics of the current teaching force. Next, the research, policy, curriculum and pedagogical practices that guide teacher preparation in Canada are also discussed. Some of the provincial accreditation mandates for the different pathways to EAL teacher preparation are presented and professional development opportunities available to EAL teachers are outlined. Finally, a critical overview of issues and barriers that hinder successful teacher preparation in Canada are discussed. 1. Brief Introduction

EAL teacher education in Canada is best characterized as complex and difficult to navigate. This is partly because education in Canada falls under the responsibility of provincial governments, resulting in considerable variation in teacher education and accreditation requirements across the country. On the other hand, immigration and immigrant settlement, for which language enhancement is a notable issue, can be the responsibility of both provincial and federal governments. This distinction is 32

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  33

significant because EAL for kindergarten through Grade 12 (K–12) students becomes the responsibility of provincial Ministries of Education. However, for adult students, EAL can be conceptualized as education or as language enhancement for employment, and can be the responsibility of provincial Ministries of Education as well as provincial and federal Ministries of Citizenship and Immigration. Furthermore, diversity in the adult EAL sector is vast because school boards, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), settlement agencies, colleges and universities offer an array of EAL programs, and their foci, funding, length and teacher qualifications can be as diverse as their offerings. Adding to this mix are the private language schools which offer EAL programs primarily designed to attract international students. The provision of private language schools can vary by province, but they often have minimal regulatory requirements, whether it be their curriculum standards or their teacher qualifications. In sum, because of the two levels of government in Canada (federal and provincial) and the two EAL streams, K–12 and adult (17+), there is a lack of uniform policies and practices that guide the EAL teaching profession across the country. The remainder of the chapter aims at providing further details about EAL teacher preparation across Canada. In many cases, Ontario is highlighted in this chapter in order to provide a concrete example of policies and practices and also because Ontario is the most populated province in the country and Canada’s largest immigrant-receiving province. However, we attempt to include information from other regions of Canada whenever possible. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education

English language learners (ELLs)1 can receive English language education across a variety of pathways in Canada. For immigrant children who enter the K–12 public school system, they are often placed in age-­ appropriate classrooms regardless of their level of English language proficiency, where classroom teachers are expected to integrate language support along with curriculum content. In this context, ELLs learn gradelevel curriculum content while mainstream classroom teachers modify the content and make accommodations to help these students. EAL classes outside of the mainstream classroom are offered when required and when resources are available. A variety of support models exist across the country, but the support model implemented in schools primarily depends on the number of ELLs in the school. For example, depending on the ­students’ level of language, immigrant children can be placed in ‘pull out’ tutorial support programs where ELLs are taken out of regular mainstream classrooms for focused instruction in English as a second language. In an ‘integrated classroom’ support model, the classroom teacher and the designated EAL teacher collaborate in planning instruction for grade-level

34  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

curriculum for ELLs (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008a). As mentioned, the level of support for these students predominantly depends on the population of ELLs in the school or school board. In more rural areas in which the population of ELLs is relatively low, students may not receive any specialized support or even be recognized as needing support. Secondary students who have had gaps in their education may be streamed into less academic courses (applied/vocational). They are given a modified curriculum that helps them learn the elementary curriculum in the secondary classroom, but are integrated into mainstream classrooms whenever possible (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008b). Concerns have been raised that a lack of appropriate academic preparation for this group of students may constrain their opportunities for advancement to postsecondary education (Kanno & Kangas, 2014). With regard to adults, again programs vary across the country and within each province. For adult immigrants, Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) programs, funded by the federal government, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (ICRR), provide basic language skills for adults aged 18 and over (Government of Canada, 2018). LINC programs are available for permanent residents of Canada and convention refugees at no cost and are often offered through NGOs. LINC provides both full-time and part-time classes and, in some centers, free childminding is available during class time. For permanent residents and Canadian citizens born outside of Canada, school boards also offer adult ESL classes. Adult ESL programs offered by school boards are funded by the Ministry of Education in each province but still follow the nationally developed curriculum guidelines, namely the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) (further explained below). There are also a range of occupation-specific and academically oriented ESL programs offered by school boards, universities, colleges, NGOs and private schools that address specific English needs. Some of these programs are funded for permanent residents or Canadian citizens while others can be tuition bearing, and there is no consistency in the offerings of these programs from year to year or across the province or country. One challenge in offering these programs relates to the wide age range (18+) and purposes for language learning of participants. Young adults and senior citizens with differing language learning goals partaking in the same program can pose challenges for programming and instruction. 2a. Historical context

Despite Canada’s long history of immigration and the status of English as one of the country’s official languages, English language (teacher) education has a relatively recent history in the country. Historically, the accommodation of immigrants who did not speak English upon arrival in Canada was taken up by NGOs and school boards. One of the earliest

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  35

known English language instruction programs started with Frontier College (Derwing, 2017). The Toronto-based literacy organization was founded by Reverend Alfred Fitzpatrick in 1899 and sent laborer-teachers to various work sites (e.g. logging, railways, etc.) to assist with the language development of immigrants and Canadian-born workers (Derwing, 2017). However, institutions such as these often did not have established policies or sufficient expertise in handling immigrant children (or adults) and relied on their own experiences to provide support and develop expertise for dealing with ESL and settlement (Burnaby, 2003). Thus, at the time there was little consistency for helping ELLs and their teachers. However, provincially, Ministries of Education began to address the needs of teachers who taught EAL. The first EAL teacher preparation program was offered in 1958 by the Ministry of Education in Ontario. This initial program was a summer course which aimed to prepare teachers for adult ELLs, but it also attracted elementary and secondary teachers because no specialized EAL teacher preparation for K–12 students existed. Gradually, new regulations across the country came into effect, especially for school-based accreditation of teachers. In Ontario in 1980, new regulations came into effect which required elementary and secondary teachers to have an undergraduate degree and complete a bachelor’s of education at a faculty of education. This policy also included the creation of standards for teachers for specialized teaching (e.g. EAL, principal’s qualification, etc.). The Ministry of Education transformed its initial summer course for ESL training into a three-part Additional Qualifications (AQ) course to become an ESL specialist for teaching in elementary and secondary school systems. The impact of this development was significant in that institutions could evaluate teachers for their skills in teaching ESL. In fact, these developments led to professionalization of ESL in the province, which was later taken up in adult ESL accreditation as well (Burnaby, 2003). For adult EAL education, the development of EAL standards and organizations is more recent. In Ontario, in the 1980s, the Ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities developed non-credit programs for adults that focused on employment-related training, but a main focus of these programs became tuition-free adult ESL programs offered by school boards (Burnaby, 2003). The distinction between credit and noncredit courses deserves attention in that teaching credit courses required certified teachers whereas non-credit courses (including adult ESL courses) did not require such accreditation at the time. Even though TESL Ontario, the provincial regulatory body for the adult ESL teaching profession in Ontario, was founded in 1972, its accreditation and professional standards were established much later, starting around the 2000s. Funded by the national and provincial citizenship ministries as well as the Ontario Ministry of Education, through a five-phase Standards and Certification project from 1994 to 2001, TESL Ontario developed its

36  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

certification process (Tilson, 2005), and in 2000 it began its independent accreditation system. While individual provinces began to formalize EAL instruction at various points in the mid-1900s, in 1979, at the national level, the first national TESL conference was held in the country, leading to the formation of the TESL Canada Federation in 1984 (Derwing, 2017). In spite of forming the Federation, there was still no adult ESL accreditation system across the country. A number of initiatives later resulted in such accreditation bodies provincially and nationally. In 1992 the federal government developed the aforementioned Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC). Intended to provide greater language training access with more consistency and quality across the country for new immigrants, LINC was gradually implemented in federally funded programs across the country. Later, the government was concerned about the consistency of measurement across the various programs, which led to the birth of the Canadian Language Benchmarks in 1996 (Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, n.d.). In 1998, the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks was created to provide support for the implementation of the CLB. TESL Canada began its certification system in 2002. Intended to function as a national adult ESL regulatory body, TESL Canada Federation developed an accreditation model that was endorsed by many provincial bodies. However, Canada is a vast nation with regional differences and TESL Canada was not able to maintain all provinces under its purview. While originally most provinces were part of the organization, Quebec withdrew in 1988 and BC and Ontario withdrew in 2015, leaving Canada’s largest provinces outside of the national TESL organization (Derwing, 2017). Currently, six provinces are still part of the association (Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) and accreditation for these provinces is handled by the national program (Derwing, 2017). However, adult EAL education for the larger provinces is currently handled at the provincial level. 2b. Current national policy

In Canada, there are no national policies governing learners’ grade level or curriculum goals because education is the responsibility of provincial governments. However, in most provinces newcomer ELLs are placed in age-appropriate classrooms and are expected to study grade-appropriate curriculum content. All students, including ELLs, are expected to meet the challenges of the curriculum set out by provincial ministries, and teachers of all content areas are expected to provide effective language and literacy content in mainstream classrooms. ELLs need to learn the language of instruction at the same time as they are working towards curriculum expectations (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007), and the needs of ELLs are best met when teachers work collaboratively (Alberta

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  37

Government, 2014). For example, in Alberta a language proficiency assessment document has been developed that outlines K–12 ESL Proficiency Benchmarks (see https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/eslapb/search_ about.html). This document, which includes multiple samples of student work, can be used by teachers to assess language proficiency in classroom contexts. There is also a strong emphasis on viewing ELLs as bilinguals with talents in both their home language and English (Cummins, 2007). In an Ontario provincial document developed to help teachers better support ELLs in mainstream classrooms, Supporting English Language Learners: A Practical Guide for Ontario Educators Grades 1–8 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008a), teachers are repeatedly reminded of the bilingual advantage of ELLs, and that their bilingual skills allow for both ‘cognitive flexibility and divergent thinking’ (Cummins, 2001). Teachers are also reminded not to be misled by ELLs’ high level of oral proficiency in their use of everyday English as they may still require support in their use of academic English and need scaffolding to meet curriculum expectations. In secondary schools, however, ELLs may be advised to take applied courses (instead of academic) that focus on hands-on tasks rather than abstract reasoning, or within the range of optional courses they take courses that are less language dependent such as physical education instead of history, when appropriate. As noted, these practices, while well intended to support ELLs in their language learning, may hinder their advancement to postsecondary education (Kanno & Kangas, 2014). Furthermore, while several policies and online resources are available, their implementation may vary greatly depending on context and teacher expertise. The provision of adult ESL programming is different. Adult ESL programs can be conceived of as education as well as immigrant settlement, which falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In 1992, the aforementioned LINC program was launched to support language training in English and French and was intended to help newcomers integrate into Canada. Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), developed in 1996 and updated in 2012, is an initiative of the federal government intended to support the language learning needs of immigrants to the country. The CLB is a national standard of language proficiency in Canada for describing, measuring and recognizing the English language proficiency of adult immigrants for living and working in Canada. The CLB is used in LINC programs across the country, providing a standard descriptive scale of language ability in English across a continuum of 12 levels from Basic to Advanced, and was developed to provide common assessment methods across programs and provinces. Similar to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the CLB is written in the form of ‘can do’ statements, which describe what learners can do at different benchmarks in the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. An outgrowth of the CLB is Portfolio-Based Language Assessment

38  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(PBLA) which is a teaching and assessment model aligned with the CLB that focuses on student and teacher reflection to promote language learning and learner autonomy. The implementation of PBLA into LINC programs and provincially funded ESL programs in Ontario remains an ‘ambitious endeavour’ (Holmes, 2015: 116), but it serves as an example of ­standardization across the country (Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, n.d.). 2c. Current EAL learner population

Canada is one of the most multilingual and multicultural societies in the world, with immigration accounting for two-thirds of its population growth. Currently over 20% of Canada’s population is foreign-born. The government has projected that by 2031 almost half of Canadians over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have a foreign-born parent (Statistics Canada, 2017). However, immigrants and the foreign-born population are not evenly distributed across the country. Even though recently more immigrants are settling in the Prairies and the Atlantic provinces, Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal are still the place of residence of over half of all immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2017), with over half of the students in those provinces speaking a first language (L1) other than English in some schools (Statistics Canada, 2017). Ontario continues to receive almost half of the immigrants to the country. The Ontario Ministry of Education (2007) uses the term English language learners (ELLs) for students whose L1 is not English or is a variety of English significantly different from the variety used in Ontario classrooms. ELLs may be Canadian-born or immigrants from other countries. More than 200 languages were reported as a home language or mother tongue in the 2016 census (Statistics Canada, 2017). Between 2011 and 2016, the top five nationalities of immigrants to Canada were from the Philippines, India, China, Iran and Pakistan, with India, China and the Philippines comprising the top three immigrant groups across the country in total (Statistics Canada, 2019). Looking at age groups between 2011 and 2016, children aged 0–14 mostly immigrated from the Philippines, India and China, but the fifth largest source was Syria (after the USA in fourth), as Canada has taken in 11,060 Syrian children between those years (Statistics Canada, 2019). There are other nationality groups with large numbers as well. While specific L1 backgrounds and proficiency levels are not available, it is reasonable to assume that many ELLs are from these immigrant groups, with each group potentially presenting different challenges for EAL education. According to the government of Canada, more than 60,000 newcomers benefit from LINC programs every year (Government of Canada, 2018). Partly due to the uneven distribution of immigrants, services that are generally available for supporting this group of learners are also ­concentrated in the high immigrant-receiving cities and school boards.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  39

For example, schools with a large ELL population in Ontario are ­designated as site schools and they will have one or more full-time ESL teachers on staff, whereas schools with smaller ELL enrolment will only have intermittent ESL teachers who are assigned to several different schools within a school district and work on a rotary basis to support ELLs (Van Viegen Stille et al., 2015). The provision of funded adult ESL programs is similar, in that more immigrant-populated cities will have more full-/part-time and occupation-specific ESL programs to draw on. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

Teaching EAL in Canada has been described as ‘precarious’ as teachers struggle to find permanent positions and/or adequate wages to support themselves and often teach across a variety of settings with little to no stability (Breshears, 2019). There is also a high level of attrition among (novice) adult ESL teachers due to the instabilities, underemployment and precarious nature of their profession (Valeo & Faez, 2013). If these teachers are lucky enough to find available teaching positions, they often work on contract, part time, without job security or benefits. These issues, along with some of the national/provincial issues discussed above, make describing Canada’s ESL teaching force in detail somewhat difficult. While job opportunities are currently scarce in both adult EAL and K–12 school contexts, generally, for teaching in elementary and secondary schools, there is relatively more stability if a full-time teaching position is secured. Even though these teachers can also work as Short- and LongTerm Occasional Teachers (LTOs) with non-permanent contracts, which comprise one-fifth of the teaching force in Canada (WALL, 2005), their employment conditions and compensation are much better compared to the adult ESL sector. Looking at the adult ESL context, TESL Canada Federation has approximately 1000 direct members (Kristamanson, personal communication, 2019). Across its six provincial affiliates of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, there are 1170 further members who by way of their provincial membership are also members of TESL Canada. These 1170 members are mostly in Alberta (40%), followed by Saskatchewan (20%), Manitoba (18%), Nova Scotia (10%), New Brunswick (8%) and Newfoundland (4%) (all percentages are approximate). We could not find any data for Prince Edward Island or the three territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut), but considering the population in each of these regions, the numbers would likely be small. However, these numbers do not include teachers in Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec, Canada’s most populous provinces. Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain membership information about ESL teachers in Quebec. Membership in BC TEAL has fluctuated between the years of

40  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

2011 and 2019, ranging from 600 to 1000 members (BC TEAL, personal communication, 2019). Currently, TESL Ontario has 4600 active members (TESL Ontario, personal communication, 2019) and is likely the largest TESL organization in the country. Looking at teacher information for Ontario, while not necessarily the same for every context, does provide a glimpse into Canada’s largest provincial TESL organization. In 1997, Sanaoui (1997) conducted a survey with 1196 English teachers in Ontario and found the vast majority to be female (87%) with a mean age of 43. Most teachers in the 1997 survey had received some form of ESL training (88%), with the most common type of ESL training being in the form of diploma/certificate programs (65%) (Sanaoui, 1997). In a TESL Ontario member survey in 2013 with 1327 members, the numbers are somewhat similar, with the majority of adult English language teachers in Ontario being female (83%), between the ages of 41 and 60 (62%), with most teachers (82%) reporting a TESL/TESOL certificate as their ESL qualification and with almost 40% reporting a graduate degree of some kind (Valeo, 2013). From a 2017 member survey, again most members are female (82.5%). Most members in the survey held a bachelor’s degree (40%) but many also held master’s degrees (38%). Respondents to the survey were highly experienced with most teachers reporting over 15 years’ experience (40%) and the majority working full time (47%) (TESL Ontario, personal communication, 2019). While this information is only for teachers in Ontario, it does provide some insight into the demographics of teachers in adult ESL contexts for a large Canadian context. 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

Across the country, while the Ministries of Education oversee the provinces’ education system and set the K–12 curriculum and graduation requirements, regulatory bodies set ethical and professional standards for teaching and license teachers for the K–12 system in each province. The Ontario College of Teachers, for example, was founded in 1997 to protect the public interest by certifying teachers and governing standards of practice for the teaching profession. Other regulatory bodies were generated in each province for the same purpose and functioned as independent institutions (for example in Ontario or as a branch of the provincial Ministry of Education as in British Columbia). Currently, there are 44 teacher education programs across Canada that range widely in length, content and cost. There are 16 programs in Ontario, nine in British Columbia, five in Alberta, five in Manitoba, three in Quebec, two in Saskatchewan, and one each in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island (see Appendix 3.1 for a list of these programs in each province). Each of these programs needs licensure and approval from its affiliated regulatory body.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  41

In 2013, the Ontario College of Teachers introduced new core content requirements for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs in Ontario (Petrarca & Kitchen, 2017). Including this core content would mean prolonging teacher education programs in Ontario to at least four semesters, which in most cases would mean a change from a one-year to a two-year program. A significant change relevant to the discussion in this chapter included a required focus on supporting ELLs in ITE programs in Ontario. Prior to 2015, there was no mandated component in ITE programs in Ontario to prepare teachers for supporting ELLs in mainstream classrooms (in spite of the large numbers of ELLs in Ontario classrooms) and this course was often available as an elective course. While this has changed with the introduction of the enhanced teacher education programs, the extent to which this issue is emphasized in each program varies significantly among programs. In other provinces (e.g. New Brunswick, Manitoba), a course focusing on supporting ELLs remains an elective course in ITE programs (see University of New Brunswick, n.d.). Generally, mainstream K–12 classroom teachers do not require ESL/EAL qualifications to teach students in content classrooms and only designated ESL teachers require ESL qualifications which can be obtained as AQ upon completion of the BEd degree. A list of AQ course offerings (e.g. leadership, ESL, etc.) are available through most institutions that provide a BEd degree. The accreditation of adult ESL teachers in Ontario was through a collaborative effort in the early 1990s between the professional organization representing adult ESL teachers (TESL Ontario) and the Ministry of Education and Training, which led to the development of professional standards for adult TESL education in Ontario. TESL Ontario’s Standards and Certification process was officially completed in 2001 (Tilson, 2005). TESL Canada began its standards and certification process in 2002. While some provinces only used the standards and accreditation process of TESL Canada, others, like Ontario, followed their own accreditation requirements. These accreditation requirements were different in terms of focus and length of instruction and practicum. For adult ESL, a range of institutions including school boards, colleges and universities and private schools offer TESL programs that lead to certificates, diplomas and university degrees. Some of these programs seek accreditation by professional bodies like TESL Canada and/or TESL Ontario, but some do not. TESL Canada lists 86 accredited programs on its website across a variety of private schools, colleges, universities and other locations. These are spread across the entire country, with 33 in Ontario, 25 in British Columbia, eight in Alberta, seven in Manitoba, four in Saskatchewan, three each in Quebec and Nova Scotia, two in New Brunswick and one in Prince Edward Island. Because TESL Ontario has its own unique standards, it lists 27 accredited programs on its website (TESL Ontario, 2019a).

42  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Also adding to this complexity is that not all English language teacher education programs seek accreditation from their provincial (e.g. TESL Ontario) or national TESL Canada association. This is partly because provincial or national accreditation is not required by all employers across the country. In Ontario, for example, while government-funded language programs such as LINC and adult ESL programs administered by school boards often prefer teachers to possess TESL Ontario certification, universities and private language schools often set their own teacher qualification requirements. This causes issues of EAL teacher education quality, as there can be inconsistencies across programs (Thomson, 2004). Thus, prospective English language teachers have numerous options when seeking EAL teacher accreditation, but not all programs are equal and teachers must consider what, if any, official certifications they seek for teaching locally, across Canada and/or internationally. 3a. Research foundation/methods

With regard to research foundation and methods, currently the Ontario College of Teachers has outlined two required components of K–12 accreditation: (1) use of educational research and data analysis; and (2) inquiry-based research, data and assessment to address student learning (Petrarca & Kitchen, 2017). It is important to note that while the Ontario College of Teachers has designated these two areas as required components, the delivery is up to program providers (i.e. BEd programs) and hence may be taken up differently with varied content and length. Some examples of incorporating research into ITE programs include school–university partnership projects and coursework or professional development that focuses on practitioner inquiry (Gambhir et al., 2019). However, the divide between conducting research on teaching and teachers as researchers persists and the separation between universities and schools provides limited opportunity for teacher candidates to engage in research (Gambhir et al., 2019). For the adult ESL sector, TESL Ontario has the most stringent requirements for accreditation. For TESL training programs to be accredited, they need to cover a total of 250 hours of instruction in theory, methodology and professionalism. However, currently there are no mandated components for research methods in accredited adult ESL programs. TESL Canada Federation also does not have a required research component for its certification process (TESL Canada Federation, 2018). 3b. National policy

Generally, in order to teach in a K–12 public school system in Canada, accreditation by the provincial regulatory body for the teaching profession (e.g. Ontario College of Teachers) is required, and in order to receive such

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  43

certification, one must hold a bachelor of education (BEd) degree. A BEd degree in Canada can be obtained through a concurrent or consecutive teacher education program. Through a concurrent program, students who are starting their university studies, and who are interested in pursuing a career in teaching, have the opportunity to complete an undergraduate degree at the same time as they obtain a BEd degree. The more common pathway to obtaining a BEd is to go through a consecutive program in which students who already have an undergraduate degree pursue a BEd which qualifies successful graduates to teach in K–12 schools and to be recommended for certification to the provincial accreditation bodies. 2 The BEd is often offered as a full-time professional degree with coursework and school practicum placements of varying intensity and length and usually takes up to two years (e.g. minimum four semesters in Ontario) to complete. Graduates of BEd programs in Ontario can be certified to teach in the Primary-Junior (JK–Grade 6), Junior-Intermediate (Grades 4–10) or Intermediate-Senior (Grades 7–12) levels. As mentioned, mainstream K–12 classroom teachers do not require ESL/EAL qualifications to teach students in content classrooms, even though, given the current tough job market across the country, ESL qualifications can be considered an asset, especially in high ELL-populated cities. For adult ESL accreditation, in most provinces a minimum three-year bachelor’s degree in any field and completion of an accredited adult ESL training program is required. As discussed, there is a national accreditation body (i.e. TESL Canada Federation), and individual provinces also have their own accreditation bodies. However, the national and provincial adult EAL teacher accreditation standards are different and have varying levels of certification for teaching in different contexts. For example, TESL Ontario has two different certification levels. For teaching in publicly funded programs in Ontario, the higher level, which requires a minimum of 250 hours of instruction and 50 hours of practicum, is required. For teaching in non-publicly funded programs, an accredited program of 100 hours of instruction and 20 hours of practicum is the minimum requirement. TESL Canada has three levels of accreditation, also with varying requirements for instruction and practicum hours. However, the required accreditation, if any, is often determined by employers. Some institutions and employers do not require teachers to have any form of accreditation and set their own employment requirement (e.g. master’s degree in TESOL/applied linguistics or related field and X number of years of teaching experience). An adequate level of language proficiency is also a requirement for teachers who obtained their university degrees from non-English speaking institutions. An adequate level of language proficiency is outlined as a minimum of Level 7 on the Academic IELTS by both TESL Canada and TESL Ontario. On the other hand, admission to English language teacher education programs does not necessarily follow the same requirements

44  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

and some institutions and universities may offer admission to their program with Level 6 or 6.5. These programs often advertise that the Englishmedium instruction and the study-abroad experience can help prospective teachers improve their level of proficiency, even though the progress is often not adequate (Faez & Karas, 2019) to reach the levels required for accreditation by provincial accreditation bodies (e.g. TESL Ontario) or the national accreditation body, TESL Canada. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

The regulatory teaching bodies also set standards and required qualifications for teacher educators working in accredited TESL programs. For example, all teacher educators working in TESL Ontario accredited programs must be members in good standing of the organization. In addition, teacher educators must meet the required qualifications which are tailored to the specific content or foci and their role in the program. For teaching Theory in an accredited program, an advanced degree (master’s or PhD) in TESL/TESOL or a related applied linguistics degree is sufficient. A  Methodology teacher educator requires a university degree, TESLrelated training, a minimum of 2000 hours of documented experience teaching adult ESL programs and CLB boot camp experience or e­ quivalent. A practicum supervisor requires all the elements of a Methodology instructor and should also have a minimum of 120 hours of documented ­experience teaching Theory and/or Methodology in TESL training programs accredited by TESL Ontario. Every TESL Ontario accredited program should be led by an Academic Coordinator who requires an advanced degree in TESL/TESOL or a related field as well as all the requirements of the Theory, Methodology and Practicum instructors (TESL Ontario, 2019b). BEd programs are situated at universities, and they can set their own required qualifications for teacher educators at their discretion. These requirements often include a graduate degree (PhD preferred or required) in a related field as well as field experience. Practitioners with graduate degrees and substantive experience in the field are considered assets. 3d. Curriculum: Mandates, standards and competencies

Accreditation bodies, whether for K–12 or for adult ESL, set standards for the teaching profession to assure the quality of programs and institutions for students and the general public. These standards also outline details about the content of the programs, program outcomes and course objectives. ITE programs are all situated at universities and seek accreditation from their provincial bodies. Accreditation panels review each ITE program on a regular cycle to ensure that they continue to meet the required standards. The regulatory bodies ensure that all teaching

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  45

institutions follow ethical and practice standards and guidelines (see Ontario College of Teachers webpage, https://www.oct.ca/en). However, individual institutions set their own curriculum content and course offerings. This content is reviewed as part of regular accreditation processes for faculties of education in Ontario. The expectations are that ELL courses will introduce teacher candidates to relevant policies, teaching strategies, working with students from all backgrounds, basic second language acquisition theory, assessment practices and supporting ELLs through subject-based teaching. For adult ESL teacher accreditation in Ontario, TESL Ontario accredited programs should cover a total of 250 hours of training in Theory, Methodology and Professionalism as well as 50 hours of Practicum. The Theory component includes categories such as (1) theoretical issues (e.g. second language acquisition/learning, communicative competence), (2) linguistics (e.g. phonology, morphology and syntax) and (3) language structure and skills (e.g. grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, listening, speaking, reading and writing). Methodology topics include (1) working with curriculum frameworks (e.g. Canadian Language Benchmarks and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages), (2) working with current approaches (e.g. communicative approach and task-based instruction), (3) understanding previous and emergent approaches (e.g. audiolingual and flipped classrooms), (4) content areas (e.g. adult ESL, LINC), (5) context (e.g. blended teaching), (6) accessing resources (e.g. funded, commercial, instructor-developed), (7) working with resources (e.g. multimedia), (8) planning (e.g. needs analysis), (9) language teaching components and skills (e.g. grammar and vocabulary), (10) teaching language (e.g. pragmatics), (11) teaching skills (e.g. classroom management skills) and (12) feedback and assessment (e.g. classroom-based assessment). The Professionalism component includes categories such as (1) knowing the ESL context (e.g. boards of education, universities), (2) knowing the professional fields (e.g. TESL/TESOL organizations) and (3) knowing the professional practice (e.g. self-reflective practitioner and ongoing professional development). A chart that lists TESL training ‘essential’ and ‘optional’ topics is provided for programs accredited by TESL Ontario and, of the 250 hours of instruction, a m ­ inimum of 190 hours should be dedicated to essential topics while the remaining 60 hours can be allocated to optional topics (TESL Ontario, 2020) The minimum program length and number of hours assigned to each content component (Theory, Methodology, Professionalism and Practicum) of accredited programs must meet the TESL Ontario requirements. However, the programs themselves designate the particular delivery model (e.g. syllabi, readings and assignments for meeting these standards). A review of 241 MA programs worldwide revealed that there are large differences in MA TESOL programs in terms of course offerings (Stapleton & Shao, 2018); similarly, in Canada, aside from ensuring that

46  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

accredited programs cover the content outlined by their accreditation body, a wide range of offerings are provided in TESOL/Applied Linguistics programs at universities which are often based on the expertise of the available faculty. 3e. Practicum and field experience

The provision of a practicum in the K–12 system across the country is more uniform compared to the adult English language teacher education programs in the sense that all accredited programs offer a practicum, but this practicum often varies widely across institutions in terms of length, intensity, supervision and support, as well as focus. By 2015, ITE programs for K–12 programs in Ontario introduced an enhanced program. The most notable difference was the change from a two-semester program to a four-semester program and a doubling of the minimum practicum requirements from 40 days to 80 days as required by the Ontario College of Teachers (Petrarca & Kitchen, 2017). In partnership with schools and school boards, the majority of ITE programs arrange a number of practice teaching blocks in a few schools to provide candidates with multiple and diverse teaching opportunities. In addition to a Liaison from the ITE program, each teacher candidate is assigned to an Associate Teacher at the school who serves as a mentor for the candidate throughout the practice teaching block. Teacher candidates receive ample information about their roles and responsibilities through the ITE program. Even though ITE programs for K–12 offer a practicum of some length and intensity, this practicum is not targeted towards EAL support in the K–12 system. The AQ for gaining ESL specialist designation, which is a three-level accreditation for teaching EAL students in K–12, does not include a practicum component. However, the provision of a practicum in adult English language teacher education programs is different. Programs accredited by the provincial bodies and the national association (TESL Canada) require the completion of a practicum component, but their required number of hours varies from province to province and for the different levels of certification by some accreditation bodies (e.g. TESL Canada). Level 1 TESL Canada certification requires the completion of a minimum of 20 hours of practicum in a supervised adult ESL/EFL classroom (10 hours of classroom observation and 10 hours of practice teaching), whereas TESL Ontario requires a minimum of 50 hours (30 hours of observation and 20 hours of supervised practice teaching). Similar to K–12 ITE programs, TESL providers have a practicum supervisor whose responsibility includes setting up practicum placements and who acts as a Liaison between the TESL institution and the ESL/LINC school. Each candidate is paired with a practicum mentor who provides opportunities for the candidate to observe and individually teach the ESL/LINC class. Some university programs

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  47

include a practicum component in line with provincial and national accreditation requirements (TESL Canada Federation, 2015; TESL Ontario, 2019a). However, even though practicum is noted to be one of the most useful components of an English language teacher education program (Faez & Valeo, 2012), not all TESOL/Applied Linguistics MA programs offered through universities include a practicum component. 4. Quality Assurance

Prospective adult EAL teachers can choose from an array of TESOL/ Applied Linguistics programs that differ greatly in length, content, focus and cost. In choosing the right program, prospective teachers themselves need to be mindful of the context in which they want to teach, as different employers within each province and across the country have their own unique EAL teacher qualification requirements. The provision of K–12 EAL teachers is comparatively simpler in that in order to teach in publicly funded K–12 schools, a teacher requires the equivalent of a BEd and perhaps some form of AQ for being an ESL teacher. 4a. Accreditation and accountability

The nature of the accreditation of K–12 ITE programs and the adult EAL sector deserves attention. In Ontario, the Ontario College of Teachers is responsible for the accreditation of ITE programs across the province. The College is a regulatory body for the teaching profession, and hence K–12 teaching is considered among Ontario’s regulated professions, similar to other professions such as physicians or lawyers. The College is responsible for ensuring that all teaching programs in Ontario practice ethical standards and guidelines and, as such, the College is accountable to the public. On the other hand, adult EAL accreditation is through professional associations and not through a government regulatory body. Professional associations are financially supported by membership fees and are only accountable to their members. In an attempt at more accountability, TESL Ontario has established a code of ethics for its members to establish ethical principles governing adult EAL teaching (TESL Ontario, n.d.). 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

University programs are generally externally reviewed once every few years. ITE for K–12 programs are housed at universities and as such are reviewed externally as part of university external reviews. In Ontario, the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance, established in 2010, is responsible for assuring the quality of all university programs and for

48  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

overseeing the regular audit of all universities’ quality assurance processes (see https://oucqa.ca/). The Quality Council functions at arm’s length both from publicly funded universities and from Ontario’s government. The council is responsible for assuring the quality of all programs leading to undergraduate and graduate degrees and for overseeing the regular audit of every university’s quality assurance process. In addition, the College reviews its accredited programs once every seven years to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements and that programs can retain their accreditation. The College publishes its accreditation review and decisions publicly to ensure that there is also opportunity for public input related to the quality of initial (pre-service) teacher education programs (see https:// www.oct.ca/public/accreditation). Professional associations do not go through the same level of review rigor. For example, TESL Ontario requires that accredited programs complete a self-assessment form annually that inquires about the extent to which the accredited program addresses issues related to eight areas: Training Structure and Curriculum, Assessment, Student Services, Teacher Trainers, Admissions, Administration and Facilities, Equipment and Supplies. However, university Applied Linguistics/TESOL programs undergo cyclical external reviews in the same way as all university programs. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

In the K–12 sector, the boards of education assign specific days (approximately one school day a month) to allocate to in-service professional development activities. In Ontario, the College of Teachers has established Standards of Practice and Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. In these documents it is emphasized that teachers refine their professional knowledge, skills and value through ongoing professional knowledge. The College has also created a Professional Learning Framework for teachers which outlines some opportunities and processes for ongoing professional learning for teachers (Ontario College of Teachers, 2016). Practicing teachers who wish to enhance their knowledge and skills in relation to ELLs can take the ESL Part 1, 2, 3 AQ courses mentioned above. There are also educator conferences that address ELLrelated issues, but often it is up to the teacher to choose conferences and sessions based on their interests. EAL and ELL issues can also be addressed through school board sponsored sessions and conferences. However, EAL is not a compulsory area of upskilling for in-service teachers. On the other hand, in the adult EAL sector, while initial standards allow for accreditation, in order to maintain good standing teachers are often required to participate in professional development. For example, TESL Ontario requires teachers to engage in 10 hours of professional development per year. This can be done through online webinars,

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  49

attending conferences (e.g. TESL Ontario Conference, etc.) and other means such as engagement in the field (e.g. volunteering). Members can be asked to prove that they have completed the required 10 hours of professional development at any time in order to maintain their membership status. Appendix 3.1: Teacher Education Programs in Canada

British Columbia: Simon Fraser, Trinity Western University, Thompson Rivers University, University of the Fraser Valley, UBC, University of Northern BC, University of Victoria, UBC-Okanagan, Vancouver Island University (9) Saskatchewan: University of Regina, University of Saskatchewan (2) Alberta: Ambrose University, University of Calgary, Concordia University, University of Edmonton, University of Alberta (5) Manitoba: Brandon University, University College of the North, University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, Université de SaintBoniface (5) Ontario: Brock, Lakehead, Laurentian, Niagara, Nipissing, OISE/ UofT, Queen’s, Redeemer University College, Trent, Tyndale, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, University of Ottawa, Western, University of Windsor, Wilfred Laurier, York University (16) Quebec: Concordia University, Algonquin College, École Nationale de Cirque (3) Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland (1) New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick (1) Nova Scotia: Cape Breton University (1) PEI: University of PEI (1) Notes (1) The Canadian government values and promotes multiculturalism and pluralism (Government of Canada, Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988). Hence, terms such as ELL and EAL which have a more positive connotation are used to replace ESL. In this chapter we use the term ESL when referring to specific programs that have been known by that acronym. (2) Quebec is predominantly French speaking and its education system can be very different from those of other provinces.

References Alberta Government (2014) What School Administrators Need to Know about English Language Learners and ESL Programming. See https://education.alberta.ca/ media/1224522/what-school-administrators-need-to-know-about-esl-programming. pdf. Breshears, S. (2019) The precarious work of English language teaching in Canada. TESL Canada Journal 36 (2), 26–47. doi:10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1312

50  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Burnaby, B. (2003) ESL for adults and the status of those who teach them. Contact: Special Research Symposium Issue 29 (2), 11–17. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (n.d.) On PBLA. See https://www.language. ca/resourcesexpertise/on-pbla/. Cummins, J. (2001) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. In C. Baker and N.H. Hornberger (eds) An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2007) Promoting Literacy in Multilingual Contexts. See http://www.edu. gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Cummins.pdf. Derwing, T.M. (2017) The ins and outs of ESL in Canada: How the past can inform the future. TESL Canada Journal 34 (2), 83–96. doi:1018806/tesl.v34i2.1264 Faez, F. and Karas, M. (2019) Language proficiency development of non-native Englishspeaking teachers (NNESTs) in an MA TESOL program: A case study. TESL-EJ 22 (4), 1–16. Faez, F. and Valeo, A. (2012) TESOL teacher education: Novice teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness and efficacy in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly 46 (3), 450–471. Gambhir, M., Montemurro, D., Vemic, A. and Broad, K. (2019) The potential of schoolbased research centers for advancing pre- and in-service teacher education for global citizenship. In J. Mueller and J. Nickel (eds) Globalization and Diversity: What Does it Mean for Teacher Education in Canada (pp. 384–414). Ottawa: Canadian Association for Teacher Education. Government of Canada (2018) Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program. See https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/ archives/backgrounders-2013/language-instruction-newcomers-canada-linc-program. html. Holmes, T. (2015) PBLA: Moving toward sustainability. TESL Canada Journal 32, 113–123. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1220 Kanno, Y. and Kangas, S.E. (2014) ‘I’m not going to be, like, for the AP’: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal 51 (5), 848–878. Ontario College of Teachers (2016) Professional Learning Framework for the Teaching Profession. See https://www.oct.ca/-/media/PDF/Professional%20Learning%20 Framework/framework_e.pdf. Ontario Ministry of Education (2007) English Language Learners ESL and ELD Programs and Services: Policies and Procedures for Ontario Elementary and Secondary Schools, Kindergarten to Grade 12. See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/ esleldprograms/esleldprograms.pdf. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008a) Supporting English Language Learners: A Practical Guide for Ontario Educators. Grades 1–8. See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/ eng/document/esleldprograms/guide.pdf. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008b) Supporting English Language Learners with Limited Prior Schooling: A Practical Guide for Ontario Educators. Grades 3–12. See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/manyroots/ELL_LPS.pdf. Petrarca, D. and Kitchen, J. (eds) (2017) Initial Teacher Education in Ontario: The First Year of Four-semester Teacher Education Programs. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association for Teacher Education. See http://cate-acfe.ca/polygraph-book-series/. Sanaoui, R. (1997) Professional characteristics and concerns of instructors teaching English as a second language to adults in non-credit programs in Ontario. TESL Canada Journal 14 (2), 32–54. Stapleton, P. and Shao, Q. (2018) A worldwide survey of MATESOL programs in 2014: Patterns and perspectives. Language Teaching Research 22 (1), 10 –28. doi:10.1177/1362168816659681

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Canada  51

Statistics Canada (2017) Immigration and Diversity: Population Projections for Canada and its Regions (91-551-X). See https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-551-x/91551-x2017001-eng.htm. Statistics Canada (2019) Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity Highlight Tables. See https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/imm/Table. cfm?Lang=E&T=21&Geo=01&SO=10D. TESL Canada Federation (2015) List of Recognized Programs. See https://www.tesl.ca/ training/tesl-canada-recognized-teacher-training-programs/recognized-teacher-trainingdirectory.html. TESL Canada Federation (2018) TESL Canada Instructor Certification Manual. See https://www.tesl.ca/images/Membership/TESL_CANADA_INSTRUCTOR_ CERTIFICATION_MANUAL_FINAL_251018.pdf. TESL Ontario (2019a) Accredited OCELT Training Providers. See https://www.teslontario.org/accreditation/tesl-training-programs. TESL Ontario (2019b) TESL Trainer/PTCT Instructor Approval Application. See https:// www.teslontario.org/accreditation/trainer. TESL Ontario (2020) Accreditation. See https://www.teslontario.org/accreditation/. TESL Ontario (n.d.) Code of Ethics for TESL Ontario Members. See https://www.teslontario.org/uploads/aboutus/CodeofEthics.pdf. Thomson, R.I. (2004) Buyer beware: Professional preparation and TESL certificate programs in Canada. TESL Canada Journal S4, 40–57. Tilson, R. (2005) A Short History about TESL Ontario Certification. See https://www. teslontario.org/accreditation/shorthistoryofcertification. University of New Brunswick (n.d.) Undergraduate Calendar. See https://www.unb.ca/ academics/calendar/undergraduate/current/frederictonprograms/bachelorofeducation/ index.html#bedpro. Valeo, A. (2013) The TESL Ontario member survey: A brief report. Contact Magazine, March, 54–58. Valeo, A. and Faez, F. (2013) Career development and professional attrition of novice ESL teachers of adults. TESL Canada Journal 31 (1), 1–19. Van Viegen Stille, S., Jang, E. and Wagner, M. (2015) Building teachers’ assessment capacity for supporting English language learners through the implementation of the STEP language assessment in Ontario K–12 schools. TESL Canada Journal 32 (9), 1–23. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1215 WALL (Work and Life-long Learning) (2005) Unpublished survey data. Toronto: Author.

4 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Guofang Li, Chunmei Yan and Qiang Wang

Chapter Summary

Despite the increasing fever for English as an additional language (EAL) education in China, educational outcomes in EAL among Chinese learners have been far from satisfactory. There has been a call for a better understanding of the condition of EAL education, as well as teacher preparation and professional development. This chapter addresses this need by first providing historical contexts of EAL education in China, the demographics of EAL learners and teachers and the current national policies on EAL education. This is followed by a focal description of EAL teacher preparation programmes, including the current national policies concerning teacher education, curriculum requirements, practicum models and quality insurance measures for preparing EAL teachers in China. A final section is devoted to in-service teachers’ professional development. The chapter concludes with reflections on future steps for improving EAL teaching and the preparation of EAL teachers in China. 1. Brief Introduction

China has become the world’s largest market for English language study. In the past few decades, China has witnessed a dramatic increase in its population of English learners due to its open-door foreign policies and high-speed economic development. The open-door foreign policies have boosted the establishment of foreign enterprises and joint ventures in China, which has simultaneously created a ‘new middle class’ with ‘a good command of English’ who ‘hold positions in foreign enterprises’ with a comfortable annual income, and provided new ‘role models’ of employment for the young generation in China (Wang & Storey, 2015: 295). 52

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  53

Meanwhile, economic prosperity has brought opportunities and affordances for studying abroad. According to the latest statistics retrieved from the Ministry of Education (hereafter MOE) of China (2017b), the number of Chinese international students overseas has increased steadily during the past decades, with a record high of 608,400 students pursuing studies in 2017 alone. Since English speaking countries, such as the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are still the most popular destinations for further study, the ever-growing studying abroad trends have further fuelled ‘the English education fever’ in China (Li & Ni, 2013). The English education fever has also led to a series of educational reforms. In 2001, EAL was officially included in elementary education starting in the third grade. However, in many cities, EAL education starts in Grade 1, and in some private kindergartens, EAL education starts with preschoolers, even toddlers. Despite the zest for English language learning in Chinese formal school settings and informal out-of-school contexts (i.e. the widespread English tutoring services nationwide), the latest statistics from the EF English Proficiency Index (2018a) show that Chinese learners’ overall English proficiency is quite low. China ranked 47th out of 88 countries/regions sampled. One of the most commonly used official English proficiency tests, IELTS (2018), reported that Chinese EAL test-takers’ average scores for academic and general achievement in English reading, writing, listening and speaking were 6.0 and 6.1, respectively, which ranked towards the bottom among test-takers from the top 40 language backgrounds. As well, several research studies (e.g. Butler, 2015; Feng, 2012) have found that while Chinese EAL learners use English mostly for examinations or business purposes, they have limited opportunities to use English in daily life beyond formal classrooms or tutoring sessions. Research has also documented that the significant differences between the English (i.e. IndoEuropean) and Chinese (i.e. Sino-Tibetan) linguistic systems pose various difficulties for Chinese EAL learners (e.g. Pavlik, 2012). Although the English curriculum has stressed the necessity of developing students’ communication skills in English, the lack of a need for using English and the low quality of English teachers, as well as the exam system, have resulted in a low overall effectiveness in EAL teaching. These unsatisfactory results and challenges suggest an urgent need to further examine the contexts, conditions and policies of EAL education in China, and the preparation of EAL teachers in particular. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education 2a. Historical context

The teaching of an additional or foreign language in China began as early as 1862 (see Liu & Wu, 2015). However, curricular documents on

54  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

teaching an additional language in secondary schools can only be traced from the beginning of the 20th century. Over the past hundred years, particularly from 1902 to the present day, there have been about 50 recorded curriculum documents, standards or syllabi issued by various governments. Most of these have provided course guidelines, course aims, course contents, specific requirements, teaching methods, time allocation and assessment requirements for schools (see, for example, Research Institute of Curriculum and Materials, 1999). However, schooling before 1949 was often the privilege of elite families. Upon the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, receiving education became every child’s right, and additional language teaching continued to be a fundamental subject in high schools. Notably, during the first decade after the founding of the country, Russian was the first foreign language offered until the breakdown of diplomatic relations between China and the former Soviet Union. English then replaced Russian in the school curriculum. However, due to the cultural revolution, English teaching was suspended between 1966 and 1976. It was not until 1978, when China adopted its open-door policy, that EAL reclaimed attention from the Chinese government to meet the needs of opening up to the outside world. In 2001, with the further opening up and modernisation of the country, the scope of English teaching rapidly expanded into primary school education as a compulsory course, starting from Grade 3 (age eight). This policy was made partly based on the popular belief that when learning a foreign language, the earlier the better, and that the new generation of youth needed better English competence in order to increase China’s competitiveness economically, socially and technologically in a globalised world. The teaching aims have also changed significantly, from transmitting language knowledge to developing students’ language competence, and then further to cultivating the students’ core competencies through English studies. Such changes reflect a desire to educate cultured citizens with global qualities that enable China to become a modern socialist country (see MOE, 2001, 2011, 2014, 2018a). 2b. Current national policy

In 2001, the MOE initiated the eighth round of national curriculum reform across all school subjects to meet the challenges of the new century, with the aim of transforming the knowledge- and skills-based language curriculum into one that is competence based. Since then, four national English curricula have been issued, including two experimental and two revised editions. They are the National English Curriculum Standards for Nine-year Compulsory Education and Senior High Schools (piloting edition, hereafter ECSCS 2001; MOE, 2001), the English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (the experimental edition, hereafter ECSS 2004), the National English Curriculum Standards for

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  55

Nine-year Compulsory Education (2011 edition, hereafter ECSC 2011; MOE, 2011) and National Senior-High School English Curriculum Standards (2017 edition, hereafter ECSS 2017; MOE, 2018b). Compared with the previous English syllabi for both junior and senior high schools in the early 1990s (MOE, 1992, 1993), the curricula of ECSCS 2001, ECSS 2003 and ECSC 2011 have reflected a clear shift from teacher-centred vocabulary and grammar teaching to learner-centred competency-based teaching. The three curricula share the same curriculum goals composed of five elements: language skills, language knowledge, affects and attitudes, cultural awareness and learning strategies. These five elements are believed to work together to contribute to the development of students’ overall language ability. Despite some significant changes over the past years of implementation, the reality of teaching to the test has not changed much. Most Chinese students are still characterised as ‘deaf’ or ‘mute’ learners who are unable to understand or speak English after years of studying. Additionally, a lack of qualified English teachers, especially at the primary level, has posed serious challenges. In order to further deepen the curriculum reforms to accommodate national and social values of cultivating talents and successors for China’s socialist cause, and to keep up with recent international trends in educational innovation and curriculum reform, ECSS 2017 was issued in 2018 as a revision to ECSS 2003. Different from ECSCS 2001, ECSS 2003 and ECSC 2011, this curriculum signals a shift from a focus on developing the students’ comprehensive language ability to a focus on developing students’ Core Competencies through the English Subject (CCES). There are four essential components of CCES 2017: language competence, cultural awareness, thinking ability and learning capacity. It needs to be noted that thinking ability was newly added as one of the core competencies for senior high school English education. This indicates that language education is seen not only as the learning of a language but as a subject for educating well-rounded people who possess positive attitudes, a sense of ethical nationalism, and a love of mankind, who are capable of applying what is learned to solve problems in real contexts with logical, critical and innovative thinking abilities. 2c. Current EAL learner population

With a country of 1.4 billion people, China has the largest student population learning a foreign language, and for many years English has been the main additional language provided in schools. It is estimated that a quarter of China’s total population are EAL learners, and this number has been steadily rising (Tan, 2015; Yang & Zhang, 2008). As of 2018, there are about 150 million students attending nine-year compulsory education, with 103.4 million primary students and 46.53 million junior high students. Students in senior high education (Grades 10–12) account for an additional 39.35 million (MOE, 2019a). Those who enter colleges and

56  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

universities also take English courses in higher education. In addition, there has been significant growth in the number of online Chinese EAL learners from 67.2 million in 2013 to 120 million in 2017 (Ethnologue, 2017). According to the EF English Proficiency Index (2018b), there is no obvious gender gap in the proficiency of EAL learners in China. With the above numbers of school-aged students, it is still difficult to estimate exactly how many students are learning English due to the fact that most large cities offer primary English from Grade 1 at the age of six, while less developed regions offer English at the age of eight from Grade 3. The time allocation is advised by the curriculum, with 80–90 minutes a week in primary schools and around 160–180 minutes a week in junior and senior high schools. All schools must choose from a given list of a number of different sets of textbooks approved by the MOE. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

The number of foreign language teachers is also vast in China. According to statistics from the MOE website (MOE, 2017b), there are a total of 1.27 million foreign language teachers in Chinese schools. Among them, 263,519 are senior high teachers, 555,506 junior high and 452,551 primary. Of the senior high school foreign language teachers, an overwhelming majority (260,954) teach English, while 788 and 569 teach Japanese and Russian, respectively. This overwhelming preference for English reflects Chinese policymakers’ and educators’ subscription to the growing dominance of English as a lingua franca in an increasingly globalised world. As Table 4.1 shows, most of the teachers speak Mandarin as their L1, with only a small number (19,047) coming from various ethnic minority groups. Of note, teachers from minority groups also speak Mandarin at school, as it is the official language for instruction in schools. Following a long tradition, a degree from a specialised teacher training institute has been a prerequisite for entering the teaching profession. During the first few decades after the founding of the People’s Republic, a three-year normal school (teacher training school) degree was required for those teaching at the primary level; this requirement was gradually replaced by a three-year normal college degree when the country entered the new century, with many of the normal schools closing down or being upgraded to normal colleges, and a further four-year BA degree became more favourable. For those teaching in a junior high school, a degree from a three-year normal college is required and a four-year college degree preferred. For those teaching at senior high schools, a BA degree from a fouryear normal college or university is a must and a master’s degree is preferred. In recent years, in order to ensure teacher quality and to involve more comprehensive universities to join in with educating future teachers, a degree from a normal college or university no longer guarantees a teaching certificate. From 2018 onwards, local teaching qualification tests

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  57

began to be replaced by a certified national test, reflecting a higher threshold requirement for entering the profession. The changes in policy have shown the government’s determination to aim for a better generation of qualified teachers to meet the needs of the country’s rapid social, economic and technological development towards modernisation. Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate the current qualifications of and demographic information about foreign language teachers at senior high, junior high and primary schools, respectively. It can be seen that senior high school EAL teachers hold the highest degrees, and a significantly large majority hold at least an undergraduate degree. This number decreases for junior high language teachers. As for primary EAL teachers, although a majority hold an undergraduate degree, very few degrees in fact relate to primary English education. This is due to the fact that the provision of primary English began to expand in 2001, with a sudden demand for a large number of teachers nationwide. As there was a drastic shortage of teachers with the required qualifications, those who held more advanced degrees appear to have had an advantage in terms of teaching in primary schools, with or without a teaching certificate. Recruitment decisions are made by school headmasters or local educational authorities. Table 4.1  Senior high school foreign language teachers’ general information Total

English

Japanese

Russian

Total number

263519

260954

788

569

Females

199149

197226

654

435

Ethnic groups

19047

18726

191

31

Graduate degrees

25994

25598

178

78

Undergraduate degrees

233947

231828

594

483

Technical degrees (专科)

3555

3505

16

8

Senior high

23

23

0

0

Below senior high

0

0

0

0

Table 4.2  Junior high school foreign language teachers’ general information Total number

Total

English

Japanese

Russian

555506

553099

364

172

Females

440751

439060

307

143

Ethnic groups

42698

42434

114

11

Graduate degrees

17293

17158

51

27

Undergraduate degrees

478223

476302

274

130

Technical degrees (专科)

59734

59385

39

15

Senior high

241

239

0

0

Below senior high

15

15

0

0

58  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Table 4.3  Primary school foreign language teachers’ general information Total

English

Japanese

Russian

Total number

452551

450226

114

47

Females

393350

391618

02

35

Ethnic groups

29237

29039

34

10

Graduate degrees

8296

8271

6

1

Undergraduate degrees

324640

323263

78

29

Technical degrees (专科)

116147

115272

28

14

Senior high

3455

3407

2

3

Below senior high

13

13

0

0

The basic criterion is whether the applicants can speak some English or have passed the national college English tests at Band 4 or Band 6 level before they graduate from college. In addition, to make up for the shortage of primary English teachers, a number of teachers who teach other subjects have been asked to make a transition into teaching English, as long as they have basic language proficiency. Nowadays, raising the threshold for the teaching profession and a pay rise policy from the government have raised the profile of the profession. In 2019, the number of candidates applying for the national teaching qualification tests reached a historic high level of 9 million, with 48% of candidates freshly graduated from universities, 52% from other sources, 26% with teacher education backgrounds and 74% with non-teacher education backgrounds (MOE, 2019a). 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programmes 3a. Research foundation

Research by student-teachers remains a rarity in China’s pre-service teacher education programmes despite the high priority given to inquirybased learning in teacher education programmes promoted by the national policy and curriculum standards in recent years. A research methodology course is optional in some teacher education programmes, particularly at regional teacher education universities. Research activities are limited to a small number of students who are interested in carrying out research in the form of small-scale undergraduate research projects under the supervision of a professor. The supervisor’s involvement and contributions are generally minimal or even nominal due to the lack of specific guidelines and assessments. As Hu (2005) and Zhan (2008) have noted, many teacher education programmes in China have little coverage of educational research methodology, including action research for student-teachers. The only research experience that applies to every student-teacher is BA

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  59

dissertation writing, starting at the end of the seventh semester as a requirement for graduation. Dissertation writing courses are often offered in a lecture-based format in large classes of over 50 students. This lack of attention to student-teachers’ research may be due to the foundationalist teacher education paradigm (Hargreaves, 1993), which prioritises the transmission of decontextualised and compartmentalised language and subject knowledge over practice-based research and the nurturing of inquiry dispositions and skills. Drawing on her action research to promote student-teacher research, Yan (2017) stressed a need to create opportunities in course and practicum settings for student-teachers to have continual and authentic research experiences and reflect upon them. Such reform efforts require systemic infrastructure change and collective ongoing research to evaluate and improve the outcomes. A transformation is needed to change the prevalent demoralising academic culture in China that devalues research on teaching and teacher education in teacher education institutions. Specifically, there is a need for teacher education institutions to reconsider the pervasive bibliometric-based system that solely focuses on academic output (regardless of whether the focus is on teaching and teacher education) and accords the highest status with considerable monetary rewards to CSSCI and SSCI journal articles and national social sciences research projects for institutional competitiveness (Yan & He, 2015b; Yuan, 2019). Teacher educators must assume the role of reflective and agentive precursors in such systemic teacher education reform efforts. 3b. National policy

To strengthen pre-service teacher education, the six national teachers’ universities have special programmes for educating high-quality teachers who can teach in schools in the less-developed provinces – mostly in the western part of China. The purpose of these programmes is to attract talented students from the less-developed provinces, who will then receive education at these prestigious teacher education universities. Students who are successful in joining the programme receive free tuition that is funded by the government. However, students are required to complete multi-year teaching contracts in the less-developed provinces (often where they come from) after graduation. To ensure quality, teacher education programmes at these six universities were redesigned and initially implemented in 2007. The programmes have been running for over 10 years now and thousands of student-teachers have been trained and are now working mostly in the western provinces. Despite tremendous efforts, curriculum documents are not always available, especially in the more remote areas, and even when available they are not always consulted by teachers (Rixon, 2019). The effects of training also vary due to the content selected and the pedagogical practices employed. At present, limited research has been conducted on the

60  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

effectiveness of these programmes and possible improvements to them. Some research (Dai & Goodwin, 2013; Du et al., 2020) shows a preference for a passive mode of instruction among Chinese student-teachers of English as a convenient approach that would guarantee good grades from assessment procedures favouring memorisation. They are socialised into such a passive learning mode through their exposure to transmissionbased pedagogies that mainly focus on knowledge and skills development in their teacher education courses as well as through their predestined employment in the teaching profession before their graduation. Therefore, enhancing student-teachers’ learning engagement requires reforms in curriculum, pedagogies and assessments. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Traditionally, EAL teacher educators embark on their roles after graduation from a BA or MA programme. The majority of teacher educators do not receive specialised professional training. Their induction is similar to that of regular university teachers, who mostly likely are trained in a transmissive format of higher education in China through a short programme lasting, for example, just one week. Provision of mentoring largely depends on the institutions to which they are affiliated. There has been no documentation of the mentoring of beginning teacher educators in China. In recent years, a PhD degree has become a requirement in many teacher education institutions to ensure the academic standards of teacher educators. However, the peculiarity of EAL teacher educators’ roles is not prominent as ‘agents who educate and help student-teachers to develop knowledge and competence in the teaching profession’ (Cao et al., 2019: 125). The mainstream academic doctoral programme curriculum focuses on subject knowledge and research development to develop scholarly qualities, and neglects practice to develop practical knowledge and competence. There have emerged some innovative PhD programmes that emphasise holistic (research, teaching, supervision and social services) competences of EAL teacher educators. For example, Yuan (2015) documented an EAL PhD programme’s three ways of developing teacher educators, i.e. providing rich opportunities for participants to engage in teaching both pre- and in-service teachers through scaffolding and guidance, creating a critical platform for participants to engage in collaboration with school teachers in research projects, and encouraging participants to explore critical issues in current language teaching and teacher education through their PhD research. Reforms of professional standards for teacher educators have been underway to include professional experiences in school systems in order to achieve coherence between pre-service teacher education and school education, which is commonly deemed a condition for making changes at different education levels.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  61

3d. Curriculum and benchmarks

EAL teacher education curricula underwent three historic stages. The first stage was circa 1984, when the first unified EAL teacher education curriculum for three-year teacher education programmes was issued by the MOE. The curriculum predominantly focused on language proficiency development and did not include any professional education courses, as influenced by the Soviet Union subject-centred model curriculum. English proficiency courses took up more than 67% of the total curricular hours, while professional work (i.e. educational psychology, pedagogy and secondary English teaching materials and methodology) was allocated only 168 hours, accounting for just 7.81% of the total ­curricular hours. The practicum comprised six weeks, a mere 5% of the 126 curricular weeks. The second stage occurred in 1993, when a new EAL teacher preparation curriculum for three-year teacher education programmes was released to stipulate professional standards for prospective teachers. It granted more autonomy to teacher education programmes to cater for specific contextual features, such as the number of elective courses from the recommended list and contact hours, and even the standards to be maintained. The curriculum proposed ‘professional competences’ needed for secondary EAL teaching so that prospective teachers could play a major role in pedagogical reforms in basic education. Such competencies included preparing lesson plans, organising classroom activities, using teaching aids, designing assignments, giving feedback, developing tests, analysing test results and carrying out basic research on teaching. To meet the goals of developing student-teachers’ professional competences, three elements received higher priority – communicative competence, elective courses and education courses. To develop student-teachers’ communicative competence, English for daily communication and classroom procedures was stressed. The increase of elective courses and education courses aimed to develop student-teachers’ broad and solid knowledge base. Elective courses on recent developments in foreign language education included computer-assisted language teaching, language testing and English teaching and learning. The weight of education courses was increased from 7.81% to about 16% of the total contact hours allocated for the compulsory courses. A compulsory professional course called ‘Professional Skills of Secondary English Teachers’ was mandated. However, as Hu (2005) pointed out, the curricular reform was still at the stage of conceptual deliberation, and new ideas about initial teacher education curricula had yet to appear. It paved a way for more substantial reforms in the third stage. The third stage, starting in 1999, witnessed a series of deeper measures to enhance teacher education. In 2007, the MOE launched largescale reforms to develop an organised system to ensure the development of skilled and qualified professional teachers with a sense of social

62  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

responsibility and a mission for implementing competency-based education (Guo & Pungur, 2008). The government-funded undergraduate preservice teacher education programmes (公费师范生) aim to help five key teacher education universities enlist high-quality young graduates into the teaching profession and to improve education in underdeveloped rural areas. Teachers graduating from these universities are required to return to their home towns to teach for at least 10 years. The government’s goal, as expressed by Wen Jiabao, China’s ex-Premier, is to promote educational equity by increasing access to education for teachers from underdeveloped areas through tuition waivers (Yao & Chen, 2009). In order to strengthen the practicum component, the MOE issued Opinions on Student Teachers’ Practicum and Support for Teaching (Pawan et al., 2017), which recommended a minimum of a one-semester practicum for final-year pre-service teachers at national teacher education universities. It urged the creation of ‘teaching practicum zones’ by teacher education institutions and a cluster of practicum schools in close geographic proximity. In 2009, the focus of reform was placed on tackling the challenge of enhancing the quality of teacher education programmes and, in particular, the link between subject courses and practicum experience (Campell & Hu, 2010). In May 2010, the State Council released the State Planning Outline for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020) (Pawan et al., 2017) to implement learner-­ centred and practice-oriented teacher education curricula (Zhou, 2014), which required teacher educators to assume the role of teacher researchers (Zhu, 2010). To implement the Outline, the MOE issued Teacher Education Curriculum Standards and Professional Standards for Preschool, Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in 2011 (Pawan et al., 2017). The first document stressed connections between theoretical knowledge and educational practice, and between course content and basic educational realities. Reforms were encouraged through field experience, demo classes, on-site teaching, situated instruction and case analyses. The second document mandated three domains – morals and attitudes, knowledge, and professional abilities. Such curricular and pedagogical reforms are not without challenges and problems. As Zhou (2014) commented, the reforms generated limited effects on developing students’ cognitive creativity and independent learning. Yan and He (2019) argued that the curriculum reforms continued to prioritise the transmission and quantitative measurement of decontextualised and compartmentalised language and subject knowledge, and neglected practice-based research and the development of inquiry dispositions and skills. Hu (2005) also pointed out that the pedagogy courses generally focused on the transmission of ‘recipes’ for effective language teaching covered in a designated textbook that was compiled by a university-based EAL specialist, and failed to connect with school realities and to encourage student-teachers to examine them critically in light of their

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  63

own language learning experience. The hands-on tasks (e.g. lesson planning, designing learning activities and developing supplementary teaching materials) and microteaching activities tended to be superficial and artificial due to the lack of authentic teaching environments. The consequences of this reform continue to prove problematic. The main issues include a narrow knowledge base, the faulty transmission of theoretical subject knowledge, the underdevelopment of macro language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating) and language competence (not communicative competence), a focus on generic teaching skills (not competence in reflective teaching and teacher research), and a disconnect between the practicum and the on-campus courses despite its significantly lengthened period in some programmes. Furthermore, teacher personal dispositions that are crucial to job satisfaction and retention, such as commitment to teaching and resilience, have been undervalued. As Zhang (2013) noted, the typically female, socially and economically disadvantaged EAL student-teachers commonly do not see teaching as a first choice, due to the sharp contrast between the high personal investment in education and the low teacher salaries and subsidies. Wang and Gao (2013) similarly reported that student-teachers were reluctant to work in rural schools, suggesting that programmatic reforms need to combat the social mobility discourse and to include social equity and justice as essential components of programmes. For example, teacher education programmes may need to reconsider the employment policies for students who receive government funding in their final year which restricts them from taking other employment opportunities. Such restrictions serve to demotivate student-teachers towards academic learning (Yan & He, 2019). In addition, the well-envisaged part-time ­postgraduate teacher education programme for government-funded BA graduates who return to their home universities to participate in the MEd programme (公费师范生教育硕士) after working for one year in a school poses a range of challenges that undermine its quality and prestige, such as the professional level of teacher participants, staff shortages, immaturity of curricular infrastructure, limited learning resources, ineffective programme operation and participant management, and low graduation rates. It will be a long-term endeavour to address these quality issues. 3e. Practicum and field experience

As an integral part of EAL pre-service teacher education programmes, the practicum is carried out using four major models recommended by the MOE. The first is the ‘traditional model’ taking place in the seventh semester and spanning about three months, depending on the needs of host schools or the provinces in which the schools are located (Pei & Jin, 2017a). The second practicum model is the ‘teacher replacement’ model (顶岗 实习), which started in 2007 to mutually benefit interns and rural schools.

64  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

In this model, pre-service teachers are assigned to become substitute teachers in rural areas for one to three months, while the rural teachers being exchanged pursue teacher training at universities during the same time period. This experience can be added on to the regular practical teaching experience or it can be an extension of an existing student-­ teaching experience. Such practicum arrangements are particularly practised in the less developed western, mountainous and ethnically diverse regions of China, such as Guizhou, Ningxia and Xinjiang provinces. The third model is the ‘consecutive model’ (连续模式), implemented in places such as Beijing Municipality and Hubei Province in a staged manner throughout the four-year programme. In this model, pre-service teachers are placed in practicum sites several times during their undergraduate training. For example, Beijing United Normal University implemented this model throughout its four-year programme. The freshman year includes observation of classes in schools. The second and third years (in the second and sixth semesters) include ‘imitation’ teaching where student-teachers try out the teaching they have observed. The seventh semester of the fourth year includes a ‘real’ internship. The eighth and final semester includes research on the student-teachers’ experiences (Center for Teacher Education, 2016). The fourth model is known as ‘program-based practicum’. In this model, universities partner with schools to identify problems in practicum schools. Beijing Normal University and the Jiangbei District of Chongqing have adopted this model since 2014. This model aims to help pre-service teachers develop through work-based learning and inquiry. It allows student-teachers to understand and reflect on various real-life school issues in order to collaboratively and effectively address them. Across all the practicum models, there are clearly defined learning milestones to be completed, including teaching site assignments, observations, reflections on observations and teaching demonstrations. Interns are assigned in groups of 10–12 to a practicum school, led by a university supervisor. Such a group format aims to ensure group learning and ­university–school collaboration. At their assigned schools, the interns are assigned to cooperating teachers, whose responsibilities include mentoring interns’ lesson planning, teaching, student management and educational research. A tripartite relationship is formed for mutual learning. Governmental financial assistance for lodgings and transport exists for the interns, but the amount differs depending on the specific localities to which they are assigned. The practicum generally starts with an orientation after the interns arrive at the schools. It can be two to three days or more, depending on the circumstances of each school. During this time, experienced teachers in the schools introduce the school culture, rules and regulations. In addition, demonstration classes are delivered to illustrate how students are taught and managed. Interns are then assigned in groups of two to five to different grade

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  65

levels and are given specific instructions on teaching, classroom ­management, responsibilities as homeroom teachers/form masters (班主任) and research. What follows is preparation of a trial lesson (试讲) and post-lesson discussions among the internship group to maximise the interns’ readiness for their formal practicum teaching. After the trial lesson, the interns carry out their teaching, student management and research throughout the practicum period. The practicum ends with a summary meeting, and evaluations of internship performance, including interns’ self- and peer-evaluations and supervisors’ and school mentors’ evaluations. A grade is granted by the supervisor based on the evaluations of the interns and school mentors. Alongside the positive impacts of the practicum, research brings to the fore various challenges, even in the practicum organised by national teacher education universities, pointing to a reality shock and transfer problem, particularly in rural areas. For example, Yan and He (2015a) found that student-teachers experienced tensions between vision and reality, triggered by little opportunity to teach, lack of experience in classroom management and the challenge of implementing quality-oriented pedagogies promoted by the teacher education programme and the current school curriculum reform. Dissonance and tensions are common in the practicum, pointing to a disjuncture between the type of education that student-­ teachers receive in the ‘ivory tower’ and the realities on the ground. Limited supervision by university supervisors and schools’ cooperating teachers also contributes to student-teachers’ sporadic, superficial technical reflection and instructional incompetence. The problematic quality of supervision and mentoring is caused by their level of qualifications and expertise as their appointment generally depends on their availability. The whole practicum experience is limited to the practical routine of the programme, rather than being a valuable opportunity for practice-based inquiries. Such crucial drawbacks result from limited institutional support, teacher educators’ insufficient understanding of teachers’ practice and the educational reality (Wang, 2013) and lack of attention to bridging research and practice, as is widely documented (Dai & Goodwin, 2013; Lai et al., 2014; Yuan, 2015; Yuan & Lee, 2014). Addressing the practicum problems requires the development of teacher educators’ professional knowledge and competence, in addition to systemic reforms of EFL teacher education programmes. Implementation of reforms at the national, institutional and programme levels presents a long-term challenge. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

The teacher quality issue began to attract attention when the process of professionalisation of teacher education began in 2001 among teacher education institutions, which led to an increase in market-oriented

66  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

practical courses and a decrease in education courses (Zhou et al., 2011), the dominance of transmissive pedagogies and context-free theory learning, and student-teachers’ limited practical experience and competence (Ye, 2016). Several steps have been taken since 2001, including establishing a teacher certification system, creating a teachers’ professional development certification and renewals and stipulating accreditation standards for teacher education programmes. As Pawn (2017) noted, the MOE (2001) issued Guided Principles on Issues Concerning the First-time Teacher Certification, mandating that all graduates aspiring to be teachers also have to be certified through examinations, and in 2004 launched the 2003–2007 New Action Plan to revitalise education. The implementation of teacher certification was a gradual process. As Fan et al. (2017) noted, the certification process did not begin until 2011 in Zhejiang and Hubei provinces, the two ‘experimental provinces’. Other provinces followed suit afterwards, such as Guangxi, Hainan, Shandong and Anhui, Beijing and Shanghai. In 2015, all provinces in China, with the exception of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao, adopted the national certification examination. The MOE administers the written portion of the examination, while local government officials oversee oral interviews. The written examination involves teachers’ knowledge of two subjects, namely pedagogy and educational psychology. The examinations are held twice a year in the spring and autumn and can be taken as many times as necessary. The maximum points for each subject are 150 points and the pass score is usually 70 points. Interviews focus on teachers’ ability to respond to examiners’ questions on how they could problem-solve specific teaching challenges such as parental complaints, and teaching strategies for specific teaching contexts. Successful candidates in the written and oral examinations are granted teacher certificates which are recognised nationally. From 2015 onwards, requirements for teacher certificate renewal every five years were mandated to facilitate teachers’ continuous professional development. The renewal criteria include an annual ethical behaviour evaluation report and participation in professional teacher development activities of no less than 360 hours over a five-year period. While acknowledging that the national certification examinations help in a way to debunk the misconception of teaching as a profession devoid of ‘specialized, systematic, rigorous and scientific’ knowledge (Tsui, 2003: 16), the quality of the examinations prompted concern (Liu, 2012). As an example, the coverage of the examination minimally, if at all, includes a focus on teaching ethics and the teaching of students with diverse ethnic backgrounds. Given the wide range of issues in diverse school contexts, what is covered in the examination is insufficient and perfunctory. There is also a concern that provinces might skew the examination results to favour the performance of teachers in their own localities. Also, the examinations are limited in terms of ensuring teacher quality. As Pawan (2017) commented, qualifications such as those based

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  67

on terminal examinations only serve gate-keeping functions, as they do not address professionalism. Hence, the standardisation of the teacher certification system is a long-term process. In the last several decades, teacher education universities have been granted more autonomy in enrolment, curriculum design, instructional methods and job allocation of graduates. Such an increase in autonomy necessitates regular review and assessment. To ensure the quality of teacher education programmes, the MOE initiated accreditation requirements and guidelines for university-based teacher education programmes (普通高等学校师范类专业认证实施办法 (experimental draft 暂行)) in October 2017. Three levels were classified, i.e. Levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively representing basic level, qualified level and outstanding level. In 2019, the MOE commissioned a national teacher education steering committee to oversee and guide reforms of teacher education programmes. As Hu (2005) pointed out, nationwide reforms of teacher education have given rise to favourable conditions for revitalising EAL teacher education, such as attention to system-internal efficiency, quality assurance, curricular matters and pedagogical effectiveness. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

Assessment systems have been undergoing reform in recent years in EAL pre-service teacher education. Some learning-focused concepts of ‘formative assessment’, ‘assessment as learning’ and ‘peer assessment’, etc., have gradually taken root through policy initiatives to promote ­student-teachers’ autonomous learning via various pedagogical and assessment scaffolds. Barriers to the implementation and internalisation of formative assessment still exist widely in EAL pre-service teacher education programmes. For example, anecdotal evidence reveals many language teacher educators’ inadequate assessment literacy levels due to limited professional knowledge and training prior to taking on the role of teacher educators, and limited hands-on experience with innovative assessments. Teacher candidates’ assessment is still discrete because of the lack of coherence and integration of the components. Summative assessment remains a dominant student assessment form. Gan et al. (2018) showed the predominance of activity-based feedback and teacher evaluation feedback, and little use of peer-/self-feedback and longitudinal development feedback in the classroom. Students’ course essays rarely receive detailed constructive feedback. The assessment of the whole practicum tends to be predominantly summative, and the assessment of interns’ performance is generally impressionistic and general because of the absence of explicit professional standards to follow, and the lack of dialogue among the parties concerned. The prevalence of exam-oriented learning has limited student-teachers’ breadth of knowledge and interest in engaging in nonformal learning (such as service learning, co-curricular activities and

68  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

student exchange programmes), which can significantly contribute to student-teachers’ professional competence (Tang, 2017). Most importantly, outcome-based external evaluations involve a lot of formalism and falsification (Li, 2013), but authentic rigorous internal programme evaluations have yet to be integrally operationalised owing to the limited assessment literacy of the participants concerned. As Hu (2005) suggested, eradicating these assessment issues necessitates reconceptualising initial teacher education to cultivate the qualities necessary for sustainable professional development, i.e. ‘an awareness, dispositions, attitudes, values, qualities, and strategies that can form a solid ground for continuous development’ (Hu, 2005: 696). In practice, a holistic approach to assessing professional competence is necessary. The holistic approach to assessing professional competence in teaching entails engaging supervisors and student-teachers in ‘assessment dialogue’ to make explicit judgments on professional competence in teaching and to share supervisory practices among supervisors, engaging student-teachers with the assessment criteria, and reframing supervisory practices to empower student-teachers to take an active role in supervision (Tang, 2008). 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

To support teachers with the curriculum change, the government has initiated a series of plans and projects since the beginning of the century. For example, the government has set up many teacher training centres at the national, provincial and municipal levels at teacher education universities and teacher training colleges throughout China. These centres assume the responsibility for training in-service teachers of all subjects to successfully deliver the new curriculum standards. The training often starts with more experienced teachers as determined by their years of experience and then gradually moves on to all teachers. To participate in training, teachers are freed from work for two to three weeks so that they are able to participate in talks and workshops and visit local schools. Various kinds of activities have been conducted (e.g. Kong, 2018; Pawan et al., 2017; Yang & Tao, 2018) in order to scaffold EAL teachers’ professional development in different aspects such as linguistic and pedagogical knowledge construction (e.g. Zhang, 2016), intercultural communication competence development (e.g. Zhang, 2017) and identity self-awareness and identity formation (e.g. Xu, 2012). For example, Kong’s (2018) case study explored a community of practice that was created to support EAL teachers’ professional development. In her study, Kong illustrated ‘a series of practical explorations’ which are conducted to ‘effectively improve their EAL teachers teaching and scientific research capabilities’ (Kong, 2018: 161). These explorations included group discussions and presentations about the research papers EAL teachers chose to

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  69

read and analyse, lesson interpretation and assessment, expert lectures on various topics such as ‘linguistic studies and how to present a better lesson interpretation’ (Kong, 2018: 161) and also an online chat group (WeChat group) to enhance communication among community members. Attention is also devoted to fostering collaborative teaching or research among in-service Chinese EAL teachers (e.g. Guo et al., 2019; Pawan & Fan, 2017; Xu, 2015). Based on a longitudinal case study on novice EAL teachers’ collaborative lesson preparation, Xu (2015) distinguished two modes of collaboration among teacher participants – ­product-oriented collaboration and problem-based collaboration – and studied the different effects they had on teachers’ teaching development. The former contributed to ‘producing a complete, ready-to-use set of teaching resources as a visible product’, while the latter inspired ‘insights and facilities exchange of teaching experience’ but provided no ‘concrete help in physical forms’ (Xu, 2015: 139). Teachers in many schools work intensively with peers in teacher research groups (known as 教研组‘jiaoyanzu’ in Chinese) in which teachers engage in both individual and joint reflections on their teaching and learning in order to improve their teaching (Pawan & Fan, 2017). Regarding in-service teachers, the MOE has focused on the professional development of English language teachers in China’s rural areas. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education and Ministry of Finance in 2009 jointly issued ‘The Guo Pei Plan’ (国培计划 ‘national-level training plan’) to target the professional development of ‘seed teachers’ (种子 教师) who graduated from key teacher universities but returned to their home towns located in China’s rural areas to ‘teach students or to train their fellow teachers there’ (Pei & Jin, 2017b: 99). The plan, which experienced both successes and challenges during its implementation, highlights that further efforts are needed to support rural EAL teachers’ professional development in China. Conclusion

This chapter provides an overview of the contexts of EAL education and the status of teacher preparation programmes and practices in China. The review suggests that a more concerted effort to align policy, practice and pedagogy is needed. Several areas of development can address some of the challenges and issues raised above. First, while EAL learners are increasing in number and becoming more diverse, the EAL teaching force in China remains homogeneous, suggesting a need to diversify the teaching force to include more minority language background EAL teachers. Second, while nationwide reforms of teacher education have generally improved the condition of EAL teacher education, more effort needs to be devoted to its quality assurance measures. Specifically, teacher education must simultaneously address the lack of concrete performance assessments for practicum

70  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

and the examination orientation of education within teacher education programme courses. As well, teacher education would benefit from better connections between theory and practice in EAL teaching. While it is difficult to reach every EAL teacher in the classroom, this review suggests a strong city versus rural gap in EAL in-service teacher professional development. More attention is also needed to address the professional needs of rural EAL teachers to ensure equity in education, especially given the vast geographical and economic differences across China. Finally, given the myriad challenges in EAL education and EAL teacher preparation, more research on how to better align policy, practice and pedagogy, as well as how to support EAL teachers and train EAL teacher educators, is urgently needed to further promote the development of China’s EAL education. References Butler, Y.G. (2015) English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching 48 (3), 303–342. Campbell, A. and Hu, X. (2010) Professional experience reform in China: Key issues and challenges. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3), 235–248. doi:10.1080/ 1359866X.2010.494004 Cao, Y.L., Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. and Toom, A. (2019) Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and connections with their perceptions of the closeness of their research and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 85, 125–136. Center for Teacher Education (2016) A report on teacher education in China. Unpublished report, Beijing Normal University. Dai, W. and Goodwin, L. (2013) Research on the impact of Chinese teacher preparation reform on teacher candidates’ quality after the 1990s. In X. Zhu and K. Zeichner (eds) Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century (pp. 201–213). Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Du, X.Y., Chaaban, Y., Sabah, S., Al-Thani, A.M. and Wang, L. (2020) Active learning engagement in teacher preparation programmes – a comparative study from Qatar, Lebanon and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 40 (3), 283–298. doi:10.1080/ 02188791.2020.1717436 EF English Proficiency Index (2018a) The World’s Largest Ranking of Countries and Regions by English Skills. See https://www.ef.com/ca/epi/ (accessed 9 February 2020). EF English Proficiency Index (2018b) EF EPI 2018 Regional Fact Sheet: China. See https:// www.ef.com/ca/epi/regions/asia/china/ (accessed 9 February 2020). Ethnologue (2017) English. See https://www.ethnologue.com/language/eng (accessed 9 February 2020). Fan, W.F., Wang, G. and Chen, X. (2017) Permanent teacher qualifications: ‘Surviving within the iron rice bowl’. In F. Pawan, W.F. Fan and M. Pei (eds) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (pp. 41–50). London: Routledge. Feng, A. (2012) Spread of English across greater China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (4), 363–377. Gan, Z.D., Nang, H.H. and Mu, K.J. (2018) Trainee teachers’ experiences of classroom feedback practices and their motivation to learn. Journal of Education for Teaching 44 (4), 505–510. Guo, Q., Tao, J. and Gao, X. (2019) Language teacher education in System. System 82, 132–139. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.04.001

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  71

Guo, S.B. and Pungur, L. (2008) Exploring teacher education in the context of Canada and China: A cross-cultural dialogue. Frontiers of Education in China 3 (2), 246–269. Hargreaves, D.H. (1993) A common-sense model of the professional development of teachers. In J. Elliott (ed.) Reconstructing Teacher Education: Teacher Development (pp. 86–92). London: Falmer Press. Hu, G.W. (2005) Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record 107 (4), 654–705. IELTS (2018) Test Taker Performance 2018. See https://www.chinaielts.org/teachers/ Jun_main_0601.html (accessed 9 February 2020). Kong, S. (2018) Community of practice: An effective way to EAL teacher professional development in vocational colleges. English Language Teaching 11 (7), 158–162. doi:10.5539/elt.v11n7p158 Lai, M., Du, P. and Li, L. (2014) Struggling to handle teaching and research: A study on academic work at select universities in the Chinese mainland. Teaching in Higher Education 19, 966–979. Li, G. and Ni, X. (2013) Effects of a technology-enriched, task-based language teaching curriculum on Chinese elementary students’ achievement in English as foreign language. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning & Teaching (IJCALLT) 3 (1), 33–49. Li, J. (2013) China’s quest for world-class teachers: A rational model of national initiatives and institutional transformations. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3), 316–330. Liu, D. and Wu, Z. (eds) (2015) English Language Education in China: Past and Present. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Liu, X.J. (2012) Current situation, problems and solutions of preschool teacher certification system. Journal of Tianjin Academy of Educational Sciences 1, 84–86. MOE (1992) English Syllabus for Junior Secondary Education. Beijing: People’s Education Press. MOE (1993) English Syllabus for Senior Secondary Education. Beijing: People’s Education Press. MOE (2001) National English Curriculum Standards for Nine-Year Compulsory Education and Senior High Schools (Piloting edn). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. MOE (2003) National Senior-High School English Curriculum Standards (Piloting edn). Beijing: People’s Education Press. MOE (2011) National English Curriculum Standards for Nine-Year Compulsory Education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. MOE (2014) Suggestions on Deepening the Curriculum Reform to Endorse the Mission of Moral Education (教基二[2014]4号), 30 March. Beijing: Chinese Ministry of Education. MOE (2017a) Daxue yingyu jiaoxue zhinan [College English Teaching Guideline]. Beijing: Chinese Ministry of Education. MOE (2017b) Educational Statistics (教育统计数据). See http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/ A03/moe_560/jytjsj_2017/qg/ (accessed 9 February 2020). MOE (2018a) An Overview of China’s Educational Development (中国教育发展概况). See http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/s5990/201909/t20190929_401639.html (accessed 9 February 2020). MOE (2018b) National Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (2017 edn). Beijing: People’s Education Press. MOE (2018c) Brief Report on Chinese Overseas Students and International Students in China 2017. See http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/reports/201901/t20190115_367019. html (accessed 9 February 2020).

72  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

MOE (2019a) How many schools and how many students in China? 2018 statistical data on educational development now comes! (全国共有多少学校？在校学生有多少？2018 年教育事业发展大数据来了). News Office WeChat Education (教育部新闻办公室 微 言教育), 24 July. See http://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1639907564878749960&wfr= spider&for=pc (accessed 9 February 2020). MOE (2019b) (教育部新闻办公室 微言教育) The number applying for a primary or secondary teaching qualification tests reaches new high, applicants are reminded to be honest in taking the test. 2019年下半年中小学教师资格考试人数再创新高 提醒广大 考生诚信应考. News Office WeChat Education, 1 November. See http://www.moe.gov. cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201911/t20191101_406541.html (accessed 9 February 2020). Pavlik, A. (2012) Teaching English language learners from China. Senior Honors thesis, University of New Hampshire. Pawan, F. (2017) Introduction: Situating Chinese English language teacher training and professional development in research and policy. In F. Pawan, W.F. Fan and M. Pei (eds) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (1st edn) (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge. Pawan, F. and Fan, W. (2017) School-based professional development with ‘jiaoyanzu’ peers. In F. Pawan, W. Fan, M. Pei, G. Wang, W. Jin, X. Chen and N. Yuan (eds) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (1st edn) (pp. 64–80). New York: Routledge. Pawan, F., Fan, W., Pei, M., Wang, G., Jin, W., Chen, X. and Yuan, N. (eds) (2017) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (1st edn). New York: Routledge. Pei, M. and Jin, W. (2017a) Student teaching: ‘All the sour, sweet, bitter, and pungent flavours must be tested’. In F. Pawan, W. Fan, M. Pei, G. Wang, W. Jin, X. Chen and N. Yuan (eds) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (1st edn) (pp. 28–40). London: Routledge. Pei, M. and Jin, W. (2017b) The national Guo Pei Project for rural teachers. In F. Pawan, W. Fan, M. Pei, G. Wang, W. Jin, X. Chen and N. Yuan (eds) Teacher Training and Professional Development of Chinese English Language Teachers: Changing from Fish to Dragon (1st edn) (pp. 97–110). New York: Routledge. Research Institute of Curriculum and Materials (1999) A Collection of 20th Century Primary and Secondary Curriculum Standards or Syllabi in China. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Rixon, S. (2019) Developing language curricula for young language learners. In X. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Tan, H. (2015) China is losing interest in learning English. Blog post, 2 November. See https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/02/china-boosts-chinese-usage-slips-in-global-englishproficiency-ranking.html (accessed 9 February 2020). Tang, S.Y.F. (2008) Issues in field experience assessment in teacher education in a ­standards-based context. Journal of Education for Teaching 34 (1), 17–32. Tang, S.Y.F. (2017) The contribution of non-formal learning in higher education to student teachers’ professional competence. Journal of Education for Teaching 43 (5), 550–565. Tsui, A.B.M. (2003) Understanding Expertise in Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wang, D. and Gao, M. (2013) Educational equality or social mobility: The value conflict between pre-service teachers and the Free Teacher Education Program in China. Teaching and Teacher Education 32, 66–74. Wang, Q. (2013) From a language teacher to a teacher educator: What knowledge base is needed? Paper presented at the Fifth National Conference on Foreign Language Teacher Education and Development, Guangzhou, December.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in China  73

Wang, V.C.X. and Storey, V.A. (2015) Andragogy and teaching English as a foreign language in China. The Reference Librarian 56 (4), 295–314. Xu, H. (2012) Imagined community falling apart: A case study on the transformation of professional identities of novice ESOL teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly 46 (3), 568–578. Xu, H. (2015) The development of teacher autonomy in collaborative lesson preparation: A multiple-case study of EFL teachers in China. System 2015 (52), 139–148. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.05.007 Yan, C.M. (2017) ‘You never know what research is like unless you’ve done it!’: Action research to promote collaborative student-teacher research. Educational Action Research 25 (5), 704–719. doi:10.1080/09650792.2016.1245155 Yan, C.M. and He, C.J. (2015a) ‘We are left in limbo!’: Chinese EFL student teachers’ teaching practicum experience. Frontiers of Education in China 10 (2), 226–250. doi:10.3868/s110-004-015-0016-5 Yan, C.M. and He, C.J. (2015b) To be or not to be? The ‘publish or perish’ syndrome for English teacher educators in China. Frontiers of Education in China 10 (4), 526–543. doi:10.3868/s110-004-015-0039-0 Yan, C.M. and He, C.J. (2019) Why do final-year student teachers skip classes? A Chinese perspective. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 49 (1), 81–97. Yang, X. and Tao, X. (2018) Comparing discourse behaviors of a high-rated and a lowrated Chinese EFL teacher: A systemic functional perspective. The Modern Language Journal 102 (3), 594–610. doi:10.1111/modl.12495 Yang, Y. and Zhang, H. (2008) What ‘Crazy English’ can tell us? Inspiration and motivation from Li Yang. International Education Studies 1 (2), 18–21. Yao, F.Q. and Chen, S.J. (2009) On professional commitment of tuition free normal university students. Contemporary Teacher Education 2 (1), 62– 67. Ye, W.B. (2016) When rural meets urban: The transfer problem Chinese pre-service ­teachers face in teaching practice. Journal of Education for Teaching 42 (1), 28–49. doi:10.1080/02607476.2015.1131366 Yuan, R. (2015) Preparing future teacher educators in higher degree programmes: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching 41 (1), 97–101. Yuan, R. (2019) A comparative study on language teacher educators’ ideal identities in China: More than just finding a middle ground. Journal of Education for Teaching 45 (2), 186–199. Yuan, R. and Lee, I. (2014) Understanding language teacher educators’ professional experiences: An exploratory study in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23, 143–149. Zhan, S. (2008) Changes to a Chinese pre-service language teacher education program: Analysis, results, and implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 36, 53–70. doi:10.1080/13598660701793392 Zhang, L.J. (2016) Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing EAL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39 (3), 203–232. doi:10.1075/aral.39.3.01zha Zhang, X.M. (2013) Expected rate of return on the personal investment in education of no-fee preservice students. Chinese Education and Society 46 (2–3), 30–42. Zhang, Y. (2017) A study on EAL teachers’ intercultural communication competence. English Language Teaching 10 (11), 229–235. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n11p229 Zhou, J. (2014) Teacher education changes in China: 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching 40 (5), 507–523. Zhou, J., Gong, A.Y. and Tang, Y.Y. (2011) Studying undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Contemporary Teacher Education 4 (2), 13–17. Zhu, H. (2010) Curriculum reform and professional development: A case study on Chinese teacher educators. Professional Development in Education 36, 373–391.

5 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

Chapter Summary

This chapter describes the research, policy, curriculum and pedagogical practices that guide the preparation of EAL teachers in Finland. First, the status of EAL and more specifically historical developments and current national policies regarding EAL as well as teacher demographics are explained to provide a context for EAL teacher education in Finland. Second, the focus shifts to teacher preparation, with a view on research on teacher education, national policies regarding the qualifications of EAL teachers and the specificities of the teacher education programmes in Finland. The chapter also displays the ways in which the quality of language teacher education is secured in the Finnish context. Finally, the chapter discusses the in-service professional development policies and activities provided to EAL teachers. 1. Brief Introduction

This chapter focuses on EAL teacher education in the Finnish context. Finland is a modern welfare society in northern Europe with a population of 5.5 million people. The official languages of the country are Finnish and Swedish. In addition to the native languages, English is considered a general skill needed at all levels of society and professional life. This is also reflected in the role of English teaching at different school levels; 99.3% of pupils in Grades 7–9 studied English as an additional language (EAL) in 2019. English teacher education is university based and characterised by Finnish societal values building on trust and the autonomy of teachers. This chapter is divided into four different parts that introduce the status and practices of English teacher education in more detail. 74

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  75

2. Description of the Context of EAL Education 2a. Historical context

During the past 50 years, the status of the English language has gone through a radical change in Finland. It has transformed from being a foreign language studied in some schools to a language of youth and general culture (Leppänen et al., 2008, 2009). The importance of the English language has constantly grown throughout the 20th century. In 1918, shortly after Finland became an independent country, it was introduced as a subject in state-governed secondary schools for girls and in 1941 also in schools for boys. At this point foreign language studies were only available for a minority of pupils, due to the dual education system in which pupils were already streamed into academic and non-academic tracks at the age of 11 (cf. the German school system). Foreign languages were only considered necessary for pupils on the academic track. The 1970s marked a radical change in Finnish educational politics. This phase was characterised by a strong consensus among the different political parties in Finland to develop the Finnish educational system to provide equal educational opportunities for all citizens, independent of their socioeconomic background (Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2009). As a consequence, a nine-year compulsory basic education system was created to better serve the educational needs of a changing society. This shift also marked a change in the status of English. As part of the basic education reforms, the study of a foreign language became obligatory for the whole age group. Although German had traditionally held the position of the most studied additional language in Finland, English equalled it in popularity in the 1960s. In 2019, 99.5% of pupils in Grades 7–9 studied EAL (Statistics Finland, 2019). The popularity of English as a school subject has reflected the overall role of the English language in Finnish society. In 2008, a large survey study of the status of the English language was conducted in Finland. According to the survey, 80% of respondents reported that they saw and heard English in their daily lives. In addition, 56.6% of respondents reported they needed to actively use English in their work or studies (Leppänen et al., 2009). Since 2008, social media, gaming and the internet have further increased the use of English in Finland. Today the English language is understood as a general skill that is needed at all levels of society and professional life (Soler-Carbonell et al., 2017). 2b. Current national policy

Finland is a modern welfare society with rather equal educational possibilities for different populations. A particular feature of the Finnish educational system is the near absence of a private education sector. Basic and secondary education is mainly organised by municipalities and financed

76  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

with the aid of tax revenue. Education from basic to tertiary levels is free and the schools do not have the right to collect fees. Compared to many other countries, education is considered to be of rather uniform quality regardless of the school district. From autumn 2019, the first additional language (in the vast majority of cases, English) has been offered from Grade 1 of the Finnish basic education system (pupils enter Grade 1 in the year they turn seven). If pupils do not choose English as their first additional language, they start to study it as their second additional language in Grade 4. In primary and secondary institutions, English education is regulated by the National Core Curriculum (NCC) for additional language teaching. The NCC is a document created by the Finnish National Agency for Education and it outlines the principles, themes and overall evaluation criteria. On the basis of these principles, the municipalities and in some cases private education institutions make their own curricular decisions. The study materials and teaching methods are ultimately decided locally by individual teachers. The latest National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Grades 1–9) took effect in 2016. This document sets the criteria for obtaining the Grade 8 school leaving certificate at a scale between 4 and 10 (C+ upwards), after which the students can apply for vocational or general upper secondary school education. For English, the target level for Grade 8 is B1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR uses a six-step assessment scale from A1 to C2, and Level B1 represents the Independent User level in which the speakers of the language: • can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc.; • can deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language is spoken; • can produce simple connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest; and • can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. (Council of Europe, 2001: 24) After basic education, pupils can choose to apply for vocational or general upper secondary education. Both vocational and general upper secondary schools offer English education. In vocational institutes the focus is more on occupational English skills needed at work, whereas general upper secondary school education focuses on the development of overall English competence and on academic language skills needed in higher education. At the tertiary school level, English remains an integral part of all bachelor’s and master’s programmes. The amount and foci of English

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  77

education in different higher education programmes, however, vary according to the perceived competences needed. 2c. Current EAL learner population

Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. In addition, basic education is offered in Sami and in Finnish sign language, which are official minority languages. In the past few decades Finland has also experienced a considerable increase in immigration. For example, in 2017, 6.3% of the population had a first language other than Finnish or Swedish (Statistics Finland, 2017). Today, although English is still not a compulsory subject in the Finnish school system, it is studied by the vast majority of students at all educational levels. EAL populations therefore include pupils from primary to secondary and tertiary levels with varied linguistic and economic backgrounds. Due to the different learner populations with different linguistic competences and language needs, the amount of hours dedicated to English, learning goals and curricular objectives varies considerably. To give an idea of the spread of existing teaching methods and learning goals, I will now describe some of the features of English teaching at different grade levels. At the basic education level, the teaching methods and learning goals of English teaching are adapted to the needs of children and youth. As mentioned earlier, children start learning English at the age of seven immediately on starting their school career. In Grades 1 and 2, English teaching is a dedicated one hour a week. Instead of taking place in a separate lesson once a week, it can be integrated into classroom activities and introduced as part of classroom routines. At this point, language teaching focuses on vocabulary learning. Since the pupils are only just learning to read and write in their native language, English is mainly taught in oral form. From Grade 3 onwards until the end of basic education, the weekly amount of English lessons increases to two hours where it remains the same until the end of basic education. At this point, teaching also gradually starts to focus more on writing and reading skills in addition to oracy. The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNAE, 2014) frames English language teaching as not only being about linguistic competence. Instead of perceiving the language as a linguistic system, it is perceived as a multifaceted competence necessitating developing thinking skills and pupils’ abilities to be in interaction with others and to look for knowledge. In addition, English education is expected to develop pupils’ language awareness, self-esteem and ability to study languages (Kantelinen & Hildén, 2016). The Core Curriculum for Basic Education also explicitly states that there is plenty of space for ‘joy, playfulness and creativity’ in English education (FNAE, 2014: 218). The suggested learning methods include play, songs, games and drama, and teaching should focus on themes that are central to pupils’ lives.

78  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Compared to the teaching at the basic education level, the Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education marks a change towards academic English skills. Also, the rhythm of study changes and a course-based curriculum is introduced. In Finnish secondary education institutes, the academic year is divided into five to six teaching periods during which students focus on studying certain subjects. A period typically lasts for six weeks and in each period students choose three to six courses in different subjects (e.g. maths, English, biology and PE). The Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education defines the contents and core skills of six compulsory English courses and two optional courses that are offered in all general upper secondary schools (FNAE, 2015). The themes of the courses range from the global status of English language in present-day society to language as a means of communication and culture. The teaching also seeks to strengthen the students’ capacities in oral and written communication, with special emphasis given to critical literacies. In addition to the regular English teaching described above, many Finnish basic and secondary institutions offer English-mediated instruction as part of their teaching. Some bilingual Finnish-English programmes are also offered in bigger cities. However, the possibilities for participating in these activities differ significantly according to the availability of this kind of instruction, and therefore it cannot be considered as a part of the mainstream national policies for English instruction. At the university level, command of English is expected from all students regardless of their field of study (Soler-Carbonell et al., 2017). Typically, parts of the textbooks used in different university programmes are in English and students are also expected to be able to write academic texts not only in their native language but also in English. These expectations for the command of English are naturally reflected in the English courses that different universities offer their students. Universities normally offer advanced reading and writing courses in English as well as support courses to students who feel that their English skills are not sufficient for studying at a Finnish university, such as ‘Activate your English’ and ‘Gaining confidence in English’. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

In Finland, a master’s degree is required for English teachers at the basic, secondary and tertiary levels. Today, the vast majority of teachers working in different educational institutions also have the required qualifications. In 2016, 95% of all teachers working at the basic education level and 98% of teachers at the secondary level held a suitable master’s level of education for their job (FNAE, 2018). There are two main tracks for becoming a qualified English teacher in Finland. The most common way is to get a subject teacher qualification,

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  79

which consists of a master’s degree in English language and a minor concentration in pedagogy (60 credits).1 Another way to become an English teacher is to study in a classroom teacher programme and study English as a minor subject (60 credits). This track qualifies candidates for English teaching within the nine-year basic education system, whereas subject teachers can also work within secondary or higher education levels. The majority of teachers in Finland are female. The percentage of female teachers ranges from 79% in primary education to 55% in vocational upper secondary programmes (FNAE, 2018). In English teaching, the percentage of female teachers is even higher, since university programmes in languages and the arts are traditionally dominated by female students. The Finnish state does not collect demographic information related to race or immigrant background of the population and therefore exact statistics related to these factors are unavailable. As for the language background of English teachers, native or near native-like proficiency in Finnish or Swedish is a prerequisite for working as an English teacher in the public education sector. This policy can be considered a clear hindrance for the diversification of the Finnish teaching workforce, and this has been pointed out as an important future challenge in the report commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture about the future of teachers and teacher education in Finland (Husu & Toom, 2016). As a consequence, native speakers of English rarely work as English teachers in Finland, since they cannot be recruited unless they also have native-like competency in either Finnish or Swedish. In higher education, English teachers with a native English speaker background and a suitable master’s or doctoral degree are more common. 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs 3a. Research foundation

At the core of the Finnish educational system is the belief that teachers should be autonomous professionals who can independently make pedagogical decisions. Teachers also hold a considerable amount of power in choosing and designing teaching materials and implementing the principles of the curricula in their own classrooms with the methods they find most suitable (Mikkola, 2016; Sahlberg, 2011). The teacher education programmes in Finland therefore aim at providing a high-level academic education that prepares teachers for this kind of decision making. Finnish teacher education values pre-service teachers’ personal autonomy and a belief that an important stimulus for personal development is the right to define one’s own goals. This perspective of teacher development permeates the whole educational system, including legislation, national policies for teacher education development and practices in educational

80  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

institutions. University law states that the special mission of teacher education is ‘to provide competencies needed for autonomous activity as a teacher, supervisor and educator’ (Finlex, 1995). This is also reflected in the goals for teacher competencies of the latest Development Programme for Teacher Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016). To educate autonomous professionals, Finnish teacher education relies on a research-based approach (Jyrhämä & Maaranen, 2016; Tryggvason, 2009). This means, first, that all teachers have a master’s level of education including a master’s thesis. As part of their studies, teachers are gradually introduced to doing research in research methods courses and smaller research projects. These kinds of skills are considered necessary for teachers to be able to develop their own teaching practices in the future. Second, a research-based approach is widely understood to contribute to the pre-service teachers’ abilities to reflect on their own beliefs and values and think about them critically, which are considered as key competencies of a teacher (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016; Niemi, & Nevgi, 2014). Another principle of Finnish teacher education is the integration of theory and practice. Although there are differences between universities in the ways in which they organise their practicum, all teacher education programmes include practice periods that are organised alongside the theoretical courses (Husu & Toom, 2016). The practice periods take place in the teacher training schools that form an integral part of the universities. In these schools, the preservice teachers work with trained teacher mentors to develop their practical pedagogical competencies (Jyrhämä et al., 2008). As for a theoretical framework for English teacher education in Finland, it is based more on plurality rather than a uniform approach to teacher education in language teaching. As expressed in the policies for teacher education of the Ministry of Education and Culture: The solution for developing educational practices in the long run seems not to be a single model or method. […] In many cases good reforms and ideas have failed since they have not genuinely addressed the everyday practices of teachers in the classrooms. (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016: 10)

Some important recent tendencies in the development of the theoretical foundation of Finnish English teacher education are, however, noteworthy. Instead of understanding language teacher development in terms of simply the development of methodological skills, more emphasis is put on holistic understandings of language teacher and learner development. This is connected to the latest developments in the field of language teacher research, emphasising the role of environment and personal agency (Kalaja et al., 2015; Niemi, 2011; Tirri, 2014) as well as the core values of university education in Finland. Teacher development is looked at from the perspective of professional identity development, involving

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  81

emotions, agency and personal beliefs (Kalaja et al., 2015; Lanas & Kelctermans, 2015). This development is supported through reflexivity and professional portfolio activities that are embedded in the teacher education programmes. Pre-service teachers are also supported in developing their own teaching philosophy. The evaluation of student development is based on the ways in which pre-service teachers are able to justify their personal choices rather than demonstrating a particular type of language teaching (Jyrhämä et al., 2008). Further, evaluative practices are developed to support pre-service teachers in their attempts to develop their own approach to teaching. The practice periods are not numerically evaluated, but the choices made by the pre-service teacher are reflected on together with the teacher mentor. 3b. National policy

The Finnish Act on Teacher Qualifications decrees that qualified English teachers in basic education must (1) have a master’s degree, (2) have completed at least 60 credits of study in the subject they teach, (3) have completed at least 60 credits of pedagogical studies and (4) have excellent oral and written proficiency in the language that serves as the medium of instruction of the school (normally Finnish or Swedish) (Finlex, 1995). For general upper secondary teachers, the requirements are the same, except that they must have completed at least 120 credits of study in one of the subjects they teach. To be able to hold a permanent position as an English teacher in the public sector in Finland, teachers must fulfil the qualification requirements. Teachers in Finland are civil servants. Municipalities must advertise vacant posts openly and recruitment must be based on three criteria: experience, education and approved civic merits. Candidates can contest recruitment if they believe they have been discriminated against in the process. In Finland, language teaching is a societally appreciated and sought after profession with a salary that is typical for clerical workers and with significantly longer holidays compared to employees in other sectors. The average wage of English teachers in Finland is close to the average of all salary earners in Finland (US$44,795 in 2019). English teachers’ teaching duties include 20 45-minute lessons a week in basic education institutes and 19 in upper secondary institutes. EAL teacher education is organised at seven Finnish universities. Admission to these university programmes is restricted and the candidates are chosen based on their academic English proficiency and suitability for teacher education. The participants’ suitability is evaluated on the grounds of their interest in teaching, understanding of teachers’ work, openness towards new knowledge and cooperation skills – all fairly complex phenomena to evaluate. Since becoming an English teacher is a popular career option in Finland, the admission criteria for the university programmes are high.

82  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3c. Preparation and qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Teacher educators are key actors in developing the content and practices of teacher education in Finland, especially due to the significant autonomy of teacher education institutes in developing their own approach to teaching (Husu & Toom, 2016). Because of this, they hold a vital role in the processes of pre-service teacher development and learning (Swennen & van der Klink, 2009). Since English teacher education in Finland is university based, teacher educators are part of the university staff and university policies regulate their qualifications. Both in the Department of Language and Communication Studies and in the Department of Teacher Education, teacher educators typically hold a doctoral degree and are researchers in the field of applied language studies or education; however, the tasks of teacher educators vary according to the post they hold. Teacher educators in Finland can hold either a university lecturer, senior lecturer or a full professor position. Any of these positions can be either permanent or temporary. The annual working time for all university employees is 1600 hours a year; the amount of teaching, administration and research duties, however, varies in different positions. University lecturer posts that require a master’s degree are typically teaching-­ intensive posts with a maximum of 396 contact-teaching hours a year. This teaching normally includes courses that are mainly targeted at students at the bachelor’s level. University teachers also typically undertake tasks such as student counselling and administrative duties, but their annual work plans do not necessarily include any research. Senior lecturer and professor positions require a doctoral degree and substantial publication activity. These posts also typically include administrative and management duties at the department and faculty level. Until recently, advancement to a professor position has occurred through an open application process for all candidates, since Finnish universities have not had a tenure track system for career promotion. At present, tenure track positions are also open, but most of the staff still work in the old positions. In terms of qualifications, teaching experience at the basic or secondary levels in addition to university teaching experience is a desired qualification, although it is not a requirement. A requirement for all these positions is, however, a teacher qualification that has been completed as part of former studies or as additional studies. The universities in Finland also offer continual professional development opportunities for the whole staff in the form of work counselling, language courses, research writing courses and courses targeting specific professional skills such as supervision. All university staff members also have regular performance evaluations and career development discussions with their superiors, where goals for professional development are reflected on and discussed. Professional development activities, such as language courses or work counselling, can be included in the annual work plan as work duties.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  83

3d. Curriculum: Mandates, standards and competencies

As a member state of the European Union, both European-level (European Commission, 2010; Kelly et al., 2002) and national initiatives to develop teacher education are relevant for the development of teacher education practices in Finland. At the national level, the European-level recommendations are interpreted and reflected to form Finnish educational policies and practices. Currently at the national level, recommendations for the development of teacher education at different universities are provided by the Teacher Education Forum, a working group initiated by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Teacher Education Forum is appointed for a period of three years and its members consist of almost 100 teacher educators from different teacher education institutes. The task of the working group is to develop Finnish pre- and in-service teacher education on the basis of the latest research knowledge and provide support for the development initiatives financed by the Ministry of Education. The latest Development Programme for Teacher Education was launched in 2016. This programme set as its key values for Finnish teacher education creative expertise and sense of community. To reach these goals, the programme also defined key competency areas and competencies that are sought after in Finnish teacher education. These key competency areas and competencies are presented in Table 5.1. On the basis of these key values and competences, different universities are autonomous in designing their programmes. Typically for Finnish educational contexts, the national recommendations form a rather loose frame for designing and implementing teacher education. The values and competencies mentioned in the Development Programme for Teacher Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016) are implemented both at the content level and, more importantly, also at the level of learning and assessment practices. As mentioned earlier, English subject teacher education is organised by three different parties that are together responsible for developing the overall competencies of English language teaching. The cooperation of the three parties varies at different universities and is negotiated locally which, according to a recent report commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture, has led to a lack of overall understanding of teacher education at the university level (Pursiainen et al., 2019). To illustrate one example of the cooperation of these different parties in developing the expertise of future English language teachers, I provide an illustration of the language teacher programme at the University of Jyväskylä. Table 5.2 summarises the basic-level courses completed mainly during the first year of study. The first year of study was chosen as an example, although it does not fully represent the structure of the course of study in the following years. Starting from Year 2, students have more optional courses and they can

Teachers • are able to implement different innovations and initiate, guide and manage creative processes • are able to use, develop and combine different learning environments and use digital tools • know and are able to develop curricula and learning goals • are able to integrate societally important themes to their teaching • are able to think and act creatively in changing environments and in national and international networks • are able to assess pupils’ learning and their own teaching in various ways • are able to make changes in their own behaviour and in their environment and are capable of managing changes and in the middle of changes •  dare to develop and to try

Teachers • are pedagogically, didactically and professionally competent • are able to justify their pedagogic decisions and apply educational and other scientific knowledge in practice • are familiar with the basic developmental phenomena and are able to work with different aged learners • master different research methods and are able to use them in researching and developing teaching • master the interdisciplinary learning modules of the Core Curriculum and are able to support the development of pupils’ transversal competences • are able to build and support pupils’ sense of community • are able to collaborate with colleagues to support the agency and learning of diverse pupils • are able to work in local, national and international networks • are societally and culturally active and competent • are able to use different learning and studying environments in a pedagogically justified manner • act professionally, ethically and value based • anticipate changes and are enterprising

Source: Ministry of Education and Culture (2016).

Creative expertise and agency

Transversal basic competencies

Table 5.1  Teachers’ key competencies

Teachers • are able to develop their expertise and teaching based on research and assessments • are able to work in multi-professional teams and networks and support and equip their colleagues • are able to evaluate and direct themselves • are able to develop the practices and learning environments in their institutes in cooperation with others • are able to reflect on their own pedagogical decisions and practices • are able to cooperate and build networks with national and international partners

Developing professional competencies and professional communities

84  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  85

Table 5.2  Structure of the first year studies for the students in the English language teacher programme at the University of Jyväskylä University of Jyväskylä: Programme for specialists in language learning and teaching Curriculum 2017–2020 Basic level courses Studies in SLA: 7 credits (Responsible unit: Department of Language and Communication Studies)

English language: 26 credits (Responsible unit: Department of Language and Communication Studies)

Pedagogical studies: 25 credits (Responsible units: Department of Teacher Education and Teacher Training School)

• Introduction to Linguistics (2 credits) • Becoming a Language Teacher (5 credits)

• Pronunciation and Oral Skills (3 credits) •  Academic Writing (4 credits) • Introduction to Language Study (4 credits) • Practical Grammar (2 credits) • Exploring Grammar (2 credits) • Discourse and Literacy (2 credits) • The Story of English (2 credits) • Cultural History of the Englishspeaking World (4 credits) • Introduction to Literary Studies (3 credits)

• Learning and Guidance (5 credits) • Education, Society and Change (5 credits) • Scientific Knowledge and Knowing (5 credits) • Interaction and Cooperation (5 credits) • Teaching Practice 1 (5 credits)

Source: Adapted from Curriculum 2017–2020.

specialise in certain topics in language learning and teaching research. Also the role of research increases as studies include both bachelor’s and master’s theses. At the University of Jyväskylä, the roles of the three parties, however, remain the same throughout the programme. The Department of Language and Communication Studies (or equivalent) is responsible for courses in the English language as well as courses that focus on language learning and teaching. These studies also include research methods courses and research seminars that support students in conducting research. The Department of Teacher Education, on the other hand, is responsible for courses focusing on the students’ general pedagogical skills. These studies typically include courses on group processes, the societal significance of education, ethics, pedagogy and assessment. These 60-credit pedagogical studies also include a 20-credit practicum. 3e. Practicum

A unique feature of the Finnish teacher education system is the teacher training schools that form an integral part of English teacher education (Husu & Toom, 2016). These schools are basic education and general upper secondary institutes that function as part of universities and are financed by the state. These schools provide the pre-service teachers with an environment for practical experience, but also a community that is committed to developing and researching teaching and learning as part of the university teacher education programme (Husu & Toom, 2016).

86  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Compulsory school practice is worth 20 credits and takes place alongside the pedagogical studies conducted at the Department of Teacher Education. The teacher mentors in the teacher training schools typically are experienced teachers who have specialised in the areas of supervision and guidance. They are part of the university staff, but especially chosen on the basis of their basic or secondary school teaching experience. The teaching practicum is strongly linked to pre-service teachers’ ­professional identity development (White & Forgasz, 2016). For the pre-­ service teachers, the practicum gives them the possibility to test the theoretical approaches they have encountered in their theoretical studies and to practise interaction and group skills needed for English teaching (White & Forgasz, 2016). As part of the teacher practicum, pre-service teachers also develop teaching materials together with their teacher mentors and gain experience in assessment. In Finland, the total 20 credits of school practicum are divided into smaller entities with specific goals, and the actual practicum takes place in several consecutive cycles. The goals of the different cycles vary according to the stage of the pre-service teachers’ studies. In the first practicum period that takes place as part of their bachelor’s studies, the pre-service teachers get familiar with school life and gain their first initial teaching experiences. In the last practicum cycle, the pre-service teachers are expected to independently design and implement different pedagogical practices. As part of the practicum, the students also carry out a teaching experiment. Each student receives individual supervision related to their own teaching. As part of the supervision, the teacher mentor meets with the pre-service teacher before each lesson to check the lesson plan and develop it together with the student, as well as meeting again after the class to give feedback about the pre-service teacher’s activity in class. In addition, the pre-service teachers receive feedback from their fellow classmates. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

Quality in education has become an important topic in educational discussions worldwide. International comparisons such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) have made clear the differences in student performance in different educational systems and heated up the discussion about quality in education. Improving educational practices in different countries has often meant tighter control over educational practices in schools and stronger accountability for student performance (Sahlberg, 2011). The Finnish educational system, however, has differed from many other educational systems in the ways in which this question of quality improvement has been understood (Sahlberg,

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  87

2011). Instead of an increased level of accountability and top-down educational standards, Finland has placed responsibility and trust before accountability and considered grassroots-level initiatives as the primary source of educational development (Sahlberg, 2011). As expressed in the vision for teacher education of the Ministry of Education: ‘The solution for developing educational practices in the long run seems not to be a single model or method’ (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016: 10). This philosophical basis for quality work is also reflected in the ways in which educational development is organised. National guidelines for the development of different educational activities are decided in working groups including members from different educational institutions and universities. In the development of the National Core Curriculum for Basic and Secondary Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016), as well as in the development work of teacher education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016), the working groups were comprised of a large body of practitioners from different levels of the educational system. The Teacher Education Forum nominated by the Ministry of Education is comprised of almost 100 experts in education and is responsible for quality assurance at the national level. The goal of the Teacher Education Forums is to renew Finnish pre- and in-service teacher education and to maintain Finnish teacher education’s recognition as strong, attractive and internationally appreciated. It brings together the different actors in pre- and in-service teacher education to share visions of teacher education and to discuss topical questions in research and developmental needs for the future (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019). It also outlines development strategies for pre-service and in-service teacher education activities. The Ministry of Education and Culture also allocates money for development initiatives and projects that promote the goals set out in the Development Programme (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019). In 2019, a report on the structures of teacher education at different Finnish universities was released. This report pointed out some of the challenges for developing teacher education in Finland (Pursiainen et al., 2019). First of all, it criticised the unclear distribution of tasks between the teacher education units, subject faculties and teacher training schools (see Section 3d) and the lack of overall understanding of the students’ learning pathways. Second, it pointed out the necessity of developing the criteria for student selection (Section 3b), and finally it called for structural development work in teacher education institutes and stronger cooperation between the different parties participating in teacher education (Pursiainen et al., 2019). Although the Ministry of Education and Culture sets out national recommendations and supports investigations into the quality of education, it does not provide political direction linked to the content or goals of teacher education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2003); quality

88  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

assurance is very much a duty of the university-level actors. The universities are autonomous in defining the curricula for teacher education as they are for any other degree programme at the university. However, universities are dependent on state financing, and the number of degrees granted by each university is negotiated between the university and the Ministry of Education and Culture. Teacher education funding is part of overall state university funding, which is based on quantitative and qualitative criteria set for university education. Education-related funding criteria (2017–2020) include the number of degrees granted, the advancement of studies of individual students, student feedback and the employment rates of the students after graduation (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2015). These criteria also steer universities in developing existing programmes in line with the needs of society and influence quality work in different degree programmes. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

As a European country and a member of the European Union, Finnish teacher education has been evaluated as part of many European development projects that have targeted comparing and developing teacher education internationally (e.g. European Commission, 2010; Kelly et al., 2002). Also at a national level, teacher education programmes have been assessed in several reports that have evaluated the quality of work and cooperation between different university parties (Pursiainen et al., 2019). The quality of teacher education programmes is also assessed as part of university-level evaluations, which are part of larger nationwide evaluations. All evaluations are implemented by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), which is responsible for assessing the quality of higher education. On the basis of these evaluations, recommendations for the development of the programmes are given. Neither the results of these evaluations nor the recommendations are, however, binding to the universities. These models reflect more generally a strong emphasis on autonomy in the Finnish educational culture. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

In Finland, in-service development activities for English teachers include school-level, municipality-level and national-level activities. These activities include both training and professional development activities that are obligatory for teachers as well as a large variety of optional courses. English teachers in Finland are entitled to three annual in-service development days (18 hours). These are organised by the employer and can entail, for instance, curriculum planning, professional development activities or training organised by the universities and other institutions. As part of these in-service training activities, large national events for

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  89

teacher training are organised annually to introduce the latest developments in the field of teaching and training. Apart from the three obligatory professional development days, the municipalities differ in the amount of finance allocated for in-service training. There are a large variety of courses offered to English teachers by universities, but participation in these activities is voluntary and varies according to the willingness of municipalities to finance these activities. In contrast to the strong university-based pre-service teacher education programmes, in-service teacher education activities have been less well organised (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016). Several recent reports on teacher education in Finland have therefore pointed out problems related to continual professional development opportunities for teachers in different parts of Finland (Husu & Toom, 2016; Lehtola & Wilen, 2010). These problems have been linked to a lack of professional development activities in smaller cities as well as fewer possibilities for training for those teachers who do not have permanent work contracts (Lehtola & Wilen, 2010). In particular, the transition from pre-service teacher education to full-time work as a teacher has been recognised as problematic (Heikkinen & Aho, 2015). This could be one of the major challenges in developing Finnish teacher education in the future. As an attempt to address these problems, several national projects have recently been launched to support Finnish in-service professional needs. One of these initiatives has been the development of a specific induction programme for beginning teachers, Peer Group Mentoring (PGM), which is financed by the Ministry of Education and developed in connection with different universities (Geeraerts et al., 2015). As part of the most recent development programme launched by the Teacher Education Forum in 2016, the Ministry of Education has allocated a substantial amount of finance for projects for teacher training that support the goals of the programme. Note (1) Credits refer to ECTS credits. ECTS is an acronym for the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. One ECTS credit generally corresponds to 27 hours of work.

References Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. European Commission (2010) Improving Teacher Quality. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. See https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/ hmniemi/EN_Improve_Teacher_Quality_eu_agenda_04_2010_EN.pdf (accessed 28 April 2021). Finlex (1995) Degree on Teacher Education. Helsinki: Finland’s Ministry of Justice. See https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1995/19950576#Lidp447645632 (accessed 8 January 2020).

90  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

FNAE (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. FNAE (2015) National Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. FNAE (2018) Teachers and Principals in Finland. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education, Unit for Information and Analysis. See https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/ files/documents/teachers-and-principals-in-finland-2018-eag _1.pdf (accessed 8 January 2020). Geeraerts, K., Tynjälä, P., Heikkinen, H.L., Markkanen, I., Pennanen, M. and Gijbels, D. (2015) Peer-group mentoring as a tool for teacher development. European Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3), 358–377. Heikkinen, H.L.T. and Aho, J. (2015) Ope (ei) saa oppia: Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen [A Teacher Can(not) Learn: Developing the Continuation of Teacher Education]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Husu, J. and Toom, A. (2016) Opettajat ja Opettajankoulutus – Suuntia Tulevaan [Teachers and Teacher Education: Directions for the Future]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. See http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/ handle/10024/75552/okm33.pdf (accessed 8 January 2020). Jyrhämä, R. and Maaranen, K. (2016) Research orientation in a teacher’s work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (eds) Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. 91–108). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. and Kansanen, P. (2008) The appreciation and realisation of research-based teacher education: Finnish students’ experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education 31 (1), 1–16. Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F., Aro, M. and Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2015) Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Springer. Kantelinen, R. and Hildén, R. (2016) Language education: Towards transversal intercultural language proficiency. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (eds) Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. 157–178). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Kelly, M., Grenfell, M., Gallagher-Brett, A., Jones, D., Richard, L. and HilmarssonDunn, A. (2002) The Training of Teachers of a Foreign Language: Developments in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Lanas, M. and Kelchtermans, G. (2015) ‘This has more to do with who I am than with my skills’: Student teacher subjectification in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 47, 22–29. Lehtola, K. and Wilen, L. (2010) Täydennyskoulutus Auttaa Jaksamaan ja Antaa Uutta Tietoa – Opetushenkilökunnan Arviointeja [In-service Training Helps to Continue and Gives New Knowledge: Teacher Feedback]. Mikkeli: Eastern Finland Regional State Administrative Agency. See https://docplayer.fi/20120649-Taydennyskoulutus-auttaajaksamaan-ja-antaa-uutta-tietoa.html (accessed 8 January 2020). Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. and Kääntä, L. (2008) Kolmas Kotimainen: Lähikuvia Englannin Käytöstä Suomessa [Third National Language: Close-ups of the Use of English in Finland]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Leppänen, S., Pitkänen-Huhta, A., Nikula, T., Kytölä, S., Törmäkangas, T., Nissinen, K. and Koskela, H. (2009) Kansallinen Kyselytutkimus Englannin Kielestä Suomessa: Käyttö, Merkitys ja Asenteet [A National Survey on English Language in Finland: Use, Significance and Attitudes]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Mikkola, A. (2016) Foreword: Perspectives of the future of the teaching profession. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (eds) Miracle of Education: The Principles

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Finland  91

and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. vii–ix). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ministry of Education and Culture (2003) Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers: Finnish Report for OECD. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. Ministry of Education and Culture (2015) Yliopistojen Rahoitusmalli 2017–2020 [Financing Model for Universities 2017–2020]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. See https://www.tsv.fi/sites/tsv.fi/files/media/yo_rahoitusmalli_05062015_0. pdf (accessed 8 January 2020). Ministry of Education and Culture (2016) Teacher Education Development Programme. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. See https://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/4583171/Opettajankoulutuksen+kehittämisen+suuntaviivoja+-+Ope ttajankoulutusfoorumin+ideoita+ja+ehdotuksia (accessed 8 January 2020). Ministry of Education and Culture (2019) Opettajankoulutsfoorumi uudistaa opettajankoulutusta [Teacher Education Forum Renews Teacher Education]. See https:// minedu.fi/opettajankoulutusfoorumi (accessed 31 October 2019). Niemi, H. (2011) Educating student teachers to become high quality professionals: A Finnish case. CEPS Journal 1 (1), 43–66. Niemi, H. and Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2009) Teacher education curriculum of secondary school teachers. Revista de Educacion 350, 173–202. Niemi, H. and Nevgi, A. (2014) Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 43, 131–142. Pursiainen, J., Rusanen, J., Raudasoja, E.M., Nurkkala, R., Kortelainen, T., Partanen, S. and Peuna, I. (2019) Selvitys opettajankoulutuksen rakenteesta yliopistoissa [Report on the Structure of Teacher Education in Universities]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. See http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/ handle/10024/161530/OKM_2019_11_Selvitys_opettajankoulutuksen_rakenteesta_ yliopistoissa.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y (accessed 8 January 2020). Sahlberg, P. (2011) Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Soler-Carbonell, J., Saarinen, T. and Kibbermann, K. (2017) Multilayered perspectives on language policy in higher education: Finland, Estonia, and Latvia in comparison. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38 (4), 301–314. Statistics Finland (2017) Väestörakenne: Ruotsinkielisten ja Vieraskielisten Osuus Väestöstä 1900–2017 [Demographics: The Amount of Speakers of Swedish and Foreign Languages of the Population 1900–2017]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. See http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2017/01/vaerak_2017_01_2018-10-01_kuv_001_fi.html (accessed 8 January 2020). Statistics Finland (2019) Englantia opiskelevien osuus kasvussa peruskoulujen alaluokilla [Number of English Learners Growing in the Lower Grades of Basic Education]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. See https://www.stat.fi/til/ava/2019/02/ava_2019_02_ 2020-05-20_tie_001_fi.html (accessed 28 April 2021). Swennen, A. and van der Klink, M. (2009) Epilogue: Enhancing the profession of teacher educators. In A. Swennen and M. Van der Klink (eds) Becoming a Teacher Educator (pp. 219–225). New York: Springer. Tirri, K. (2014) The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching 40 (5), 600–609. Tryggvason, M.T. (2009) Why is Finnish teacher education successful? Some goals Finnish teacher educators have for their teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education 32 (4), 369–382. White, S. and Forgasz, R. (2016) The practicum: The place of experience? In J. Loughran and M. Hamilton (eds) International Handbook of Teacher Education (pp. 231–266). New York: Springer.

6 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Evdokia Karavas and Christina Gkonou

Chapter Summary

This chapter centres on recent policy, curriculum planning and educational practices surrounding the preparation of EAL teachers in Greece, by drawing on a number of pre-service and in-service teacher education initiatives. We begin our chapter by reviewing the historical context of EAL provision in Greece and the subsequent need for well-equipped English teachers to cater for the diverse needs of EAL learners. We then discuss innovative interventions within pre-service and in-service teacher education, both of which have a solid research foundation, address curriculum standards and lead to nationally accredited qualifications for EAL teachers across the board. Specifically, we describe the national policy on pedagogical and teaching competencies (for the pre-service level) running at two different universities, the training of teachers for EAL at primary school and the creation of communities of practice through online platforms and mentor systems, as well as the training of EAL teachers in the use of new technologies (at the in-service level and for continuous professional development). 1. Brief Introduction

English language education has always been regarded highly in Greece, thus emphasising the need for qualified and well-trained EAL teachers. Teacher education has been presented with a number of different challenges which, in the case of Greece, have been aggravated given the unstable sociopolitical and financial situation of the last decade. However, the initiatives relating to EAL teacher education undertaken by various professional bodies during such times of uncertainty are indicative of 92

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  93

hope and the importance attached to the continuous and high-quality education of teachers and, ultimately, learners. This chapter presents information pertaining to the preparation of EAL teachers in Greece, at both the pre-service and in-service level. In the first section, we describe the historical context of EAL teacher education as well as the current national policy and EAL learner and teacher demographics. The second section discusses EAL teacher education programmes and specifically how they have been shaped by research, laws and regulations. Additionally, we discuss the qualifications of EAL teacher educators, curriculum standards and issues surrounding practical, handson field experience. In the third section, we examine accreditation and formative and summative assessments, all of which form part of quality assurance. We end the chapter by presenting a number of in-service professional development activities. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education

Greek society places a strong value on education. The current educational system was set up by the 1976 educational policy that was introduced with the new Constitution. Education in Greece is enshrined in Article 16, Section 4 of the Greek Constitution, which states that: Education constitutes a basic mission for the State and shall aim at the moral, intellectual, professional and physical training of Greeks, the development of national and religious consciousness and at their formation as free and responsible citizens.

The Greek Constitution also stipulates (Article 16, Section 1) that: Art and science, research and teaching shall be free and their development and promotion shall be an obligation of the State.

As such, at all levels, education offered by the state is free, including the distribution of textbooks and supplementary learning resources for all students. Social equity and the development of an egalitarian society are values enshrined in the Greek Constitution (Article 4) and form the backbone of Greek education, evidenced through its commitment to avoid privilege and differentiation. According to the OECD report (2018: 23), ‘The Greek system seeks to avoid privilege and any differentiation or selection among students, teachers, schools or regions on any basis other than objective criteria’. The Greek educational system is highly centralised and overwhelmingly bureaucratic, with the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs having control and responsibility over all levels and spheres of education from the allocation of funding to the selection of teachers and educational staff. The Ministry of Education together with the Pedagogical Institute (renamed in 2011 as the Institute of Educational Policy) are responsible for

94  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

the curriculum, the school timetable and distribution of classes, the material and textbooks and the employment of teachers (Gropas & Triandafyllidou, 2007). Education is compulsory for all students from the ages of four to 15. All students follow a similar curriculum until age 16, which is centrally developed and nationally implemented. Early childhood education usually starts at age four, primary education (Demotiko) lasts six years and lower secondary education (Gymnasium) lasts three years. Student tracking starts at the end of lower secondary education, when students decide whether to follow an academic or a vocational track. The unified upper secondary school (Lyceum – academic track) and vocational upper secondary school (Epaggelmatiko Lyckeio, EPAL – vocational track) last for three years. 2a. Historical context

Foreign language education is valued highly by Greek society. Greeks strongly believe in the value of mastering at least one foreign language that will allow them to communicate with speakers of other languages. According to a Eurobarometer survey (2012), 57% of Greeks know at least one foreign language apart from their mother tongue, 74% of Greeks believe that English is important for their personal development, 48% believe that they know English well enough to take part in a conversation, while an overwhelming majority (94%) believe that learning English is important for their children’s future. English is the most popular foreign language in Greece in public education (offered for free by the Greek state) and private education (offered by various educational organisations with student fees). As Angouri et al. (2010: 183) assert, ‘English, occupying a dominant place globally, is expected to provide them with important educational, professional and socioeconomic opportunities and thus it is the first foreign language most Greeks choose to learn’. Within the context of public education, the teaching of English was introduced in lower secondary education through a Presidential Decree in 1945. In 1977, the first curriculum for the teaching of English in lower secondary education was developed (Government Gazette, 270/A΄/20-9-77). With the 1987 Presidential Decree, English was introduced in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades of primary school. In 2003 English was introduced in the third grade of primary school. 2b. Current national policy

Since 2010 the Greek educational system has been experiencing innovation overload. The shockwaves of economic and public sector reforms unleashed by the Greek economic crisis of 2010–2011 (Sotiropoulos, 2011)

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  95

were accompanied by major reforms in the education sector involving a complete restructuring of the Greek educational system. In 2010, the Government announced a multifold reform programme affecting every level and every aspect of education under the title ‘The Student First – The New School’ (Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, 2011). The reform under the overarching framework of the ‘New School’ involves a complete redrafting of school curricula, giving autonomy to teachers in the development of their syllabi and the choice of their teaching methods. This introduced a break with the ‘one textbook per subject’ rule, encouraging teachers to develop materials using multiple sources of information and the integration of information communication technologies (ICT) in teachers’ everyday classroom practices (see Karavas, 2014a). With this reform, numerous major changes in the area of foreign language teaching were introduced, aiming at providing more and better opportunities for foreign language learning within state schools and facilitating the achievement of the European objective for multilingualism and plurilingual citizenry. In line with European developments in early language learning (ELL) and European Union (EU) policy recommendations, in 2010 the Greek Ministry of Education introduced English in the first and second grades of public all-day primary schools. The programme, which has come to be known by the Greek acronym PEAP, was developed within the context of a European-funded project entitled ‘New Foreign Language Education Policy in Schools: English for Young Learners’ and was initially implemented on a pilot basis in 960 primary schools throughout Greece. The PEAP programme evolved into a multifaceted innovation involving more than 2000 English language teachers and was presented with the 2011 European Language Label award. The programme involved the development of a curricular framework for the first and second grades of primary school, the development of syllabi for each grade, and the design and development of new teaching materials and learning experiences for learners. The PEAP curriculum aims at developing a pre-A1 level oral ability according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) and promotes a ‘learning by doing’ approach; its content is attentive to learners’ social, cognitive, affective and psycho-motor skills (see Karavas, 2012). In addition, a new curriculum for foreign language teaching in schools, the Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum, was developed in 2011 within the framework of the new National Curriculum. This curriculum, which applies to the third grade of primary school through the third grade of lower secondary school, is common for all foreign languages that are currently offered in Greek state schools (i.e. English, which is the socalled ‘first’ foreign language taught in Greek schools, and also French, German, Spanish and Italian, referred to as ‘second’ foreign languages), comprising an integrated framework applying to both primary and secondary education. This in itself constitutes a major breakthrough, since

96  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

until recently languages were treated in the Greek school curriculum as separate, clearly defined subjects. The foreign language curricula for primary education had been developed independently of the curricula for secondary education, adding to the incoherence and non-systematicity of foreign language education in Greece. With the new curriculum, foreign language learning, teaching and assessment conform to the six-level scale of the CEFR as specified by the Council of Europe, comprising the European standard for language proficiency (see Dendrinos et al., 2013). 2c. Current EAL learner population

As far as public education is concerned, English is taught to 640,000 primary school learners, 315,920 students in lower secondary education and 239,273 students in upper secondary education (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2018). According to Eurostat (2017), 99.3% of students attending upper secondary education in Greece learn English while almost nine out of ten (97.8%) of students in primary schools learn English as a foreign language. The number of hours allocated to English language instruction varies at different educational levels. Currently English is taught for one hour at the first and second grades of primary school and for three hours from the third to the sixth grade. At high school level, English is taught for two hours a week. According to the European Survey of Language Competences (Dendrinos et al., 2013), which included Greece as one of the 16 participating countries, the majority of Greek students are at the ‘Independent User’ level in English (B1 and B2 on the 6-level scale of the Council of Europe). However, this result cannot be attributed to public schooling alone, since the majority of students in Greece, apart from their English classes at school, also attend foreign language institutes called frontistiria (shadow education schools; see Giavrimis et al., 2018). These are a burgeoning business in Greece, being almost exclusively oriented towards preparing students for language certification exams. A recent survey reports that there are 6564 foreign language schools in Greece with 510,575 students, the vast majority of whom (448,822) are preparing for English language certificates.1 According to Angouri et al. (2010), 80% of Greek schoolchildren attend foreign language institutes, and about €880 million is spent on average by Greek families on language school fees and textbooks. This financially exerting practice, even for low-income families, reflects parents’ perennial lack of trust towards the quality of foreign language provision in Greek public schools and is a result of their deepheld belief that foreign language instruction equals foreign language certification. This of course creates an additional problem in foreign language school classes because students have substantially different levels of knowledge and communication skills in the target language – a challenge for language teachers especially when the infrastructure of the school does not enable differentiated teaching.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  97

2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

Currently there are 7660 English language teachers working in public schools, of whom 3744 teach English at primary school and 3916 teach English in lower and upper secondary education (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2018). All English language teachers in public schools in Greece are considered subject specialists (see Eurydice, 2017), since they must have completed a four-year undergraduate degree programme in the Departments of English Language and Literature of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA) or the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH). Until recently, the programme of studies of both departments offered a series of courses on pedagogy and EAL teaching that allowed graduates to be appointed as teachers of English in public and private schools. Recently, according to a law published in the Government Gazette (Issue No. Β΄ 2281/5-7-2017 and ensuing modifications), in order for graduates to be eligible for appointment in public or private schools, they must successfully complete a specially designed Pedagogic and Teaching Competence Programme (PTCP) as part of their four-year programme of studies, which leads to the award of the Certificate of Pedagogic and Teaching Competence. This applies only to graduates who entered the Departments of English from the academic year 2015–2016 onwards. Individuals with bachelor’s degrees in English studies obtained from countries outside Greece are also eligible to teach English, provided that they acquire an additional certificate of successful attendance at a special retraining programme from the Departments of English of NKUA or AUTH (see Eurydice, 2017). However, at frontistiria anyone with a C2-level certificate (Proficient User) is eligible to teach. 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programmes

As mentioned above, in order to be eligible for appointment to public and private schools in Greece, prospective English teachers must complete a four-year undergraduate degree programme in the Departments of English Language and Literature of NKUA or AUTH. The four-year undergraduate degree programme in English language and literature qualifies graduates to teach in primary and secondary publicly funded schools and in the private sector (schools, language institutes), to later pursue graduate-level education for careers as researchers/academics, and to work as translators and/or interpreters or in various capacities in publishing houses and other private and public companies that focus on advertising, the media and the arts in Greece and abroad (Karatsiori, 2015). All courses are taught and assessed in English. At NKUA, during their first year of study, students also take elective courses in Greek in areas such as history, psychology and pedagogy, offered by other departments of the

98  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

School of Philosophy. Thus, students at NKUA study towards a BA degree in English with a minor in Greek studies. Undergraduate students must complete eight semesters of study and complete a total of 240 credits. At NKUA, students are required to take 38 courses in order to get their degree, of which 20 are compulsory and 18 are elective. At AUTH, students are required to take 37 core courses amounting to 222 ECTS and three elective courses amounting to 18 ECTS. Each student is entitled to free textbooks throughout their four years of study (if and when available). The exact number of textbooks is determined by the relevant regulations and cannot exceed the number of courses required for graduation. With slight variations, the programme of studies of both departments aims to: • provide students with the theoretical and practical knowledge necessary for understanding how language operates, what the structure and the functions of the English language are and how language is used as social practice; • help them develop the necessary knowledge and communicative abilities in order to use the English language fluently for general and academic purposes; • help them develop their ability to apply theories of language and language learning to research and educational objectives; • train them to apply linguistic theories in socially purposeful ways and to be able to undertake projects in educational language planning, translation, the use of multimedia in research and education, lexicography, etc.; • examine and conduct research in English literature and culture; • study Greek culture and literature in relation to English and European literatures and cultures; • cultivate analytic and synthetic thinking, and the ability to write academic papers on Anglophone literature and culture, as well as in theoretical and applied linguistics; and • develop their ability to analyse critically and evaluate texts through the acquisition and use of the proper theoretical tools and methodology with the aim of promoting research. Throughout their studies in both departments, students also develop skills that allow them to: (1) apply knowledge in practice; (2) locate, possess, analyse and synthesise data and information using new technologies; (3) adapt to novel situations; (4) make decisions; (5) work independently or in groups; (6) work in interdisciplinary environments; (7) generate new research ideas; and (8) demonstrate professional and ethical responsibility and sensitivity to issues of gender, difference and multicultural diversity. Moreover, at NKUA, apart from the development of academic competences and professional skills, the programme of studies aims at the

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  99

development of students’ social, political and cultural awareness. Given that English plays an integral part in constructing a global culture, the ideological role and political importance of English are taken into account. Finally, the programmes aim at cultivating students’ social sensitivity and developing their social consciences so that they can realise their potential as active citizens and critique cultural practices and ideologies. 3a. Research foundation/methods

The PTCPs of both universities (see Section 3b) take into account and are aligned with the main principles of the European Profile for Language Teacher Education (Kelly et al., 2004). The European Profile deals with the initial and in-service education of foreign language teachers in primary, secondary and adult learning contexts and offers a frame of reference for language education policymakers and language teacher educators in Europe. The Profile presents a toolkit of 40 items that could be included in a teacher education programme to equip language teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge, as well as other professional competencies, to enhance their professional development and to lead to greater transparency and portability of qualifications. It sets out in detail the different constituent parts of language teacher education, the kinds of knowledge and understanding student-teachers should develop and the strategies and skills they should acquire in order to perform effectively in different teaching situations, as well as the values student-teachers should be able to promote in students. Moreover, student-teachers following the PTCPs of both Greek universities are evaluated on the basis of descriptors offered in the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (Newby et al., 2007). Developed for the European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe by a team of teacher educators from five different countries (Armenia, Austria, Norway, Poland, UK), with the overall aim of harmonising language teacher education across Europe, the EPOSTL describes in a comprehensive way what pre-service and novice language teachers have to be able to do in order to teach learners to use a language for communication. It is a tool for reflection, assessment and self-assessment of the didactic knowledge and skills necessary to teach languages. It encourages student-teachers to reflect on their didactic knowledge and skills necessary to teach languages, helps them to assess their own didactic competences and enables them to monitor their progress and to record their experiences of teaching during the course of their teacher education. At the heart of the EPOSTL are 195 descriptors of competences related to language teaching which may be regarded as a set of core competences that language teachers should strive to attain. The descriptors relate to the following categories: • Context • Methodology

100  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

• • • • •

Resources Lesson planning Conducting a lesson Independent learning Assessment of learning

Selected descriptors from all categories are used (a) for the assessment of student-teachers during their teaching practicum and (b) for the selfassessment of student-teachers in all language teaching related courses included in their undergraduate programme of studies. At NKUA, in order to successfully complete their teaching practicum, student-teachers are required to submit their European Portfolio on a specially designed electronic platform (see Section 3e below). 3b. National policy

Until recently, the programme of studies of both departments offered a series of courses on pedagogy and EAL teaching that allowed graduates to be appointed as teachers of English in public and private schools. Recently, according to a law published in the Government Gazette (Issue No. Β΄ 2281/5-7-2017 and ensuing modifications), in order for graduates to be eligible for appointment in public or private schools they must successfully complete a specially designed PTCP as part of their four-year programme of studies, which leads to the award of the Certificate of Pedagogic and Teaching Competence. This applies only for graduates who entered the Departments of English from the academic year 2015– 2016 onwards. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Teacher educators at university responsible for delivering language teaching related courses are academic staff belonging to the following ranks: professors, substitute professors, assistant professors and lecturers. A PhD title, a substantial publication record in areas related to language teaching and teacher education as well as proven experience in teacher education constitute the formal qualifications of university teacher educators (Law 4009/2011). School Advisors responsible for the education and training of in-service language teachers also have PhDs, at least 10 years of teaching experience and experience in teacher education. Adult trainers receive initial education at HEIs and are required to have educational aptitude. After their educational aptitude is recognised and certified by the National Organization for the Certification of Qualifications & Vocational Guidance (EOPPEP), adult trainers are registered in the Trainers Register (see Eurydice, 2019). Mentor teachers responsible for assisting, supporting and evaluating student-teachers during their

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  101

teaching practicum are experienced language teachers with postgraduate qualifications in the area of TESOL. Over the years, the Department of English at NKUA has cooperated with a large number of experienced teachers in primary and secondary schools who were responsible for supporting and assessing student-teachers during their practicum. During the academic years 2005–2006 and 2007– 2008, the Faculty of English Studies succeeded in getting funds (through the Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training ‘Education’) in order to materialise the Mentor Education/Training Programme. The department was granted the 2006 European Label Award for this project. As a result, training materials for mentors were developed and seminars and conferences were organised for mentor teachers. In 2008, a handbook for mentor teachers was published and distributed free of charge to all cooperating teachers (Karavas, 2008), while in 2014 an online mentor training course was developed, which all cooperating mentor teachers are expected to complete. The online course consists of four modules: • Module 1: Understanding the student-teacher and the mentor role • Module 2: Understanding the content of the Teaching Practice course (mentor and student-teacher role and responsibilities) • Module 3: Using the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages for assessing student-teachers • Module 4: Providing effective feedback 3d. Curriculum mandates/standards/competencies

The PTCP, the successful completion of which is a prerequisite for the appointment of language teachers in public and private schools, integrates academic study and practical experience of teaching with a view to developing the professional awareness and competences required to teach English effectively in the public and private sectors. More specifically, the programme aims to: • develop in student-teachers the essential knowledge and skills of teaching (subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge); • develop student-teachers’ abilities to question, reason and critically reflect on mainstream teaching practices, and understand the social needs for language learning in the united Europe of today and tomorrow; • provide students with the discourse and vocabulary, the metalanguage that will allow them to analyse, discuss their personal teaching theories and provide a rationale for their teaching; and • develop awareness of the roles and responsibilities of foreign language teachers in the Greek educational context, thus preparing students at a cognitive, affective and performance level for their future role as English language teachers.

102  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

According to law, the PTCP offered by both departments includes a number of compulsory and elective courses that fall under three thematic areas: (1) Issues in Pedagogy and Education; (2) Issues of Learning and Teaching; and (3) Teaching for Special Purposes and Teaching Practice. The number and orientation of courses included in the programme differ slightly between the two departments. At AUTH, the PTCP includes eight courses, of which five are compulsory and three are elective (see https://www.enl.auth.gr/guides/student_ guide_2019-2020_EN.pdf). Compulsory courses include: Methodology of Teaching; Second Language Acquisition; The Classroom: Principles and Practice; and Practice in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language I and II. For each of the three thematic areas, a number of elective courses are offered. In the thematic area Issues in Education, students can choose from a total of four elective courses, in the thematic area Issues of Learning and Teaching students can choose from a total of eight elective courses, while in the thematic area Teaching for Special Purposes and Teaching Practice, students can choose from a total of nine elective courses. Below is a sample of the elective courses offered: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Strategies of Language Learning and Communication Teaching the Pronunciation of English Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning English for Specific Purposes Self-access and Language Learning Teaching Aids Vocabulary Acquisition and Teaching Pedagogical Foundations in Learning a Foreign/Second Language I and II Corpora and their Use in Language Teaching Syllabus Design and Material Preparation Evaluation and Organisation of Teaching Materials Language Classrooms Observed Language Course Design: Micro-teaching Testing and Evaluation Assessment in the Classroom Information Technology in ELT Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Young Learners

The programme offered by NKUA consists of seven courses, of which four are compulsory and three are elective (two of which concern the area of pedagogy and are offered in Greek by Departments of the School of Philosophy and one is from the bank of teaching-related courses offered by the Department of English). The courses are organised into the three thematic areas shown in Table 6.1.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  103

Table 6.1  The NKUA programme: Thematic areas Semester

Thematic area

Courses

1st–4th

Issues in Pedagogy and Education

One elective course focusing on pedagogy and offered in Greek by Departments of the School of Philosophy

5th

Issues of Learning and Teaching

Compulsory course: Applied Linguistics to Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

6th

Issues of Learning and Teaching

Compulsory course: ELT Methods and Practices

5th–8th

Issues of Learning and Teaching

One elective teaching-related course offered by the Department of English

7th

Teaching for Special Purposes and Teaching Practice

Compulsory course: Practice Teaching 1: TEFL Practicum

8th

Teaching for Special Purposes and Teaching Practice

Compulsory course: Practice Teaching 2: Teaching Practice in Schools

Elective courses related to pedagogy and education are offered by Departments of the School of Philosophy from the first to the fourth semester. These include courses such as: • • • • • • • • • • • •

School Psychology Developmental Psychology Cognitive Psychology Intercultural Education Introduction to Pedagogy Psychology of Learning Difficulties From Syllabus to Textbook to Teaching Practice Educational Management Motivational Psychology Intercultural Psychology Sociology of Education Instructional Design

Elective courses related to EAL teaching and offered by the Department of English include the following: • • • • • • • • • • •

Language Skills Development and Digital Media Intercultural Communication Interlingual Study of English and Greek Teaching Speaking: From Theory to Practice Entrepreneurship and Innovation Teaching Reading and Listening in the EFL classroom Lesson Planning and Materials Development Assessment in Foreign Language Learning Disabilities and Language Education Language Education in Multicultural Contexts Teaching English to Young Learners

104  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

• Electronic Corpora and their Applications in the EFL Context • Cultural Identity and Teaching English Pronunciation 3e. Practicum and field experience

With the introduction of the PTCP, Practice Teaching in schools is mandatory for anyone wishing to be awarded the certificate. The structure and content of Practice Teaching differs between the two institutions, however. Practice teaching at AUTH

For students who have entered the department from the academic year 2015–2016 onwards, Practice Teaching is offered in two courses, ‘Practice Teaching in English as a Second/Foreign Language 1 and 2’. Both courses are taken during the same semester. At the beginning of the semester, students attend seminars at the university, which aim at linking theory to practice and developing students’ awareness of the methodological issues they will confront in public schools. Students are then appointed to primary and secondary public schools for two months during which they carry out various tasks in cooperation with the English teachers. At the end of the Practice Teaching appointment, students must submit a portfolio based on the work they have carried out in their appointed school (observation schemes, lesson plans, activities and materials) and a report of their school experience. Students are assessed on the basis of their portfolio and report, and the evaluation report of students’ performance submitted by the English language teacher at the school. The aims of the Practice Teaching courses are to develop students’ skills in: • • • • •

designing coherent lesson plans; reflecting on their teaching; choosing and designing appropriate materials for a specific class; expressing clear instructions; and using English as a medium of instruction and communication with students.

Practice teaching at NKUA

The Teaching Practice course is offered to fourth year students during the final semester of their studies (eighth semester). This course gives students the opportunity to gain first-hand teaching experience in a public or private primary or secondary school (from the list of schools collaborating with the university) from the beginning of March until the end of May. Teaching Practice in a real classroom setting seeks first of all to familiarise student-teachers with the reality of the English classroom in Greece and more specifically with the pedagogic practices used in state and private

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  105

primary and secondary schools. During Teaching Practice in schools, student-teachers also become familiar with other curricular and extracurricular activities. Therefore, through this course, students apply the knowledge they have acquired and the skills they have already developed in the core courses ‘Applied Linguistics to English Language Teaching and Learning’ and ‘ELT Methods and Practices’, as well as other courses that are components of the PTCP. More specifically, this particular course aims at: • providing student-teachers with the opportunity to take the position of an informed observer in an English classroom in a Greek school and to systematically follow and reflect on the processes of teaching and learning therein; • facilitating the application of theory to practice, fine tuning studentteachers’ teaching skills and promoting their professional awareness and development; • familiarising student-teachers with classroom conditions and the discursive practices of participants in the teaching/learning process from the position of a teaching assistant; • providing student-teachers with an opportunity to carry out supervised teaching for a short period of time; and • familiarising them, as far as possible, with the different activities associated with teaching. In January of every year, students choose the school they would prefer to conduct their Teaching Practice in through a specially designed electronic platform. Each student is assigned a mentor teacher during their Teaching Practice in the school. Teaching Practice lasts for nine weeks and begins in March. Students are asked to attend the school for six to eight hours a week, totalling at least 50 hours of presence at their chosen school. Their nine-week field experience is structured as follows: Weeks 1, 2, 3: This is called the orientation phase and its purpose is to familiarise students with the school and the school culture. During this phase students visit English classes and complete structured observation forms. They also keep a diary in which they record their feelings and experiences at the school. Weeks 4, 5, 6, 7: This is called the support teaching phase and its purpose is to gradually acquaint students with classroom dynamics and teaching. During this phase students are asked to design and implement an activity for a specific class each week, which can focus on any area but must be compatible with the class syllabus and integrate ICT. At this stage, students evaluate themselves on the basis of specific descriptors from the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages and the mentor teacher also evaluates students’ performance on the basis of the same descriptors. Weeks 7, 8, 9: This is called the independent teaching phase, which provides students with an opportunity to carry out supervised teaching in

106  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

a specific class. During these three weeks, students are expected to design two full lessons (with accompanying activities and materials), write a rationale of their lesson plans and carry them out in the same class or two different classes. For this phase students are evaluated on their lesson planning skills and teaching performance by their mentor teacher on the basis of related descriptors from the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages. Mentor teachers record their evaluation through a specially designed electronic platform. Once the evaluation is complete, the platform automatically sends the mentors’ evaluation to the university instructors. The mentor’s evaluation counts for 45% of students’ grade for the course. During the final weeks of the course (Weeks 10, 11, 12), students are requested to develop their own European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (see Section 3b above). A specially designed electronic platform called e-portfolios enables students to upload and create their own personal teaching portfolios, which include students’ personal statements (the first part of every European portfolio), their self evaluations (for the activities they designed during Weeks 4–7), their diaries, the completed observation forms and all the materials they have developed during their Teaching Practice. The teaching portfolio is assessed by university instructors and counts for 55% of the students’ overall grade for the course. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

Every HEI in Greece is responsible for assuring the quality and constant development of its work in education and research. It is also responsible for the effective operation and efficiency of services in accordance with international practice and, first and foremost, with the principles of the European Higher Education Area and the directions of the Hellenic Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (ADIP; L. 4009, see Eurydice, 2019). Programmes of study of all university departments throughout Greece are evaluated on the basis of explicit criteria by ADIP. Moreover, the PTCPs (learning outcomes, courses and structure), before implementation, are submitted for approval to the Institute of Educational Policy and once approved are signed by the Minister of Education and are published as law in the Government Gazette. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

All courses of the PTCP are systematically evaluated during the course and at the end. Formative evaluation is carried out through in-class ­discussions during which students’ concerns and issues are discussed and resolved. At the end of each course, student-teachers complete

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  107

an evaluation questionnaire, and mentor teachers evaluate their experience with student-teachers and with the course. The findings of the student and mentor evaluations are taken into serious account when designing the following year’s courses (see Karavas, 2013). 4c. In-service professional development activities Induction training

Before their appointment to public or private schools, graduate teachers are obligated to attend an initial training course of about 60 hours, where the teacher educators are academics, experienced teachers of primary and secondary education, school consultants and school principals. This training is mandatory for all teachers and is carried out in one of the 16 Regional Training Centres of Greece (PEK) which operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. Induction training is carried out in three phases. In Phase A, which lasts for 45 hours, newly appointed teachers in small groups attend the PEK and are informed and trained in the following areas: the legislation framework of public education, principles of classroom management, unit and lesson planning and techniques for active student involvement, recent teaching methods, student assessment and evaluation, action research and integrating ICT in the teaching process. This is followed by Phase B, which involves 32 hours of observation of exemplary teaching, discussion and analysis of observed classes. Phase C, which lasts for 20 hours, consists of discussions and reflections on teaching experience. It should be noted that the sustained recession that Greece has experienced for the last decade has greatly affected its economy and society. Public spending in education declined by 36% (in nominal terms), with cuts affecting teachers, especially in terms of wages and recruitment (OECD, 2017). As a result, there has been a recruitment freeze of public civil servants and since 2014 there have been no appointments of new teachers. Thus, induction training has frozen as well. In-service professional development: The public sector

In the Greek educational context, School Advisors are responsible for the in-service education and training of public school teachers. School Advisors are experienced teachers with high professional and academic qualifications officially selected and appointed by the Ministry of Education. There are different School Advisors for the subjects covered in the primary and secondary curricula. When appointed, School Advisors are given responsibility for a specific prefecture and are expected to be well acquainted with the constraints and characteristics of the schools in their prefecture and cover the educational needs of the subject teachers they serve (Tzotzou, 2014). Their responsibilities include monitoring and supporting the implementation of educational policy, in-service training

108  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

of schoolteachers, counselling and the pedagogical guidance of school teachers (Tzotzou, 2017). In-service training takes the form of one-day seminars organised within the teachers’ working hours (9:00–14:00) on various topics relating to current methodological practices and the pedagogic integration of ICT. Teacher participation is not compulsory. Professional development courses are also offered within the context of educational innovations and serve to acquaint teachers with the specifications of the innovation and assist them with its implementation. Thus, when English was introduced in the first and second grade of primary schools (PEAP; see also above) in 2010, responsibility for the development and implementation of the project was given by the Ministry of Education to the Research Centre for Language Teaching, Learning and Assessment (RCeL) of the Faculty of English Studies of the University of Athens. Given that the teachers who were appointed by the Ministry of Education to teach first and second grade primary school classes were mostly secondary school English teachers with little or no experience of teaching learners of such a young age, the need for a coherent and systematic training programme was imminent. With the introduction of the project in primary schools, a national survey documenting the needs and characteristics of teachers, learners and school units was carried out through online and printed questionnaires addressed to project schoolteachers and head teachers. The teacher profile survey involved data from 2033 project teachers, while the one for school units was completed by 254 pilot school head teachers. The training programme took the form of blended learning by comprising an online course with six self-contained modules on principles for teaching young learners, classroom management, materials and activities suitable for their age, and issues surrounding children’s cognitive, linguistic and socio-affective development. This online course was complemented by face-to-face seminars, one-day conferences and online seminars delivered by School Advisors and/or members of the project team, the latter also including videos from actual PEAP classrooms adapted from the online course. (Karavas, 2014a, 2014b). In order to facilitate the sustainability of the PEAP training programme and the project as a whole, including its further development and institutionalisation, an online platform for the development of communities of practice, called ‘2gather’, was developed in the third year of the programme. The platform aims to help School Advisors and PEAP project teachers form and become members of a learning community, engaging in conversations, sharing innovative ideas, documenting successful practices and applying them to their own classroom settings (see Karavas & Papadopoulou, 2014). As mentioned above, in 2010 the Minister of Education announced the introduction of a multifold educational innovation affecting every level and aspect of education under the title ‘The Student First – The New School’. This reform effort was accompanied by a national in-service

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  109

professional development programme involving all subject teachers and primary school teachers in Greece. The design of the professional development programme (funded by the EU) was based on the findings of a nationwide survey carried out by the Institute of Educational Policy, exploring the views of 32,070 school teachers, academic and research staff and ­policymakers on what should go into the programme, and by inviting school teachers to voluntarily submit good practices and lesson plans that would inform the content of the training course (506 teachers submitted 568 lesson plans in total; see www.epimorfosi.edu.gr). In 2011, a pilot professional development programme under the title ‘Major Training Programme’ (MTP) was implemented (from June to December 2011) involving 8000 ­permanent state school teachers from seven different subject specialisations (including teachers of foreign languages), who were trained at 57 training centres in five selected prefectures all over Greece (see www.epimorfosi.edu.gr; see also Tzotzou, 2016). The MTP marked a new era for teacher training in Greece, since for the first time a teacher development programme adopted a process-oriented approach, prompting teachers to discover their personal theories through research, inquiry and reflection. Despite the successful implementation of the pilot programme, the MTP did not continue to achieve its initial objective of training almost 150,000 public and private school teachers of all disciplines in primary and secondary education (as cited in Anastasiades, 2011). The programme was ended, probably due to rapid political changes in Greece (e.g. elections, new government, appointment of a new Minister of Education, etc.) and/ or the financial crisis and the lack of funds from the Greek state and the Ministry of Education, when co-funding provided by the European Social Fund (ESPA 2007-13) came to an end (see Tzotzou, 2017). Another significant nationwide in-service teacher development programme that has been running since 2007 concerns training teachers in the use of ICT in teaching and learning, carried out by Computer Technology Institute and Press (CTI) Diophantus under the supervision, support and guidelines of the Greek Ministry of Education. This programme consists of two phases: (a) introductory training in the use of ICT in teaching (B1 level on ICT) and (b) advanced training in the use of ICT in teaching (B2 level on ICT). At the end of the training period, the teachers sit for their certification exams which lead to a ‘Certification in the Use of ICT in Teaching’. The programme concerns all subject teachers in Greece but until 2016 the Certification of B level on ICT was held only for primary school teachers and secondary school teachers of linguistics, mathematics, science and informatics. Since 2017 the training and certification model has been modified in order to be available for teachers of all subjects in secondary schools, including foreign language teachers. In 2019 (January–July), a programme aimed at training 300 teacher trainers (50 for foreign languages) was carried out. The 50 foreign language teacher trainers underwent 186 hours of training and a teaching practicum

110  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

that comprised 32 hours, and in October 2019 they sat for their certification exams. Their training took place at universities throughout Greece and was provided by academics with expertise in using ICT for teaching. After the certification process, these trainers will be responsible for training foreign language teachers in Greece – an initiative that will take place in 2020. In addition to the interventions and initiatives presented above, all of which are offered free to public and private school teachers, a number of private organisations in Greece offer teacher training seminars and EAL teachers’ certifications with a fee. For example, the Hellenic American Union delivers teaching methodology workshops for language school owners and teachers, which cover topics such as teaching the four skills, teaching young learners, and learning difficulties. British Council Greece offers face-to-face and professional development courses on a range of topics such as CLIL, special educational needs, and equality and diversity in the English classroom, as well as the very popular Cambridge Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA). 5. Evaluative Remarks on the State of Teacher Training and Education in Greece

According to the OECD report (2018), professional development opportunities in Greece have diminished as budget cutbacks have been made. Due to the severe economic crisis that Greece has experienced, there has been no recruitment of teachers since 2009 (except for a small number of secondary school teachers, recently), and hence no induction training. Staff shortages in schools are overcome by hiring a large number of deputy teachers each year. However, their unstable working status makes it difficult for them to attend continuous professional development courses, since they do not work in the same school or even in the same region every year. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that many foreign language teachers are appointed to two, three or even four schools in order to complete their teaching timetable. Moreover, professional development programmes and seminars organised by School Advisors are based on the voluntary involvement of teachers, making it almost impossible to ensure the systematic participation of a large number of in-service teachers. The seminars and workshops that usually take place include mostly lectures on various issues (e.g. teaching methods, assessment, students’ evaluation) and no actual involvement of the participating teachers (Tzotzou, 2017) apart from questions and discussions at the end of seminars. However, by this time the teachers are mostly interested in getting their certificate of participation. As mentioned above, training policy in Greece is heavily bureaucratic, top-down and additive in nature, since every aspect of education in Greece, including teacher education, is controlled by the Ministry of Education. According to Vergidis et al. (2010), teacher training in Greece is characterised by a lack of coherence, continuity, systematicity and flexibility, and

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  111

failure to respond to teachers’ real classroom needs. Surveys among various subject teachers throughout Greece confirm the ineffectiveness of Greek teacher training policies (Karabini & Psilou, 2005; Vratsalis, 2005). The most significant problem of teacher education in Greece is that to date there is no coherent, long-term, national teacher education policy linking initial education, induction and continuous professional development within the broader context of educational policy. According to Alexopoulos (2019), qualifications such as knowledge, experience, skills and personality traits that public school teachers should possess – namely a job specification – are not provided. In other words, there is no professional competency framework defining the knowledge, skills and attitudes teachers need to support student learning. Competency frameworks can inform the design of teacher learning at universities, ongoing professional development seminars and courses, and schools themselves. According to OECD (2018, citing Darling-Hammond et al., 2017), competency standards serve as the linchpin for teacher policy in high-performing education systems, supporting a shared understanding of teacher professionalism and providing a coherent approach to recruitment, training and professional growth. A few countries have introduced competencies to be developed at different stages in teachers’ careers – e.g. Estonia, Latvia or Scotland (UK) and Singapore – beginning, for example, with initial teacher education and induction and continuing with professional development as teachers deepen their experience. At advanced career stages, teachers may seek opportunities to take on roles as mentors or practitioner researchers. The lack of a national teacher competency framework, let alone ­subject-specific competency frameworks, results in the incoherence and unsystematicity of training initiatives in Greece. Teacher professional competency frameworks should be aligned with the broader aims of education, with the needs of the schools and the local context. The two universities responsible for the pre-service education of English language teachers rely on European foreign language teacher competency frameworks for the development of their curricula, which are by nature generic and not adapted to the needs and profiles of schools in Greece. In-service teacher training initiatives are mostly based on generic topics (e.g. recent developments in teaching methodologies, assessment of learners, etc.) or topics concerning the implementation of educational innovations. As a result, although teachers in Greece express their desire for more professional development opportunities, they choose to attend public universities and take up master’s or doctoral level studies. Note (1) See http://www.esos.gr/article/frontistiria/510.575_mathites_6564_lkentra_xenon_ glosson_13650_kathigites_eparkeia_8187_ptyxio_aei_pinakes_kata_nomo (accessed February 2013).

112  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

References Alexopoulos, N. (2019) Resolving school staffing problems in Greece: A strategic management approach. Frontiers in Education 4 (130), 1–11. Anastasiades, P. (2011) National teacher training program of Greece: Basic design and implementation principles. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference in Open & Distance Learning (pp. 685–701). Angouri, J., Mattheoudakis, M. and Zigrika, M. (2010) Then how will they get ‘the much-wanted paper’? A multifaceted study of English as a foreign language in Greece. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers (pp. 179–194). Athens: Greek Applied Linguistics Association. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E. and Gardner, M. (2017) Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Dendrinos, B., Karavas, E. and Zouganeli, K. (2013) European Survey of Language Competences: Greek National Report. Athens: University of Athens, RCeL Publications. Eurobarometer 386 (2012) Europeans and their Languages. See http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/archives/eb_special_399_380_en.htm#386 (accessed 7 November 2019). Eurostat (2017) Education and Training in the EU – Facts and Figures. See https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Education_and_training_in_ the_EU_-_facts_and_figures. Eurydice (2017) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. See https://eacea. ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/key-data-teaching-languages-schooleurope-%E2%80%93-2017-edition_en. Eurydice (2019) Conditions of Service for Academic Staff Working in Higher Education. See https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teachersand-education-staff-32_en. Giavrimis, P., Eleftherakis, Th. and Koustourakis, G. (2018) An approach of shadow education in Greece: Sociological perspectives. Open Journal for Sociological Studies 2 (2), 71–82. Gropas, R. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2007) Greek Education Policy and the Challenge of Migration: An Intercultural View of Assimilation. Report prepared for the project: EMILIE. Athens: ELIAMEP. Hellenic Statistical Authority (2018) See https://www.statistics.gr/en/greece-in-figures. Karabini, P. and Psilou, E. (2005) Epimorfosi kai epagelmatiki anaptixsi ton ekpedeftikon defterovathmias ekpedefsis stin Ellada: Empiriki erevna kai simperasmata-episimansis kai protasis [Training and professional development of teachers in secondary education in Greece: Research, conclusions and recommendations]. In G. Bagakis (ed.) Epimorfosi kai epagelmatiki anaptiksi tou ekpedeftikou [Teacher Training and Professional Development] (pp. 139–147). Athens: Metexmio. Karatsiori, M. (2015) Perceptions of initial language teacher education in Greece and curriculum evaluation among EFL student teachers. European Journal of Language Policy 7 (2), 133–164. Karavas, E. (2008) Mentoring Student Teachers of English: A Handbook. Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of English Studies. See http://www. rcel.enl.uoa.gr/publications/mentoring-student-teachers-of-english.html. Karavas, E. (2012) Introducing innovations in periods of financial crisis: The implementation of the new integrated foreign languages curriculum in Greece. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 5534– 5542). Valencia: IATED. See http://library.iated.org/view/KARAVAS2012INT (accessed 7 November 2019).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Greece  113

Karavas, E. (2013) The Teaching Practice Programme: An Overview and Evaluation of Current Practice (2010–2012). Athens: National and Kapodistrian University. Karavas, E. (2014a) Developing an online distance education programme for primary school EFL teachers in Greece: Entering a brave new world. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 5 (1), 70–86. Karavas, E. (2014b) Implementing innovation in primary EFL: A case study in Greece. ELT Journal Special Issue ‘Teaching English to Young Learners’ 68 (3), 243–253 Karavas, E. and Papadopoulou, S.S. (2014) Introducing a paradigm shift in EFL teacher education in Greece: The development of online communities of practice. In D. Hayes (ed.) Innovations in Continuing Professional Development of English Language Teachers (pp. 179–203). London: British Council. Kelly, M., Grenfell, M., Allan, R., Kriza, C. and McEvoy, W. (2004) European Profile for Language Teacher Education – A Frame of Reference. Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture. Brussels: European Commission. Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs (2011) Hellas 2011 National Report on the Implementation of the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training. See https://1527_GREECE_-_2011_NATIONAL_REPORT_ ON_THE_IMPLEMENTATION_OF_THE_STRATEGIC_FRAMEWORK.pdf Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A., Jones, B., Komorowska, H. and Soghikyan, K. (eds) (2007) European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages: A Reflection Tool for Language Teacher Education. Council of Europe: European Centre for Modern Languages. OECD (2017) Education Policy in Greece: A Preliminary Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing. See http://www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-in-GreecePreliminary-Assessment-2017.pdf (accessed 7 November 2019). OECD (2018) Education for a Bright Future in Greece. Paris: OECD Publishing. See https:// www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264298750-en.pdf?expires=1573237531&id=id &accname=guest&checksum=5A60B93210FC961727E81D52945A28B3 (accessed 7 November 2019). Sotiropoulos, D.A. (2011) The politics of education reform in Greece. Short version of the paper by Dimitri A. Sotiropoulos presented at the conference ‘Whose crisis?’, St. Anthony’s College, Oxford. Tzotzou, M.D. (2014) Designing a set of procedures for the conduct of peer observation in the EFL classroom: A collaborative training model towards teacher development. Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences 2 (2), 15–27. Tzotzou, M.D. (2016) Content and process of the major training programme for state EFL teachers in Greece: A critical review. Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences 4 (1), 13–23. Tzotzou, M.D. (2017) Developing an INSET course for state EFL teachers in Greece: A process-oriented teacher education proposal towards digital literacy. Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences 5 (1), 50–64. Vergidis, D., Anagnou, V., Bathi, P., et al. (2010) Exoteriki axiologisi tou programmatos isagvgiki epimorfosi gia neodeoristous ekpedeftikous sxolikou etous 2009–2010 [External Evaluation of the Teacher Induction Training Programme for Newly Appointed Teachers 2009–2010]. Final Report. Patras: Department of Pedagogy, University of Patras. Vratsalis, K. (2005) Ta pedagogika empodia stin epimorfosi ton ekpedeftikon [The pedagogical obstacles in teacher education]. In K. Vratsalis (ed.) Didaktiki empiria kai pedagogiki theoria [Teaching Experience and Pedagogic Theory]. Athens: Nisos.

7 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Martin East, Jocelyn Howard and Constanza Tolosa

Chapter Summary

This chapter presents an overview of the preparation of teachers of English as an additional language (EAL) in New Zealand. It begins by outlining and describing the context of EAL education across the country, with particular focus on the compulsory schooling sector. To exemplify how initial teacher education (ITE) for EAL in this sector is currently being addressed, we present as examples provision across programmes for beginning (pre-service) teachers from two different ITE providers. We also discuss opportunities for currently practising (in-service) teachers to upskill in the area of teaching EAL through professional learning and development (PLD) initiatives. 1. Brief Introduction

In New Zealand there are 156 approved ITE programmes, which may or may not contain a specific focus on EAL. These are delivered as 80 qualifications by 25 providers. Qualifications include ITE for Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary as well as Māori immersion and Pasifika education. All programmes are required to meet and adhere to rigorous standards as set by the New Zealand Teaching Council. In this broader context, in this chapter we focus on two large and significant ITE providers, one located in Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand’s North Island, and the other in Christchurch, the largest city in the South Island. We provide a description of the provision of ITE for pre-service teachers of EAL offered in these two institutions as representative examples of the kinds of provision that may be made for EAL within the broader ITE landscape. We also describe opportunities for the upskilling of practising teachers of EAL as offered by both these institutions. 114

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  115

2. Description of the Context of EAL Education 2a. Historical context

Following British colonisation of New Zealand in the mid-19th century, English rapidly replaced te reo Māori, the indigenous language of the country, as the dominant language across key sectors such as trade, the legal system and public affairs. English also quickly became the primary language used across the education sector. From those early days of colonisation up until the end of World War II, intermittent pockets of immigration from other countries, mostly driven by trade and skill imperatives, expanded the cultural and linguistic diversity of New Zealand (Gray, 2009). This diversity increased further as groups of workers were brought to New Zealand under different schemes for labourers from the 1950s onwards. A large number of these people were nationals from the neighbouring Pacific Islands, many of whom eventually settled permanently in New Zealand. Over that same period, students from different Asian countries were sponsored by the New Zealand government under the Colombo Plan programme to come as teacher trainees (Peat, 1986). The influx of groups such as these for whom English was a new language contributed to a number of initiatives, including the establishment of a specialist EAL institute at Victoria University in Wellington (New Zealand’s capital city) in the early 1960s (Lewis, 2004). Kennedy (1983: 19) noted the creation of this institute as ‘a significant step in the development of professionalism in New Zealand in the teaching of English as a Second Language’. In the subsequent five decades, the demographic profile of New Zealand has changed significantly, particularly as the country’s ties with its British colonial past have weakened (Spoonley & Bedford, 2012). White et al. (2002) noted that, starting in 1991, New Zealand has pursued a more open immigration policy than had thus far been the case, with a view, in particular, to increasing the country’s human capital. Target groups have included highly skilled immigrants and those deemed capable of contributing entrepreneurial ability and investment. This has been irrespective of country of origin. As a consequence, increasing numbers of people who speak EAL have moved to New Zealand over the past three decades. New Zealand has not only had to face the challenges of growing numbers of people in the general population who are speakers of EAL. There have also been increasing numbers of students in schools who are classified as English language learners, or ELLs, the term used specifically to describe learners of EAL in New Zealand schools. Added to this, continued immigration from the Pacific Islands, increased numbers of refugees and growing numbers of international fee-paying students have created a complex environment for New Zealand’s education system. As has been pointed out by the national Education Review Office (ERO, 2018),

116  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

the official body that evaluates and reports on the education and care of children and young people in early childhood services and schools, the school population across New Zealand is ‘rapidly becoming heterogeneous, as is evident through the diversity of learners’ ethnicity, language, heritage, and immigration status’ (ERO, 2018: 5). The above relatively recent changes in demographics have significant implications for schools across New Zealand. As a consequence, teachers across all sectors of schooling – primary (Years 1–6, 5+ to 10+ years of age), intermediate (Years 7 and 8, 11+ to 12+ years of age) and secondary (Years 9–13, 13+ to 17+ years of age) – are increasingly working with socalled ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’ (CLD) learners, that is, ‘learners whose home language is a language other than English, who are second language learners, have limited English proficiency, are bilingual, language minority learners, and mainstream dialect speakers’ (ERO, 2018: 5). CLD learners include ELLs. 2b. Current national policy

In New Zealand, a national curriculum document, the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC; Ministry of Education, 2007), provides requirements for student learning for all learners across a range of school subjects. It presents eight learning areas to guide schools in their planning. In the broader context of self-governing schools (Ministry of Education, 1988), the curriculum is designed to be deliberately open-ended and non-­ prescriptive. This means that, in practice, all teachers are free to decide what and how they teach as there are no prescribed textbooks. Within the curriculum, EAL is not explicitly positioned within any of the eight learning areas and ‘is viewed by the Ministry of Education as an intervention or strategy rather than as a subject’ (TESOLANZ, 2008: Para. 3). In practice, in most schools where EAL is addressed it is often positioned alongside English as a first language within the English learning area. There is also currently no national policy that directly governs provision for CLD/ELLs in the compulsory education sector. In the wider context of the whole-school curriculum and its aims and objectives, the learning needs of ELLs are met either in dedicated English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) classes or while ELLs take part in mainstream classes (or both). To support teachers who are working with ELLs, New Zealand’s Ministry of Education has provided a wide range of resources consistent with the NZC (Ministry of Education, 2019a). In particular, an online portal called ESOL Online (Ministry of Education, n.d.) has been established to provide a one stop shop for mainstream and specialist teachers of ELLs in Years 1–13. Documents include a range of strategies and approaches for teaching ELLs and suggested units of work for primary and secondary students. There is also a moderated resource exchange

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  117

facility, access to professional readings, an e-forum that teachers can subscribe to and information about relevant websites. Other important resources for specialist and mainstream teachers of ELLs are the English Language Learning Progressions (ELLP; Ministry of Education, 2017b). These are ‘key documents for the assessment, planning and teaching of English language learners’ which ‘help teachers to choose content, vocabulary, and tasks that are appropriate to each learner’s age, stage, and language-learning needs’ (Ministry of Education, 2017b: Para 1). In addition to the introductory booklet, the ELLP comprise three separate booklets covering school Years 1–4, 5–8 and 9–13. These are accompanied by illustrative videos for teachers and online professional support modules. Within the ELLP, matrices define what students should know and be able to do as they progress in their proficiency across the four traditional language skills of listening, reading, writing and speaking. Online documentation, differentiated for primary/intermediate and secondary levels, is provided to help mainstream and EAL teachers interpret and implement the matrices (Ministry of Education, 2017a). This is important as, in addition to assisting with tracking and reporting ELLs’ progress, the ELLP matrices are used to establish entitlement for targeted Ministry of Education funding to enable schools with eligible ELLs to provide additional support. Schools with refugee and migrant background ELLs with high English learning needs are entitled to funding for these students for up to five years (20 school terms). New Zealand-born students (of migrant or refugee parents) are eligible up to Year 4, for up to three years (12 school terms). In addition, the Refugee Flexible Funding Pool provides extra resources to schools to help them address broader issues that may hinder refugee-background students from participating and achieving to the best of their ability in mainstream schooling. Further, Ministry of Education assistance is provided through Supporting English Language Learning in Primary School (SELLIPS), intended again for both mainstream and EAL teachers. The SELLIPS support resources comprise four downloadable booklets for different year bands and offer suggestions for developing students’ academic language within mainstream curriculum contexts (Ministry of Education, 2018). The Ministry of Education also provides scholarships for in-service teachers that offset course and tuition fees for tertiary qualifications in Teaching English in Schools to Speakers of Other Languages (TESSOL). These qualifications are available through a range of providers nationally (Ministry of Education, 2019b). Teachers are eligible for these scholarships if they currently teach ELLs in a state-funded school or early childhood education centre, have at least two years’ teaching experience, and hold a permanent position in a mainstream class that contains ELLs or a specialist EAL class.

118  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Additionally, and as part of a wide range of teacher associations that exist independently of the Ministry of Education, a dedicated organisation – Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages in Aotearoa New Zealand (TESOLANZ, n.d.) – represents EAL teachers in all education sectors. In addition to lobbying for the language needs of migrants and refugees, the association provides professional development opportunities. These include a biennial national conference known as the Conference for Community Languages (CL) and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) (or CLESOL), regional activities, and a yearly journal which includes research-based articles. 2c. Current EAL learner population

ELLs represent a large proportion of many New Zealand school populations, and their linguistic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds vary widely. These include: New Zealand-born students, including Pasifika students; students from migrant backgrounds, including Pasifika; students from refugee backgrounds; Māori and Pasifika students in bilingual education settings or transitioning into English-medium schools; international fee-paying students; and exchange or short-term visiting students. Statistics released each year from New Zealand’s Ministry of Education (Education Counts, n.d.) provide an opportunity to explore these school demographics. Table 7.1 presents the latest available data (from 2018) on students’ ethnicities across the whole school sector (primary and secondary) and the whole country. It is not possible to determine from these numbers how many students might be classed as ELLs, nor to determine the levels of students’ English proficiency and learning needs. However, it is apparent that the majority of students are recorded as New Zealand European (45%), followed by New Zealand Māori (24%). After that, Pacific Islands students constitute just under 10% of ethnicities, and other nationalities constitute a further 20%. International fee-paying students make up just 1.5% of the total. Taken together, it is possible that over half of the students in schools across the country may have at least some level of learning need in EAL, with the majority of these now comprising New Zealand-born ELLs (Ministry of Education, 2017c). Furthermore, individual schools encounter disparate numbers of ELLs, with some schools having only a few ELLs or none at all, and others having ELLs as a high proportion of their learners. Understanding the current situation in New Zealand is further limited by lack of data on how provision is made to address the needs of ELLs. That is, as previously stated, students may experience dedicated EAL withdrawal classroom environments for a part of their schooling, where ELLs are in dedicated classes designed purely for them for part of the school day, or may present English learning needs in mainstream subject

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  119

Table 7.1  Number of students by ethnic backgrounds (whole school sector; whole country) Ethnic group

Number

%

NZ European

360900

44.6

NZ Māori

194773

24.1

Samoan

33194

4.1

Cook Islands Māori

10372

1.3

Tongan

19283

2.4

Niuean

4256

0.5

Fijian

6173

0.8

Tokelauan

1657

0.2

Other Pacific Island

3928

0.5

South East Asian

22497

2.8

Indian

29929

3.7

Chinese

30725

3.8

Other Asian

18805

2.3

Middle Eastern

6071

0.8

Latin American

3261

0.4

African

8754

1.1

Other

5438

0.7

Other European

36025

4.5

International Fee-Paying

12398

1.5

Total population

808439

100

lessons alongside English as L1 speaking peers, where they may get inclass English language support. Given the schools’ self-governance and lack of prescription in the NZC, this is a challenging scenario for specialist teachers in the EAL area charged with increasing students’ abilities to access the wider curriculum in English. Depending on their size and staffing, schools and individual teachers are able to make independent decisions about how they address the English learning needs of ELLs. In practice, this means that there are many approaches to teaching and a multiplicity of strategies employed in ESOL, whether in withdrawal programmes or in mainstream programmes where ELLs stay in subject-­ specific classes alongside other students with some support in the materials provided or with teacher-aides. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

All teachers entering the teaching profession in New Zealand are required to hold a qualification in teaching – a bachelor’s degree in

120  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

teaching (for the primary/intermediate levels) or a bachelor’s degree plus a one-year teaching diploma (secondary and below). Data on current EAL teacher demographics are not available. The situation with regard to those working with ELLs is complicated by the fact that, although many teachers might regard themselves as subject specialists in EAL, many others who work with ELLs will have a range of subject specialisms and may lack specific expertise or experience with, or qualifications specific to, the teaching and learning of EAL. The situation with regard to teachers reveals some underlying structural problems that are not apparent when considering the available resources. That is, the above outline of provision would suggest that the EAL space is well supported in New Zealand in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, despite the reality of diverse learners in the New Zealand classroom, there is ongoing concern that New Zealand’s Ministry of Education ‘hasn’t kept up with the pace of change, and doesn’t provide the resources to meet the needs of our changing student population’ (Walters, 2015: Para 3). In other words, demographics have shifted substantially, but the Ministry of Education appears to have been slow in responding to ever-growing EAL needs. Teachers of EAL, whether dealing with ELLs in separate EAL classes or supporting them in mainstream classes, are governed by the same code and set of generic standards that apply to all teachers – the Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession (NZTC, 2019b). Core values include ‘empowering all learners to reach their highest potential by providing high-quality teaching and leadership’ and ‘creating a welcoming, caring and creative learning environment that treats everyone with respect and dignity’ (NZTC, 2019b: 2). Commitments to learners include ‘respecting the diversity of the heritage, language, identity and culture’ both of learners (NZTC, 2019b: 10) and of their families (NZTC, 2019b: 12). Further, in designing for learning, teachers are expected to have ‘an understanding of each learner’s strengths, interests, needs, identities, languages and cultures’ (NZTC, 2019b: 20). However, within this broader context, there is no further differentiation for teachers of EAL. This can be problematic because it does not take into consideration in a direct way the special circumstances and particular difficulties that may be posed for teachers when dealing with ELLs, many of whom may have arrived in the country from diverse challenging situations. With regard to other challenges facing teachers, Edwards and Easto (2013) argued that, in spite of the large numbers of ELLs in schools, funding is limited, and this limit places demands on teachers who have ELLs in their classrooms. Even in cases where funding is provided, Edwards and Easto argued that non-specialist classroom teachers are ‘still often responsible for ELLs, as specialist ESOL teachers are usually only available in schools with larger numbers of ESOL-funded learners’ (Edwards & Easto, 2013: 2). Where EAL funding is not being provided, classroom teachers,

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  121

who may not have received any specialist teacher education around ELLs, may be ‘solely responsible for meeting the needs of ELLs’ (Edwards & Easto, 2013: 2). In relation to pre-service teacher education and perceived needs, Edwards and Easto (2013) reported a small-scale survey of teachers who had completed an ITE programme for the primary sector, but were not yet fully registered as teachers (n = 20). In New Zealand, these are known as Provisionally Registered Teachers (PRTs). The participants, who had all completed their ITE programme within the previous four years, were asked to respond to a series of Likert-type statements designed to elicit their perceptions of whether the content of their ITE programme had prepared them for aspects of teaching ELLs. Their findings led Edwards and Easto to conclude: It is clear that the PRTs who participated in this research felt underprepared to teach and support ELLs at the end of their ITE programme. While the PRTs felt that they were made aware of the needs of ELLs, they also felt that they were not provided with adequate knowledge or skills for working with ELLs, particularly in regard to resources and strategies for teaching and assessing ELLs. (Edwards & Easto, 2013: 10)

The researchers went on to argue that ITE programmes in New Zealand needed to ‘consider including required papers [courses] focusing on meeting the needs of ELLs’ (Edwards & Easto, 2013: 10). More recently, in relation to in-service provision, ERO’s (2018) evaluation noted that ‘there is an overall need for … schools to improve their response to culturally and linguistically diverse learners, and to support their acquisition of the English language’ (ERO, 2018: 6). ERO recommended that services and schools should increase opportunities for currently serving teachers to obtain a TESSOL qualification. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Ministry of Education should review its current provision of PLD opportunities in this area, alongside its available resource materials and support tools. It was also recommended that the education sector needed to ‘aim to build a diverse knowledge base for every teacher’, including ‘desired competencies in second language acquisition theory and development’ (ERO, 2018: 7). In this regard, the Ministry has recently been more active in promoting the scholarship opportunities available to both school management and teachers to enable them to complete a TESSOL qualification (see Section 6). 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programmes

As noted in the introduction, there are a diverse range of providers in the ITE sector in New Zealand. In what follows, we illustrate current ITE provision for the school sector with regard to ELLs, with descriptions of programmes from two university-based ITE providers.1 We have chosen

122  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

these as representative examples of the kinds of provision for EAL that are available at ITE level. The North Island case we present (University A) is located in Auckland, the largest and most ethnically diverse city in New Zealand. University A has been formally offering programmes for EAL since 1987 when it launched a Diploma in English Language Teaching that catered mostly for those who wanted to teach EAL to adults in tertiary institutions, polytechnics, community programmes and private language schools. University A offers an elective ESOL course within a large threeyear Bachelor of Education – Teaching (Early Childhood Education or Primary) and a specialist ESOL pathway in the one-year Graduate Diploma in Teaching (Secondary). The South Island case (University B) is located in Christchurch, which is also a large and ethnically diverse city. Similar to University A, University B offers several pre-service programmes: a three-year Bachelor of Teaching and Learning (Early Childhood Education and Primary) and two one-year Graduate Diplomas in Teaching and Learning (Primary and Secondary). Within the three-year programme there is an elective ESOL course. However, there is no specialist pathway in either of the Graduate Diploma programmes. University B also offers an ITE qualification at master’s level, the Master of Teaching and Learning (see Section 4d). 3a. Research foundation

All ITE programmes at both universities are led by academic staff who are actively engaged in research and publishing in their specialist areas. This applies across all teaching areas, including the undergraduate and postgraduate EAL-focused courses. We see this as particularly important, not only because it helps to elevate and give status to the programmes since staff are known to be ‘research active’, but also because the findings themselves can inform, and lead directly into, improvements and innovations. The pre-service teacher education programmes offered at University A do not include research methods courses. However, individual courses include core research articles in their reading lists, often authored by the lecturers of the course. At University B, courses addressing the needs of ELLs require students to engage with research publications on a wide range of issues for CLD learners, in addition to theory and research specifically related to developing ELLs’ English language skills within and beyond classroom settings. In both institutions, students at pre-service levels are not required to undertake independent research beyond small-scale ‘teaching as inquiry’ explorations and reflections (Ministry of Education, 2007), particularly related to practicum experiences. In some contexts, this provides opportunities for students to explore, through their own action research, a teaching issue of relevance to EAL.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  123

3b. National policy

As outlined in Section 2b, EAL teaching in New Zealand does not currently respond to a national policy or strategy. However, all education providers that enrol international students must be signatories to the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 (hereafter, the Code) (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2019). This legislation is aimed at ‘ensuring, so far as possible, that international students have in New Zealand a positive experience that supports their educational achievement’ (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2019: 3). However, in practice the Code also underpins education for most ELLs (regardless of whether they are fee-paying international students, migrant or refugee students or New Zealand-born learners with a first or home language other than English), since it pertains not only to pastoral care, but also to educational instruction. In many schools, the same staff who are tasked with oversight of the Code requirements are also responsible for administration related to the ELLs who receive additional Ministry of Education funding. These staff need, therefore, to liaise closely with the specialist ESOL and other teachers who work with ELLs. In terms of recruitment, there are no mandatory requirements regarding specialist EAL or TESSOL credentials or teaching experience for someone to teach EAL in a New Zealand school. However, as pointed out earlier, all teachers in New Zealand schools, including EAL teachers, must be teacher-qualified and either provisionally or fully registered. In many schools, dedicated EAL teachers have transitioned to working in this more specialised role as a result of working with ELLs in mainstream classrooms. This can be a gradual shift in focus, and the transition can occur with no formal EAL qualifications. Indeed, EAL teacher-aides (who provide in-class, small-group or one-to-one support depending on context, and are not required to be teacher-qualified or registered) may be the only members of staff who hold formal EAL/TESSOL qualifications in some schools. As the numbers of learners requiring EAL support continue to grow, school leaders are increasingly seeking teaching staff with specialist qualifications in this area. This has been noted, in particular, in schools with larger numbers of refugee students, and has contributed to increases in the numbers of teachers seeking to upskill in teaching EAL through professional development qualifications (see Section 6). Registered teachers who are working in a specialist EAL capacity are positioned on the pay scale exactly as they would be if they were working in any other subject area. However, school management can allocate ‘units’ to remunerate staff in positions that require additional pastoral, leadership or management tasks (New Zealand School Trustees Association, n.d.). Teachers with extra responsibilities for ELLs may have this recognised through the additional financial allowance that accompanies a unit.

124  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Just as there are no fixed requirements for teaching EAL in a New Zealand school (beyond being eligible to teach), there are also no mandatory qualifications or requirements for EAL teacher educators. At both of the universities whose EAL programmes we present in this chapter, the majority of the teacher educators in the programmes are research-active, and have completed specialist EAL qualifications and/or doctoral study in education, applied linguistics, bilingual education or similar, prior to, during and/or after teaching in schools. These lecturers are qualified and experienced classroom teachers in EAL or foreign languages who are officially registered to teach in New Zealand. Some of these teachers speak diverse languages, including te reo Māori and languages of the Pacific. 3d. Curriculum: Mandates, standards and competencies

The pre-service programmes at both universities comply with the expectations of all academic programmes pertaining to the university sector as well as the criteria for provisional registration set by the New Zealand Teaching Council and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The programmes aim to develop competencies in their teacher candidates that are aligned with the expectations of the Council (NZTC, 2019b). In order to enter the bachelor’s programmes, applicants must have completed a secondary school qualification – New Zealand’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) or equivalent. The ITE programmes that prepare students for teaching in secondary schools are predicated on the premise that applicants have developed a high level of knowledge and understanding in an academic discipline related to an area of the school curriculum. Therefore, applicants must hold a university degree (at a minimum at bachelor’s level) in the area that they would like to teach (for example, a Bachelor’s of Science would be required if a teacher wants to become a specialist biology teacher). Applicants also need to submit police checks, safety checks and referees’ reports, and attend an in-person interview. At University A, an elective course (Language Teaching for ESOL) can be taken as part of a Bachelor’s of Education (Teaching). This course, which constitutes 12.5% of course load in the year in which it is taken, addresses current theories, approaches and practices for language teaching and learning for EAL students. The course is taught by a team of specialist lecturers who are experienced teachers in school settings. The course focuses on literacy learning across the curriculum, emphasising the importance of understanding diverse learners’ languages and cultures. The content is taught using an integrated approach that links theory and practice on topics such as language and cultural diversity, first and second

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  125

language acquisition, bilingual education and research informing EAL teaching and learning. The one-year secondary programme at University A is made up of 120 points (equivalent to a year of full-time study), with 60 points of core or generic courses, including two practicum placements, and 60 points in their curriculum areas. Students in the Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Secondary) can take one or two specialist TESSOL courses that aim to develop the pedagogical content knowledge, skills and attitudes associated with planning, teaching and assessing ESOL. Each course contributes 12.5% to the year-long programme. These TESSOL courses have set the following learning outcomes for students, with a focus on delivering the curriculum at junior and senior levels (Years 9–10 and Years 11–13, respectively): • Identify and evaluate the principles, concepts and skills of the English curriculum learning area, supporting ESOL documents and the standards for national qualifications for EAL students in schools. • Apply pedagogical content knowledge, skills and attitudes for lesson and unit planning, teaching and assessing EAL students, including national assessment requirements. • Justify teaching methodologies and resource choices that maximise EAL student success. • Investigate, and apply in planning, strategies to address the diverse needs of EAL students. • Investigate, select and prepare learning materials to support planning and assessment for qualifications and the diverse learning needs of EAL students. Required readings for these courses are drawn from theory and research on second language acquisition (SLA), teaching approaches, development of language skills and assessment, as well as relevant NZC documents. Because there is no national curriculum for EAL, individual teacher education providers can elect if, how and the extent to which this area will be addressed within their programmes. University B does not offer any pre-service qualifications specifically for teaching EAL. Nevertheless, a focus on teaching and learning for culturally responsive and inclusive educational practice is at the core of all of this university’s ITE programmes. In part, this is in response to specific government policy to ensure equity for those who have been termed ‘priority learners’ (including Māori and Pasifika learners, and students with special educational needs) (ERO, 2012), but the underpinning inclusive ethos across University B’s ITE programmes is also in recognition of the increased diversity in the language and cultural heritages of students now in New Zealand schools. As such, responding effectively to diversity is embedded in all the compulsory preservice professional learning courses, and at least one course in each

126  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

programme begins to prepare students to recognise and address the specific needs of ELLs. The importance of every teacher taking responsibility for ELLs’ language development – no matter what curriculum area they are teaching – is a key message in all programmes. In the two primary-specific ITE qualifications at University B (Bachelor’s of Teaching and Learning and Graduate Diploma of Teaching and Learning), students are prepared to be able to teach all eight learning areas of the NZC across all primary school year levels (Years 1–8). Basic theory and practice for working with EAL learners is covered within a mandatory course that, as one of its components, also prepares the students to teach a language other than English. In addition, final year undergraduate students are able to take an elective course (worth 12.5% of the yearly course load) that furthers their knowledge and skills in enhancing educational outcomes and experiences for ELLs. In the Graduate Diploma of Teaching and Learning (Secondary), the subject specialist secondary teachers-to-be are all required to take a course that comprises both learning te reo Māori and addressing the language needs of ELLs within their specialist mainstream curriculum classes. Unlike at University A, there are no specialist pathways within the ITE programmes with a specific focus on TESSOL. In the one-year master’s programme, strategies for addressing ELLs’ language (and wider) needs are taught as part of an inclusive education course for both the non-specialist primary and the subject-­ specialist secondary students. In each of the above courses at University B, the initial focus is on raising the pre-service teachers’ awareness of their own cultural identity as well as developing reflective skills regarding how they position themselves in relation to cultural ‘others’ (Santoro, 2009). Students are then introduced to theory and research that inform effective pedagogy for SLA in a classroom context (Ellis, 2005), principles relating to an intercultural approach to language education (Newton et al., 2010), integrated language planning and teaching approaches, and support materials, including the English Language Learning Progressions (Ministry of Education, 2017b) which they will be required to use if applying for Ministry of Education funding for their ELLs. However, since addressing the needs of ELLs is just one component within all but one of these courses, coverage of each of the above areas is necessarily at an awareness-raising level, rather than in depth. At University B, the third-year elective course provides the only opportunity for greater breadth and depth in extending primary undergraduate pre-service teachers’ abilities to recognise and address key issues for CLD learners, and to focus, in particular, on developing ELLs’ confidence and competence in academic English. The content of this course includes effective pedagogies for culturally diverse learners, first language maintenance and development, and strategies to enable ELLs to participate in learning effectively in English in mainstream primary classrooms

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  127

(as distinct from withdrawal programmes). The optional course is framed closely around the textbook Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning (Gibbons, 2015), to guide students as they apply second language teaching and learning approaches in their own planning and resource selection. It also covers the use of a range of technologies to support content-based language teaching and to facilitate ELLs’ independent English language learning. 3e. Practicum and field experience

All students undertaking one-year ITE programmes in New Zealand are required to complete a minimum of 14 weeks of professional experience placement (practicum). This extends to at least 20 weeks for students completing three- and four-year ITE qualifications. These practicum experiences must take place in registered (i.e. officially recognised) schools, across a range of socioeconomic, cultural and learner-age contexts (New Zealand Education Council, 2010), and are expected to be a genuine partnership between the ITE student, their associate teacher (based in the school as a member of the school staff) and their ITE mentor (based at the university as a member of the academic staff), in a model that reflects teaching as a profession through reciprocal reflective academic study (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Students are required, over the span of their placements, to demonstrate effective teaching practices as outlined in the Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession (NZTC, 2019b). Practicum placements for pre-service teachers are considered critical to understanding what it is really like to be a professional teacher. They provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to observe a range of teaching approaches, develop their own teaching competencies and discuss relevant issues with practising professionals. While in schools, the associate teacher is responsible for modelling quality teaching and learning practice. Associate teachers (that is, experienced teachers already in schools who act as mentors to the pre-service teachers under their care) also provide opportunities for the pre-service teachers to meet the specific requirements of the practicum, including professional reflection. Associate teachers contribute to evidence-based assessment in relation to course learning outcomes and Teaching Council standards. The ITE mentors, who are faculty-appointed professional supervisors, also support the preservice teachers while on practicum, observing their teaching and providing feedback on their evolving practices. In the primary programmes at University A, the practicum component is a collaborative partnership with a consortium of schools. Students are placed in a minimum of three different schools over the three-year programme so that they experience a range of school communities and a range of class levels – from Year 1 (five-year-olds) to Years 6, 7 and 8

128  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(10–13 year-olds). In the secondary programme, the pre-service teachers complete two practicum placements, each for seven weeks and taking place in each of the two semesters of the programme. Similar to the primary cohort, secondary pre-service teachers have opportunities to experience a range of contexts in their placements. At the bachelor’s level at University B, in addition to completing 21 weeks of practicum across five different schools, undergraduate ITE students undertake a community engagement course that includes a practicum in a community organisation. This might include groups that work closely with CLD families, such as a homework support centre for recent immigrants. These experiences help to further develop the ITE students’ abilities to respond effectively to cultural and linguistic diversity, and some gain valuable additional out-of-class experience working with ELLs. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

All tertiary qualifications in New Zealand that receive central government funding must be approved and accredited by a specified quality assurance body. In the case of academic programmes delivered at universities, this function is performed by a statutory body known as the Universities New Zealand Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP). Accreditation is a process that requires a number of stages. Typically, this includes initial programme and course mapping, extensive stakeholder consultation, review by internal deliberative bodies, and approval from the proposing university’s overarching academic committee and council (its governing body), prior to submission of a proposal to CUAP for anonymous peer review across the wider university system (Universities New Zealand, 2019). Given New Zealand’s bicultural nature, this process also includes consultation with local indigenous representatives and the organisation’s own bicultural representatives. Additionally, the Teaching Council requires a separate approval process for all ITE programmes (NZTC, 2019a). The focus of this accreditation has undergone significant changes recently, partly in acknowledgement of increasing requirements being placed on teachers as practising professionals in an environment where there is ‘increased recognition of the importance of culture and family/whānau relationships to learning, [and] the diversity of learners’ (NZTC, 2019a: Para 2). Although there is nothing specific in relation to EAL within the accreditation documentation, it is (as previously stated) implicit that consideration of appropriate language support for ELLs is presupposed by understanding learners’ ‘needs, identities, languages and cultures’ (NZTC, 2019b: 20).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  129

4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

All qualifications offered by New Zealand universities are subject to regular reviews. ITE programmes are no exception to this. These reviews are conducted at a number of levels and times, and take a variety of forms. At the national level, each institution carries out formal academic reviews of all courses on a cyclical basis, with the involvement of representatives from other universities as well as key stakeholders. CUAP also requires that all new qualifications undergo what is termed a Graduating Year Review, plus regular ongoing appraisals (Universities New Zealand, 2019). ITE programmes, including all courses with an EAL component, involve an internal moderation process prior to and on completion of delivery of every occurrence of all courses, plus an external moderation schedule. Additionally, all students in all courses are surveyed, at the end of each course at University A and in a threeyearly cycle at University B. In addition to the above appraisals, further formal reviews are required for all ITE programmes by the Teaching Council (NZTC, 2019a). These entail on-site meetings with stakeholder representatives, including current and former students, employers (e.g. school principals), lecturing staff and university management, in order to determine the standard of delivery, validity and appropriateness of assessments, and the ongoing acceptability of the ITE qualifications for students and employers. Review feedback includes any identified areas for improvement, and recommendations for achieving this. Indeed, it was feedback from this process that led to the introduction of an EAL component comprising 40% of a course in the recently redeveloped secondary ITE programme at University B. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

With the growth in the number of ELLs that has accompanied New Zealand’s increased migrant and refugee population, greater numbers of mainstream teachers have become interested in PLD opportunities and/or formal qualifications to support ELLs. This is particularly the case with experienced teachers aged 45+ years who comprise the greatest percentage of the New Zealand teaching workforce (Education Counts, 2018). This is because there was no EAL component in their ITE and most had little exposure to ELLs in their classrooms in the early stages of their careers. A growing interest in professional development has coincided with increasingly active promotion by the Ministry of Education of scholarships for teachers to undertake TESSOL qualifications, particularly in regions where there are greater migrant and refugee numbers in schools, in order to provide sound foundations for teachers to plan language-based classroom programmes. Most qualified EAL teachers in schools in New Zealand

130  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

have gained their specialist qualifications subsequent to their ITE through in-service programmes, including those that are incentivised by Ministry of Education TESSOL scholarships. Since Ministry of Education scholarship funding goes towards PLD, an annual review additional to and separate from the reviews described in Section 4b is also required for the TESSOL qualifications. Staff teaching in these programmes meet yearly with ministry representatives to discuss the programmes and ensure that they continue to meet the needs of teachers and the funding body. Further monitoring occurs in the form of a Ministry of Education administered survey of the scholarship recipients and their school principals on completion of each programme. Feedback from this survey is reported back to the institutions to inform ongoing programme modifications. At University A, a Graduate Diploma in TESSOL is available for currently practising teachers. The Diploma has a long tradition spanning over four decades. This is a specialised programme in the theory and practice of teaching EAL students, in both withdrawal and mainstream contexts, at early childhood, primary and secondary levels. As an in-service qualification, the Graduate Diploma in TESSOL expects its applicants to have completed either an undergraduate degree or diploma from a university, or a professional qualification in teaching, as well as to have at least two years’ relevant professional experience and to be currently teaching in a New Zealand early childhood, primary or secondary setting. Students enrolled in this part-time two-year 120-point programme take required courses on diverse aspects of language teaching focused on the New Zealand context as well as elective courses that draw on SLA theory, research and practice. The in-service Graduate Diploma in TESSOL includes courses for the design and implementation of practitioner research. A one-year 120-point master’s degree in TESOL is also available at University A for practising teachers in schools, and currently requires two years of teaching experience on entry. However, this professional development programme is primarily designed for those working outside the schools sector and internationally. It does not therefore focus on the New Zealand context in the ways undertaken in the Graduate Diploma TESSOL. At University B, in-service and advanced study opportunities for language educators include postgraduate and master’s qualifications in teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and a master’s qualification in computer-assisted language learning. The growth in demand for TESOL qualifications as teachers across New Zealand have become increasingly aware of the changing linguistic context in the compulsory education sector is particularly evident in the region where University B is situated, which has the second highest number of students qualifying for ESOL support. The university’s TESOL qualifications do

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  131

not have a practicum component and therefore, on their own, do not provide a pathway for teacher registration in New Zealand. However, in contrast to most of the international students who take part in these programmes, domestic enrolments are predominantly from people who are already qualified as teachers. For most of these teachers, their aspiration is not to become an ESOL specialist, but rather to be able to provide better support for the ELLs they work with in their mainstream primary and secondary classrooms. University B provides further PLD for teachers and school leaders across the South Island through a consultancy department. Much of this is provided at no cost through a contract with the Ministry of Education. The consultancy’s team of accredited facilitators includes former primary and secondary ESOL specialists who work collaboratively with schools in specified areas of need, including oral language and literacy skills, and assessment for learning using the English Language Learning Progressions. In addition to the above university qualifications and school-based PLD initiatives, ESOL teachers and teacher-aides in the local region served by University B engage in informal teacher-led learning sessions offered quarterly through regional cluster groups, and mini-conference days led by the regional branch of the national organisation, TESOLANZ. These provide opportunities for teachers to come together to share resources and ideas with each other, receive input from experienced colleagues and support each other in their practices. Conclusion

In this chapter, and drawing on two major providers of teacher education for illustrative purposes, we have presented a detailed overview of the preparation of EAL teachers in New Zealand. We discussed ITE opportunities for pre-service teachers as well as PLD opportunities for in-service teachers. A range of resources is in place to support teachers of EAL in New Zealand. However, there are no fixed requirements for teaching EAL in a New Zealand school (beyond eligibility to teach), and there are no mandatory qualifications or requirements for EAL teacher educators. Furthermore, it is apparent that ITE provision for EAL teachers might benefit from strengthening the EAL-specific components of programmes. Nevertheless, it is evident that the two institutions presented in this chapter offer robust and complementary programmes for intending and practising teachers, underpinned by rigorous national standards for ITE provision, and informed by relevant research undertaken by those involved. New Zealand faces significant needs with regard to English language learners. The two institutions whose work is presented here have in place a range of viable options to support teachers with meeting those needs.

132  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Note (1) This chapter documents the requirements and content of programmes and courses at the time of writing. Ongoing programme redevelopments and course-level adjustments occur as part of regular review and renewal processes, and programmes and content may be subject to substantial changes as a consequence of this.

References Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J. (eds) (2005) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and be Able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Education Counts (2018) Teacher Workforce. Government document. See https://www. educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/workforce/teacher-workforce (accessed 1 July 2019). Education Counts (n.d.) Statistics. Government document. See https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics (accessed 1 July 2019). Edwards, S. and Easto, A. (2013) Meeting the needs of English language learners: How well prepared do beginning New Zealand primary school teachers feel? In G. Skyrme (ed.) CLESOL 2012: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL. See http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/ (accessed 15 July 2019). Ellis, R. (2005) Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review. Wellington: Ministry of Education. ERO (Education Review Office) (2012) Evaluation at a Glance: Priority Learners in New Zealand Schools. Government document. See https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/ Evaluation-at-a-Glance-Priority-Learners-in-New-Zealand-Schools-August-2012.pdf (accessed 1 July 2019). ERO (Education Review Office) (2018) Responding to Language Diversity in Auckland. Wellington: New Zealand Government. Gibbons, P. (2015) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom (2nd edn). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gray, S. (2009) Immigration, languages and education. In E. Rata and R. Sullivan (eds) Introduction to the History of New Zealand Education. North Shore: Pearson. Kennedy, G. (1983) English for Speakers of Other Languages: An Inaugural Address. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Lewis, M. (2004) 40 Years on: TESOL in New Zealand. Auckland: University of Auckland. Ministry of Education (1988) Tomorrow’s Schools. Wellington: Government Printer. Ministry of Education (2007) The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education (2017a) Completing the ELLP Matrices. Government document. See https://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/Planning-for-my-students-needs/ Professional-support-for-teachers-and-teacher-aides/English-Language-LearningProgressions/Completing-the-ELLP-matrices (accessed 1 July 2019). Ministry of Education (2017b) English Language Learning Progressions. Government document. See https://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/Planning-for-my-studentsneeds/Professional-support-for-teachers-and-teacher-aides/English-Language-LearningProgressions#ELLPBooks (accessed 1 July 2019). Ministry of Education (2017c) English Language Learning Progressions: Key Messages. Government document. See https://esolonline.tki.org.nz/English-ESOL-Literacy-Onlinewebsite/ESOL-Online/Planning-for-my-students-needs/Professional-support-for-teachersand-teacher-aides/English-Language-Learning-Progressions#KeyMessages (accessed 1 July 2019).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in New Zealand  133

Ministry of Education (2018) Supporting English Language Learning in Primary School (SELLIPS). Government document. See https://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/ Planning-for-my-students-needs/Professional-support-for-teachers-and-teacher-aides/ English-Language-Learning-Progressions/Completing-the-ELLP-matrices (accessed 1 July 2019). Ministry of Education (2019a) ESOL Resources. Government document. See https://www. education.govt.nz/school/student-support/english-for-speakers-of-other-languages-esolinformation/esol-resources/ (accessed 1 July 2019). Ministry of Education (2019b) Scholarships for Teaching English in Schools for Speakers of Other Languages (TESSOL). Government document. See https://www.education. govt.nz/school/people-and-employment/principals-and-teachers/scholarships-forpeople-working-in-schools/tessol/ (accessed 15 July 2019). Ministry of Education (n.d.) Welcome to ESOL Online. Government document. See https://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ (accessed 1 July 2019). Newton, J., Yates, E., Shearn, S. and Nowitzki, W. (2010) Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching: Implications for Effective Teaching and Learning – a Literature Review and an Evidence-Based Framework for Effective Teaching. Wellington: Ministry of Education. New Zealand Education Council (2010) Approval, Review and Monitoring Processes and Requirements for Initial Teacher Education Programmes. Policy document. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2019) Code of Practice 2016: Includes Amendments 2019. Policy document. See https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Providersand-partners/Code-of-Practice/Code-of-Practice-Amendments-2019.pdf (accessed 31 July 2019). New Zealand School Trustees Association (n.d.) Unit Allocation Guidelines. See https:// www.nzsta.org.nz/assets/Employment/Day-to-day-management/Unit-AllocationGuidelines.pdf (accessed 31 July 2019). NZTC (New Zealand Teaching Council) (2019a) ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements. See https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/default/files/ITE_ Requirements_FINAL_10April2019.pdf (accessed 31 July 2019). NZTC (New Zealand Teaching Council) (2019b) Our Code, Our Standards. See https:// teachingcouncil.nz/professional-practice/our-code-our-standards (accessed 15 July 2019). Peat, N. (ed.) (1986) The ELI is 25. Wellington: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Santoro, N. (2009) Teaching in culturally diverse contexts: What knowledge about ‘self’ and ‘others’ do teachers need? Journal of Education for Teaching 35 (1), 33–45. Spoonley, P. and Bedford, R. (2012) Welcome to our World? Immigration and the Reshaping of New Zealand. Dunedin: Dunmore Publishing. TESOLANZ (2008) TESOLANZ Secondary Sector Policies. See http://www.tesolanz. org.nz/Site/SIG/secondary/secondary.aspx#H44663-13 (accessed 15 July 2019). TESOLANZ (n.d.) Who We Are … See http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/ (accessed 15 July 2019). Universities New Zealand (2019) CUAP Handbook 2019. See https://www.universitiesnz. ac.nz/quality-assurance (accessed 31 July 2019). Walters, L. (2015) The changing face of our schools. Stuff, 8 February. See https://www. stuff.co.nz/national/education/65913565/ (accessed 1 July 2019). White, C., Watts, N. and Trlin, A. (2002) New Zealand as an English-language learning environment: Immigrant experiences, provider perspectives and social policy implications. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 18, 148–162.

8 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Yuliya Ardasheva and Natalia V. Sabelnikova

Chapter Summary

This chapter describes the research and policy foundations, curricula and pedagogical practices guiding the preparation of English as an additional language (EAL) teachers in Russia. We open the chapter with a brief discussion of the current status of EAL teacher preparation in the context of the Russian educataional system, including descriptions of the historical context, pertinent national policies and profiles of EAL learners and teachers. We then explore the five major aspects of EAL programs in Russia, including: (a) research foundations, (b) pertinent national policies, (c) EAL teacher educators’ qualifications, (d) curriculum standards and targeted competencies and (e) practicum experiences. To offer a more nuanced description of EAL programs in Russia, we then describe local accountability and quality assurance mandates, including accreditation criteria, processes and benchmarks. Finally, we extend our discussion to in-service professional development opportunities available to EAL teachers in Russia to showcase how pre-service education is supported and enhanced in everyday practice. 1. Brief Introduction

Contemporary English language teaching, applied linguistics, education, cultural studies and postcolonial studies, among other related fields, perceive language as a political phenomenon and contend that learning a language is a process inscribed with power asymmetries and dispute. Among the key achievements of these fields is the emergence of the world of Englishes (McArthur, 2003; Mesthrie, 2020) and, facing postcolonial hierarchies and social orders, a growing emphasis on the valorization of multilingualism and non-English (local and international) experiences 134

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  135

(Mesthrie, 2020; Shcherbak, 2020). The role of the English language in Russia, however, is yet to be construed in relation to multiliteracies pedagogy and such critical social justice topics as language policy. Rather, similar to other post-Soviet camp countries such as China (McArthur, 2003), English is currently viewed in the country as an international language and as a means of gaining access to innovation and global markets of goods, ideas and opportunities. Reflecting these perceptions, English is currently the predominant foreign language in Russia (Davydova, 2019). According to the latest census, among more than 43 million of the country’s residents, over 7.5 million reported some level of proficiency in English (Russian Federation Census, 2010). A more recent report found that, among those surveyed, 11% reported being proficient in English (Levada Centre, 2014). Compared by age, the percentages of Russians speaking English were substantially higher for the younger generations, 22% and 17% for 18–24 and 25–39 year-olds, respectively, versus only 9% and 3% for 40–54 and 55+ yearolds, respectively. Regardless of the age bracket, being a proficient English speaker appears to be associated with higher income and living in large urban centers such as Moscow. As in many post-Soviet camp countries, Russia is continually looking for ways to modernize its economy, starting with its educational system. In 2003, the Russian Federation joined the Bologna Process, a mechanism promoting cooperation among European institutions of higher education, and in doing so also adopted educational frameworks based on the AngloAmerican model (Davydova, 2019). In 2009, in order to gain a competitive edge, former Russian Federation President Medvedev created a chain of National Research Universities across Russia. At the initiative’s pilot stage, 12 universities were selected to receive this status through a nationwide competition: research and development, including the development of new pedagogical methods and technologies, publications in globally recognized journals and the advancement of younger researchers were among the key selection criteria (Lebedev et al., 2009). Among other examples of efforts towards the modernization and internationalization of the Russian educational system is the so-called ‘Project 5-100’ (Belyaeva & Kuznetsova, 2018: 427). This project aims to invest additional federal funds in a number of leading Russian universities so that they can develop into internationally competitive institutions. To boost research and development, the modernization of higher education and the subsequent ripple effect within the whole educational system, at least five of the participating universities ‘are expected to enter the international ranking list of the world top 100 universities’ (Belyaeva & Kuznetsova, 2018: 427) by the year 2020. This policy promotes the English as medium of instruction approach in Russia, currently very limited and primarily available at the higher education level. English for specific purposes courses available to future EAL teachers as electives, however, are on the rise.

136  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

This recent shift towards the English language and Western models of education in Russia reflects its long history. Located in Eurasia and finding itself situated between Europe and Asia, Russia interchangeably pursued either European or Asian political and economic alliances or intellectual aspirations at some of the most critical moments of its development (Ardasheva & Kochetov, 2018; Chubarov, 2007). Although critiqued for overvaluing Eurocentric rationality and for establishing homogenizing politics favoring certain values (e.g. Moreira, 2017), the current emphasis on the English language and Western models of education in Russia is perceived as the means for the country to become competitive and to regain some of its influence in the international arena lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its camp. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education

Foreign language education is a mandatory part of general education in Russia (see Section 2b, Current national policy), which usually spans 11 years (6–7 until 17–18 years old; Nordic Recognition Network, 2005). The  school year (34 weeks; 27–38 hours of study per week) starts on 1 September and ends in early June. Russian general education includes: (a) primary general education (Grades 1–4); (b) basic general education, or simply basic secondary education (Grades 5–9); and (c) secondary complete general education, or simply upper secondary education (Grades 10–11). Foreign language education, including English among other foreign languages, is mandatory in primary and basic secondary education and is required by many higher education institutions. Primary and basic secondary education are compulsory. General education is provided by four types of institution: • General schools: schools of general education (Grades 1–11; 80% of all schools); • General schools with intensive learning programs: schools of general education offering advanced teaching in specific fields (e.g. foreign languages, science, sport, choreography or music; 15% of all schools; may offer teaching at primary, basic general and upper secondary levels); • Gymnasiums: schools of general education with a focus on the humanities (2% of all schools; may offer teaching at primary, basic general and upper secondary levels); • Lyceums: schools of general education with a focus on scientific and technical subjects (3% of all schools; may offer teaching at primary, basic general and upper secondary levels; Nordic Recognition Network, 2005: 18). Private schools, fully financed by parents, offer programs similar to those of state-funded schools but may include additional subject matter

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  137

(e.g. more emphasis on the liberal arts). The completion of basic general education (Grades 1–9) and the successful passing of the attestation (exit) examination entitles admission to upper secondary education (Grades 10–11) or, alternatively, to basic vocational education or middle level professional education. To pursue higher education (college, university, etc.), upper secondary education completion (or its equivalent) is required along with the passing of the Unified State Examination (USE; Единый государственный экзамен, ЕГЭ). Since 2009, the USE is the only official examination signaling graduation from secondary general education, with a possibility of retaking the examination in subsequent years, and is the main form of entrance examination to institutions of higher education (Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation & the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science, 2018). All primary and basic secondary education institutions are subject to general education policies and legal regulations issued by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation (legislative body) and supervised by the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science (executive body). It is important to note that the former, the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, is what remains of the Ministry of Education and Science, which existed until May 2018 after branching out of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as a separate body in charge of higher education policies and regulations. Teachers working in other countries may find it unusual that ‘Russians typically begin and end their general education in the same building and with the same classmates’ (Ardasheva & Kochetov, 2018: 427). With the exception of some subjects such as English language, the same Grade 1–4 teacher typically provides primary education in all core disciplines. Beginning with basic secondary education, all disciplines are taught by content-area specialists looping by cohorts. In other words, content-area specialists, including EAL teachers, do not teach the same grade level yearly, but rather teach their subject matter to cohorts of students until their graduation in Grade 9 or 11. Thus, an EAL teacher, as well as other content-area teachers, typically work with two to four cohorts of students at the same time, often requiring extensive preparation time (e.g. teaching, for example, Grade 6 students for the first three class periods, and then Grade 8 and 11 students for the rest of the school day). 2a. Historical context

Early Russian-English language contacts go back to the 16th century when the Russian Czar Ivan IV (‘Ivan the Terrible’) granted British merchants permission to trade on Russian territory (Proshina & Ettkin, 2005). In the 17th century, Peter I (‘Peter the Great’) visited Britain and hired substantial numbers of British professionals (ship builders, engineers and mathematicians) to fill the needs of the country on its way towards

138  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Westernization. This push towards Westernization contributed an estimated 3000 foreign words to the Russian language at the time, with English loans making up about 5% of this number (Proshina & Ettkin, 2005). In the 18th century, St Petersburg’s theatres staged English speaking plays and the first Russian-American contacts occurred. In the 19th century, ‘English established itself as a language second only to French in popularity among the educated, which resulted in the emergence of several English magazines’ (Davydova, 2019: 11; Proshina & Ettkin, 2005). Hiring English and French language tutors from abroad to educate the offspring of well-off Russian families and aristocracy became fashionable. ‘The roots of today’s English in Russia are the unusual product of decades of limited English resources’ during the Soviet era of the 20th century and ‘a specifically Russian respect for language’ (McCaughey, 2005: 456), stemming from a long history of foreign languages in the country. During the Soviet era of the 20th century in particular, the foreign language teaching field in Russia operated with restricted resources and was dominated by the ‘correct/incorrect’ dichotomy, primarily targeting reading and translation skills and privileging British over American English. For most, McCaughey observed, EAL was homegrown (made in the USSR) and focused on developing a Soviet person (with an EAL curriculum strictly controlled by the state). Locally created and published EAL textbooks and just a few classic English language novels written in outdated English were not just the main teaching tools, ‘but the source of the language itself’ (McCaughey, 2005: 457). Only a few individuals at the top of the Soviet hierarchy (e.g. communist party bureaucrats or academics cleared for travel abroad) were able to practice their English skills overseas or to use authentic – not made in the USSR nor focused on developing a Soviet person – language materials. In turn, Russian respect for language – outside of geopolitical contexts – lies in the traditional and well-shared admiration for the Russian l­ anguage among Russians, fostered by (inter)nationally renowned writers and scientists, from Lomonosov, to Pushkin, to Tolstoy, to Nabokov ­ (Ter‐Minasova, 2005). This pride in and respect for the native language also transfers to foreign languages, as Russians consider languages and their literatures to be ‘a thing of beauty’ and ‘a musical instrument to be mastered’ (McCaughey, 2005: 457). Accordingly, the idea of using just the minimal English for communication is not very popular. That is, McCaughey argued, ‘Russians, admirable and admiring philologists, want to get things right. And for years that entailed finding the “correct” variant’ (McCaughey, 2005: 457). Today, English language input comes from all over the world through a multitude of traditional and multimedia sources, and both British and American Englishes are part of the educational system. Yet, the contributions of world Englishes and the hundreds of millions of non-native ­speakers influencing English are yet to be recognized (McCaughey, 2005).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  139

It is also not uncommon for EAL teachers, especially in remote areas, to have never had extensive opportunities to communicate with English speakers, even after decades of teaching English. Further, although Russian education has produced such important theorists as Vygotsky and Bakhtin, ‘whose ideas greatly influenced the modern view of language acquisition’ (McCaughey, 2005: 459; see Walsh & Mann, 2019) by highlighting the importance of social interactions, culture and oral communication for learning, ideas grounded in these sociocultural theories have been integrated into language curricula in Russia only in recent decades. In the next paragraphs, we describe current national policies outlining how these theories informed the current EAL curriculum. Readers interested in a more in-depth treatment of the history of English language education in Russia are referred to Davydova (2019), Klimenko and Levchenko (2016) and Ivanova and Tivyaeva (2015). 2b. Current national policy

The educational system in Russia perceives foreign languages to be essential for a well-rounded education and to be an important part of the curriculum (Ustinova, 2005). Thus, national policy – primarily stemming from federal sources such as the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation and, formerly, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Acts – mandates foreign language education at the primary general education level, beginning in Grade 2 (and in some regions as early as in Grade 1) and lasting for 10 (11) years. This reflects a shift from introducing foreign languages in Grade 5, prior to the adoption of the 2009 Federal Standard of Primary Education (Belyaeva & Kuznetsova, 2018). A second foreign language was introduced as part of the mandatory curriculum in 2015, but will be no longer be part of the mandatory curriculum as of 2022 (Davydova, 2019). Except in specialized schools (which give students the opportunity to learn one or more foreign languages more intensively), foreign languages are scheduled for two academic hours per week in elementary and four academic hours per week in secondary schools. An academic hour in general education is generally 45–50 minutes. The current basic general education curricular guidelines outlining skills that need to be mastered by Grade 1–11 learners of English and other foreign languages include – in addition to the structural (e.g. vocabulary, grammar) and functional (e.g. compensation strategies) mastery of the studied language – such important learning targets as: • familiarizing the learner with the cultural heritage of the countries of the studied foreign language; • fostering valuing and positive attitudes towards the studied foreign language as an instrument of cognition and understanding among people and nations;

140  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

• developing awareness of the close relationships between mastering foreign languages ​​and personal, social and professional growth; • developing communicative competences in the studied foreign language, including in speaking, listening, reading and writing, necessary for successful socialization and self-realization; • fostering friendly and tolerant attitudes towards the values ​​of other cultures, optimism and self-awareness in relation to cultural differences in the life of peers in other countries; and • fostering interest in improving the level of proficiency in the studied foreign language, including through self-observation and self-esteem in studying the second/third foreign language and in using the studied language(s) as a means of expanding knowledge across subject areas. (Federal Educational-Methodical Association for General Education, 2015). 2c. Current EAL learner population

The educational system in Russia includes more than 140,000 schools and educational organizations (Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017), with foreign languages, including English, being an essential part of the curriculum across all educational levels. Because of its increasing role in Russian society as a symbol of modernity and prestige associated with interpersonal (e.g. vacations), instrumental (e.g. career advancement) and creative (e.g. code-switching in mass media) functions for individuals, English is becoming ‘the foreign language of first choice for most parents and students’ starting from the early grades (Ustinova, 2005: 245). In fact, English is taught to 80% of all school children, which is followed by such languages as German (16%), French (4%) and Turkish (2%) (Davydova, 2019). Among the most recent developments in language education in Russia is the reduction of the number of foreign languages offered in secondary schools on a mandatory basis (Davydova, 2019). That is, by the year 2022 the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation ‘intends to introduce English as the sole foreign language taught as part of the mandatory curriculum at Russian schools’ (Davydova, 2019: 16). 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

Currently, there are 279 higher education institutions in Russia preparing over 438,000 future educators, with the number of applicants exceeding the number of available places (in 2016, for example, by 7.7 times; Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017). Although there are no specific EAL teacher demographics data, some reasonable predictions can be made based on the general population information provided below. Specifically, the current population of the Russian Federation is about 142 million and includes nearly 200 national and/or

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  141

ethnic groups. Russians constitute a majority (78%), followed by Tatars (4%), then Ukrainians, Bashkirs, Chuvash people and Chechens (about 1% for each group); about 14% are reported as other or unspecified (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2021). Other national and/or ethnic groups are less than 1% of the population. Officially recognized religions in Russia include Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism; large segments of the population are non-practicing believers and nonbelievers. For example, only 15–20% identify with Orthodox Christianity, the largest religion of the country. Russian language is the official language of the land; it is spoken by about 86% of the population, followed by Tatar (3.2%), Chechen (1%) and other (10.1%) languages. Most Russian Federation citizens are literate (99.7%) and live in urban areas (75%). 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

To become a teacher, an individual must have undertaken vocational education with a specialization in education (i.e. a diploma of secondary or higher pedagogical education/диплом о среднем или высшем педагогическом образовании), or higher or secondary vocational education in the field corresponding to the subject taught and additional vocational education focused on teaching methods and pedagogy (Zvyagin, 2015). Secondary pedagogical education available to aspiring EAL teachers in Russia includes a bachelor’s degree with a specialization as a primary school teacher with advanced English language study. This specialization can be achieved either through a four-year program (for applicants with nine years of general secondary education completed) or through a threeyear program (for applicants with 11 years of general secondary education completed). There are only a few such secondary pedagogical education institutions in Russia. For example, in Moscow there is only one college, the International College of Arts and Communications (Международный колледж искусств и коммуникаций), providing this EAL preparation option. Higher vocational education for prospective teachers is provided at pedagogical universities. There are several program options for future EAL teachers, including bachelor’s degrees with a specialization in pedagogical education (i.e. an English teacher), pedagogical education with two language profiles (e.g. an English/German or French/English teacher), or pedagogical education with two content profiles (i.e. an English teacher + content-area teacher in, for example, geography or physics in high school, or an English teacher + elementary school teacher). Training is most often carried out in face-to-face, distance or a combination of face-to-face and distance formats. The single-profile degree typically requires four years of study; the two-profile degree typically requires five years. Distance ­education across options requires 6–12 additional months of study

142  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2015, 2016). Among 39 pedagogical universities recently rated, the top 10 include three institutions located in Moscow and one in St Petersburg (Martynenko, 2019). In addition to teaching methods and practicums, future EAL teachers study English in depth, by completing coursework in phonology, phonetics, grammar and usage. It is worth noting that these higher education pedagogical institutions do not train linguists and translators. Coursework in an EAL master’s teacher preparation program typically spans two years. The program coursework at this level aims to prepare highly qualified personnel who have the ability to analyze, critically evaluate and adjust the educational process according to identified strengths and weaknesses, taking into account the understanding of Russian and international educational trends (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2018a). 3a. Research foundation/methods

Second/foreign language teaching methods have traditionally been well represented in EAL teacher preparation curricula in Russia both to give students a historical perspective of the field (e.g. the direct method, the grammar-translation method) and to introduce students to more recent trends in the field (e.g. English for specific purposes, project-based learning). The former exposes prospective teachers to the field ‘in terms of what were prevalent practices in the past and what teachers and scholars believed to be true about language acquisition and learning’ (Mahalingappa & Polat, this volume, p. 234) and informs EAL teachers’ own beliefs and sense of continuity. The latter better prepares future EAL teachers for today’s classroom demands and expectations. Introduction to research at the undergraduate level is most typically done through infusion across courses. Introduction to research at the graduate level is done through a combination of stand-alone research courses (see Table 8.1) and, similar to undergraduate level, infusion of research across other courses. Similar to the USA (Mahalingappa & Polat, this volume), introducing students to research foundations typically starts with the analysis of published research, deconstructing scholarly articles for their structure (introduction, problem statement, methods, etc.) and content (what is the purpose of each section of the article). Stand-alone research courses also require the reading of research methodology textbooks. Annotating and synthesizing literature on assigned or self-selected topics is a common assignment. Conducting own research projects is required for thesis master’s degrees. Table 8.1 provides a specific example of research-focused courses by academic hours as outlined in the EAL master’s degree program of study at Barnaul State University.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  143

Table 8.1  Research-focused courses: An excerpt from the Barnaul State University’ EAL master’s degree program of study (two years) Course

Academic hours*

Modern problems of science and foreign language education

108

Methods of scientific research

108

Innovative processes in education

108

Thesis research

756

Note: *Academic hour = 45–50 minutes.

3b. National policy

In recent decades, Russian society has undergone a number of political and socioeconomic transformations, requiring the society to rethink what constitutes an effective education, adequate for preparing the country’s future generations for modernity (Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017). As a result, key policies, such as the 2013 Teacher Professional Standard (Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, 2013) and the 2014 Comprehensive Program to Improve the Professional Skills of Teachers of Educational Institutions (Government of the Russian Federation, 2014), have led to important changes in both initial and continued teacher education in Russia, emphasizing the importance of competency-based approaches to both. The 2013 Teacher Professional Standard, for example, outlines the following broad domains of competencies: (a) professional activities, (b) professional skills, (c) professional knowledge and (d) other. Examples of professional activities outlined include: developing and implementing curricula within the framework of the basic general education program; planning and conducting effective instruction; assessing student knowledge on the basis of testing and other methods in accordance with the educational capabilities of children; and developing student motivation for learning. Examples of knowledge and professional skills include: foundations in pedagogical technologies and teaching methods; foundations in human development in face-to-face and virtual environments; ability to integrate all students in the educational process, including those with special educational needs; foundation in subject-specific teaching methods; mastery of subject-specific federal educational standards; and understanding the subject’s history and place in the world’s culture and science. Early coursework in the EAL bachelor’s teacher preparation program focuses on English phonetics and the grammatical structures of the language (e.g. practice of conversation and writing in English language, practical phonetics, practical grammar), foundational linguistics, teaching and learning theories and some foundational coursework in education (e.g. developmental psychology; see Table 8.2 for an example). More advanced

144  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

coursework includes, in addition to English language and foreign language methods courses, such subjects as theoretical grammar, theoretical phonetics, stylistics and lexicology, among others. The senior year curriculum typically includes teaching practicums (primarily observing experienced teachers) and student teaching (primarily supervised teaching) as well as the second foreign language and related disciplines, if this option has been selected. In addition to specialized subjects, students across the years of the program study general subjects (e.g. history, philosophy, law, communication) and general educational courses (e.g. pedagogy, professional ethics, sociology). Students can also take a number of elective courses including, but not limited to, business English, theory and history of translation, intercultural communication, cultural studies and the history and literature of the countries of the language studied. Overall, most EAL teacher preparation coursework is focused on discipline-specific skills (half/often more than half of academic time; 45–55% approximately); general and general educational courses comprise approximately 25% and 35% of the total coursework, respectively. Practicum experiences, which we will discuss later, constitute about 10% of the total academic coursework. Curriculum, sequencing and expected outcomes for EAL teacher preparation programs are developed by Federal State Universities, National Research Universities and state educational organizations of higher education approved by a presidential decree and using approved educational standards (Russian Federation Ruling, 2012). Federal State Universities are those in charge of developing higher professional education systems based on the optimization of regional educational structures. Their aim is to strengthen the ties between educational institutions and the economy of the federal districts. National Research Universities were described earlier in the chapter. Higher education institutions must follow the Federal State Educational Standards (hereafter, the Standards) when developing their teacher preparation programs. The Standards include requirements for the structure of an educational program, conditions of its implementation and the expected outcomes. Structurally, educational programs must include the compulsory and the varied components. While the compulsory component is the one that must address the Standards, the components may vary, to some extent, across higher education institution programs in terms of the number of required disciplines and the number of academic hours required for a given discipline. Program outcomes across higher education institutions must address discipline-specific core competencies that students must master as outlined in the Standards. For EAL teachers, these core competences are identified by the 2013 Teacher Professional Standard, which we discuss in greater detail later in the chapter. Upon graduation, EAL teachers qualify for work in schools, social organizations (e.g. children’s centers of creativity and leisure), preparatory

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  145

courses for preschoolers, and city and ​​ municipal training centers, as well as for providing private tutoring services. According to the Russian Federation President’s Decree of 2012, teacher salaries in a given region of the Federation had to reach an average salary of that region by 2018. In 2019, a typical EAL teacher’s salary is 10,000–50,000 ₽ (Rubles) across Russian Federation regions and 35,000–100,000 ₽ in the Moscow region (Vocational Orientation Center, n.d.). These salary discrepancies are largely due to regional cost of living differences. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Future EAL teachers, as well as future teachers of other foreign languages, are prepared in specialized, pedagogical colleges and specialized educational institutions (педагогические колледжи, cредние специальные образовательные учреждения). Specialized educational institutions differ from other institutions of higher education in that they only grant education-related degrees. After graduating from either type of institution, graduates can teach English to children of primary school age or continue their studies at pedagogical universities (педагогические вузы), which require some coursework to be completed in a department of foreign languages. To teach in middle and high school, teachers must undergo higher education (e.g. a pedagogical university degree). The Russian Federation currently recognizes the following higher education degrees: ‘bachelor’, ‘master’, ‘specialist’ (an equivalent to a US ‘dual degree’ combining ‘bachelor’ and ‘master’) and ‘candidate of sciences’ (an equivalent to a US doctoral degree). The level of education and qualifications are determined on the basis of state-approved educational specialization documents, such as diplomas and certificates granted to individuals who have successfully completed the coursework and practicums required by a given degree (Zvyagin, 2015). Teacher preparation coursework can be either tuition-free or carried out on a commercial (paid) basis. As noted earlier, future EAL teachers may specialize either in preschool/primary or secondary education. They may also focus on just the English language or choose to concentrate on English and an additional foreign language or subject. 3d. Curriculum mandates/standards/competencies

Curricula in EAL teacher education programs generally follow the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (formerly the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation) mandates, as adapted by individual institutions. Not surprisingly in the globalized world, adoptions of EAL teacher education programs are often informed by TESOL standards, focusing on (1) language, (2) culture, (3) planning, implementing, and managing instruction, (4) assessment and (5) professionalism (the similarity in foci can be seen in Table 8.2). Having

146  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

completed their required coursework and practicums, students pass the state exam and defend their final qualifying paper (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2018b). One specific example of coursework by academic hours exemplifying targeted knowledge, skills and dispositions as outlined in the EAL bachelor’s degree program of study at Barnaul State University is provided in Table 8.2. Table 8.2  Excerpt from the Barnaul State University’ EAL bachelor’s face-to-face degree program of study (five years) Course

Academic hours*

Foundational coursework Cultural foundations

1332

Foundations in education

1008

English

504

General psychology

324

Pedagogy

324

Developmental physiology

144

History

108

Philosophy

108

Communication

108

Foundations in technology

108

Law

108

Sociology

108

Safety

108

Professional ethics

108

Curriculum

108

Physical Education

72

Core curriculum Practice of conversation and writing in English language

1188

Practical grammar

828

Second language acquisition theories

540

Practical phonetics

468

Teaching methods in foreign languages

252

Culture of English oral communication (Pragmatics I)

180

Cultural studies

144

English language history

108

Theory of grammar

108

Lexicology

108

Stylistics

108

English/Russian comparative linguistics

108 (continued)

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  147

Table 8.2  (Continued) Course

Academic hours*

Electives (selected) Theory and practice of translation

180

Technical translation

180

Text interpretation

180

Cultural text interpretation

180

Practicum in international test taking

144

English for academic/specific purposes

144

Culture of English written communication (Pragmatics II)

144

Introduction to multicultural communication

144

Foundations of multicultural communication

144

Introduction to linguistics

108

Foundational linguistics

108

Ancient languages ​​and cultures

108

Latin

108

Educational technology

108

Assessment

108

Classic English literature

108

Modern English literature

108

Distance education

108

Special education I

108

Special education II

108

Practicums Practicum I

108

Practicum II

216

Student teaching I

432

Student teaching II

108

Note: *Academic hour = 45–50 astronomical minutes.

EAL teachers pursuing a master’s degree in teacher preparation are given the opportunity to improve their professional competencies in the field of teaching English. In addition to practical skills courses (e.g. modern English practicum, translation practicum), the coursework at this level is more heavily focused on theory (e.g. theory of multilingual ­education, theory and methodology of foreign language intercultural ­education), and introduces research foundation courses (e.g. program evaluation; see also Table 8.1) as well. Students may opt to specialize in teaching Russian as a foreign language in addition to English or an ­additional foreign language. In addition to coursework, students are

148  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

required to engage in research activities that inform their master’s thesis. At the end of the program, they pass the state examination and defend a master’s thesis (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2018a). 3e. Practicum

Teaching practicums are a requirement. For bachelor’s degrees, EAL teacher preparation practicums are typically scheduled in Years 3–5 of the program. Students have several types of practicums. At first, practicum experiences are observational, with prospective EAL teachers shadowing in-service teachers and performing a limited number of teaching or classroom organization tasks. Subsequent practicum experiences are more participatory – EAL teacher candidates themselves conduct lessons, conferences and other classroom and school tasks under the supervision of the assigned mentor teacher and university field-placement personnel. Altogether, practicum experiences constitute about 10% of the total academic coursework. EAL teacher candidates pursue their practicums in organizations engaged in varied educational activities, primarily in elementary and secondary schools and gymnasiums. 4. Quality Assurance

All higher education institutions in the Russian Federation must obtain a license for educational activities and receive accreditation for their programs (My Education, 2010). Licensing serves to indicate that the institution, as well as all of its branches licensed independently, is in compliance with all regulatory requirements to receive the right to conduct educational activities (My Education, 2010; Russian Federation Ruling, 2011). In particular, licensing implies compliance with: construction, sanitary and hygiene standards; availability of adequate equipment and curricula for the declared specialties; approved academic loads for the declared specialties; and availability of an appropriately trained teaching force, among other factors. The annex to the license lists specialties in which the educational institution has the right to provide educational activities and to grant degrees. The license is issued by the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science (Федеральнaя Службa по Надзору в Сфере Образования и Науки ). Once issued, the license is valid indefinitely. To ensure that the quality of the provided services does not deteriorate, the licensing authority systematically conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections. Licensing and accreditation are a unified system for assessing educational services; accreditation of educational institutions is not possible without a license to operate.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  149

4a. Accreditation and accountability

As in many other countries, institutions of higher education in Russia must be accredited, that is, officially recognized by the state as qualified to provide educational services in accordance with their level (e.g. institution of higher education, institution of secondary specialized education) and type (e.g. technical school, college, institute, university, academy) (My Education, 2010). The purpose of accreditation is to provide quality assurance for the educational programs and ensure compliance of the content and quality of the educational activities with the Standards and requirements (e.g. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2018a, 2018b). Similar to licensing, accreditation is under the purview of the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science. The state accreditation certificate is given for a period of six years (previously accreditation was issued for five years). Only institutions that have secured accreditation have the right to grant a diploma (certification) of higher professional education. To accredit an undergraduate EAL teacher preparation program (requirements would slightly differ for master’s and specialist programs), an institution must comply with the Standards outlined in the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act of 2018b. These include: (a) general requirements (e.g. language of instruction, number of required credit hours per year and per program); (b) requirements for the structure of the undergraduate program (see Table 8.3 for an example); (c) professional standards (examples of standards, mandates and competences specific to EAL teacher preparation are discussed earlier in the chapter); and (d) undergraduate program implementation requirements. The latter set of requirements focuses on: • System-wide requirements for the implementation of the undergraduate program (e.g. access to curricula and programs of study for required disciplines/modules, access to electronic educational publications and electronic educational resources specified in programs of study for required disciplines/modules, access to training programs); Table 8.3  Requirements of the structure and scope of a bachelor’s degree Structure and scope of a bachelor degree

Credit hours*

Block 1: Disciplines (modules)

no less than 120

Block 2: Practicums

no less than 60

Block 3: State certification (state exams, qualifying projects)

no less than 9

Total credit hours

240

Note: *1 credit hour corresponds to about 36 academic hours or about 27 astronomical hours. Source: Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2018b).

150  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

• Requirements for material-technical and educational-methodical support of the undergraduate program (e.g. classrooms should be equipped to enable learning activities as determined in the programs of study for required disciplines/modules; the organization must have the necessary set of licensed and free software); • Requirements for undergraduate program staffing (e.g. at least 70% of the teaching staff of the organization must conduct scientific, educational and/or practical work corresponding to the profile of the taught disciplines/modules; at least 10% of the teaching staff must be the leaders and/or employees of other organizations engaged in work corresponding to the specialization professional field/have experience in this professional sphere for at least three years); • Requirements for financial conditions for the implementation of the undergraduate program (allocated implementation budget should not be lower than the basic standards of costs for the provision of public services for the implementation of educational programs of higher education); • Requirements for assessing the quality of educational activities and training of students in the undergraduate program (e.g. quality assurance is determined within the framework of the internal as well as the external evaluation systems, in which the organization participates on a voluntary basis; when conducting regular internal assessments of the quality of educational activities, the organization attracts employers and/or their associations and other individuals, including the organization’s teaching staff). (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2018b) An external assessment of the quality of educational activities and student learning can be carried out as part of the public professional accreditation conducted by employers and their professional associations. This could also be done by organizations authorized by such professional associations, including foreign organizations or authorized national professional social organizations that are part of international structures. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

State accreditation confirmation for an approved EAL teacher education program is a regulated procedure for recognizing the effectiveness of the educational institution housing the program, both as a whole and of its individual components. The process includes four steps: (1) self-­ evaluation and preparation of a report on the results of self-examination (i.e. a portfolio of documents addressing state accreditation indicators); ­(2)  initiation of the accreditation proceedings; (3) consideration and ­decision making on accreditation; and (4) enforcement of accreditation decisions. Self-evaluation is an intra-university activity for collecting and

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  151

analyzing information on all educational programs and the educational organization as a whole. Self-evaluation goals are not only to prepare the portfolio addressing state accreditation indicators, but also to document negative internal trends and their causes in order to inform improvement. The collected documentation is then transferred to the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science for consideration, which makes a decision as to whether or not the submitted portfolio qualifies the institution for initiation of the accreditation proceedings. If approved, accreditation examination, as a rule, is carried out at the location by an expert group, against specified accreditation indicators. Accreditation indicators, primarily focused on affordances, structures and completion, and achievement statistics (e.g. the amount of coursework in the core disciplines provided) are evaluated on the basis of ‘meet/does not meet’ criteria (e.g. 3600 core curriculum academic hours are provided/not provided), as specified by the institution in alignment with professional Standards. Based on the expert group conclusions, the institutional accreditation is denied, suspended or renewed. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

In-service EAL teachers must have their qualifications approved every five years. The reasons for this requirement according to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (2014) include: • stimulating targeted, continuous improvement of the qualifications of teachers, their methodological culture and personal and professional growth; • determining a need for advanced teacher training; • improving the efficiency and quality of teaching activities; • identifying the potential for growth among teachers; • satisfying federal requirements and educational standards for teaching staff quality assurance; and • ensuring appropriate payment differentiation in accordance with teaching expertise, taking into account the established qualification category and teaching load. A recent push for the internationalization of Russian higher education has necessitated greater comparability and/or compatibility of academic qualifications across Europe. This has led to a need to catch up in-service teachers to the current competency- rather than knowledge-based approaches to teaching (i.e. ‘know how’ rather than ‘know what’; e.g. Belyaeva & Kuznetsova, 2018; Krupchenko et al., 2015). Overall, the current Russian educational system favors continuous professional development (CPD) in the form of additional extended coursework over such approaches as short-duration in-service professional development (Krupchenko, 2015). The underlying idea behind the CPD approach to

152  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

advanced teacher training ‘is to create conditions for self-development’ (Krupchenko, 2015: 56), such as providing teachers with a wide range of educational resources to form individualized programs. In practice, CPD is often a combination of formal and informal educational opportunities. Formal educational opportunities are provided by hierarchically and chronologically structured educational systems embedded in educational organizations (Krupchenko, 2015). Informal educational opportunities are localized and comprise any ‘non-institutional education, during which knowledge is acquired, values are ​​ assigned, skills are formed as a result of human interaction with other people’ (Krupchenko, 2015: 58). Examples of the latter include participation in international symposia, collaborative research and seminars with Anglophone scholars and methodologists. Examples of the former are academies, institutes and centers providing continuing education and retraining of teaching staff. In 2009, there were 94 such institutions across the Russian Federation with their numbers per region varying, depending on the region’s size, population density, need and available funds. Among these, 39 provided CPD for foreign language – including EAL – teachers (Orshanskaya, 2009). The formal system of advanced teacher training is under the purview of the Federal Institute for the Development of Education and is provided by regional institutes for the development of education, advanced training institutes for educators, and methodical associations at the school, district or city level. Although teachers have the right to receive CPD at least once every three years, participation in such advanced professional training is mandatory, to be done at least once every five years (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, 2014). CPD can be carried out either continuously or in stages, including through individualized programs of study, internships or online education as established by the CPD provider. CPD format and timing are determined by the program provider or in accordance with an education agreement. That said, the minimum allowable period for CPD duration is 108 academic hours (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act, 2012). This is to ensure that the CPD duration is sufficient for the in-service teacher to achieve the planned outcomes and to obtain new competencies (qualifications) declared in the program. Successful completion of a CPD program concludes with the issuance of a standard form diploma or a certificate of professional retraining (Russian Federation Ruling, 2012). CPD is typically carried out at the expense of the school where the teacher works (most often from federal funds allocated to the school) or using the teacher’s own personal funds; that said, the teacher is not required to undergo advanced training at his or her own expense (Ministry of Education and Science of Russia Letter, 2015). Table 8.4 provides an example of a CPD program (although not meeting the minimum duration requirements as specified by the Russian Federation Ruling of 2012).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  153

Table 8.4  CPD program of study for teaching the subject ‘English language’ in the context of the Standards Academic hours Program of study

Independent work

Total

Disciplines

Lectures

Seminars/ practicums

1.  Legal foundations of education

2

2

2

6

2.  General pedagogy

4

2

2

8

3.  General psychology

4

2

2

8

4. Psychological and pedagogical foundations of education in the context of the Standards

2

2

2

6

5.  Psychological basis of educational activity

2

2

2

6

6. Planning and organization of educational activities

2

2

2

6

7. Psychology of training, education and development

2

2

2

6

8.  The Standards

4

2

2

8

9. Teaching English in the context of the of the Standards implementation

4

2

2

8

10. Information and communication technologies in the context of the of the Standards implementation

4

2

2

8

11.  Final examination

2

Total

72

Source: Federal Institute for Continuing Education and Retraining, Moscow: https://fipkip.ru/ institut.

Typical formal educational opportunities for EAL teachers could be either general, designed for foreign language teachers in general, or specialized, designed for EAL teachers specifically (Orshanskaya, 2009). General CPD programs focus on five domains: (1) foreign language teaching methodology,​​(2) introduction ​​ to foreign language teaching methods​​, (3) modernization of foreign language teaching methods, (4) psychological and pedagogical foundations of foreign language teaching methods​and (5) teaching foreign languages in ​​ multicultural spaces. Examples of topics addressed within the foreign language teaching methodology domain include: competence- and activity-based approaches to teaching foreign languages;​​communicative approach to teaching foreign languages; and early childhood foreign language studies. Specialized CPD programs focus on the following general domains: methods of teaching English language; the introduction of active English language learning tools; educational and methodological support for

154  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

English lessons; assessing English proficiency levels; and enhancing the mastery of the teacher profession (again, very similar to TESOL standards). Topics under the ‘methods of teaching English language’ domain, for example, focus on tailoring English language teaching methods and curricula to the needs of learners depending on their age and current proficiency level (e.g. special topics in learning English in Grades 10–11; new approaches to teaching English to primary school students; Orshanskaya, 2009). The ‘introduction of active English language learning tools’ domain introduces teachers to or enhances their knowledge of such tools as roleplays, discussions and task- and project-based activities. Topics under the ‘educational and methodological support for English lessons’ domain introduce teachers to new federal educational standards, sample curricula in English language, current recommendations for material development, and planning tools. ‘Assessing English proficiency levels’ topics center on assessment and test preparation techniques for the qualifying examination at the end of secondary education, which tests foreign language proficiency among other subject areas. Finally, topics under ‘enhancing the mastery of the teacher profession’ domain focus on analyzing essential professional knowledge, skills and dispositions underlying the personal and professional pedagogical culture of English teachers, such as the ability to stimulate active student learning or the development of teacher communicative skills. References Ardasheva, Y. and Kochetov, A. (2018) A glimpse into Russian history, culture, and language. In J. Egbert and G. Ernst-Slavit (eds) Views from Inside: Languages, Cultures, and Schooling for K-12 Educators (pp. 417–433). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Belyaeva, E. and Kuznetsova, L. (2018) Implementing EMI at a Russian university: A study of content lecturers’ perspectives. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 6 (3), 425–439. Chubarov, A. (2007) Russia from A to Z. See http://www.allrussias.com/section_az.asp. Davydova, J. (2019) Language ideologies, language policies, and English-language teaching in Russia. In X. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–20). Cham: Springer. Federal Educational-Methodical Association for General Education (2015) Record 1/15. Примерная Основная Образовательная Программа Основного Общего Образования [Approximate Educational Program of Basic General Education]. Government of the Russian Federation Ruling (2014) Ruling 3241п-П8. Комплексная программа повышения профессионального уровня педагогических работников общеобразовательных организаций [A Comprehensive Program to Improve the Professional Level of Teachers of Educational Institutions]. Ivanova, V. and Tivyaeva, I. (2015) Teaching foreign languages in Soviet and present-day Russia: A comparison of two systems. Journal of the Institute of Educational Research 47 (2), 305–324. Klimenko, T.K. and Levchenko, O.Y. (2016) Подготовка учителей иностранного языка в ретроспективе развития педагогического образования (XIX – начало XX века) [Preparation of foreign language teachers in a retrospective of the development of

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  155

pedagogical education (the XIX – Early XX centuries)]. Scholarly Notes of Transbaikal 11 (5), 48–52. Krupchenko, A.K. (2015) Профессиональное развитие учителя иностранного языка [Professional development of a foreign language teacher]. Modern Additional Professional Pedagogical Education 4, 56–63. Krupchenko, A., Inozemtzeva, K. and Prilipko, E. (2015) Professional development of a foreign-language tertiary teacher: Competence-based approach. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6 (S5), 257–261. Lebedev, S., O’Conner, T., Pomar, M. and Collins, J. (2009) The Next Step in Reforming Russia’s Higher Education: Creating National Research Universities. See https:// carnegieendowment.org/2009/11/16/next-step-in-reforming-russia-s-higher-educationcreating-national-research-universities-event-1500. Levada Centre (2014) Владение иностранными языками [Command of Foreign Languages]. See https://www.levada.ru/2014/05/28/vladenie-inostrannymi-yazykami/. Martynenko, A. (2019) Рейтинг российских вузов ‘Национальное признание:’ Общий рейтинг [Rating of Russian Universities ‘National Recognition:’ Overall Rating]. See https://univer.expert/tag/universitety-rossii/#7. McArthur, T. (2003) English as an Asian language. English Today 19 (2), 19–22. McCaughey, K. (2005) The kasha syndrome: English language teaching in Russia. World Englishes 24 (4), 455–459. Mesthrie, R. (2020) Colony, post‐colony and world Englishes in the South African context. World Englishes. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/weng.12469 Ministry of Education and Science of Russia Letter (2015) Letter 08-415. О Реализации Права Педагогических Работников на Дополнительное Профессиональное Образование (вместе с ‘Разъяснениями по Реализации Права Педагогических Работников на Дополнительное Профессиональное Образование) [Rights of Teachers to Further Professional Education (Together with the ‘Clarifications on the Realization of the Right of Pedagogical Workers to Further Professional Education’)]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2010) Act 1897. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Основного Общего Образования [Federal State Educational Standard of Basic General Education]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2012) Act 413. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Среднего Общего Образования’ (с Изменениями и Дополнениями) [Federal State Educational Standard of Secondary General Education (with Amendments and Additions)]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2014) Act 276. Об Утверждении Порядка Проведения Аттестации Педагогических Работников Организаций, Осуществляющих Образовательную Деятельность [Procedure for the Certification of Pedagogical Workers of Educational Organizations]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2015) Act 1426. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Высшего Образования по Направлению Подготовки 44.03.05 Педагогическое Образование (Уровень Бакалавриата) [Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education in the Field of Training 44.03.05 Pedagogical Education (Undergraduate Level)]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2016) Act 91. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Высшего Образования по Направлению Подготовки 44.03.05 Педагогическое Образование с Двумя Уровнями Подготовки (Уровень Бакалавриата) [Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education in the Direction of Training 44.03.05 Pedagogical Education with Two Levels of Training (Undergraduate Level)].

156  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2018a) Act 126. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Высшего Образования – Магистратура по Направлению Подготовки 44.04.01 Педагогическое Образование [Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education – Master’s in the Field of Training 44.04.01 Pedagogical Education]. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Act (2018b) Act 124. Об Утверждении Федерального Государственного Образовательного Стандарта Высшего Образования: Бакалавриат по Направлению Подготовки 44.03.04 Профессиональное Обучение (по отраслям) [Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education – A Bachelor’s Degree with Specialization 44.03.04 Vocational Training (by Industry)]. Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation & the Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science (2018) Ruling 190/1512. Об утверждении Порядка проведения государственной итоговой аттестации по образовательным программам среднего общего образования [On Approval of the Procedure for Conducting the State Final Certification on Educational Programs of Secondary General Education]. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (2013) Ruling 544. Профессиональный стандарт: ‘Педагог (педагогическая деятельность в сфере дошкольного, начального общего, основного общего, среднего общего образования) (воспитатель, учитель) [Professional Standard: ‘Teacher (Pedagogical Activity in the Field of Preschool, Primary General, Basic General, Secondary General Education) (Educator, Teacher)’]. Moreira, M.A. (2017) ‘And the linguistic minorities suffer what they must?’: A review of conflicts in curriculum theory through the lenses of language teacher education? Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies 12 (1), 1–17. My Education (2010) Что требовать от вуза при поступлении? [What quality assurance documentation to request upon admission?]. My Education, February. See https:// moeobrazovanie.ru/vuz_doc.html. Nordic Recognition Network (2005) The System of Education in Russia. See http:// norric.org/files/education-systems/Ruslandsrapport-feb2005.pdf. Orshanskaya, E.G. (2009) Организация повышения квалификации и профессиональной переподготовки учителя иностранного языка в системе дополнительного профессионального образования России. [Organization of advanced training and retraining of a foreign language teacher in the system of continuing professional education in Russia]. Siberian Pedagogical Journal 5, 181–183. Proshina, Z.G. and Ettkin, B.P. (2005) English-Russian language contacts. World Englishes 24 (4), 439–444. Russian Federation Census (2010) Всероссийскaя Перепись Населения [All-Russian Census]. See https://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_ itogi1612.htm. Russian Federation President’s Decree 597 (2012) О Мероприятиях по Реализации Государственной Социальной Политики [Implementation of the State Social Policy]. Russian Federation Ruling (2011) Ruling 174. Об Утверждении Положения о Лицензировании Образовательной Деятельности [Regulation on the Licensing of Educational Activities]. Russian Federation Ruling (2012) Ruling 273. Об Образовании в Российской Федерации [About Education in the Russian Federation]. Shcherbak, N.F. (2020) Post-colonial ‘writing back’. Polylinguality and Transcultural Practices 17 (3), 334–342. Ter‐Minasova, S.G. (2005) Traditions and innovations: English language teaching in Russia. World Englishes 24 (4), 445–454.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Russia  157

US Central Intelligence Agency (2021) The World Factbook. See https://www.cia.gov/ the-world-factbook/countries/russia/. Ustinova, I.P. (2005) English in Russia. World Englishes 24 (2), 239–252. Valeeva, R.A. and Gafurov, I.R. (2017) Initial teacher education in Russia: Connecting theory, practice and research. European Journal of Teacher Education 40 (3), 342–360. Vocational Orientation Center (n.d.) Школьный учитель [Schoolteacher]. See https:// www.profguide.io/professions/teacher.html. Walsh, S. and Mann, S. (eds) (2019) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education. New York: Routledge. Zvyagin, A.S. (2015) Особенности приёма на педагогическую работу: Изменения в законодательстве [Requirements for Teacher Employment: Legal Changes]. See https://eduface.ru/consultation/pravo/osobennosti_prima_na_pedagogicheskuyu_ rabotu_izmeneniya_v_zakonodatelstve.

9 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Maha Al-Shahrani, Ahmed Al-Shlowiy and Connie Mitchell

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we describe the policies, curricula and pedagogical practices guiding the preparation of teachers of English as an additional language in Saudi Arabia. We start by describing the historical context, national policy and learner and teacher populations. We then focus on English teachers’ preparation programs in the country, describing their research foundation, current policies, qualification of teacher educators, curriculum mandates and practicum requirements. After that, we explain quality assurance practices in terms of accreditation and accountability and formative and summative assessment. The chapter ends with an account of in-service teacher professional development in the country. 1. Brief Introduction

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most oil-rich countries globally, with a population of only around 32 million spread out across over 2 million square km (General Authority for Statistics, 2016). It is also home to the two holiest cities in Islam, Makkah and Madinah, which give the country a unique weight in the Muslim world. Since religion plays a significant role in everyday life in this country, it is inextricably intertwined with the conservative educational system. One illustration is that women were not allowed to go to school until around 1960. Until recently, some specialties were also limited to men, such as architecture and engineering. Another illustration is strict gender segregation, where male students are taught exclusively by male faculty 158

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  159

while female faculty teach female students. The segregation occurs from the early stages of schooling until higher education and in separate schools and campuses, respectively. In cases where there is a shortage of female faculty in some specialized higher education courses, male professors deliver their lectures to female students via video conferencing. In 2016, the country’s Vision 2030 was announced. Since then, it has become the cornerstone of the country’s development, programs and initiatives. Vision 2030 aims to reduce the country’s dependence on oil by diversifying its economy and developing its various public sectors – including education. One of Vision 2030’s strategic objectives is strengthening Islamic values and fostering values of moderation and tolerance. Co-education has recently been greenlighted so that boys in the early grades of primary school can now be admitted into female schools, albeit the two genders must still be placed in separate classrooms and have separate toilets and recess times. Furthermore, rather than teaching English as an additional language (EAL) as the only foreign language in public schools, the government has recently announced plans to introduce Chinese as well. Despite obstacles, the Ministry of Education (MoE) is making demonstrable strides toward overcoming them, as is evident in the improvements the MoE has introduced over time. Table 9.1 lists the most recent vision and mission statements as well as the strategic goals of Saudi education.

Table 9.1  Vision, mission, and strategic goals of the Saudi educational system Vision

Distinguished, high-quality education with qualified educational cadres to build proud citizens and global competitors.

Mission

Make education available to all and raise the quality of its processes and outputs. Develop an educational environment that stimulates creativity to meet the requirements of development. In addition to improving the education system governance, develop the employees' skills and capabilities. Lastly, provide the learners with values and skills necessary to become good citizens who are aware of their responsibilities towards family, society, and homeland.

Strategic Goals

(1) (2)

Promoting values and national belonging. Improving learning outcomes and the global positioning of the educational system. (3) Developing the education system to meet the requirements of the labor market. (4) Developing the capabilities of the educational cadres. (5) Enhancing participation in teaching and learning. (6) Ensuring education for all and promoting lifelong learning opportunities. (7) Empowering the private and non-profit sectors and increasing their participation to improve the financial efficiency of education. (8) Raising the quality and effectiveness of scientific research and innovation. (9) Developing the university system and educational and training institutions.

Source: MoE, 2019a.

160  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

2. Description of the Context of EAL Education 2a. Historical context

The Directorate of Education was the first formal educational organization established in 1925 by the country’s founder, King Abdulaziz ben Saud (1875–1953). At that time, the schooling system consisted of two stages: an elementary stage (six years) and an intermediate stage (five years). However, the cornerstone of the modern educational system began with the establishment of the MoE in 1953, with King Fahd ben Abdulaziz (1921–2005) as its first minister (Mission, 2006). According to Al-Seghayer (2011), EAL’s formal teaching in Saudi Arabia began in around 1928, but it was not taught at the secondary school level until the 1960s. However, there is evidence to suggest that EAL at intermediate and secondary school levels in Saudi Arabia dates back as far as 1945 (see Appendix 9.3 for historical documentation). During the 1950s and 1960s, English was taught alongside French for 6–12 periods each week in some grades. In the 1970s, the number of periods was reduced to five, and later to four. Throughout those decades, textbooks were procured from international publishers such as Longman. In the late 1980s, the task of developing EAL materials was assigned to Macmillan, who subsequently created the English for Saudi Arabia textbook series. This was followed by the Say It in English series, which was developed in 1995 by a group of EAL professionals from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Javid et al., 2012). Cassette tapes were the only available technological tool for Saudi EAL learners during that period (see Figure 9.1). 2b. Current national policy

The educational system in Saudi Arabia is highly centralized, in that all educational policies are subject to government control and curricula are standardized across the country. Curriculum development was assigned to the General Administration for Curricular Development, which was originally under the Planning and Development Agency (MoE, 2014). This task was later assigned to Tatweer Company (T4edu) in September 2017. However, a new MoE organizational structure, approved by the Royal Cabinet in May 2019, established a curriculum center and linked it directly to the Vice Minister of Education to provide immediate support to curriculum development in the country. Until recently, the Saudi educational system consisted of three entities: the MoE, the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) and the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), each managing different educational sectors in the country (Alahmari, 2013; MoE, n.d.). The MoE oversaw 47 education directorates, which supervised schools as well as language, vocational and special needs institutions. The TVTC governed

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  161

Figure 9.1  Foreign language textbook covers dating back to 1955

35 mostly male technical colleges and was responsible for granting approval to private training institutes. The MoHE supervised universities, international scholarship programs, educational offices abroad and international academic relations. It also presided over 28 public universities, 11 private universities and 22 private colleges. The roles played by these entities changed in 2013 with several royal decrees. The first change was the Education and Training Evaluation Commission’s foundation to evaluate and accredit educational institutions in the country (see later for more on accreditation and accountability). A second royal decree combined the MoHE and MoE into a single entity, retaining the latter’s name. The following year, a third royal decree appointed the Minister of Education as the chairperson on the board of

162  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

directors for the TVTC. These decrees led to the consolidation of educational plans and policies, particularly with respect to teacher education and professional development, and bridged a gap between the expected outcomes of public and higher education. These changes are consistent with the educational initiatives of Vision 2030, namely to ‘establish a practical framework to align university graduates with labor market needs’ (Vision 2030, 2017: 100–102) by closely aligning the goals of school and postsecondary education with present-day market demands, which entails developing crucial skills related to English language and science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Saudi compulsory education is divided into four levels (Mission, 2006): primary school (six years), intermediate school (three years) and secondary school (three years). Pre-elementary education is optional (three years). Parents can enroll their children into one of three types of schools: (a) public schools, which are free but offer a limited number of EAL periods; (b) private schools (numbering over 4000 schools across the country), which charge tuition fees and provide extra EAL and computer classes; and (c) international schools (totaling almost 1500 schools), which are more expensive than private schools but offer a complete English immersion program (MoE, 2019b). However, since the first language of the majority of students is Arabic, with the exception of those born abroad while their parents were on a scholarship, the first two school types are the most popular in Saudi Arabia. In public schools, EAL is allocated four 45-minute periods per week in intermediate schools and five periods in secondary schools. In 2004, EAL was introduced to primary schools with two periods a week. Currently, English is taught from the fourth grade. Early English language textbooks contained topics around moral values, and technology was not generally addressed in EAL curricula in public schools. However, a more recent curriculum change, largely spurred by the English Language Development Project, initiated a pilot project in 2010 involving new English language textbooks from international publishers (i.e. Macmillan, Education First, McGraw Hill, Oxford, Pearson and MM). Various textbook series were introduced and aligned with the benchmarks for student performance specified by the MoE and derived from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The effectiveness of the books was assessed based on field visits, surveys and teacher interviews. Despite some initial challenges, the textbooks (particularly those that included interactive CDs) appeared to be well received by students and teachers alike. Teachers indicated that the level of language used in these books increased their own content knowledge, as well as that of their students. Consequently, the pilot project led to a joint initiative between the MoE and T4edu (in conjunction with the publishers mentioned above) to develop new textbooks targeting all school grades where EAL is taught (i.e. from fourth grade onward; see Mitchell & Alfuraih, 2017).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  163

At present, MM publishes close to 70% of the kingdom’s elementary, intermediate and secondary level EAL textbooks. The textbooks are generally content-based, presenting themed modules divided into multiple sections (e.g. vocabulary, structures, functions, reading, listening, speaking and writing). The modules begin with warm-up discussions, continue with five two-page lessons and conclude with quizzes. Through culture and cross-cultural sections in the books, students are introduced to different cultures, a feature absent in earlier Saudi textbooks. The CDs are interactive, designed to motivate self-learning, and contain speech samples from native speakers. They are also compatible with smartboards and interactive whiteboards, thereby reducing the amount of time and effort instructors must exert in preparing classroom materials. Although early research reported that web-based instruction, e-learning and the educational technology infrastructure in Saudi Arabia were in their infancy (Al Harbi, 2014; Al-Maini, 2011), most students and teachers nowadays have internet access and computers at home. Students are encouraged to use interactive CDs at home and maintain portfolios documenting their language development, which can then be evaluated and graded by teachers. In many ways, the introduction of the new generation of international textbooks in 2010 marked the beginning of genuine technology integration in EAL classrooms in Saudi public schools. Some of these developments came as a response to 9/11 and the attention the Saudi curriculum consequently received (Elyas & Picard, 2010, 2013; Mahboob & Elyas, 2014). As the majority of terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi, attention was drawn to the educational system and the extent to which it had incited intolerance of other non-Muslim nations. Curriculum modernization and the introduction of English classes to earlier grade levels is causing constant tension and unease on the part of conservatives who perceive such modernization as yielding to international pressure from (‘infidel’) countries and who are concerned about the loss of Muslim identity as a result (Elyas et al., 2020; for more detailed overviews of the Saudi educational system, see Alahmari, 2013; Alblaihed, 2016; Al Aqeel, 2008; Al Ghamdi, 2015; Al Harbi, 2014; Al-Seghayer, 2011). 2c. Current EAL learner population

The total number of students in all public, private and international schools is 6,187,776 (MoE, 2019c). The vast majority of these students are Saudi, whose first language is Arabic. As mentioned above, the exception is children born abroad during their parents’ studies and the children of the foreign workforce in the country. Many of the foreigners in Saudi Arabia come from other Arab countries, so their children are able to integrate into the public school system without a language barrier. Most foreigners whose first language is not Arabic send their children to international schools.

164  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Table 9.2  Number of public schools in Saudi Arabia by grade level and gender in 2018 Gender

Elementary schools

Intermediate schools

Secondary schools Annual system

Course credit system

Male

6337

3549

1588

479

Female

6321

3596

1955

435

With respect to foreign language skills, most Saudi high school students’ vocabulary level tends to fall between 500 and 700 words (Al-Nujaidi, 2003), which means that these students can only engage in short conversations in the language (Alshumaimeri & Almasri, 2012). This is particularly troubling given that, by the time of graduation, they will have completed 850 hours of EAL instruction. Over a seven-year period, students seem to learn less than 100 English words per year, which is relatively minuscule compared to their counterparts in Asian or other Arab countries (Javid et al., 2012). One of the initiatives introduced in 2016 to address some of these issues is gradually replacing the standard annual system with the course credit system in secondary schools (Table 9.2). The course credit system is similar to that of higher education in that students can personalize their study plan for each semester. Furthermore, failing in one course requires the student to study only that course again in the next semester rather than repeating the whole year as in the traditional annual system. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

According to the Education Statistics Center, there were 27,427 Saudi EAL teachers employed in public schools in 2018. The average number of students in EAL classes depends on the population density in a given region but usually ranges between 30 and 45 students per class. Teaching in private schools (see Table 9.3) is generally unattractive due to low salaries. Therefore, many teachers employed in private schools consider it a temporary position in order to gain experience until they secure employment in a public school. The MoE processes applications for teaching Table 9.3  Number of Saudi EFL teachers at public schools in KSA in 2017 Gender

Primary Public

Private

Intermediate

Secondary

Public

Public

Private

Private

Male

3070

154

4609

72

3486

113

Female

4868

972

6090

365

5304

405

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  165

positions in public schools and appoints accepted candidates to schools. After a year of service, teachers can apply for transfer to another school, although this is not guaranteed. Some teachers may spend several years moving from one city to another. Pre-service teachers graduating with an English-related degree can become EAL teachers. However, in the last two years, a new regulation has been introduced requiring all prospective teachers to obtain a master’s degree in teaching, although this has not yet come into effect. This degree is intended to provide pre-service teachers with intensive pedagogical knowledge. In 2019, the MoE also introduced new regulations regarding titles and salary scales (see Appendix 9.1). According to this system, teachers can be promoted from assistant teachers up to expert teachers depending on their degrees and years of experience. Assistant teachers are those with a high school degree and a relevant diploma, whereas a minimum of a bachelor’s degree is required to be appointed as a practicing teacher. A candidate with a non-educational bachelor’s degree is placed at Level 1, with an educational bachelor’s degree at Level 2, with a master’s degree at Level 3 and with a PhD at Level 4. Promotion depends on years of experience and passing a newly introduced official license test within the candidate’s area of specialty. Weekly teaching load also varies depending on position: 18 45-minute periods for expert teachers, 22 for advanced teachers and 24 for the remaining positions. As part of this new pay scale, teachers are now required to obtain a minimum of a ‘very good’ annual evaluation in order to receive the annual increment. Due to historical and cultural factors, the teacher represents the pivotal point in the educational process. In the past, teaching generally took the form of transmission of religious ideas from a scholar to laypeople. People used to sit in a semi-circle around the teacher and listen to the sermon attentively while questions were usually handled on a one-on-one basis after the sermon. Today, the persistence of this ‘preacher-like image’ (Elyas & Piccard, 2010: 141) has created a highly teacher-centered educational culture where the teacher is considered the source of knowledge while students are taught from an early age to respect and listen to their teachers.1 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs 3a. Research foundation/methods

Saudi EAL teachers have to graduate from a national or foreign university that is ‘recommended’ by the MoE in order to qualify to teach in schools. However, as Al-Seghayer (2014) observes, each national university has its own unique program specifications, making it challenging to pinpoint a common philosophy or a set of standards. Nevertheless, as explained in more detail below, teacher preparation programs generally

166  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

follow a four-year study plan, offering courses related to English language skills, literature, linguistics and translation in the target language. Students additionally study mandatory courses related to research methods, education, psychology, curriculum, teaching methodology, assessment and school administration. These courses are usually taught in Arabic since they are offered by departments other than the English department. This approach has been criticized by some scholars as ‘nonsystematic and inadequate’ (Al-Hazmi, 2003: 343), since graduates are ‘inadequately trained’ to the extent that the proficiency of ‘the majority of Saudi Arabia’s English teachers is insufficient to the degree that they barely understand the materials that they are attempting to teach to students’ (Al-Seghayer, 2014: 143). Al-Seghayer (2014: 146) continues, lamenting the current situation where a ‘substantial number of Saudi EFL teachers are professionally and linguistically incompetent and do not have a firm grasp of methods of teaching language elements’. As mentioned above, as part of the attempt to address these issues, the MoE has recently announced plans to require new recruits to obtain a master’s degree in teaching before they can be considered for teaching jobs in public schools. 3b. National policy

Most teacher preparation programs start with a foundation year. The majority of faculty members in foundation year programs are foreign nationals who obtain their contracts through a recruitment agency. After completing this foundation year, prospective teachers then join a language-related department, where the majority of faculty are also foreign nationals but with higher qualifications. The salaries, unified across the country, depend on the faculty member’s position and years of experience. (Appendix 9.2 presents the official pay scale at Saudi public universities; pay scales at private universities and for foreign nationals may vary depending on their contracts.) In addition to the basic salary shown in Appendix 9.2, faculty members also receive monthly allowances, including a transportation allowance, a rarity allowance (for specializations with over 50% foreign workforce) and a young university allowance (if relevant). Some universities also offer incentives and awards for publication, although this varies from one institution to another. Teaching assistants are generally required to hold a bachelor’s degree, lecturers a master’s degree and assistant professors a PhD (see below for promotion requirements). Faculty members are usually required to pursue their education until they obtain a PhD degree, and scholarships are awarded to all national faculty members for that purpose. The scholarship program is rather generous in that the individual receives around a US$1400 monthly allowance (which almost doubles if the individual is accompanied by a spouse), in addition to about half of the individual’s

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  167

basic salary as per Appendix 9.2. The scholarship program additionally covers tuition fees, a round trip ticket every year, health insurance and other perks. Apart from this scholarship program, there is little systematic professional development for faculty members. Faculty members, although encouraged to seek professional development, are not required to keep up with the latest advances in their field or even apply for a promotion beyond assistant professor. There are many instances of faculty members spending decades as assistant professors until they retire. In an attempt to support promotion, the MoE has introduced initiatives in partnership with national and international agencies to offer professional development activities (see in-service professional development below). 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Saudi universities are cosmopolitan, with faculty members coming from all continents. Saudi faculty members usually have academic training completed in various Western countries, including the USA, the UK and Australia (Al-Seghayer, 2014). Their specialties include linguisticsrelated disciplines, literature, pedagogy and translation. As explained above, in order to become an assistant professor, the faculty member is only required to hold a PhD from a national or a recognized foreign university. However, promotion to associate and full professor positions follows a detailed point-based system prescribed by the MoE to all universities. According to this system, applicants need to acquire the minimum number of points: four for an associate professor promotion and six for a full professor promotion. A point represents a singleauthored publication. If the applicant has one co-author the publication counts as half a point, and with more than one co-author the publication counts as a quarter of a point (although when the applicant is the main author, it still counts as half a point). The primary focus of this point-based system is peer-reviewed journal articles. In fact, candidates for an associate professor promotion must have a minimum of two single-authored journal articles, whereas promotion to full professorship requires three single-authored journal articles. The applicant may additionally submit a maximum of one book (authored or translated) and one conference proceedings paper. Neither edited books nor book chapters can be counted toward promotion points, nor can the publication be based on the applicant’s MA or PhD thesis. Some universities have additional requirements, such as a certain percentage of publications in Clarivate-index journals. The candidate is additionally required to have taught for at least four years at the university level to be eligible to apply for an academic promotion. After the faculty member satisfies the minimum number of points, s/he can apply for an academic promotion. The application is then sent to

168  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

three anonymous referees who evaluate it based on the academic contribution of the applicant’s research (60 points), his/her quality of teaching at the university level (25 points) and his/her community service (15 points). A minimum of 60 points is required to qualify for the promotion. For an associate professor promotion, majority endorsement by the three referees is sufficient. For a full professor promotion, the endorsement must be unanimous. The teaching load is directly related to the faculty member’s position. Teaching assistants and lecturers teach for 16 hours per week, assistant professors 14, associate professors 12 and full professors 10. Faculty members with an administrative position, such as chairpersons and deans, have a lower teaching load – although with a minimum of three hours per week. Faculty members can also qualify for a sabbatical leave for a full year once every five years, or for one semester every three years. The relatively low research output by faculty at Saudi universities has been the subject of discussion. Some attribute this mediocre performance to a high teaching load and the faculty members’ heavy engagement with private business (e.g. consultations). Therefore, universities have introduced a generous reward system that allows the faculty member to double his/her basic salary (cf. Appendix 9.2). However, this reward system risks creating a highly extrinsically motivating research environment, which could backfire in the long run. 2 3d. Curriculum mandates, standards, competencies

As explained above, Saudi universities do not follow a unified study plan regarding each degree program’s structure, although there are some commonalities. As an illustration, Table 9.4 provides the full four-year degree plan at one Saudi university. There are courses related to linguistics, translation, pedagogy, literature and competence building. 3e. Practicum (field experience)

At some universities, the last semester is devoted to practicum (typically 10 credit hours). Students start a part-time teaching internship at a local intermediate or secondary school under the supervision of a faculty member and the school’s classroom teacher. The teaching load usually does not exceed eight hours a week. The evaluation of studentteachers is mostly performed by the faculty member (around 90%), and the remaining points are split between the class teacher and the school principal. This approach has been criticized by some observers. Al-Seghayer (2014) argues that teaching one semester at the end of the degree plan is not enough to hone students’ teaching skills or help transfer theoretical

hrs

2

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

18

hrs

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

16

Level 1

Islamic Culture 1

Quran Recitation Correction

Listening & Speaking 1

Grammar 1

Reading 1

Writing 1

Vocabulary Building 1

Study Skills

Total

Level 3

Advanced Listening & Speaking

Advanced Grammar

Advanced Reading

Advanced Writing

Advanced Vocabulary Building

Introduction to Linguistics

Language & Technology

Total

Vocabulary Building 2

Writing 2

Reading 2

Grammar 2

Listening & Speaking 2

Prerequisite

Prerequisite

17

2 Total

2

The Short Story

2

2

2

3

2

2

hrs

17

1

2

2

2

3

3

2

2

hrs

Introduction to Literature

Applied Linguistics

Semantics

Essay Writing

Phonetics

Morphology

Debate & Discussion

Level 4

Total

Health Education

Vocabulary Building 2

Writing 2

Reading 2

Grammar 2

Listening & Speaking 2

Arabic Editing

Islamic Culture 2

Level 2

Table 9.4  Study plan for a BA in English language and literature at one Saudi university

Advanced Writing

Grammar 2

(continued)

Listening & Speaking 2

Prerequisite

Vocabulary Building 1

Writing 1

Reading 1

Grammar 1

Listening & Speaking 1

Prerequisite

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  169

hrs

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

16

hrs

2

2

3

3

3

2

15

Level 5

Syntax

Phonology

Pragmatics

Translation 1

Appreciating Drama

The Rise of the Novel

Psycholinguistics

Total

Level 7

Principles of TEFL

Translation 3

Modern Drama

Modern Novel

Romantic & Victorian Poetry

American Literature

Total

Table 9.4  (continued)

Introduction to Literature

Appreciating Poetry

The Rise of the Novel

Appreciating Drama

Translation 2

Applied Linguistics

Prerequisite

Applied Linguistics

Grammar 1

Semantics

Phonetics

Advanced Grammar

Prerequisite

15

2

Research Methods Total

2

2

2

2

3

2

hrs

18

2

3

3

3

2

3

2

hrs

Comparative Literature

Literary Criticism

History of English Language

Modern Poetry

Interpretation

Sociolinguistics

Level 8

Total

Second Language Acquisition

Appreciating Poetry

19th Century Novel

Elizabethan Drama

Translation (2)

Discourse Analysis

Generative Grammar

Level 6

Essay Writing

Introduction to Literature

Introduction to Literature

Introduction to Linguistics

Appreciating Poetry

Translation 2

Applied Linguistics

Prerequisite

Applied Linguistics

The Rise of the Novel

Appreciating Drama

Translation 1

Syntax

Prerequisite

170  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  171

knowledge into practice. Al-Seghayer suggests that students should start their practicum earlier on in a gradual manner. For example, third-year students could visit classrooms to observe experienced teachers and become acquainted with the school environment. Fourth-year students could then start with micro-teaching under controlled settings for some time before taking full charge of teaching responsibilities. This approach would allow student-teachers to observe experienced teachers more closely and teach under their supervision. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

Quality in education is a complex issue due to its subjectivity and multidimensionality. A clear-cut definition of quality is, therefore, difficult to provide (Schindler et al., 2015). Currently, the practice of quality assurance is pervasive in Saudi Arabia, evolving quite rapidly over the last 15–20 years. The National Qualifications Framework is the basic guide for higher education institutions. In 2018, a royal decree established the Education and Training Evaluation Commission as the umbrella organization overseeing quality-related affairs in various educational sectors. A number of branches fall under it, each overseeing a different educational sector. The public education branch is responsible for the quality of schools and curricula and for teaching licenses. The branch responsible for postsecondary education is the National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment (NCAAA). In describing the role of quality assurance in higher education, the NCAAA has stated that A commitment to quality must be shared throughout the institution, with individual members of [the] teaching and other staff, and organizational units throughout the institution, evaluating their own performance, doing their best to improve, and contributing cooperatively with others to institutional improvement as valued members of the institutional team. (NCAAA, 2015: 4)

The NCAAA requires that each higher education institution monitor that the following forms are being appropriately utilized: program specifications and course specifications, course reports, field experience specifications, field experience reports, and annual program reports for each program. In addition, institutions are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the program assessment process. According to the NCAAA (2015), institutions need to focus on quality evaluations in relation to two primary elements: ‘1) the extent to which goals and objectives are achieved and 2) the consistency with generally accepted standards of performance in higher education’ (NCAAA, 2015: 5). Benchmarking with other similar institutions is one method institutions use to judge where they stand among their competitors. It also allows them to compare key performance

172  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

indicators in order to establish a set of target benchmarks for their institutions. A particular advantage of the Saudi educational system is that public education is free up to PhD level. In fact, students at public universities also receive a monthly stipend of about US$250, plus free accommodation in some cases. This may help institutions focus on quality from an educational rather than from a business perspective. Although the Saudi educational system has the potential to be education- rather than business-focused, there is still a general perception among various stakeholders that current quality assurance practices are prescriptive, are too focused on paperwork and documentation, add to faculty members’ workloads, and may sometimes even impede the educational process by enforcing procedures that teachers in the field might perceive as pointless or counterproductive. As Williams (2016: 99) puts it, ‘quality assurance is a top down process, characterized by inflexibility and based upon quantitative measurements, whereas enhancement is characterized as a bottom up, negotiated process, based on qualitative judgement and engagement with academics’. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

Although the quality planning and review cycle varies from one institution to another, it is still an integral part of quality assurance practice. The use of formative and summative assessment has become an important topic in the field of higher education. The majority of the literature on the assessment of programs places emphasis on the notion that the purpose of assessment in the first place is to use the results to improve student learning (Banta, 2004; Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Suskie, 2009; Walvoord, 2004). Raising awareness of the different assessment types and reviews among faculty members is an important facet of the assessment cycle (Figure 9.2) within any quality system. Formative assessment consists of reviewing and providing feedback on the students’ learning progress, whereas summative assessment is the students’ performance on an exam or project that receives a grade. For accreditation and accountability purposes, both formative and summative types of assessment are the data collected as part of the program assessment process that will determine the students’ achievement of learning outcomes. Summative assessment typically happens after a period of learning and does not assess the history of the students’ learning. Formative assessment is about evaluating the students’ learning process along the way (Davis et al., 2015). Providing constructive feedback is a key component of formative assessment which has a strong impact on student learning (Havnes et al., 2012). The connection between theory and practice and the impact it has on learning is a continuous cycle. The key issue is what model works best (Black, 2015).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  173

Clearly define and plan learning outcomes

Adjust or improve program based on results

Assessment Cycle

Assess the learning outcomes

Analyze the assessment results

Figure 9.2  Closing the loop of the assessment cycle

The current definition of the NCAAA requirements for quality planning states: assessing our current levels of performance and the environment in which the institution is operating, identifying strategic priorities for improvement and setting objectives, developing plans, implementing those plans, monitoring what happens and making adjustments if necessary, and finally assessing the results achieved. These steps involve a repeating cycle of planning and review. Major plans may involve a sequence of activities over a number of years, with a number of steps to be taken and [the] results of each step assessed at stages within that longer-term plan. While the monitoring should be continuous, there are normally two time periods when more formal assessments take place; one is annual with monitored performance and adjustments made as required, and one on a longer cycle in which major reviews are undertaken. (NCAAA, 2015: 6)

There has been a drive within the Saudi educational system to raise awareness about formative and summative assessment in order to help educators become more aware of the different teaching and learning processes each requires. This drive has inspired educators to explore their current practices in order to improve their practices and support student learning continuously. The focus on learning and helping students to develop a strong set of learning skills is the wave of the future. Currently, higher education institutions are working alongside the different government entities (e.g. MoE, NCAAA and the Education and Training Evaluation Commission) to continuously improve the assessment practices

174  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

inside classrooms in order to support student learning. For example, universities assess student achievement of learning outcomes using different forms of formative assessment, including online feedback and one-on-one feedback in class or tutoring sessions. Still, the majority of assessment is summative in the form of exams, quizzes or projects. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

The terms teacher training and professional development are generally used interchangeably. This is perhaps because they are both organized activities that impart information to improve the recipients’ performance, capacity or productivity and help them attain a required level of knowledge or skill (Guskey, 2002). However, the first follows a top-down process where programs are decided by a group of experts (usually supervisors or school leaders) based on their observation of teachers’ performance. A training program is then designed to enhance skills considered weak or outdated. On the other hand, professional development entails a bottomup process in which programs are based on a needs analysis that stems from the teachers themselves in order to facilitate desired change in teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and skills (Borg, 2011). Over the past two decades, the MoE has spearheaded several professional development projects and expanded on others. Examples include learning resources centers, the Course Credit System, the Comprehensive Project for Curriculum Development, the English Language Development Project, King Abdullah Public Education Development Project and the Mathematics and Natural Sciences Development Project (MoE, 2008). The recognition of technology’s role in 21st century education has also led to a greater emphasis on technology training courses. Despite all this, some commentators have found these professional development initiatives unsatisfactory. In the words of Al-Seghayer (2014): in-service training programs are currently conducted on a limited scale via the local education departments that are scattered all over Saudi Arabia and are handled in a poor manner. Another disturbing observation is that some English teachers have received almost no in-service teaching training, albeit they have been teaching English in public school for over a decade. Related to this, we find that career advancement is not guaranteed for English teachers other than being promoted to a supervisory position. This situation is worsened through knowing that there is no incentive for English teachers who may engage in professional selfdevelopment and that teacher-training resources are scarce. (Al-Seghayer, 2014: 146)

In an attempt to address this situation, significant funds have recently been allocated to professional development programs in Saudi Arabia. In 2017, for instance, 200 billion SAR (US$53.4 billion) was allocated to the various educational sectors to develop plans for the recruitment and

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  175

professional development of teachers, among other strategic goals (Ministry of Finance, 2017). One initiative in this regard is the National Transformation Program. The budget of this program for the 2016–2020 fiscal years exceeded 24 billion SAR (US$6.4 billion). A second initiative is the National Center for Educational Professional Development, previously known as the General Training Administration. This center is responsible for providing courses for the purpose of in-service professional development at all levels, including public and private schools and postsecondary education. The center also offers courses in collaboration with international entities, such as Microsoft and the British Council. Another initiative is Khiberat (experiences), which provides complete immersion for up to six months in a different culture. Teachers study pedagogical courses at universities in an English speaking country and observe English teachers in action in the hope of gaining intercultural awareness in addition to professional development (Bennett, 1993). Other programs include the Center for English Language and the Arabic Language Center. These projects address important skills such as technological proficiency, English fluency and analytical/creative thinking. They also help equip teachers with the latest teaching strategies and the ability to deal with new textbooks. The explicit aim of these programs is to provide ‘male and female teachers with the basic skills needed to employ [information and communications technology] in their classes pursuant to educational standards in order to enhance teaching and learning processes’ (MoE, 2008: 41). Although these initiatives have contributed to professional development in the education sector, one consideration is the need to keep up with the prevalence of internet use among young Saudis. In the first quarter of 2017, the number of internet users in the kingdom reached 24 million (Communications and Information Technology Commission, 2017). Given the widespread adoption of digital devices among the youth in Saudi Arabia, where individuals under the age of 30 comprise half of the country’s population, technology use will undoubtedly continue to grow (General Authority for Statistics, 2016). Based on this, it is not entirely clear to what extent Saudi English teachers are actually in need of professional development programs in technological tools, especially since many of these tools now feature intuitive interfaces that can be mastered without explicit instruction. This fact should therefore be taken into account when designing technology-related professional development programs in order to create sufficiently stimulating learning experiences for teachers. Another consideration is the need to integrate different skills. With the exception of Khiberat, courses tend to focus on developing a single type of teacher knowledge in isolation (i.e. technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge or content knowledge). It has been argued that an integrative approach is more effective than one attempting to develop different skills separately. For example, Koehler and Mishra (2009) proposed the TPACK

176  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

framework, which integrates technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. The importance of this integration materializes in relation to the MoE’s iEN National Education Portal, which is a recently introduced selflearning website where instructors can teach subjects online. Teachers have been encouraged to register on the portal for the purpose of delivering online lessons. To utilize this portal, teachers need an adequate grasp of presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint), virtual classrooms (e.g. wizIQ), video creation tools (e.g. Camtasia Studio), image editing applications (e.g. Photoshop) and smart or interactive whiteboards. However, aside from being able to operate these tools, they should also possess sufficient TPACK in order to deliver online lessons effectively. Research suggests that teachers’ perceived TPACK competence has an impact on the effectiveness of implementing technological tools in their classes (Alahmari, 2013; Al Ghamdi, 2015; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015). Appendix 9.1: Pay Scale for Teachers in Public Schools in Saudi Riyal

Level 1

Step

Assistant teacher

Practicing teacher

Advanced teacher

Expert teacher

1

5200

7570

9950

12650

2

5500

8070

10490

13250

3

5800

8570

11030

13850

4

6100

9070

11570

14450

5

6400

9570

12110

15050

6

6700

10070

12650

15650

300

500

540

600

1

7000

10570

13190

16250

2

7320

11090

13750

16870

3

7640

11610

14310

17490

4

7960

12130

14870

18110

5

8280

12650

15430

18730

6

8600

13170

15990

19350

320

520

560

620

1

8920

13690

16550

19970

2

9260

14230

17130

20610

3

9600

14770

17710

21250

4

9940

15310

18290

21890

5

10280

15850

18870

22530

6

10620

16390

19450

23170

340

540

580

640

Increment Level 2

Increment Level 3

Increment

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  177

Level 4

Step

Assistant teacher

Practicing teacher

Advanced teacher

1

10960

16930

20030

2

11320

17470

20610

3

11680

18010

21190

4

12040

18550

21770

5

12400

19090

6

12760

19630

360

540

1

13120

20170

2

13500

20710

3

13880

21250

4

14260

5

14640

6

15020

Increment Level 5

Increment Level 6

Increment

380 1

15400

2

15800

3

16200

4

16600

5

17000

6

17400

540

400

Note: Values in Saudi riyal (US$1 = 3.75 SAR).

580

Expert teacher

18420

Professor

19155

16745

19890

17410

13905

9785

7480

3

Note: Values in Saudi riyal (US$1 = 3.75 SAR).

16080

Associate professor

13335

9275

8765

12765

Lecturer

7065

2

6650

1

Steps

Assistant professor

Teaching assistant

Position

20625

18075

14475

10295

7895

4

21360

18740

15045

10805

8310

5

22095

19405

15615

11315

8725

6

22830

20070

16185

11825

9140

7

23565

20735

16155

12335

9555

8

24300

21400

17325

12845

9970

9

25035

22065

17895

13355

10385

10

25770

22730

18465

13865

10800

11

26505

23395

19035

14375

11215

12

27240

24060

19605

14885

11630

13

Appendix 9.2: Basic Salaries for Saudi Faculty Members at Saudi Public Universities in Saudi Riyal

27975

24725

20175

15395

12045

14

28710

25390

20745

15905

12460

15

178  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Appendix 9.3: Development of EAL Textbooks over the Decades

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  179

180  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  181

182  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  183

184  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  185

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Tariq Elyas for his comments on an earlier draft. Notes (1) One article in the educational system bylaws states that it is grounds for dismissal to practice sorcery or witchcraft, a crime punishable by death in the country. (2) At the time of writing, the MoE announced a new system aimed at privatizing all public universities. This system has been initially applied to three universities and will then be rolled out to all other universities in the country. With this new system, some of the higher education regulations we describe in this chapter may change. The MoE has also announced plans to switch from the current two-semester academic year to a three-semester one. The role of instructional technology post-COVID-19 may also increase substantially.

References Alahmari, A.S. (2013) An investigation of Saudi Arabian EFL teachers’ engagement with technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University. Al Aqeel, A. (2008) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Education Policy. Riyadh: Ibn Rushed. Alblaihed, M.A. (2016) Saudi Arabian science and mathematics pre-service teachers’ perceptions and practices of the integration of technology in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter. Al Ghamdi, K.A. (2015) Can an ICT CPD programme have an impact on EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick. Al Harbi, H.E.M. (2014) An examination of Saudi high school teachers’ ICT knowledge and implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology. Al-Hazmi, S. (2003) EFL teacher preparation program in Saudi Arabia: Trend and challenges. TESOL Quarterly 37 (2), 341–344. Al-Maini, Y. (2011) Using technology in EFL in Saudi Arabia. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 2 (3), 477–480. Al-Nujaidi, A. (2003) The relationship between vocabulary size, reading strategies, and reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University. Al-Seghayer, K. (2011) English Teaching in Saudi Arabia: Status, Issues, and Challenges. Riyadh: Hala. Al-Seghayer, K. (2014) The actuality, inefficiency, and needs of EFL teacher-preparation programs in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 3 (1), 143–151. Alshumaimeri, Y.A. and Almasri, M.M. (2012) The effects of using WebQuests on reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 11 (4), 205–306. Banta, T.W. (ed.) (2004) Hallmarks of Effective Outcomes Assessment. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley. Bennett, M.J. (1993) Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Black, P. (2015) Formative assessment – an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles 22 (1), 161–177.

186  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Borg, S. (2011) The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System 39 (3), 370–380. Communications and Information Technology Commission (2017) Khadamat al’intrnt: Eadad mustakhdimi al’intrnt fi almamlakat wanisbat aintishar [Internet services: Number of internet users in the kingdom and distribution]. Alnashrat al’iiliktrunia 29, 5. See https://goo.gl/H3v7ZH Davis, A., Winch, C. and Lum, G. (2015) Educational Assessment on Trial. London: Bloomsbury. Elyas, T. and Picard, M. (2010) Saudi Arabian educational history: Impacts on English language teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 3 (2), 136–145. Elyas, T. and Picard, M. (2013) Critiquing of higher education policy in Saudi Arabia: Towards a new neoliberalism. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 6 (1), 31–41. Elyas, T., Alzahrani, M. and Widodo, H.P. (2020) Translanguaging and ‘culigion’ features of Saudi English. World Englishes. General Authority for Statistics (2016) Demography Survey. See https://www.stats.gov. sa/sites/default/files/en-demographic-research-2016_4.pdf. Guskey, T.R. (2002) Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching 8 (3), 381–391. Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O. and Ludvigsen, K. (2012) Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation 38, 21–27. Javid, C.Z., Farooq, U. and Gulzar, M.A. (2012) Saudi English-major undergraduates and English teachers’ perceptions regarding effective ELT in the KSA: A comparative study. European Journal of Scientific Research 85, 55–70. Koehler, M.J. and Mishra, P. (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9 (1), 60–70. Kuh, G. and Ewell, P. (2010) The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States. Higher Education Management and Policy 22, 1–20. Liu, M.H. and Kleinsasser, R.C. (2015) Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge and competencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning and Technology 19 (1), 119–138. Mahboob, A. and Elyas, T. (2014) English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes 33 (1), 128–142. Ministry of Finance (2017) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2017 Budget. See https://www.mof. gov.sa/en/financialreport/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf. Mission, S.A.C. (2006) Educational System in Saudi Arabia. Washington, DC: Saudi Cultural Mission. Mitchell, B. and Alfuraih, A. (2017) English language teaching in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Past, present and beyond. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 8 (2), 317–325. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2008) National Report on Education Development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. See http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ ICE_2008/saudiarabia_NR08_efa.pdf. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2014) Taqrir alttaqyim alwatani littaelim liljamie fi almamlakat alearabiat alssaudiah 2000–2015 [National Report on Education for All in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: 2000–2015]. See http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0022/002298/229885A.pdf. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2019a) Vision, Mission and Goals. See https://www.moe. gov.sa/en/aboutus/aboutministry/Pages/visionmissiongoals.aspx. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2019b) Foreign Schools. See https://departments.moe.gov. sa/InvestorsRelations/statistics/Pages/foreignschools.aspx. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2019c) Private Schools. See https://departments.moe.gov. sa/InvestorsRelations/statistics/Pages/privateschools.aspx.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Saudi Arabia  187

MoE (Ministry of Education) (n.d.) Organizational Structure. See https://www.moe.gov. sa/en/aboutus/aboutministry/Pages/organizationalchart.aspx. NCAAA (2015) Handbook for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Part 2, Version 3. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: The National Center for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation. Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H. and Crawford, L. (2015) Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications 5 (3), 3–13. Suskie, L.A. (2009) Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide (2nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Vision 2030 (2017) National Transformation Program 2020. See www.vision2030.gov.sa/en. Walvoord, B.E. (2004) Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Williams, J. (2016) Quality assurance and quality enhancement: Is there a relationship? Quality in Higher Education 22 (2), 97–102.

10 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Ho-Ryong Park, Deoksoon Kim and Tae Youn Ahn

Chapter Summary

This chapter describes the research, policy, curriculum and pedagogical practices of English as an additional language (EAL) teacher education in South Korea. We use ‘Korea’ to refer to ‘South Korea’ throughout this chapter. After a brief introduction describing the general situation and perceptions about EAL education in Korea, we explain more specific components of EAL education, which include information about the historical context, national policies and learner and teacher demographics. We also explore five topics about EAL teacher education programs: (a) the programs’ research foundation and methods, (b) national policies and regulations, (c) preparation and qualifications of EAL teacher educators, (d) curriculum standards and competencies and (e) field experiences. In addition, we describe accreditation and accountability standards for the programs and review the assessment benchmarks. Finally, we discuss what in-service professional development activities EAL teachers would complete and how. 1. Brief Introduction

According to the report from the Ministry of Educational Science and Technology (MEST; Hwang et al., 2012), which was previously a section of the Korean Ministry of Education, English educators and administrators in Korea recognize that English is important as a global language. Even though English has been understood as a significant and valuable language in Korea, Hwang et al. (2012) still delineate several problems pertaining to current English education. One of the serious issues is that the purpose of English education is not aligned with learners’ individual 188

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  189

needs. Since English education typically targets the college entrance exam, it is not effectively suited to helping learners who want to acquire authentic or life-related English that emphasizes communicative language skills for everyday lives, or who want to improve their specific academic language skills such as writing a paper or providing an oral presentation. Although learners need to learn how to use English in authentic and meaningful contexts in order to thrive in a global society, English education and assessments in Korea have focused more on reading as a core language skill as well as on English grammar and vocabulary (Byean, 2015; Hwang et al., 2012; Jo, 2010; Kang, 2012; Shin, 2012). In order to resolve the inconsistency between English education policy and students’ needs, MEST has published a policy statement entitled, ‘Ways to Improve the Quality of English Education and to Reduce Educational Gaps’, hoping to improve English education in Korea (Hwang et al., 2012). 2. Description of the Status of EAL Education

English is a dominant foreign language in Korea. The public school system provides diverse foreign language classes, including Spanish, Chinese, German, French, Arabic and others. None of these languages compares with English in respect of the significance and frequency of English classes in Korean public schools. In the following subsections, we provide information about the historical context, national policies and learner and teacher demographics in order to describe the status of EAL education in Korea. 2a. Historical context

English education in Korea started during the Chosun Dynasty, which opened a public institute (Dong-Mun-Hak) in 1883. Due to the need for English speaking officials to communicate with foreign countries for both commercial and diplomatic purposes, the Chosun Dynasty opened its doors to foreign countries, including England, Germany and the USA (Lee, 1978). Many missionary schools provided English education as well. These missionary schools included Bae-Jae Boys High School, Kyung-Shin Boys High School, Ewha Girls High School, Jung-Shin Girls High School and the Young Men’s Christian Association. These schools not only offered English education but also played significant roles in modernizing Korean society during the Chosun Dynasty. However, there were several issues. For example, many teachers were missionaries but not qualified English teachers, and English was not the medium of instruction. Moreover, teachers typically used the Bible as the textbook (Chang, 1986, 2009). Another significant historical event in Korea was Japanese colonialism. Korea was under Japanese colonial rule between 1910 and 1945 and suffered in many ways during this period. Under colonial rule, Korean

190  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

people had to speak Japanese in their everyday lives and received English education in Japanese (Chang, 1986). English as a foreign language was an elective course in school, and most English teachers were Japanese (Chang, 2009). In addition, all the English textbooks were written and published in Japanese, and they strictly focused on English grammar and structures (Kwon, 1995). According to Chang (2009), English education adopted a provisional syllabus after Korea gained independence from Japan in 1945, and the first National Curriculum emerged in 1955. During this National Curriculum period, between the 1950s and the 1980s, the English education curriculum had different instructional components and teaching methods. For example, in the 1950s English education in the National Curriculum adopted the grammar translation method for teaching, and it emphasized the ability to understand foreign cultures. In the 1960s it focused on spoken language and used the audiolingual method. The National Curriculum began to emphasize communicative abilities in the 1970s and adopted English tests across the four language skills in the 1980s. From the sixth curriculum in the 1990s, English education ­policies have focused on the development of students’ communicative and cultural competences. The Ministry of Education currently encourages English education at school and expects high school students to master basic communication skills. 2b. Current national policy

The current primary and secondary education system in Korea is composed of elementary school, middle school and high school. Elementary school lasts six years, and middle school and high school last three years each. There are four different types of high school – General High Schools, Special-Purposed High Schools, Vocational High Schools and Autonomous High Schools. General High Schools provide general education for diverse disciplines, and Special-Purposed High Schools aim to offer education for different specialty areas and tracks, including science, foreign languages, internationally renowned professionals, arts, sports and industrial needs. In Vocational High Schools, students are trained in a particular area such as agriculture, commercial information, marine, etc. Autonomous High Schools adopt a more autonomous curriculum and employ diverse educational programs (Ministry of Education, 2019b, 2019c). According to the 2015 Curriculum Reform in Korea (National Curriculum Information Center, n.d.), English education should emphasize students’ development of communicative competence to interact with other people around the world. In addition, it should encourage students to understand others’ cultures and introduce Korean culture to the world. The Curriculum Reform in 2015 spelled out the educational goals described in Table 10.1.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  191

Table 10.1  Educational goals of curriculum reform in 2015 Schools

Educational goals

Elementary school

1.  Become interested in and gain confidence in English studies; 2.  Can communicate about basic topics from everyday lives in English; and 3.  Understand foreign cultures through English studies.

Middle school

1. Become interested in English studies and gain confidence in using English for everyday lives; 2. Can communicate about basic and familiar topics from everyday life in English; and 3. Can understand foreign cultures and information and introduce Korean culture to others briefly in English

High school

1. Become motivated about English studies and improve language competencies; 2. Can properly communicate about general, familiar topics for proper purposes and situations in English; 3. Understand diverse information and improve language competencies for their career paths; and 4. Develop attitudes to respect the uniqueness of other cultures based on the interest in and proper understanding of Korean and foreign cultures

Source: National Curriculum Information Center (n.d.).

These goals show the direction of English education in Korea, which emphasizes students’ interest, motivation and confidence when studying English. In addition, English education emphasizes cultural awareness and understanding. This reform also provides guidelines for teaching English to elementary, middle and high school students. For example, the reform for each level includes specific information about the characteristics of the English language (e.g. stress, intonation, contraction, etc.), instructional goals, the content and achievement of the four language skills and resources and the direction of teaching, learning and assessment. In each subsection, there are explicit guidelines and explanations about particular topics and issues so that English teachers can effectively apply the curriculum reform in their syllabi and classes. These guidelines and explanations are useful to textbook writers while they critically analyze the curriculum and develop effective and appropriate educational materials. Based on the revised curriculum in 1997, official English education begins when students are in their third year of elementary school. MEST also presents ‘Ways to Improve the Quality of English Education and to Reduce Educational Gaps’, with a number of modifications to education policies. For elementary English education, the number of hours required for English education has increased. According to this revision, students take English classes for two hours per week in the third and fourth years of elementary school and for three hours per week in the fifth and sixth years of elementary school. Overall, elementary school students need to learn English for 68 hours per year in their third and fourth years and for 102 hours per year in their fifth and sixth years. Middle school students need to take English classes for 113 hours per year in their first, second and third years,

192  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

and high school students need to complete 136 hours of English classes per year in their first year. For the second and third years of high school, each school individually makes its own decision about this requirement. Another significant attempt to strengthen English education at school was the development of the National English Ability Test (NEAT) and its implementation in order to assess students’ English proficiency levels. One of the purposes of the NEAT was to replace official English tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). In addition, test developers expected it to replace the English component of the College Entrance Test in Korea (Hwang et al., 2012). As MEST addresses, one of the critical issues about English education in Korea is overemphasis on the English test in the College Entrance Test, which only assesses students’ listening and reading skills. Therefore, the test developers expected the NEAT’s assessment of all four English language skills and resources to standardize English education in schools in Korea. However, the test failed due to diverse problems, including financial and political conflicts. Currently the English test in the College Entrance Test is composed of 45 questions, which include 17 listening questions and 28 reading questions. In 2019, 530,220 people took the exam (Ministry of Education, 2018b). 2c. Current EAL learner population

In Korea, formal English education begins when students are third graders, and the majority of students are monolingual Korean speakers. According to Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) data in 2015, there were 2,714,610 elementary school students, 1,585,951 middle school students and 1,788,266 high school students in Korea. Out of these students, 5699 elementary school students, 1702 middle school students and 1163 high school students were from multicultural families. Approximately 92.9% of the students in elementary, middle and high schools had only Korean parents, and 7.1% of the students had one or more parents from another country. The countries of origin of these parents were China (Korean-Chinese: 26.8%; Chinese: 22.2%), Vietnam (13.2%), Japan (11.7%), the Philippines (10.7%) and others (15.4%). The majority (95.8%) of the students with one or more foreign parents reported that they spoke Korean better than the languages of their parents. These data indicate that the vast majority of school-age students in Korea speak Korean (Korean Statistical Information Service, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

In Korea, the majority of English teachers in public schools speak English as a foreign or additional language, and they teach the four English language skills in addition to grammar and vocabulary. Native

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  193

Table 10.2  Numbers of English teachers in 2015 Schools

Regular school teachers

English Fixed-term English Lecturers Sum conversation teachers native lecturers assistant teachers

English teachers

Teachers in charge

Elementary

5032

16031

1580

638

2355

422

25636

Middle

4366

3743

845

1093

688

348

10735

High

6128

4857

412

1514

222

342

13133

Sum

15526

24631

2837

3245

3265

1112

50616

Source: Kim et al. (2015).

English speaking teachers constitute approximately 6.5% of English teachers in Korea (Kim et al., 2015), and they mostly teach students oral language skills and the cultures of English speaking countries. Table 10.2 shows the number of English teachers in Korea. Out of 11,526 schools, 6412 schools (55.6%) participated in the survey, and these data approximate the percentage of particular groups of teachers. As shown in Table 10.2, English teachers are categorized into regular school teachers, English conversation lecturers, fixed-term teachers, English native assistant teachers and other lecturers. Regular teachers hold education degrees and a teaching certificate. As full-time English teachers, they teach English in public or private school contexts, and they also manage all the instructional and administrative materials that are relevant to English classes. English conversation lecturers also need to be qualified to teach English with a proper educational degree and certificate, but they teach only English conversation skills, manage English assistant teachers, develop and manage educational materials and resolve Englishrelevant issues at school. Fixed-term English teachers have similar responsibilities to those of regular English teachers, but they have fixed-term contracts. English assistant teachers are English native speakers with undergraduate or graduate degrees, which do not need to be in language or education. These teachers are not eligible to teach students alone; instead, they co-teach English with Korean regular English teachers. Lecturers are qualified to teach English, and they are hired for diverse purposes such as for teaching after-school classes (Kim et al., 2015; Ministry of Education, 2019a). 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

There are two types of institutions that provide teacher education programs to students who want to major in English education in Korea. These are Universities of Education and Teachers Colleges. Universities of Education are mostly independent facilities that teach elementary school

194  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

pre-service teachers. For example, Seoul National University of Education, Gwangju National University of Education and Busan National University of Education are four-year universities that provide an education degree, and students earn a Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate upon graduation. With this certificate, graduates are eligible to teach at private schools. If graduates want to teach at public schools, they should pass the Primary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam. Although most Universities of Education are national and independent universities, there are some programs that provide equivalent elementary school pre-service teacher education in a department such as the Department of Elementary Education at Ewha Womans University.1 Teachers Colleges are colleges or schools at universities that provide secondary school English pre-service teacher education programs. For example, Seoul National University, Korea University and Ewha Womans University provide four-year teacher education programs, as well as education degrees. Graduates also earn the Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate and are eligible to teach at private schools with this certificate. If they want to teach at public schools, they must pass the Secondary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam. In addition to graduating from Universities of Education and Teachers Colleges, there are two other ways to become English teachers. First, a student can take particular teacher training courses, if applicable, while completing the undergraduate program. For example, if a student in the Department of English Language and Literature takes a certain number of teacher training courses about education or English education, he/she can earn a Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate and become eligible to teach at a private secondary school. The second method is for a student to enter a Graduate School of Education. In this case, the student’s undergraduate major must be suitable for his/her graduate major. For example, a student in the Department of English Language and Literature can major in English Education at a Graduate School of Education. However, a student in the Music Department cannot major in English Education at a Graduate School of Education. In both cases, graduates earn the Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate and are eligible to take the Secondary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam if they want to teach at public schools. There are also teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) programs in Korea. These programs provide either master’s degrees or certificates. TESOL master’s programs offer a two-year or two-and-a-half-year curriculum for TESOL education, and students earn a master’s degree in the discipline. For example, Ewha Womans University, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Sookmyung Women’s University and Sungkyunkwan University provide TESOL degree programs. TESOL certificate programs provide education for a non-degree certificate, and universities such as Hanyang University and Yonsei University provide these programs. These TESOL programs do not offer students the Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate, which is required to become

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  195

a teacher in Korea. The certificates from the TESOL programs are used for private English education rather than public English education. Therefore, in the following subsections, we focus on the English education programs at Universities of Education and Teachers Colleges. 3a. Research foundation/methods

In teacher education programs, the specific curricula depend upon diverse factors, such as the institutional and educational goals, students’ grade levels and needs, the program types and contexts, etc. Therefore, the lesson designs and reading requirements for each course vary for each instructor, program and institution. More specific information about the curriculum will be described in the Curriculum section. For undergraduate English education programs at Universities of Education and Teachers Colleges, writing a thesis is not mandatory. Therefore, undergraduate English teacher education programs do not often include research methods courses in their curricula. Instead, the programs focus on preparing students with knowledge of and practice in teaching and learning English, such as theories, methods and practices relevant to English education. Compared with the undergraduate programs, students in graduate English teacher education programs have more research-related requirements or options, such as a thesis, a report and/or a comprehensive exam. The particular requirements are also diverse depending on the educational goals of each program and institution. If the program has a thesis track, students are required to write a thesis and submit it for their degree. In this case, one or more research methods courses, such as Qualitative Research Methods (EEL 555) and Quantitative Research Methods (EEL 556) for English education at Korea University, are offered as major elective courses (Korea University, 2016). In addition, approximately six-credit-hour theses or directed studies may be included. Some institutions, such as Ajou University, have alternative options such as a report and/or a comprehensive exam (Ajou University, 2013). The specific details and requirements vary in each program. 3b. National policy

The Ministry of Education develops and provides the teacher education handbook to institutions, and this is updated every year. This handbook defines and describes the qualifications, responsibilities and certifications of teachers. For example, it describes the qualifications of an elementary school first-level regular teacher candidate as follows: (1) a person who has taught for three years or longer with an elementary school Second-Level Regular Teacher Certificate and has completed designated re-education;

196  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(2) a person who has taught for three years or longer with an elementary school Second-Level Regular Teacher Certificate after graduating from the Department of Primary Education at Korean National Open University; or (3) a person who has taught for one year or longer with an elementary school Second-Level Regular Teacher Certificate after graduating from a graduate school of education or an equivalent graduate program. In addition, the handbook includes relevant regulations and documents, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, notifications from the Ministry of Education, sample practicum reports, teacher certificate templates, questions and answers, etc. According to the regulations for teacher education, all the institutions and relevant organizations for teacher education must follow the rules and guidelines in this handbook (Ministry of Education, 2019a). Based on the national policy, teachers must have either an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree in an appropriate discipline from an accredited higher education institution. Therefore, pre-service teachers should complete courses and programs at a University of Education or a Teachers College to earn an education degree. After this, graduates earn the SecondLevel Regular Teacher’s Certificate to be qualified as teachers in private schools. However, they must pass the Primary or Secondary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam to be qualified to teach in public schools. The procedures for hiring teachers can differ, but in most cases, local Education Offices place new English teachers who have passed the Primary or Secondary English Teacher Recruitment Exam based on the situation and needs of the schools in each region. If the number of new teachers is not high enough to fill the vacancies, the schools recruit teachers through an open screening and selection process. After planning and reviewing procedures to assess school needs, the job openings are posted publicly in newspapers, City Office of Education websites, etc. This job description includes specific position information, qualifications, responsibilities, application and screening procedures, required materials and additional information. Teachers’ compensation varies depending on the type of position, qualifications, responsibilities, experience, etc. Table 10.3 shows the official salary table for full-time public school teachers, but this does not include additional compensation and benefits. The salary increases each year, and this influences teachers’ overall salaries. For example, a new hire’s monthly salary is $1360 in the first year, but it increases to $1406 in the second year. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

As described earlier, pre-service teachers must complete a teacher education program at a University of Education or Teachers College in order to

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  197

Table 10.3  Salary table for kindergarten, elementary school, middle school and high school teachers Salary class

Monthly salary (Korean Won)

Monthly salary (US$)

Salary class

Monthly salary (Korean Won)

Monthly salary (US$)

1

KRW 1,605,200

$1360

11

KRW 2,105,400

$1790

2

KRW 1,653,800

$1406

12

KRW 2,159,600

$1836

3

KRW 1,703,100

$1448

13

KRW 2,257,900

$1919

4

KRW 1,752,200

$1489

14

KRW 2,356,700

$2003

5

KRW 1,801,800

$1532

15

KRW 2,455,300

$2087

6

KRW 1,851,300

$1574

16

KRW 2,554,200

$2171

7

KRW 1,900,100

$1615

17

KRW 2,651,900

$2254

8

KRW 1,948,900

$1657

18

KRW 2,754,200

$2341

9

KRW 1,998,400

$1699

19

KRW 2,856,000

$2428

10

KRW 2,052,500

$1745

20

KRW 2,957,600

$2514

Source: Revised from http://www.law.go.kr/.

earn a degree and become teachers. In addition to this, they can become teachers by completing required teacher training courses or attending a graduate school of education. In any case, pre-service teachers must graduate from an accredited institution to become teachers. The Ministry of Education does not clarify specific requirements for English teacher educators, but in general professors or lecturers with a doctoral degree in education or linguistics teach the core teacher education courses in teacher education programs. Therefore, although instructors are experienced, they are not qualified to teach teacher certificate related courses unless they have a doctoral degree. 3d. Curriculum

Teacher educators develop their curricula based on diverse factors, and diverse assessment areas and factors are influential components. For example, the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation and English education associations collaboratively develop and suggest these assessment areas and factors for middle school English education. The qualification criteria for English teachers are English Language User, Learning Manager, English Teacher/Curriculum Specialist, Language Analyst and English Language Teaching Professional. These criteria emphasize and assess whether candidates: (1) have the ability to use English; (2) have skills to manage English classes effectively; (3) have professional knowledge about English; (4) have professional knowledge about English teaching; and (5) have a sense of mission to develop and maintain professionalism.

198  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Table 10.4  Curriculum requirements for certifying English teachers For all prospective teachers Courses for teaching profession (at least 22 credits)

•  Educational theories •  Educational skills •  Educational practicum

For prospective teachers of English Basic courses for English education majors (at least 21 credits, 7 courses)

• English Education (or Multimedia-assisted English Education or Foreign Language Education) •  Introduction to English Literature •  English Grammar (or English Grammar Teaching) • English Conversation (or Practical English or Teaching English Speaking) •  English Composition (or Teaching English Writing) •  English Reading (or Teaching English Reading) •  English Phonetics •  English and American Culture

Courses for teaching English (at least 8 credits, 3 courses)

•  Theories of English Teaching •  Material Development and Teaching Methods in TEFL •  Fundamentals in English Essay Writing •  Methods in English Teaching •  Curriculum Development in English Teaching •  English Testing

Accordingly, Universities of Education, Teachers Colleges and other institutions for English teacher education develop their curricula and offer various courses to meet these assessment requirements. The Ministry of Education also has clear and specific guidelines for certification requirements for the universities offering English teacher education programs. Those majoring in English education need to take at least 51 credits in the following areas to obtain a teacher certification: courses for the teaching profession, basic courses for English education majors and courses for teaching English. Table 10.4 outlines the curriculum requirements for certifying English teachers, and Table 10.5 lists the courses for the teaching profession. As shown in these tables, courses for the teaching profession are offered to all prospective teachers regardless of their majors. These courses deal with educational theories (e.g. Educational Technology and Instructional Method, Educational Psychology, etc.), educational skills (e.g. Introduction to Special Education, Prevention of School Violence and Understanding Students) and educational practicum (e.g. Teaching Practicum and Educational Service Activities). On the other hand, prospective English teachers should take at least 21 credits from the basic courses for English education majors and at least eight credits from the courses for teaching English. The basic courses are designed to help prospective teachers build English language skills and knowledge about English grammar, phonetics, literature and culture, whereas the courses for teaching English deal with theories and practices of teaching English. The list of specific courses offered in each

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  199

Table 10.5  Courses for the teaching profession Educational theories (at least 12 credits, 6 courses)

Educational skills (at least 6 credits, 3 courses)

Educational practicum (at least 4 credits)

•  Introduction to Education •  Philosophy and History of Education •  Curriculum •  Educational Evaluation •  Educational Technology and Instructional Method •  Educational Psychology •  Sociology of Education • Educational Administration and Management •  Social Guidance and Counseling •  Other subjects related to educational theory

•  Introduction to Special Education (including Gifted Education) •  Teacher’s Work •  Prevention of School Violence and Understanding Students

•  Teaching Practicum •  Educational Service Activities

teacher education program may vary, but these guidelines are strictly followed for English teacher accreditation in Korea. 3e. Practicum

Based on the requirements of the Ministry of Education, teacher education curricula include teaching practice hours so that pre-service teachers become prepared for teaching actual classes. These field experiences adopt a different system according to whether the pre-service teachers plan to teach in primary schools or secondary schools. The pre-service teachers who plan to teach in primary schools must complete more intensive field practices. Although each program or university includes different practice requirements, these pre-service teachers normally complete these practices over four years at multiple elementary schools. The practices may include Teaching Practice, Teaching Service Practicum, Collaborative Practice, Observation, etc. For example, Gyeongin National University of Education requires pre-service teachers to complete: (a) a 30-hour Teaching Service Practicum when they are in the first, second and third years; (b) a twoweek Observation in their second year; (c) a three-week Teaching Practice in their third year; and (d) a four-week Teaching and Executive Practice in their fourth year (Gyeongin National University, 2014). The pre-service teachers at Gwangju National University of Education need to complete: (a) a 60-hour (two credit-hours) Collaborative Practice and Teaching Service Practicum across four years; (b) a one-credit-hour Observation in their second year; (c) a one-credit-hour Teaching Practice in their third year; and (d) a two-credit-hour Comprehensive Practice in their fourth year (Gwangju National University, 2017). Different from the pre-service teachers at Universities of Education, pre-service teachers who are at a Teachers College or who are completing

200  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

teacher training courses to earn the Second-Level Regular Teacher’s Certificate need four credit-hours of teaching practices. They need to complete two courses. One course (two credit-hours) is Teaching Practice, and pre-service teachers need to teach students at middle or high schools for four weeks to complete this course. This practice includes comprehensive tasks in class such as planning lessons, developing or preparing course materials, managing the class, counseling students, evaluating students’ performance, etc. The other course (two credit-hours) is Teaching Service Practicum, and pre-service teachers provide services to middle or high school students for one semester. These services may include guiding students’ study or helping teachers with their teaching responsibilities, but alternative services based on agreements with the schools and the school teachers are accepted as well. University instructors supervise the preservice teachers during the practicum depending on the types of practices and requirements, and the pre-service teachers also work with cooperating teachers. One of the issues of English teacher education programs in Korea is that most of the focus of the program curricula is on content knowledge. Although there are required field experiences for the programs, the imbalance between theory and practice in the curricula is not an easy task to resolve. Content knowledge is certainly important to develop teachers’ foundational knowledge for their future teaching. However, pre-service teachers’ practical knowledge and experiences cannot be overemphasized due to the nature of teachers’ responsibilities. Therefore, more systematic and consistent teaching practicum and educational service activities should be developed and designed based on comprehensive discussions with experienced teachers and practitioners. This may help the pre-service teachers become more capable and proficient teachers in the future. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

As we described earlier, pre-service teachers must earn their education degrees or other equivalent degrees from accredited educational institutions. The programs must be accredited based on national policy as well. Regulations about the establishment and management of universities are developed based on the Higher Education Act and the Private School Act in Korea (National Curriculum Information Center, n.d.). Most Universities of Education are national institutions, with a few exceptions. Teachers Colleges are all colleges or schools at accredited universities. After completing their teacher education, pre-service teachers also need to take a national-level teacher recruitment exam, which is called the Primary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam. This exam is composed of two components – a written exam and an oral exam (Korea

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  201

Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2019b). The written exam consists of (a) an essay about teaching and teacher education, (b) content knowledge and (c) Korean history. The last component can be replaced by the Korean History Ability Test. Applicants who pass the written exam take the oral exam. This oral exam is composed of (a) an in-depth interview about teaching and teacher education, (b) developing curriculum, (c) a teaching demonstration and (d) an interview or teaching demonstration in English. The Secondary School English Teacher Recruitment Exam is also composed of a written exam and an oral exam (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 2019a; Park et al., 2017). The written exam consists of tests about (a) education, (b) pedagogical content knowledge in English and (c) subject content education. Applicants who pass the written exam take the oral exam, which is composed of (a) an in-depth interview about teaching and teacher education, (b) developing curriculum and (c) a teaching demonstration. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

The universities and programs are evaluated to check the current status of the institutions and to identify problems and opportunities for improving education. In this section, we describe two levels of assessments: Evaluation of Competency in Teacher Education Institution and Program Evaluation. There is also the Evaluation of Basic Competency in College through which the Ministry of Education and the National Evaluation Center for Higher Education Institutions at the Korean Educational Development Institute evaluate all the universities and colleges in Korea (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2019). However, this does not evaluate teacher education institutions such as Universities of Education and Teachers Colleges, so we will not describe this evaluation in this chapter. The Evaluation of Competency in Teacher Education Institution began in 1998, and its purposes are: (1) evaluating the educational environment, management, curriculum, attainment, etc., systematically and sharing the results to improve the quality of teacher education; (2) verifying if the teacher education institution meets the legal requirements and liabilities to keep the quality of teacher education above an appropriate level; (3) revealing the conditions and levels of teacher education clearly and providing references for restructuring the educational policy and recruiting quality teachers; and (4) providing references to teacher candidates, local governments and schools so that the results can increase the reliability and credibility of education and teacher education institutions.

202  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

The first cycle of this evaluation was for five years (1998–2002), and the second cycle was for seven years (2003–2009). The third cycle was for five years (2010–2014), and the fourth cycle was for three years (2015– 2017). The current evaluation is the fifth cycle from 2018 to 2021 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2018). The target institutions for this evaluation are Universities of Education in 2018, universities with Teachers Colleges in 2019, universities without Teachers Colleges in 2020 and community colleges and Korean National Open University in 2021. During these cycles, the Ministry of Education and the National Evaluation Center for Higher Education Institutions of the Korean Educational Development Institute evaluate all the teacher education institutions (Oh et al., 2013). The Evaluation of Competency in Teacher Education Institution assesses three aspects of teacher education programs in Korea: the environments of education, curriculum and educational attainment. The criteria for the environments of education include information about the development plans, faculty, administrative and financial status and class contexts. The curriculum criteria evaluate the curricula, teaching, students and practicum of each institution. In addition, educational attainment focuses on the success of management and education. Based on the reviews and analyses, a grade between A and E is assigned to each institution. For the institutions that are categorized as Level A, the highest level, the Deputy Prime Minister awards prizes and offers consulting opportunities at their request. If a program is categorized as Level E, the lowest level, the program will be closed (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2018). In addition to these national evaluations, each institution conducts internal evaluations to improve the quality of research and education and to prepare for the Evaluation of Basic Competency in College and the Evaluation of Competency in Teacher Education Institution assessments. The evaluation indices vary across institutions, but they mostly focus on the factors covered by the other two national educational evaluations. For example, the Division of Evaluation at Korea University leads the internal evaluation of the university and the departments. The evaluation team uses the development plans and attainment, education situations and university management, classes and curricula, student support and educational attainment as the evaluation indices. For each index, the team develops diverse qualitative and quantitative analysis components for more specific evaluations. Based on these indices and analysis components, every department is evaluated (Korea University, 2019a, 2019b). 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

In-service teachers’ professional development activities and training are required based on the Public Education Officials Act. According to this law, public education officials have a duty to study and educate themselves

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  203

continuously in order to perform their responsibilities better. In addition, the country and local governments should plan and support in-service teacher training programs, and they have to provide equal opportunities of re-education and training to public educational officials. In order to meet these requirements, school teachers should complete training programs based on their status, rank, experiences, etc. These are composed of qualification training, job training and special training. Qualification training programs, required by the government, are for earning teacher certificates, such as the certificates for becoming principals, assistant principals and first-level regular teachers. For example, after teaching for three or more years, second-level regular teachers can be nominated to become first-level regular teachers, and the government requires them to complete these teacher qualification training programs. In most cases, Metropolitan and Provincial Offices of Education run these programs, but universities also provide commissioned teacher training programs. For these training programs, teachers must complete 90-hour sessions. Job training programs help teachers improve their abilities to complete their duties, and these cover teaching and learning, counseling and information and communication technology. For these, elementary school, middle school and high school teachers, respectively, need 116 hours, 99 hours and 87 hours of training. In most cases, Metropolitan and Provincial Offices of Education and training institutions run these programs. Special training programs are conducted based on the plans of the national or local governments. These can last for an academic or research year and include short- or long-term overseas training programs. Special training programs are designed and provided based on job relevance and needs. However, if the training programs are not significantly relevant to their teaching performances, they are analyzed and possibly selected based on the needs of the school and education. In addition to these training programs, teachers also have school-based or personal training opportunities (Ministry of Education, 2018a). Note (1) Ewha Womans University is a proper noun.

References Ajou University (2013) 교과과정 [Curriculum]. See http://edu.ajou.ac.kr/edu/major/ee02. jsp (accessed 7 May 2019). Byean, H. (2015) English, tracking, and neoliberalization of education in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 49 (4), 542–567. Chang, B.-M. (1986) Historical perspective on English as a second language education in Korea. Masters thesis, Korea University. Chang, B.-M. (2009) Korea’s English education policy innovations to lead the nation into the globalized world. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 13 (1), 83–97.

204  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Gwangju National University (2017) 실습운영계획 [Practicum Plan]. See http://www. gnue.ac.kr/planweb/board/list.9is?contentUid=4a9f18ab5c48fe8c015c86387c490287 &boardUid=4a9f18ab5cf30bb3015cf661088201c7&contentUid=4a9f18ab5c48fe8c0 15c86387c490287 (accessed 12 May 2019). Gyeongin National University (2014) 교육실습 [Internship]. See www.ginue. ac.kr%2Findex.html%3Fmenuno%3D817&usg=AOvVaw3r1j4ebuNGPzUw1coqCyj9 (accessed 12 May 2019). Hwang, J.-B., Shin, S.-G., Kim, T.-Y., Kim, K.-S., Kim, H.-S., Woo, E.-J. and Jeong, S.-E. (2012) 초·중등 영어교육 현황 분석 연구 [Analysis of the Current Situation of Elementary and Middle School English Education]. See http://xn--zb0b2h01ozygv9j7lgn8g.xn--3e0b707e/ app/nl/search/common/download.jsp?file_id=FILE-00008152114 (accessed 29 April 2021). Jo, S. (2010) English education and teacher education in South Korea. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 34 (4), 371–381. Kang, H.D. (2012) Primary school English education in Korea: From policy to practice. In B. Spolsky and Y. Moon (eds) Primary School English-language Education in Asia. New York: Routledge. Kim, I.-S., Meng, E.-K., Kim, S.-H., Kang, J. and Lee, E.-K. (2015) 2015년 초중고 영어교 육 환경 분석 및 영어말하기 교육 강화 방안 [Analysis of Current Environments of Elementary, Middle, and High School English Education and the Strengthening Plan of Teaching English Speaking in 2015]. See http://27.101.205.56/homepage/researchCommon/downloadResearchAttachFile.do;jsessionid=EFA5AAB40111CF124D611808C4B78 6BF.node02?work_key=001&file_type=CPR&seq_no=001&pdf_conv_yn=Y&research_ id=1342000-201600026 (accessed 5 May 2019). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2019a) 중등교사 임용시험 [The Secondary School Teacher Selection Test]. See http://www.kice.re.kr/sub/info. do?m=010602&s=kice#tablink (accessed 24 April 2019). Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (2019b) 초등교사 임용시험 [The Primary School Teacher Selection Test]. See http://www.kice.re.kr/sub/info. do?m=010603&s=kice (accessed 24 April 2019). Korea University (2016) 전공 소개 [Introduction to Majors]. See https://edugrad.korea. ac.kr/edugrad/master/master_major15.do (accessed 20 March 2019). Korea University (2019a) Self-evaluation Report of Individual Graduate Program in 2019. See https://www.korea.ac.kr/user/boardList.do?boardId=479844&siteId=university &id=university_070208000000 (accessed 7 January 2020). Korea University (2019b) Self-evaluation Report of Korea University in 2018. See https:// www.korea.ac.kr/common/downLoad.do?siteId=university&fileSeq=484306 (accessed 7 January 2020). Korean Educational Development Institute (2018) 교원양성기관 역량진단 [Evaluation of Competency in Teacher Education Institution]. See https://necte.kedi.re.kr/home.do (accessed 24 August 2019). Korean Educational Development Institute (2019) 2018 년 대학기본역량 진단 [Evaluation of Basic Competency in College]. See https://uce.kedi.re.kr/introduce1.do (accessed 4 June 2019). Korean Statistical Information Service (2019a) 고등학교 개황 [Overall Conditions of High Schools]. See http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=334&tblId=DT_19 63003_004&conn_path=I2 (accessed 3 June 2019). Korean Statistical Information Service (2019b) 중학교 개황 [Overall Conditions of Middle Schools]. See http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=334&tblId=DT_ 1963003_003&conn_path=I2 (accessed 3 June 2019). Korean Statistical Information Service (2019c) 초등학교 개황 [Overall Conditions of Elementary Schools]. See http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=334&tblId= DT_1963003_002&conn_path=I2 (accessed 3 June 2019).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in South Korea  205

Kwon, O. (1995) A history of English teaching methods and methodology research in Korea. English Teaching 50 (2), 107–131. Lee, J.-B. (1978) English teaching methodologies in the ending period of the Chosun dynasty. English Teaching 15 (2), 1–29. Ministry of Education (2018a) 2019년도 교원 연수 중점 추진방향 [The Priority Direction of Teacher Professional Development in 2019]. See https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/ view.do?boardID=327&lev=0&statusYN=C&s=moe&m=0305&opType=N&board Seq=75452 (accessed 17 October 2019). Ministry of Education (2018b) 2019학년도 대학수학능력시험 응시자 현황 [The Current Status of the College Entrance Exam Applicants in 2019]. See https://if-blog.tistory. com/8525 (accessed 7 January 2020). Ministry of Education (2019a) 2019년도 교원자격검정 실무편람 [The Handbook for Certification of Teachers in 2019]. See https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?bo ardID=327&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe&m=0305&opType=N&boardSeq=76955 (accessed 19 August 2019). Ministry of Education (2019b) Primary Education. See http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info. do?m=020102&s=english (accessed 2 October 2019). Ministry of Education (2019c) Secondary Education. See http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/ info.do?m=020103&s=english (accessed 2 October 2019). National Curriculum Information Center (n.d.) 교육과정 원문 및 해설서 [Original National Curricula and Manuals]. See http://www.ncic.re.kr/nation.dwn.ogf.inventoryList.do?orgAttNo=10000078# (accessed 6 March 2019). Oh, S.-H., Kim, M.-H., Park, H.-K., Oh, B.-H., Kim, G.-S., Nam, H.-W. and Park, M.-H. (2013) 4주기 교원양성기관 평가 방향 연구 [Research about the Direction of Evaluation for Teacher Education institutions]. See https://www.kedi.re.kr/khome/ main/research/selectPubForm.do?plNum0=8979 (accessed 6 March 2019). Park, S., Song, M.S., Shin, S.-K., Lee, E.-J. and Lee, J. (2017) Analysis of test items in the secondary school English teacher recruitment exam: Focusing on the written exams of 2014–2016. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction 21 (4), 322–333. doi:10.24231/rici.2017.21.4.322 Shin, S.-K. (2012) ‘It cannot be done alone’: The socialization of novice English teachers in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 46 (3), 542–567.

11 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Hayriye Kayi-Aydar and Betil Eröz

Chapter Summary

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the current status of English and English language teacher preparation in Turkey. More specifically, drawing upon the relevant policy documents, publicly available government and institutional data and scholarly literature, the chapter aims to accomplish three related goals: (1) to describe the status of English in Turkey from a sociopolitical perspective; (2) to describe English language learning and teaching policies in relation to the educational system from a sociohistorical perspective; and (3) to provide an overview of pre-service English language teacher preparation in the country through a review and discussion of centralized curriculum changes and their implications, as well as in-service training practices and opportunities for teachers in primary and secondary public schools. We conclude our chapter by challenging and reconceptualizing the status of English and English language teaching in Turkey, providing insights and implications for quality assurance and discussing directions regarding the future of English teacher education programs. 1. Brief Introduction

The status of English language teaching in Turkey has undergone numerous changes over many years. English in Turkey, as in other Expanding Circle countries (Kachru, 1985), is taught as a foreign language and mandatory subject in public and private schools. For decades, English has been widely viewed as a bridge to connect the citizens, in particular the youth, with globalization, digital technologies and modern science. Turkey’s efforts to become a member of the European Union over 206

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  207

the past three decades have further contributed to the perception of English as social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), placing an additional emphasis on English language learning and teaching in the country. Located on two continents (Asia and Europe) and bordered by eight countries in the Near/ Middle East region, Turkey is a nation with a rich history. The strong cultural and historical connections to the Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires make Turkey a center of tourism in the region and attract millions of tourists every year, positioning English as the language of tourism as well. Turkish is the national and official language in Turkey. While becoming increasingly multilingual, especially due to the increasing Syrian refugee settlement in recent years, Turkey still does not treat English as an additional language (EAL). Despite the changing demographics and increasing number of linguistically and culturally diverse populations in the country, English maintains its status as a foreign language not only in formal education settings but also in society. The literature shows mixed results regarding the status and position of English in English teacher education programs. In a survey study, for example, Deniz et al. (2016) reported that a large majority of the English pre-service teacher-­ participants in their final year of college appeared to resist an English as a lingua franca (ELF) approach and favored instead the use of Standard English. On the other hand, Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015) implemented a model at a major research university in Turkey that exposed pre-service English teachers to the ELF and World Englishes literature, and they reported that the ELF-aware lessons enabled the pre-service teachers to gain new understandings about the English language and develop an appreciation for ELF-oriented teaching. Based on the mixed results, it is possible to argue that understandings about the changing and dynamic status of the English language and its place as ELF in English teacher education programs are developing. In this chapter, our goal is to provide a detailed description of English language education in Turkey as well as English language teacher education programs (ELTEPs). Throughout the chapter, we use ‘English learners’ or ‘English language learners’ to refer to students who learn English as a foreign language in primary, secondary and tertiary education settings in Turkey. 2. Description of the Context of English Education

In this section, we describe English language teaching (ELT) in Turkey in its sociohistorical context. By providing an overview of current national policies, English learner populations and English teacher demographics, we hope to explain the major reform movements and their impact on English learners and teachers.

208  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

2a. Historical context

All education policies and reforms, including those for English language learning and teaching, are developed and implemented by the government in Turkey. Specifically, two government entities, the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE) and the Turkish Council of Higher Education (CoHE), which consists of 21 members, are responsible for and fully in charge of major developments and educational reforms. In the context of ELT, MoNE makes and implements policies and reforms at the K–12 level and closely monitors the implementation of them in public schools nationwide. CoHE exerts ‘a high level of control over all financial, administrative, and educational functions of Turkish universities’ (Mahalingappa & Polat, 2013: 374). All teacher education programs that train English teachers as well as the institutions that offer English language classes function according to policies and procedures established by CoHE. ELT in Turkey has a long history of policy changes and reforms. Numerous publications (e.g. Alptekin & Tatar, 2011; Kırkgöz, 2007; Sarıçoban, 2012) indicate that English was introduced into the Turkish education system in the second half of the 18th century in order to Westernize the system. With the declaration of the secular Turkish Republic in 1923, efforts to modernize the country and reform the education system quickly increased. In her extensive review of the history of ELT in the Turkish education system, Kırkgöz (2007) explains how the new Turkish Republic’s closer interactions with Europe and the USA helped spread ELT in Turkey in the 1930s. Kırkgöz (2007) analyzes the spread of ELT in Turkey in two major phases at the K–12 level. In the first phase, which roughly falls between the 1950s and 1970s, English was taught as a mandatory subject from sixth through 11th grade in public schools. An important development during this first phase was the establishment of secondary schools called ‘Anatolian High Schools’, which were a combination of middle and high school – at that time, three years each. Only students who could pass a national exam would be able to enroll in these schools. Initially, Anatolian high schools offered additional hours of English from sixth through 11th grade, but later on, the schools adopted content-based language instruction, and all subjects were taught in English. Kırkgöz (2007) notes that with the increasing popularity of Anatolian high schools and sociopolitical developments in the country, the second phase in the spread of English began in the 1980s. Not only did the number of Anatolian High Schools proliferate during this time, but a significant number of private schools, which strongly promoted ELT, were also established. The dominant presence of English was visible not only in the K–12 system but also in higher education back then. Between the 1950s and 1980s, a number of public and private universities adopted Englishmedium instruction. A British Council report on ELT in Turkey (2015: 69)

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  209

states that ‘English is traditionally taught at Turkish universities in a oneyear preparatory school teaching “foundation”, “basic” or “access” English, and then through language support classes during undergraduate programmes’. Currently, almost every university in Turkey has an English preparatory program, which offers intensive English courses for students who are unable to meet the minimum requirements of the English proficiency test administered by the institution or a national English proficiency exam. 2b. Current national policy

In a review of English language policies in Turkey, Kırkgöz (2017) notes that Turkey has engaged in three major curriculum reforms that took place in 1997, 2005 and 2013. The 2013 reform, which is still in place, introduced the ‘4 (elementary) + 4 (middle) + 4 (high school)’ model. The 4+4+4 model has also initiated a number of major ELT curriculum reforms. A report based on a nationwide needs assessment that the British Council conducted along with TEPAV (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey) and the Turkish MoNE played a significant role in the new reforms and was highly influential in the revision process. The report was based on data that included observations of 80 classes of English at Grades 4–12 in 48 schools in over 10 different Turkish cities, 87 in-depth interviews with teachers, and TEPAV’s survey of 1394 parents/guardians and 19,380 students. A number of shortcomings regarding the state of ELT in Turkey along with related recommendations were noted. While the project and subsequent report were based on the collaboration between British Council and the Turkish government, it is important to note the leading role that the British Council played. Indeed the report states, ‘The British Council funded the current project and was responsible for its overall management’ (British Council, 2015: 25). While in the previous system English was introduced as a mandatory subject in the fourth grade, the new 4+4+4 model has made learning English mandatory from the second grade onward. Students now begin learning English at around the age of five or six. Exposure to English also increases gradually. In public schools, for example, while students in second through fourth grades take two hours of English classes per week, fifth and sixth graders take three hours. The hours of English classes increase to four in the seventh and eighth grades. Kırkgöz (2017) notes that there has been strong support from elementary schools and parents throughout the country for the implementation of the new policy. Furthermore, the K–12 ELT curriculum was revised according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in 2013. With a stronger and more explicit emphasis on communicative competence, the new curriculum promotes oral literacy skills first, placing the

210  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

emphasis on speaking and listening abilities in the early grades and reading and writing in the higher grades. English is highlighted as a communicative tool rather than a school subject, and a stronger emphasis is placed on fluency, proficiency and language retention. The entire redesign of the ELT curriculum is explained in great detail in a publication by Kırkgöz and colleagues (2016), who were actively involved in the revision process as expert scholars. The English language curriculum from second through eighth grades is explained in detail in an official document by MoNE (2018). The document includes the goals for ELT, testing and evaluation methods, and suggested activities and tasks for each grade level. The mandated K–12 English language curriculum is heavily shaped by the CEFR and addresses key competencies, which are defined as ‘the key knowledge, skills and attitudes that are expected to equip students with the personal realization of personal and professional development and growth, with the sole goal of societal inclusion and contribution’ (MoNE, 2018: 5) and framed by the European Commission. The curriculum also incorporates ‘values education’ with the goal of transferring key values, such as ‘friendship, justice, honesty, self-control, patience, respect, love, responsibility, patriotism and altruism’ (MoNE, 2018: 5) into English language learning (see Chapter 1). The teachers are encouraged not to consider these key values as separate entities but to introduce them along with the themes and topics in the ­curricula. The MoNE document also highlights that: In framing the new curricular model for English, no single teaching methodology has been designated. Instead, an action-oriented approach grounded in current educational research and international teaching standards has been adopted, taking into account the three descriptors of the CEFR comprising learner autonomy, self-assessment, and appreciation for cultural diversity (CoE, 2001). In doing so, it is expected that learners will become confident and proficient users of English, developing appreciation for their own unique culture while learning to understand and value a broad spectrum of international languages and cultures in accordance with CEFR’s. (MoNE, 2018: 5)

A model English language curriculum is also presented in the MoNE document, which we provide in Table 11.1. As seen in the table, all language skills are addressed in instruction through theme-based arts and drama activities. MoNE has published a series of English language textbooks. Other textbooks must also be approved by MoNE for adoption by schools. In a review of four major English textbooks, Kırkgöz (2019) found that all the books include references to not only Turkish culture but other cultures as well, aiming to develop the intercultural competencies of Turkish students. Similar diversity-related practices in terms of the inclusion of items on native, target and international cultures in the third and fourth grade textbooks are noted by Arslan (2016).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  211

Table 11.1  Model English language curriculum (for Grades 2–8) Levels [CEFR*] (hours/week)

Grades

Skill focus

Main activities/ strategies

1 [A1] (2)

2

Listening and Speaking

3

Listening and Speaking Very Limited Reading and Writing

TPR/Arts and crafts/ Drama

4

Listening and Speaking Very Limited Reading and Writing

5

Listening and Speaking Limited Reading Very Limited Writing

6

Listening and Speaking Limited Reading Limited Writing

7

Primary: Listening and Speaking Secondary: Reading and Writing

8

Primary: Listening and Speaking Secondary: Reading and Writing

2 [A1] (3)

3 [A2] (4)

Drama/Roleplay

Theme-based

Source: MoNE (2018).

2c. Current EAL learner population

According to the 2019 statistics from MoNE, there are over 18 million students enrolled in K–12 schools in Turkey, all of whom are or will be learning English throughout their formal education. While the number of male students is slightly over 9 million, the number of female students is nearly 9 million. The statistics on other demographics, such as socioeconomic status or ethnicity, are not recorded. There are currently no data that show how many ethnic minority students are learning EAL as the research is also limited in this area. For example, while there are an increasing number of studies that focus on Syrian refugee children learning Turkish in schools, research on the same population and their English language learning experiences is scarce. The lack of statistical data makes it difficult to evaluate the links between various social variables and student achievement or learning outcomes. The 2013 report by the British Council on ELT in Turkey indicated that ‘the competence level of English of most students across Turkey was evidenced as rudimentary – even after 1000+ hours (estimated at the end of Grade 12) of English classes’ (British Council, 2013b: 15). The teachercentric instruction, grammar-based teaching, typical seating arrangements (bench seats in rows) and lack of relevant textbooks and curricula were listed as the major reasons for Turkish students’ lack of communication abilities in English. It is important to note that these observations were made prior to the implementation of the new ELT curriculum in 2013. Given the limited research since then, it is difficult to evaluate the impact

212  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

of the 2013 ELT reform on the English language skills of Turkish students. Furthermore, there is no system in place to track K–12 students’ English proficiency levels across grades. Such data are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ELT curriculum and classroom practices. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

Given the place of English as a mandatory subject in the Turkish education system, it is not surprising that English language teachers are the largest foreign language teacher population in the country. According to a 2018 article by a news source that reports issues related to public employees (MyMemur, 2018), there are 70,814 full-time English teachers working in the public school system. The 2013 British Council report states that ‘most (80+%) teachers have the qualifications and language skills to deliver effective language lessons’ (British Council, 2013b: 15). All public school teachers, regardless of the subjects they teach, are on a similar salary scale determined by the government. The salary changes depending on years of teaching experience and the region where the teachers work. As teaching experience increases, so does the salary. Teachers working in remote areas are also paid slightly more. At the college level, English instructors work either in English preparatory programs or academic departments that offer mandatory English classes, mostly writing and composition. The hiring practices at college level are different from those at K–12 level. To teach English in public institutions, the instructors take numerous nationwide tests. They also take a written exam or test administered by the hiring institution and possibly an oral exam. Private institutions follow similar procedures when they hire English teachers, although there might be some small differences. English instructors teaching in colleges are paid more than public school English teachers. 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

There are currently two paths to becoming an English teacher in a Turkish public school: either by attending an ELTEP or by becoming certified after graduating from a related field (e.g. English or American literature). Attending an ELTEP is only made possible by attaining the necessary scores and rankings on a national university entrance exam followed by another nationwide English language exam. While the former is an exam that all high school graduates take, the latter is only for those who wish to attend an ELTEP. Both exams are administered by CoHE, and they both consist of multiple-choice test items. The second exam tests students’ English reading abilities as well as their knowledge of English vocabulary and grammar. Sert (2010) argues that a student who earns high scores on the test may lack strong conversational skills in English, which is a challenge frequently faced in English teacher education programs.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  213

An alternative certification option is available for a limited number of degree holders from related fields, but this certification is not offered on a regular basis. ELTEPs are housed in Colleges/Schools of Education. At the K–12 level, English language teachers in Turkey are appointed by MoNE upon successful performance in a nationwide test (Public Personnel Selection Examination), the Subject Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Test and an oral exam (MoNE, 2017). In a policy document, MoNE (2017: 16) states that ‘restructuring of these exams to assess the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values required to by the General Competencies for Teaching Profession would result in the employment of the most talented teachers among university graduates’. After a teacher is appointed by MoNE, s/he goes through a ‘candidacy and training’ process, which MoNE describes as ‘another stage of accepting teachers into profession’ (MoNE, 2017: 16). To teach English at the college level, one needs a four-year undergraduate degree in ELT or a related field. There are 53 public and 45 private universities in Turkey that have an ELTEP, and there are currently 4775 students enrolled in these programs (CoHE, 2018a), of whom 3614 are enrolled at public universities (CoHE, 2018a). Private universities are autonomous in the areas of ­faculty recruitment, administrative appointments and budget, while they follow CoHE guidelines and policies regarding faculty final appointments, student numbers and student placement. Public universities, on the other hand, follow CoHE policies from faculty recruitment to s­ tudent placement. 3a. Research foundation/methods

According to the program of study for ELTEPs by CoHE (2018b), an introductory level course on educational research methods must be offered in the second year. Designed with a focus on advanced academic writing skills, the course centers on topics such as paraphrasing, summarizing and synthesizing information, as well as referencing and citing sources. The course also brings awareness about plagiarism, source quality and credibility of resources. Course instructors have flexibility in choosing course assignments and setting learning goals. For example, faculty specialized in literature typically ask students to complete a literature review or an annotated bibliography, whereas faculty specialized in linguistics or pedagogy may require fieldwork that involves data collection via questionnaires, interviews or other similar research tools. In such cases, students produce a research report at the end of the academic semester and are encouraged to present their findings at local conferences. Pre-service teachers are not expected to complete a thesis for completion of their degree, although several courses that they take may give them opportunities to conduct small-scale research projects.

214  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3b. National policy

All K–12 public school teachers regardless of the subjects that they teach are expected to demonstrate competencies described in a policy document entitled ‘General Competencies for Teaching Profession’ by MoNE (2017). These competencies are presented in Table 11.2. The descriptions for each category are available in the original policy document. MoNE states that the ‘General Competencies for Teaching Profession’ policy document serves a wide range of purposes: The ‘General Competencies for Teaching Profession’ document is a ground reference text to be taken into consideration when teachers determine their level of competencies and their performances that need to be developed, when designing the educational programs of higher education institutions that train teacher candidates, when recruiting teachers into the profession and planning their internship process, when identifying the needs for professional development and planning actions to meet these needs, in the evaluation of teachers’ performances, to lead teachers when developing their careers and in the works towards strengthening of the status of the teaching profession. (MoNE, 2017: 14)

These competencies are also used in the evaluation of teachers’ performance. The performance evaluations are conducted according to MoNE’s guidelines. The goal of the performance evaluations is to determine teachers’ and teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills and professional development needs (MoNE, 2017). In addition to the general competencies expected of all teachers, MoNE has created a set of discipline-specific competencies. K–12 English language teachers are expected to possess knowledge and abilities in the areas of: (a) English language curriculum/ material design and development; (b) TESOL methods and techniques; (c) foreign language evaluation and assessment; (d) community, family and school partnership; and (e) professional learning.

Table 11.2  General competencies for the teaching profession A. Professional knowledge

B. Professional skills

C. Attitudes and values

A1. Content Knowledge

B1. Planning of Education and Teaching

C1. National, Moral and Universal Values

A2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

B2. Creating Learning Environments

C2. Approach to Students

A3. Knowledge on Legislation

B3. Managing the Teaching and Learning Process

C3. Communication and Cooperation

B4. Assessment and Evaluation

C4. Personal and Professional Development

Source: MoNE (2017).

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  215

In-service teachers and teacher candidates are also expected to demonstrate a strong proficiency in English. The descriptions for each competency are detailed in the policy document by MoNE (2017). Like all teachers, English language teachers are routinely observed and evaluated by school principals and MoNE-appointed external expert evaluators, called ‘inspectors’. These official evaluations are recorded and included in teachers’ dossiers. The 2013 report by the British Council stated that ‘the present inspectorate are nonspecialists in English language teaching, are usually non-English speakers, and do not/are unable to provide advice or support to teachers during school visits’ (British Council, 2013b: 17). Similarly, a recent study (Atmaca, 2017) that investigated the perceptions of 366 pre-service and 84 in-service English teachers in Turkey reported that, while the participants felt positively about stakeholder participation, they felt negatively about the effect of inspection on improving teacher competencies. 3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

Securing a faculty position in an English language teacher education department at a public university is highly competitive in Turkey. The process is highly centralized, and all hiring, retention, promotion and tenure decisions are made by CoHE. In the highest ranking institutions, a large majority of the ELT faculty are either UK- or US-trained. Faculty in English teacher education departments or programs typically carry a heavy teaching load, teaching three or four classes per semester. They are also expected to maintain an active and productive research agenda. Each university has its own criteria, guidelines and expectations for hiring and promotion, typically using a points-based system to evaluate the quality of the publications and academic activities of their faculty. Once the faculty meet the required criteria, the university makes a formal request to obtain a position for the faculty member who is promoted. For example, when an assistant professor is promoted to associate professor, a request for an associate professor position is made to CoHE, which is the ultimate decision maker regarding the promotion and respective position. In their extensive review of research in ELT conducted by ELT scholars in Turkey, Aydınlı and Ortaçtepe (2018) observe that the strict promotion process by CoHE promotes quantity rather than quality, and they argue that ELT scholars make ‘the most of resources at hand to produce research papers (e.g. an activity they use in class, or a novel approach they implemented in a course) rather than addressing a genuine need or a problem they notice in the field’ (Aydınlı & Ortaçtepe, 2018: 237). Aydınlı and Ortaçtepe recognize, however, the outstanding productivity of ELT scholars in Turkey, by acknowledging that ‘the current respect for research among ELT/SLA scholars in Turkey, even if externally imposed, and the resulting energy and volume of research being conducted in Turkey, are to

216  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

be applauded’ (Aydınlı & Ortaçtepe, 2018: 237). By publishing articles in English as well as in Turkish, these scholars also contribute to international scholarship and literature. 3d. Curriculum mandates, standards and competencies

The curriculum for ELTEPs is determined by CoHE and adopted by all public and private institutions with a School of Education that houses an ELT program. The four-year English teacher education curriculum broadly focuses on (a) knowledge of the teaching profession, (b) discipline-­ specific knowledge and (c) general knowledge. For pre-service English teachers to understand and learn about the teaching profession, courses are offered in the areas of the educational sciences, such as educational psychology, educational sociology, the history of education in Turkey, educational technologies, classroom management, counseling and ethics in education. Pre-service teachers acquire their discipline-specific knowledge through coursework that focuses on English language skills, ELT methods, English language testing/assessment, English materials design and adaptation, English literature and linguistics. Further, a number of elective courses are listed for pre-service teachers to acquire general knowledge, which might provide flexibility for ELTEPs in curriculum design or give autonomy to pre-service teachers as they choose the classes they are interested in. While CoHE determines the program of study (e.g. what courses to take and when) and offers descriptions for each course, teacher educators are given the freedom to develop their own syllabi. In the following sections, we provide further information about ELTEPs in Turkey, along with the preparation and qualifications of teacher educators. 3e. Practicum and field experience

Two required practicum courses are offered in the final year of an English language teacher program of study. The practicum courses allow pre-service teachers to train in cooperating public and private primary, secondary and high schools in order to observe English classes. The first practicum course that pre-service teachers take during the first semester of their senior year is School Experience. As part of this course, six trainees are assigned to one mentor teacher at a cooperating school. Trainees attend the lessons and assist the mentor teachers for a total of 40 hours throughout the semester. They mainly observe their mentor teacher, write observation reports and teach mini-lessons (15–20 minutes long) two to three times in the semester. The second practicum course is Practice Teaching. For this course, the trainees attend the field for 60 hours during the semester. They observe their mentor teachers on a regular basis, but they have more academic responsibilities than mere observation. Trainees

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  217

also assist the mentor teachers with lesson planning and material development, classroom management and instruction, as well as test development, evaluation and assessment. They are expected to teach three to four times throughout the semester and get both oral and written feedback from their mentor teachers. University supervisors provide observation forms, feedback guidelines and evaluation rubrics for the mentor teachers. The practicum courses enable pre-service teachers to engage in microteaching, to design lesson plans and develop materials and to select and use appropriate assessment techniques. The pre-service teachers are observed by both the university supervisor and their mentor teacher(s) in the cooperating school(s). While School Experience is more focused on trainees learning from the mentors and exploring the field semi-formally, Practice Teaching is more focused on giving the trainees an opportunity to teach in the field and receive feedback from the mentors and university supervisors. For Practice Teaching, the mentor teachers are required to attend training seminars so that they learn how to give effective and reflective feedback to the trainees after their teaching sessions. Mentor teachers without a certificate from such seminars are not assigned any trainees. MoNE allocates a small fee to the cooperating school administration and the mentor teachers for their service and support; therefore, in most schools having trainees is a sign of prestige as well as a source of additional income. The two practicum courses entail compulsory attendance at the cooperating school and university. Failure to attend the field for the expected number of hours leads to failure in practicum and, therefore, failure to graduate from university. For School Experience, the trainees are expected to receive weekly signatures from their mentor teachers as proof of their attendance. These forms are submitted to the university supervisors at the end of the semester for grading purposes. A similar but more formal process is monitored by MoNE for the Practice Teaching course, for which mentor teachers record and submit weekly attendance along with teaching performance evaluation of the trainees into MEBSIS, the online MoNE portal. 4. Quality Assurance 4a. Accreditation and accountability

CoHE is the final decision-making organization responsible for accreditation of all national and international educational activities and institutions. Currently universities are under pressure from CoHE to undergo strategic planning and quality assurance. However, the decision as to whether to go through with accreditation or not depends on a number of factors, such as the availability of university funds, time commitment and the willingness of departments and programs.

218  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

While the top-down approach that CoHE adopts by requiring all ELT teacher education programs to follow a pre-set curriculum might serve for accreditation purposes as well as the standardization of basic competencies, Mahalingappa and Polat (2013) note that such nationwide curricular mandates might limit the autonomy of teacher educators and demotivate them. They also point out that institutions may not have equal access to resources to effectively meet the top-down requirements. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

Established in 2017 as a sub-organization of CoHE, the Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey (THEQC) is an independent organization responsible for quality assurance and evaluation of higher education in Turkey. On the website of THEQC (http://yokak.gov.tr/Home), three main goals for this organization are listed. The first is helping and supporting the establishment of internal evaluation systems that focus on the realization of the missions and goals of higher education institutions and acting as an external evaluator. External evaluation teams, which typically consist of scholars in the area of ELT or a related field (e.g. educational sciences), visit institutions to go over the annual Institutional Internal Evaluation Reports and monitor whether the institutions are able to meet the goals set out in their mission statements. In these external evaluations, THEQC gives emphasis to transparency, accountability, learning outcomes, innovativeness and evidence-based approach. The second aim of THEQC is to follow up on the procedures and processes for the recognition and authorization of national and international accreditation organizations. For these organizations to be recognized and authorized, their implementation and approach towards program accreditation should be compatible with national and international standards, and they should adopt a result-outcome focused accreditation approach. THEQC has authorized 12 national accreditation agencies and recognizes three international agencies acting in Turkey so far. The third responsibility of THEQC is to disseminate the quality assurance culture in the higher education system in Turkey by organizing events to provide counseling services and to publish training documents. The institutional external evaluation and accreditation criteria include the following: (a) quality assurance system (e.g. mission and strategic objectives, internal quality assurance, stakeholder participation, internationalization); (b) learning and teaching (e.g. design and approval of programs, student admission and progression, student-centered learning, teaching and evaluation, teaching staff, learning resources, monitoring and review of programs); (c) research and development (e.g. research strategy, research resources, research competencies, research performance); (d) social contribution (e.g. social contribution strategy, social contribution resources, social contribution performance); and (e) administrative

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  219

system (e.g. structure of management and administrative units, resource management, information management system, support services, public information and accountability) (THEQC, n.d.). 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

In addition to academic conferences, a wide variety of seminars and workshops are offered mostly by teacher educators for EAL teachers at all levels. The government offers free and mandatory professional development seminars for all in-service primary and secondary school teachers. These seminars, conducted during one week before and one week after each academic year, are offered face-to-face in the schools, online or in a blended format. Additionally, one week during each academic semester is devoted to professional learning. The seminar topics, covered in a total of four weeks over an academic year, address a wide variety of issues, such as lesson planning, classroom management, the use of technology in the classroom and skills-based instruction. College faculty from ELT or Educational Sciences programs are invited to give these seminars. In a comprehensive review of the research studies conducted between 2000 and 2012 on English teachers’ professional development in Turkey, Hos and Topal (2013) note that the top-down nature of the professional development seminars and activities decreased teachers’ motivation to participate in them. Their review further indicated that the time commitment and lack of needs analysis by MoNE also influenced teachers’ motivation and participation negatively. Overall, while English teachers were found to believe in the importance and necessity of professional development seminars and activities, they did not find the actual seminars useful or enjoy taking part in them. The primary responsibility of English teachers in English preparatory programs at universities, on the other hand, is to teach and engage in other teaching-related activities in their programs, such as designing materials and developing tests, as well as assessment and evaluation. Presenting at academic conferences or conducting research are not required activities. The findings of a study by Kulavuz-Onal and Tatar (2017), who surveyed 224 English language instructors in university English preparatory programs in Turkey, indicated that ‘the professional development activities provided or designed for the instructors at private universities are also perceived to be more frequent and of higher quality than the ones perceived by the instructors at state universities’ (Kulavuz-Onal & Tatar, 2017: 290). The findings further indicate that ‘working conditions at the private universities as perceived by the instructors may be more conducive to professional development opportunities as the instructors are provided with more technical and social facilities, and have a chance to spend more time in their professional environments engaging in not only teaching but also in other professional activities’ (Kulavuz-Onal & Tatar, 2017: 290).

220  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Since Kulavuz-Onal and Tatar (2017) found a significant positive correlation between personal accomplishment and participation in professional learning activities, they recommend higher levels of encouragement and support for professional learning activities for all English instructors in Turkish universities. Conclusion

While English maintains its status as a foreign language in Turkey, changing demographics and world politics will possibly change the status of English and ELT in the country over time. The literature on English language learning and teaching and English teacher preparation in Turkey is vast. This extensive literature should be a resource for the Turkish government as it engages in future language policies and educational reforms. The strong research and academic publications in the country will continue to help provide a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the existing 2–12 English language curriculum. The assessment and evaluation will be more thorough and reliable when detailed demographic data regarding the characteristics of EAL teachers and students as well as the language abilities of learners nationwide are recorded in a systematic and longitudinal way. Furthermore, the British Council has often played a powerful role in policy and reform related to ELT in Turkey. While the relationship and collaborations with the British Council are valuable, the reforms heavily influenced by the Council are still, to a large extent, top-down and hegemonic in nature and almost never neutral or free of sociopolitical relationships and sociohistorical context. A 2013 report by the British Council on the ‘English effect’ urges the UK to ‘use its huge strengths in English teaching, curriculum development and assessment to enable low and middle income countries around the world to improve the provision of English in public education systems’ (British Council, 2013a: 16). It seems that the impact and power of the British Council and British English will continue to be viable in the region, including Turkey, in the future. References Alptekin, C. and Tatar, S. (2011) Research on foreign language teaching and learning in Turkey (2005–2009). Language Teaching 44, 328–353. Arslan, S. (2016) An analysis of two Turkish EFL books in terms of cultural aspects. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 232, 217–225. Atmaca, Ç. (2017) English teachers’ perspectives about stakeholders and inspection. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 46 (2), 766–788. Aydınlı, J. and Ortaçtepe, D. (2018) Selected research in applied linguistics and English language teaching in Turkey: 2010–2016. Language Teaching 51, 210–245. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. British Council (2013a) The English Effect. See https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/ default/files/english-effect-report-v2.pdf.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in Turkey  221

British Council (2013b) Turkey National Needs Assessment of State School English Language Teaching. See https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/sites/default/files/turkey_ national_needs_assessment_of_state_school_english_language_teaching.pdf. British Council (2015) The State of English in Higher Education in Turkey. See https:// www.britishcouncil.org.tr/sites/default/files/he_baseline_study_book_web_-_son.pdf. CoE (Council of Europe) (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CoHE (Council of Higher Education, Republic of Turkey) (2018a) Higher Education Program Atlas. See https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/index.php (accessed 30 October 2019). CoHE (Council of Higher Education, Republic of Turkey) (2018b) English Language Teacher Education Curriculum. See https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/ egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Ingilizce_ Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf (accessed 24 January 2020). Deniz, E.B., Özkan, Y. and Bayyurt, Y. (2016) English as a lingua franca: Reflections on ELF-related issues by pre-service English language teachers in Turkey. The Reading Matrix​16 (2), 144–161​. ​ Hos, R. and Topal, H. (2013) The current status of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ professional development in Turkey: A systematic review of literature. The Anthropologist 16 (1–2), 293–305. Kachru, B.B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kırkgöz, Y. (2007) English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal 38, 216–228. Kırkgöz, Y. (2017) English education policy in Turkey. In R. Kirkpatrick (ed.) English Language Education Policy in the Middle East and Africa (pp. 235–256). London: Springer. Kirkgöz, Y. (2019) Ideology and culture in EFL textbooks in the era of globalization in Turkey. In A. Al-Issa and S.-A. Mirhosseini (eds) Worldwide English Language Education Today: Ideologies, Policies and Practices (pp. 102–116). New York: Routledge. Kırkgöz, Y., Çelik, S. and Arıkan, A. (2016) Laying the theoretical and practical foundations for a new elementary English curriculum in Turkey: A procedural analysis. Kastamonu Education Journal 24 (3), 1199–1212. Kulavuz-Onal, D. and Tatar, S. (2017) Teacher burnout and participation in professional learning activities: Perspectives from university English language instructors in Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13 (1), 283–303. Mahalingappa, L.J. and Polat, N. (2013) English language teacher education in Turkey: Policy vs academic standards. European Journal of Higher Education 3 (4), 371–383. MoNE (Ministry of National Education, Republic of Turkey) (2017) General Competencies for Teaching Profession. See https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/29111119_TeachersGeneralCompetencies.pdf. MoNE (Ministry of National Education, Republic of Turkey) (2018) English Language Curriculum (Ingilizce Dersi Ogretim Programi). See http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ Dosyalar/201812411191321-İNGİLİZCE%20ÖĞRETİM%20PROGRAMI%20Klasörü. pdf. MyMemur (2018) The distribution of teacher numbers across 95 disciplines announced. MyMemur, 24 December. See https://www.mymemur.com.tr/ogretmenlerin95-bransa-dagilimi-aciklandi-105451h.htm (accessed 31 October 2019). Sarıçoban, G. (2012) Foreign language education policies in Turkey. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 2643–2648.

222  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

Sert, O. (2010) A proposal for a CA-integrated English language teacher education program in Turkey. Asian EFL Journal 12 (3), 62–97. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. THEQC (Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey) (n.d.) Institutional Evaluation Program Documents. See https://yokak.gov.tr/degerlendirme-sureci/kurumsaldegerlendirme-programi-dokumanlar (accessed 24 January 2020). Yükseköğretim Program Atlası (Yokatlas; Higher Education Job Atlas) (2020).

12 Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA: Research, Policy, Curriculum and Practice Laura Mahalingappa and Nihat Polat

Chapter Summary

This chapter describes the research, policy, curriculum and pedagogical practices that guide the preparation of EAL teachers in the US context. First, the status of the teaching of EAL in the USA is described, with particular focus on the historical context, current national policy, EAL learner profiles and demographics of the current teaching force. Second, to explore how EAL teachers are prepared in the USA, five major aspects of these programs are discussed: research foundation, national policies, qualifications of EAL teacher educators, curriculum standards and competencies and clinical experiences. Third, to offer a complete picture of these programs in our context, we describe accreditation mandates and review and assessment benchmarks used to ensure accountability and quality assurance. Finally, to illuminate how such pre-service education is supplemented and enhanced in real classrooms, we discuss in-service professional development activities offered to EAL teachers in the USA. 1. Brief Introduction

In the USA, there has been a growing need for qualified EAL teachers as the number of English learners (ELs) has grown substantially in the last 20 years. Currently, ELs constitute roughly 10% of the total K–12 public school population, up from about 8% in 2009 (McFarland et al., 2019). Along with the growth in the EL population, there has been an increasing awareness of the challenges pertaining to their education. Besides the continual achievement gap between ELs and non-EL populations, there has also been a dearth of research about effective instructional practices and an acknowledgement of the need to have well-prepared teachers to support their education. 223

224  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

This chapter presents information pertaining to the preparation of EAL teachers in the USA. In the first section, we describe the context of EAL education, along with its political and historical background and learner and teacher demographics, that have driven current national policies. The second section discusses EAL teacher preparation in light of current research and evidenced-based practices and national policies that underpin curricula, qualifications and practices in teacher education programs. In the third section, we examine program quality assurance measures, including national accreditation efforts as well as examples of state-level reviews and assessments of approved programs. Finally, we investigate in-service professional development activities that ensure that teachers continually update their knowledge and skills base to provide effective support to ELs. 2. Description of the Context of EAL Education

The current context of EAL education is a complex arena based on rules and regulations that have developed due to changing demographics, government mandates, political movements and legal initiatives. In the USA, individual states have control over education policies, and each local education agency (LEA), or school district, follows state requirements, guided by federal mandates and legal precedence. Since the federal government technically has no jurisdiction over education throughout the USA, it incentivizes states to follow federal legislation by tying federal funding to compliance. Thus, as Wright (2010: 67) puts it, ‘Policies that outline rules, regulations, and procedures related to educating ELLs may come from the federal government, state governments, voter initiatives, or court decisions’. This section will outline the historical context of language minority education that has led up to current national policy and discuss the current student and teacher demographics that have necessitated the current situation of teacher preparation for EAL students. 2a. Historical context

In the USA, the current education of English learners has evolved from its particular sociopolitical historical context. At the beginning of the USA as a nation, there was support for the various languages that were spoken by the myriad of populations that had immigrated from Europe (as opposed to native indigenous languages). Throughout the 19th and earlier 20th centuries, there were bilingual schools (e.g. German, Spanish) and instruction for commonly spoken languages in local communities. However, around the turn of the 20th century, due to the protectionist policies enacted to protect the White, European identity of the USA, the US federal and state governments adopted policies that reinforced Englishonly, nationalist policies along with certain race and language-based

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  225

requirements for citizenship. A stronger opposition to bilingual education also appeared around this time, with subtractive educational policies enacted at both the federal and state levels. Although English is not the official language of the USA (there currently is not one), in the early part of the 20th century there was an English-only sentiment throughout the country, which trickled into language and education laws and policies. Students who did not speak English with a sufficiently high level of proficiency had no protections in school to ensure they received a proper education. Essentially, students were subjected to a ‘sink or swim’ approach, where they were thrown into English-only classrooms where they received little to no help with learning English or learning the academic content. Students who swam were resilient, and received some help from proactive schools, or from families and communities who had some supportive infrastructure (e.g. tutors). Some schools at this time took it upon themselves to provide assistance to ELs, but it was by no means required nor was it universally given. Many students at this time ‘sunk’ and ended up performing poorly or dropping out of school (Crawford, 2004). It was not until the civil rights era of the 1960s that support for ‘linguistic minorities’ gained momentum. As immigrant populations grew more diverse, there started to be push-back against English-only and immersion policies in schools, culminating in a number of lawsuits, policies and acts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Titles I and III, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, Title III (Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students) all had provisions for students to receive quality education. For instance, with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rights of students to receive access to education were federally supported. The Title states: No person in the United Sates shall, on the basis of race, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any problem or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (Title VI of the CRS, US CFR Part 80)

This Act was followed by a number of laws, findings and policies that protected the rights of linguistic minority students to receive a quality education. For instance, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) (Title VIII) of 1968 allotted funds for bilingual education programs and mandated that schools provide these programs to students, with reauthorization through the next 20 years that focused more and more on students who came from families where English was not the dominant language. Finally, in 1974, The Equal Education Opportunities Act ensured equal education rights for language minority students. Beyond these federal mandates, court cases also helped ensure the rights of students. Possibly the most high-profile and influential case for

226  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

precedence was Lau v. Nichols (1974), which focused on the rights of linguistic minorities to receive accommodations to ensure that they could succeed academically in English-only schools. This lawsuit stemmed from the lack of equal education afforded to linguistic minorities in schools. Due to the English-only environment in public schools, schools and teachers made little to no effort to accommodate for students whose English language proficiency was not at a high enough level to ensure their academic success. In Lau v. Nichols, the court ruled that the San Francisco school system failed to provide English language instruction to Chinese students in the district. Before the landmark Lau v. Nichols case, there were no laws that required schools to do so, but afterwards, there was legal precedent that ensured that schools had to account for students’ language abilities. The Court found that: Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students. (35 Fed. Reg. 11595)

All school districts then had to provide some kind of language support for students who could not speak English at a level that allowed them to succeed academically in US schools. This meant providing appropriate instruction to ELs, referred to as LEP (limited English proficient) students at that time (511 IAC 6.1-5-8). This court order also required that ELs had to receive instruction from properly certified, licensed teachers in school (511 IAC 6.1-3-1.d), although the court stopped short of requiring the teachers to specialize in ESL education. Finally, one other court case was instrumental in ensuring quality programs for ELs. In Castañeda v. Picard (1981), a Court of Appeals established a three-part test for assessing a school system’s treatment of ELs: (1) the education program must be ‘based on sound educational theory’; (2) the program must be ‘implemented effectively with resources for personnel, instructional materials, and space’; and (3) after a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming language barriers/handicaps. Thus, school districts had to provide education programs for ELs that were a sound approach to their education, had reasonable implementation of the approach, and were effective, based on program evaluation. 2b. Current national policy

National policy, which stems from the various Acts, Titles and precedence discussed, requires that all students who speak English as a second language (ESL) must receive equal access to education, and that all states and schools must ensure that ELs can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs and services. Federal legislation, court

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  227

decisions and the changing demographics of PK–12 students prompted the current state of education for ELs, which is centered around mandates provided by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, which were re-authorizations of the ESEA. Under NCLB and ESSA, regulations and policies from the BEA, which expired in 2002, were replaced by Title III, the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Title III has drastically changed how states and LEAs have perceived and responded to the education of ELs. In order to ensure that ELs acquire English language proficiency and achieve academically, NCLB created a system of accountability for their progress. For instance, LEAs have to identify ELs in a timely manner and have an educationally sound EL program on file with their state education departments that meets their language and academic needs (following Castañeda v. Pickard and the Supreme Lau v. Nichols). They are also required to administer yearly English proficiency exams to assess ELs’ progress in learning English and to establish English language proficiency standards in reading, writing, speaking and listening that coordinate with academic standards of content areas and grade levels as well as varying proficiency levels of the EL student; most states use the WIDA English Language Development Standards and assessments for this requirement (https://wida.wisc.edu/), although the states with the largest number of ELs (California and Texas) have adopted their own standards. LEAs are also required to provide ‘high-quality instruction’ to ELs in reading, math and other subjects, reflected in performance state-level standardized testing in core subjects (reading, math and science). Previously, the performance of ELs as a subgroup of the overall population did not have to be reported for these exams, and often the (under)performance of ELs on these exams was unacknowledged. Finally, LEAs have to demonstrate that ELs show adequate yearly progress (AYP) in their language proficiency and content subjects, without which schools could be deemed to be underperforming and be sanctioned. Ultimately, NCLB laid a more specific roadmap for schools to have procedures in place to meet the needs of ELs. Although it was reauthorized in 2008 and continued as the foundation of educational policy until 2015, NCLB was both a blessing and a curse for the education of ELs. On the one hand, it distributed funds to ESL programs at the state level based on the number of LEP students enrolled, so schools had some money to provide for specialized instruction for ELs and to train EAL teachers. In addition, NCLB required states and LEAs to recognize and respond to the needs of ELs in a systematic way – an issue that had been previously, for all intents and purposes, relatively ignored. On the other hand, there were overall flaws that hindered the effectiveness of NCLB, such as its reliance on high-stakes standardized exams that encouraged curricula that focused on test preparation (teaching to the

228  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

test) rather than content-focused language instruction. It also set unrealistic expectations that set up states to push ineffective program models and goals. For instance, some states (e.g. Arizona) required ELs to be placed in a one-year English-only program outside of mainstream content classrooms that focused solely on language learning to the exclusion of content instruction. Nationally, ELs were expected to take standardized content exams more quickly than they feasibly could – they were required to take the reading exam after only being in US schools for one year, which was not supported by research-based understandings regarding the duration of developing grade-level academic language proficiency. Starting with federal policy after 2008 and culminating with ESSA in 2015, essentially under the Obama administration, the education of ELs took a slight turn. With more flexibility in accountability requirements, states and schools were encouraged to focus on programs that would lead to better outcomes for ELs. Under ESSA, states have to demonstrate efforts to provide students with proficient academic skills aligned with rigorous academic standards to promote success to and throughout adulthood. Schools meet these high standards through indicators that create opportunities for all learners, including ELs, to have access to a rigorous education. They are expected to focus on college and career readiness and develop ELP standards that better align with new Common Core and Next Generation standards (national-level content standards for English language arts and math and science and social studies). It maintains accountability started under NCLB, but also recognizes the need and diversity of ELs in an effort to close the achievement gap. Schools are also obligated to ensure that ELs not only have effective instruction but also are in inclusive classrooms as much as possible in order to avoid unnecessary segregation and to allow them to participate fully in the whole school culture. Through a Dear Colleague Letter, the Department of Education reaffirmed that students must have access to the general education setting (Lhamon & Gupta, 2015). Schools are also required to monitor students who have exited an ESL program to assess their academic progress and, finally, they have to evaluate the effectiveness of their program in meeting the needs of their EL students. The reality of policy set forth in NCLB and ESSA has ultimately led to inconsistency across states and districts regarding the implementation of education policy. For instance, states have flexibility in defining ELs as a group, so each state decides who is eligible to receive services. It also does not dictate a particular method of instruction in ESL programs nor outline academic content, so many schools choose less effective but more cost-efficient models, such as ESL Pull-Out (the most common), where students are pulled from content classes to work on English language development with an EAL teacher. Indeed, sociopolitical matters, policymaking and demographics constitute an intricate and complex relationship. In some cases, demographics push programmatic decisions, such as

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  229

having bilingual programs available for students in Texas (where there are more than 500,000 ELs, many of them Spanish speakers), whereas there is none presently in Pennsylvania (with roughly 65,000 ELs from a range of L1s). In other cases, the political climate determines programs. For instance, Proposition 227, a ballot proposition in California that passed in 1998, required all ELs in the state be taught only in English, essentially eliminating bilingual programs. It was not until 2016 that Prop 227 was repealed, allowing Californian schools access to bilingual programs once again. Finally, resource realities can shape programs, such that a lack of qualified teachers has hindered the implementation of structured immersion or content-based programs. 2c. Current EAL learner population

In the 2017-2018 school year, there were over 5 million ELs enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, comprising nearly 10% of all school-aged students in the USA (OELA, 2021). This is a 1.5% increase since 2000. ELs represent 14% of the urban population, 9.3% of the suburban population and 10.4% of the rural population. ELs are present in all K–12 grades, although ELs in Grades K–3 comprise the largest percentage at 16.2% (McFarland et al., 2019). Since data were collected on this population of students, there has been a continuous and strong growth of ELs that outpaces the non-EL population. From 1995 to 2005, the number of ELs grew by 60% overall, while the increase in the overall K–12 population was 2.6% (Payán & Nettles, 2008). Between 2009 and 2015, five states had a 40–80% increase, while between 2004 and 2012, seven states had an over 100% increase in the number of ELs in their state – in fact one state showed a 200% increase. None of these states was at the top in terms of overall numbers, which demonstrates that the numbers of ELs spread throughout the USA in each state continues to grow. The states with the largest populations include California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, with California and Texas each having ELs as over 18% of their total school population in their states (OELA, 2017; NCES, 2020). ELs comprise a very diverse group. While Spanish is by far the most common first language spoken by ELs, at 76%, there are over 250 languages spoken by ELs in the US. After Spanish, the most commonly spoken L1s in the US include Arabic (2.46%), Chinese (1.91%), Vietnamese (1.27%) and Somali (0.6%) (OELA, 2019). Some ELs are immigrants, while a large percentage (57%) were born in the USA. ELs in schools are from different ethnic groups and have various socioeconomic and immigration statuses as well as varied levels of previous schooling, English language proficiency levels and first language and grade-level knowledge. Unlike L2 learners in foreign (EFL) settings, ELs (like learners in other ESL settings) have other needs such as academic achievement and sociopragmatic competence, which are inseparably interconnected with their

230  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

English proficiency. Overall, as tested on national exams, there has been a persistent achievement gap in content learning between ELs and non-ELs in the US context. For details about these gaps by different demographics between 2003 and 2011, see a NAEP data study by Polat et al. (2016). Likewise, more recently for instance, in 2017 the results of student achievement in reading and math for ELs were significantly lower than for nonELs (NAEP, 2019). Given research on strong correlations between academic language proficiency and success in content learning, these statistics are noteworthy to understand the ESL population in the US context. 2d. Current EAL teacher demographics

Federal law requires that LEAs provide the staff necessary to implement their English language development programs effectively, including teachers who can use appropriate instructional strategies and assessments and curriculum and instructional materials for culturally and linguistically diverse students. These staff also include teachers and administrators who are adequately trained to carry out and evaluate their approved EL program. Under ESSA and HEOA, teachers that are the primary support of ELs must be ‘highly qualified’. This requirement began under NCLB. Since currently only 14 states require general education teachers to have any training in specific competencies to meet the needs of ELs (Mahalingappa et al., 2018), and most of that training would not prepare teachers to the extent that they fall under the ‘highly qualified’ distinction, most schools employ teachers who specialize in ESL education to support ELs in their classrooms. Each state must establish ways to determine teaching quality or teacher qualifications, and many states address this through an ‘ELL/ESL endorsement’ or a specialist certification. This type of endorsement requires advanced level coursework beyond an initial certification, although some states do offer initial certifications in ESL education (requirements for these programs are presented in Section 3 below). Many states necessitate teachers of ELs to have specialist certification, either explicitly in certification requirements or through state policies and guidelines (Education Commission of the States: 50-State Comparison, 2014, http://ecs.force. com/mbdata/mbquestNB2?rep=ELL1416). However, only 23 states require EAL teachers to have specialist certification, while 16 offer specialist certification that is not necessarily required. No new federal policies have prioritized teacher training for ELs, either pre-service or in-service, so states must continually evaluate their requirements as needs change. Part of being considered highly qualified is having a sufficient proficiency in English, including oral and written communication. The interpretation of this mandate has led to some discriminatory state-level practices – in 2011, the Arizona Department of Education received a resolution letter from the US Department of Education and the US Department

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  231

of Justice in response to a complaint that Arizona was removing qualified teachers from EAL classrooms because their English was accented or ungrammatical (https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/08104038.html). There is an acknowledged shortage of qualified ESL teachers throughout the USA, which is larger in some states than in others. Although 10% of students in public schools in the USA are ELs, less than 1.5% of public school teachers (0.7% of secondary and 1.4% of elementary) are ESL or Bilingual Education certified teachers (NCES, 2017). This means the teacher–student ratio for ELs is much higher than for other student populations. Thirty-two states have noted shortages in teachers who support English learners (US Department of Education, 2017). Almost all EAL teachers in public schools have at least a bachelor’s degree, while 49% have master’s degrees. Most EAL teachers are experienced – only 13% of secondary and almost 0% of elementary EAL teachers have been teaching for less than three years, and the majority have more than 10 years of teaching experience. Although there are no available data specific to the racial/ethnic or language background make-up of the current EAL teacher population, if EAL teachers follow trends in the overall teacher population, then the majority of them are White and female – 77% of all public school teachers are female and over 80% are White. The percentage of White teachers is down slightly from 84% in 2000, while the number of Hispanic teachers rose from 6% in 2000 to 9% in 2016. There are also no available data on whether or not EAL teachers are multilingual themselves. 3. Description of EAL Teacher Education Programs

In order to become a teacher in a public school in the USA, you must be certified to teach in a particular state. State departments of education establish criteria that individuals must meet in order to be certified. Although there is a general understanding nationally of what knowledge, dispositions and skills teachers need to be effective in the classroom, there is still a great deal of variation present in teacher certification in different states. In general, though, teachers need to hold a bachelor’s degree, complete a course of work provided by state-approved teacher education programs and pass state-specific certification exams (e.g. basic skills, subject area and teaching methods exams). Many teachers pursue teaching certification in conjunction with a teaching degree, at either the bachelor’s or master’s levels, although until recently in one state (Texas) there was no specific degree offered in education. As part of a bachelor’s degree, students take some general curriculum required by all students at the university (usually one to two years’ worth of classes), along with two to three years of education-specific courses such as child/adolescent development, educational psychology, instructional techniques, issues in assessment and

232  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

student teaching (roughly 14 weeks full-time practice in a school). At this stage, students focus either on early childhood/elementary education (Grades pre-K–5) or middle level/secondary education (Grades 6–12) in specific content areas such as math, science or English language arts. Students can also pursue a master’s in teaching (either a MAT or MSEd) after they have completed a bachelor’s degree in a particular subject (i.e. a bachelor’s in biology can seek an MAT in science education). Once an individual completes these requirements, they receive an initial teaching certification – terms for this level of certification vary greatly across different states, sometimes referred to as initial licensure, level I certification, initial teaching license, etc. In terms of EAL teacher preparation specifically, the situation across the USA is varied according to contexts, but guided by some overarching federal and state laws and policies as well as research and evidence-based practices. The variation in teacher preparation stems from both demographics and the historical and political contexts that exist at local levels, shaped by the teacher education policies/mandates of different states. In a few states, EAL teacher certification is offered as a specialization within an initial certification – for instance, Texas has an early childhood–sixth grade generalist ESL certificate program that prepares students to be elementary teachers with a focus on EAL. In these states, there are large EL populations and there is a history of offering EAL education. However, most states only offer teachers the option of an advanced certification that is added on to an initial certification in a main area (e.g. elementary education, secondary social studies, etc.), that is, roughly 15–21 credits of coursework contained in five or seven three-credit courses. These advanced certifications also have a variety of titles, including ESL/ESOL/ TESOL add-on certificates, specialist certificates and endorsements, among others. In these states, certification in ESL came about after federal requirements for highly qualified teachers of ELs were put into place. In the field of EAL education, research suggests some essential dispositions, knowledge and skills that EAL teachers need in order to support the education of ELs in K–12 classrooms (Lucas, 2010). TESOL, the national organization for teachers of English as an additional language, has established a list of research-based standards (TESOL, 2010) for programs that deliver ESL certification (see Table 12.1). These standards are presented under five main conceptual domains that are intertwined: language, culture, instruction, assessment and professionalism (Polat & Cepik, 2014). Language and culture represent the knowledge that teachers need to possess in order to have the skills to provide effective instruction and assessment of ELs. Professionalism signifies the core dispositions and responsibilities that teachers must have in order to support ELs as well as knowledge of research. In teacher preparation programs, competencies must be met within classes to guarantee that new teachers are prepared to teach ELs effectively.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  233

Table 12.1  TESOL standards for the recognition of initial TESOL programs in P-12 ESL teacher education Domain

Standard

1. Language

Standard 1.a. Language as a System Standard 1.b. Language Acquisition and Development

2. Culture

Standard 2. Culture as it Affects Student Learning

3. Planning, implementing and managing instruction

Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-based ESL and Content Instruction Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards-based ESL and Content Instruction Standard 3.c. Using Resources and Technology Effectively in ESL and Content Instruction

4. Assessment

Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for ESL

5. Professionalism

Standard 5.a. ESL Research and History Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships and Advocacy

Coursework must provide teachers with the platform to assess personal readiness, efficacy and beliefs to guide classroom effectiveness (Miranda et al., 2019). In order to ensure that teachers meet these standards, teacher education programs generally follow a program that ensures that teacher candidates show evidence that they have achieved the requisite knowledge, skills and dispositions. Most programs achieve this by a combination of various classroom tasks and activities. For instance, programs may require that teacher candidates engage in critical reflection on these topics as well as reflective practice in their teaching. Reflection can be done through journaling or portfolios, participating in inquiry groups or receiving coaching in a teaching setting, among other avenues. Reflective practice helps teachers personalize the knowledge and skills they are acquiring in the programs and the experience they have in their classrooms. Additionally, since practice is essential, most programs may also require their candidates to develop their skills in the classroom via student teaching or practicums. Finally, many programs may also ask candidates to engage in linguistic or culturally relevant projects to build their language awareness and understanding of cultural and linguistic diversity and to build their sense of advocacy for their students (Polat & Cepik, 2014). 3a. Research foundation/methods

An area highlighted by TESOL that lies beyond the basics of reading literature about linguistics and multiple-language acquisition, culturally responsive pedagogy and instructional methods and assessment

234  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

techniques is ESL research and history (Standard 5.a.). This area is considered important for EAL teachers for a number of reasons. First, teachers should be able to understand where the field as a whole has been in terms of what were prevalent practices in the past and what teachers and scholars believed to be true about language acquisition and learning. This includes an overview of not only the history of methods, but what kind of theories and research findings led to those practices. Second, EAL teachers should be able to understand current research that is driving current knowledge and practices in the field. In order for teachers to critically understand current research on language learning and teaching, they need to be able to digest scholarly work using a multitude of different research methodologies (quantitative and qualitative). Finally, EAL teachers should also be able to do their own research on their classrooms or teaching contexts (e.g. action research) in order to improve their own practice. Most teacher education programs either have a stand-alone research course or infuse these competencies into multiple courses, requiring activities that involve a critical analysis of literature on language, language learning and teaching, and practices in the language classroom, focusing on various research methodologies. Activities in such courses normally start with analyses of research, such as reading reflections on current scholarly articles, focusing on the structure and content of articles (e.g. literature review, methods, data collection and analysis). Afterwards, teacher candidates work through writing literature reviews on current topics that interest them. Often programs will require candidates to conduct their own research projects, sometimes involving the collection and analysis of data. 3b. National policy

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), amended in 2008 as a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, lays out certain requirements for teacher education programs. Generally, the HEOA requires greater transparency for higher education entities to report data on access to higher education, but Title II specifically addresses teacher education programs and their ability to meet the needs of the diversity of the US school system. Sections 205–208 of the HEOA address program quality in general, while a few, in part, directly address teacher preparation for ELs. Specifically, Section 206 (b) (1) highlights that ‘training provided to prospective teachers responds to the identified needs of the local educational agencies or States where the institution’s graduates are likely to teach, based on past hiring and recruitment trends’ (HEOA, 2008). In many states, this includes ESL teachers since it is an area of teacher shortage. In addition, Section 205 (b) (1) (L) monitors ‘the extent to which teacher preparation programs prepare teachers, including general

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  235

education and special education teachers, to effectively teach students who are limited English proficient’ (HEOA, 2008). Finally, under Section 208 generally, states have to report the standards and criteria that teacher candidates must meet in order to be licensed and how reliable and valid their teacher certification and licensure assessments and requirements are. Under the same section, teacher education programs and states must provide information to the federal government about the number of students in the program, the criteria for admission, the number of hours of supervised clinical experience required, students’ pass rates and the total number of students that have been licensed as teachers (HEOA, 2008). Essentially, teacher education programs follow standards and competencies set forth by the state in which the teachers are going to receive their certification and ultimately practice, and develop courses that meet these needs. Although these standards are similar across states since there is a general understanding nationally of what knowledge, dispositions and skills teachers need to be effective in the classroom, there still is variation present for content areas and advanced programs alike, including ones that certify EAL teachers. Since TESOL is a professional organization, the standards it sets forth are not required by federal or state mandates directly, although many states do roughly follow requirements when laying out the bases for EAL certification programs that they approve. For instance, for an ESL Specialist Certificate in Pennsylvania, teacher education programs must demonstrate that their curricula and assessments follow these same general domains and competencies and that the programs show evidence that graduates from their programs have met or exceeded various performance indicators associated with the standards. Ultimately, there is no standard across the USA for EAL teacher education programs since a multitude of local and state-level contextual factors, such as history, demographics, politics, ideologies and so forth, have put states at different points in their development of programs that support ELs. One major critique of education policy in the USA is the quality of teacher preparation, especially when it comes to the preparation of EAL teachers. In some states, there are alternative certification tracks through which teachers can be certified by alternative means outside of university programs. Many of these programs place candidates into teaching positions to be trained by mentors/supervisors while on the job. Although this avenue might seem like a logical or even preferable way to train teachers, especially in an area where there are not enough teachers to meet demand, in most cases these alternative programs provide the bare minimum of training, with the unfortunate consequence of providing the most vulnerable students (linguistic minority students) with the least trained teachers. This is often the case with ESL certification programs – they are often offered with the bare minimum of requirements, or even through just taking a certification exam, with no specific coursework or experience working with ELs.

236  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

3c. Preparation/qualifications of EAL teacher educators

EAL teacher educators generally are faculty in higher education, although some states have allowed ESL teacher candidates to receive some training from practicing ESL teachers who have been trained by the state in order to meet teacher shortages. In approval of teacher education programs, most states review the qualifications of faculty to ensure that they have the necessary education and experience. The field of EAL teacher education is highly competitive, and all faculty in higher education have relevant terminal degrees in language/ESL/TESOL/ESOL education or applied linguistics and/or appropriate experience in language learning and teaching. All are expected to be active within their respective professional organizations, and many engage in research on various topics related to ESL education. 3d. Curriculum: Mandates/standards/competencies

Curricula in EAL teacher education programs generally follow TESOL standards, as adapted by individual states. As indicated in Table 12.1, these include domains on language, culture, instruction, assessment and professionalism. In most teacher education courses that are advanced certificates, there are usually 15–21 credits of coursework contained in five to seven three-credit courses. The specific foci in these programs and their particular requirements, again, vary greatly by state and by individual teacher education programs within each state. In these programs, however, there is generally one course or integrated coursework on second language acquisition and development that discusses basic theories about how people learn multiple languages and factors that affect second language acquisition, including individual differences such as motivation, identity, beliefs, etc. (Polat, 2016). Often, programs have an individual course that addresses the culture domain, which generally covers topics such as the relationship between language, language learning and culture, around issues of cultural values, beliefs, issues of racism and discrimination, parental and community engagement and culturally responsive pedagogy. In addition, in some programs there is a course on linguistics or English grammar, so that teacher candidates can gain a knowledge of language structures and components such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, both in English and in the languages their students may speak. In addition to this coursework on the knowledge bases of the EAL profession, there are generally at least two courses about instruction and assessment. An instructional course provides candidates with the tools to plan instructional activities that support ELs’ language and content learning. For instance, for content-area support (e.g. reading, math), candidates need to learn how to plan lessons, activities, tasks and assignments around standards-based content, incorporating meaningful adaptations and

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  237

scaffolds while also setting content learning and matching language learning objectives that help ELs use language in meaningful and authentic ways. In terms of language support, candidates should learn how to provide students with opportunities to develop listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, for both social and academic purposes. Candidates should also be able to select and adapt materials that are culturally relevant and developmentally appropriate at the proper English proficiency levels. An assessment course should provide candidates with the ability to design and evaluate various types of assessments used in the content and language classrooms, including adaptations and accommodations for content-area classroom assessments, performance-based assessments and peer- and self-assessments. EAL teachers should also be able to administer language proficiency assessments, including state-level identification and yearly progress assessments. Finally, there is usually a 1–3 credit practicum, which requires candidates to work in schools with ELs under the supervision of an ESLcertified teacher. In most programs, issues pertaining to professionalism are intertwined with the content of other courses. In most states, candidates have to pass a Praxis (standardized, national) exam for certification, but not all states have this requirement. 3e. Practicum

Teachers who receive their initial teacher certifications in EAL (i.e. through a BA or MAT) have to do a student-teaching experience that usually requires 14–16 weeks full-time in the classroom with a cooperating teacher, which is typical of most teacher certification requirements. However, most EAL teachers in the USA receive training through an endorsement, so the requirements for a practicum or field experience are quite uneven in programs throughout the country. For teacher candidates to be successful, they need to have the opportunity to contextualize how theories apply to authentic settings and reflect on new classroom experiences. The most effective teacher preparation requires students to spend extensive time in classrooms (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Some states have no particular requirements for candidates to have experience in the classroom. However, most programs require at least some fieldwork for certification, although it may be minimal. For instance, Pennsylvania requires 60 hours of practicum work in a school, the equivalent of one credit of coursework, while in California more extensive fieldwork is required (the equivalent of three credits). 4. Quality Assurance

Although federal policies and mandates, mostly administered through State Departments of Education, set the benchmarks for teacher

238  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

preparation as well as accountability measures, there are also certain mechanisms that provide oversight of teacher education programs to confirm that teachers are being adequately prepared to meet the needs of today’s PK–12 student population. This section will discuss how federal, state and accreditation bodies ensure the quality of teacher education programs that prepare EAL teachers. 4a. Accreditation and accountability

First and foremost, Title II of the HEOO (2008), Sections 205–208, sets accountability guidelines for teacher preparation programs. Under Section 205, Accountability for Programs that Prepare Teachers, the HEA sets out measures by which they assess teacher education programs, including annual reporting requirements. States hold periodic reviews of approved EAL programs under their jurisdiction to ensure that each program is providing adequate training to their graduates. Most states require a yearly evaluation consisting of a general assessment of some basic issues, followed by a more in-depth analysis of a program’s quality less regularly, often every five to seven years. Although each state has its own processes, these reviews consist of a number of common elements. For instance, they evaluate the qualifications of faculty in the programs so that the current faculty are still equipped to guide students in gaining the prerequisite knowledge, skills and dispositions to support ELs’ learning. Reviews also require that programs provide evidence of how the standards, set by the state, are being met by the curriculum and course activities – this evidence usually consists of an analysis of teacher candidates’ performance based on certain assessments that are aligned with standards and competencies. Another element requires teacher education programs to show how many teachers graduated from the program (as a total and as a percentage of starters), and how programs met certain priorities set by the state. There are also national professional organizations that follow national research- and practice-based trends for teachers of different content areas. TESOL established standards for PK–12 EAL teacher education programs in conjunction with the National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in 2002, which were revised in 2009 (see Table 12.1). Programs that are ‘recognized’ are endorsed by TESOL, who certify that these programs provide rigorous preparation for ESOL teacher candidates. NCATE recently merged with the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) to form the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which started providing oversight of teacher education programs, working with TESOL as a Specialized Professional Association (SPA) for EAL programs. Currently, the TESOL standards have remained the same under CAEP; however, the rigor with which programs have had to demonstrate that their teacher candidates have met

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  239

performance indicators have strengthened, including providing more illustrative rubrics with which to assess student work and more focus on the application of practice over demonstration of knowledge. TESOL standards are currently being revised and are expected soon. 4b. Formative and summative review and assessment

To have an EAL teacher education program approved by a state or recognized by TESOL/CAEP generally requires that programs systematically collect and provide data that their programs are aligned with the standards of the profession and that their choice of assessments of candidates’ knowledge and skills are valid and reliable. Most often, there are between six and eight assessments with rubrics and scoring guides, with a 3-point scale of Approaches Standards, Meets Standards and Exceeds Standards. The first six assessments should include the licensure exam (if available), content knowledge in ESL, ability to plan instruction and assessment, assessment of student teaching, candidate’s effect on student learning, and philosophy of teaching that reflects the candidate’s understanding and commitment to critical issues related to the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students. 5. In-service Professional Development Activities

Under federal policy, school districts must provide professional development (PD) to teachers, administrators and staff who work with ELs. This training should provide research-based instructional methods and assessment techniques for working with ELs, and should be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on their performance (ESEA Section 3115 (c) (2); ESEA Section 8101 (42)). Thus, an occasional workshop would be insufficient – rather a more sustained professional development program is required for school staff in order to meet the needs of ELs. Research has shown that in-service teachers who receive adequate training focused on EL-specific instructional strategies can lead to academic gains for ELs (Master et al., 2016). However, only one state, Massachusetts, currently requires all public school teachers to engage in PD to meet the needs of ELs. Other states only require PD if their teachers have ELs in their classrooms and, even then, states often leave it up to districts to decide who is responsible for an EL’s education, which is often the certified EAL teacher. EAL teachers, like any certified teacher in the USA, must have continuing education credits (CECs) that help to expand their knowledge and skills and stay current with recent developments in education. Most often, CECs are provided by in-service workshops during school days, by workshops provided by educational organizations or by teachers taking additional coursework at a university.

240  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

References Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A.M., Abrams, L.W, Chavez Moreno, L.C., Mills, T. and Stern, R. (2016) Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. In D.H. Gitomer and C.A. Bell (eds) The Handbook of Research on Teaching (5th edn) (pp. 439–547). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Crawford, J. (2004) Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Public Law 110–315. (2008) See https:// www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html Lhamon, C.E. and Gupta, V. (2015) Dear Colleague Letter: English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice and US Department of Education. See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/ colleague-el-201501.pdf Lucas, T. (ed.) (2010) Teacher Preparation for Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: A Resource for Teacher Educators. New York: Routledge. Mahalingappa, L., Hughes, E.M. and Polat, N. (2018) Developing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and knowledge through online experiences with English language learners. Language and Education 32, 127–146. Master, B., Loeb, S., Whitney, C. and Wyckoff, J. (2016) Different skills? Identifying differentially effective teachers of English language learners. Elementary School Journal 117 (2), 261–284. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., et al. (2019) The Condition of Education 2019 (NCES 2019-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. See https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144 (accessed 6 August 2019). Miranda, J.L.W., Wells, J.C. and Jenkins, A. (2019) Preparing special education teacher candidates to teach English language learners with disabilities: How well are we doing? Language Teaching Research 23, 330–351. doi:10.1177/1362168817730665 NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) (2019) The Nation’s Report Card. See https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2020) The Condition of Education: English Language Learners in Public Schools. See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ indicator_cgf.asp NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2017) Teacher Trends. See https://nces. ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28. OELA (Office of English Language Acquisition) (2019) The Top Languages Spoken by English Learners in the United States. See https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/oleatop-languages-fact-sheet-20191021-508.pdf. OELA (Office of English Language Acquisition) (2021) Profile of English Learners in the United States. See https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/fast_facts/DEL4.4_ ELProfile_508_1.4.2021_OELA.pdf. Payán, R.M. and Nettles, M.T. (2008) Current State of English-language Learners in the US: K-12 Student Population (English-Language Learners Symposium Fact Sheet). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Polat, N. (2016) L2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment: A Comprehensible Input Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Polat, N. and Cepik, S. (2014) A comparative analysis of EFL and ESL programs regarding curriculum mandates and program directors’ and teacher candidates’ perceptions: The case of Turkey and the US. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 4, 239–251. Polat, N., Zarecky-Hodge, A. and Schreiber, J. (2016) Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth- and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. Journal of Educational Research 109, 541–553.

Preparation of Teachers of EAL in the USA  241

TESOL (2010) TESOL Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. US Department of Education (2017) Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing 1990– 1991 through 2017–2018. See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/bteachershortageareasreport201718.pdf. Wright, W.E. (2010) Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon, Inc.

13 Conclusions and Future Directions Laura Mahalingappa, Hayriye Kayi-Aydar and Nihat Polat

The 11 chapters in this book offer invaluable information regarding research, policy, curriculum and practice within the areas of English language teaching and teacher education around the globe. As noted in the Introduction, cross-context comparisons of teacher education may allow educators, researchers and policymakers to consider global and systemlevel policies and practices in relation to their own contexts in order to provoke critical analyses and potential progressive change (DarlingHammond, 2017). To this end, all of the cases in this volume provide important information in their historical and present contexts, helping us understand the current state of EAL teacher education programs from an international perspective. In this concluding chapter, we summarize a few important themes that have emerged in terms of the situation of EAL in countries (demographics and policies), teacher education curriculum, practice, and policy, and quality assurance and accountability issues. In addition, we suggest some future directions for the field of EAL teacher education based on the themes that have emerged. First, as mentioned in Chapter 1, each country provides its own particular context in terms of the situation of EAL. It is clear from a comparison of countries that without an examination of the historical and current context in which English is learned and taught, it would be impossible to understand the current state of EAL teacher education. If we take, for example, geopolitical status as a factor in driving policy, curriculum and practice, we can see some differences in the state of the English language between Inner Circle countries (Kachru, 1985) – Canada, New Zealand and the USA in this volume – and Expanding Circle countries, represented here by Brazil, China, Finland, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. It is understandable that, at the core, the reasons for learning English are different in countries where English is the dominant language used in everyday life and in all institutional contexts (school, government, etc.) versus those in which English is considered a ‘foreign language’. In English-dominant contexts, there is a need for all 242

Conclusions and Future Directions  243

school-aged learners to have proficiency in English in order to be successful in school and in life, and therefore full functionality in English is the goal for students (often leading to the loss of students’ first languages). However, in countries in the Expanding Circle there is a general acknowledgement that having some working knowledge of English is an important life skill for students to acquire, with the study of English starting in early primary education. The learning of English in schools in these contexts, however, reflects the various ideologies surrounding foreign language study and the purposes English serves in individual countries, seen in the historical development and functions of the language in society. In fact, the very conceptualization of Inner and Expanding Circle countries (Kachru, 1985) emphasizes the global reach of the English language while also addressing the nature of postcolonial circumstances and hegemonies that drive the need for English study. For instance, in Finland, beyond the educational requirement of studying a foreign language in school (99.3% of pupils study English as their additional language), English has reached a level of ‘popularity’ where many in the country see and hear English in their daily lives and many use it in their work and studies – as RuohotieLyhty (Chapter 5, this volume) states, ‘Today the English language is understood as a general skill that is needed at all levels of society and professional life’ (p. 75). Furthermore, in countries such as Greece and Russia, knowing a foreign language is highly valued and thus foreign language education is an important part of a basic education; English in both contexts is the most commonly studied foreign language. In Greece, 74% ‘believe that English is important for their personal development … while an overwhelming majority (94%) believe that learning English is important for their children’s future’ (Karavas & Gkonou, Chapter 6, this volume, p. 94). In Russia, although there is pride and respect for language study overall, English ‘is perceived as the means for the country to become competitive and to regain some of its influence in the international arena lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its camp’ (Ardasheva & Sabelnikova, Chapter 8, this volume, p. 136), recognizing the importance of English language study globally. In many countries, such as Brazil, Turkey and South Korea, English language proficiency is seen as a necessary tool in order to be part of a global society (i.e. the international scientific community, economic/commercial purposes, etc.). Although the learning of English in these contexts tends to start in the early grades and continues through university with the stated goals of ‘communicative competence to interact with other people around the world’ (Park et al., Chapter 10, this volume, p. 190), the focus often turns out to be less on communicative skills for life-related use and more on passing exams and using academic English for university study. China has ‘become the world’s largest market for English language study’ and ‘has witnessed a dramatic increase in its population of English learners due to its open-door foreign policies and high-speed economic

244  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

development’ (Li et al., Chapter 4, this volume, p. 52). English language learning and teaching in China, and in any other context that views the learning of English as instrumental for economic and social advancement, could be considered a business, providing resources for people to participate in the growing middle class. Overall, the study of EAL is considered important in all the countries presented in this volume for a variety of reasons, and thus the policies and practices of teachers and teacher educators reflect the needs of these learners. In fact, when viewing the particular policies and practices in these various contexts, there are a number of similarities, with a few choice differences, that illustrate issues in EAL education and teacher education throughout the world. EAL Policy and Practice

In terms of policy and practices regulating the education of schoolaged students (early childhood through secondary education), in all countries, there have been continual revisions to educational standards and practice reflecting the needs of students, including language education. In fact, in many contexts, there has been an emphasis on improving student outcomes, often through ‘tighter control over educational practices in schools and stronger accountability for student performance’ (RuohotieLyhty, Chapter 5, this volume, p. 86). First, countries in which English is the dominant language – in this volume, Canada, New Zealand and the USA – have similarities with a few key differences when it comes to the education of English learners (ELs) in order to prepare students for success in academics and in life. All three countries indicate priorities for supporting the academic and language development of school-aged ELs as well as the ideals of multiculturalism. Although Canada and the USA both have systems where states or provinces have more power over the curriculum and functioning of public education than the national government, there are nonetheless clear curriculum and assessment guidelines regarding the education of schoolaged children, often derived from nationally recognized standards. New Zealand, in contrast, being a smaller country, has a national curriculum that is left for individual schools and teachers to interpret. Similarly, the way in which the education of ELs in PK–12 schools is addressed also varies across countries. In the USA there are national mandates, enforced through funding initiatives and federal law statutes, which give states and school districts guidance in meeting the needs of ELs, but still the practice of EL education depends on decisions at the state level as long as they meet the national requirements. In Canada and New Zealand there are no national-level requirements about the education of ELs, although in some Canadian provinces (e.g. Ontario) there are regulations. Ultimately, all three have similar supports for the education of ELs, with clear English

Conclusions and Future Directions  245

language development and content standards that provide content and grade-level benchmarks for assessing students’ English language proficiency levels in various academic subject areas: English Language Learning Progressions in New Zealand; WIDA English Language Development Standards in most US states; and K–12 ESL Proficiency Benchmarks in Canada (Alberta). The functions of English (and other foreign languages) in non-English dominant contexts, along with the educational structures of the country, could in part explain the forces behind the nature of the study of English in those contexts. For instance, contrary to the general trend of a tightly controlled centralized national system, Brazil, like Canada and the USA, has national-level standards that local municipalities and states are responsible for implementing, perhaps due to the size of the country (the largest in South America). However, in many of the countries represented in this book, curricula for primary and secondary education are highly centralized and decided at the national level by ministries or departments of education. Foreign language courses in most countries are required for students in primary and secondary education, and that language is more often than not English. Thus, many students in the early grade levels (e.g. Finland, Russia in Grade 1) start learning English at an early age. In most contexts, within English language learning and teaching policy and curricula, there are clear guidelines that identify objectives and assessments for students, with recent national curricular criteria put in place. Most countries also have standards that pertain to both language proficiency benchmarks and becoming familiar with the cultural backgrounds of countries/societies where English is spoken or promoting cultural understanding. For instance, in South Korea (Park et al., Chapter 10, this volume, p. 191), there are specific goals for elementary, middle and high schools that indicate that students should have a certain ability to use English pertaining to specific situations (e.g. ‘can properly communicate about general, familiar topics for proper purposes and situations in English’) and have cultural awareness (e.g. ‘develop attitudes to respect the uniqueness of other cultures based on the interest in and proper understanding of Korean and foreign cultures’). Similar objectives can be seen in Russia, which focuses on the development of communicative and culture competence and the awareness of the ‘close relationships between mastering foreign languages and ​​ personal, social and professional growth’ (Ardasheva & Sabelnikova, Chapter 8, this volume, p. 140). Finland and Greece both follow the Common European Frame of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which is an international standard that uses a 6-point scale to describe language ability (Council of Europe, 2020). In these countries, there has also been a focus on the functional use of language, with an integrated framework for the learning of foreign languages (more recently adopted in Greece in 2011 with reformed teaching and assessment practices). Saudi Arabia and Turkey also use curricula

246  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

derived from the CEFR, with a curriculum tightly controlled, developed and distributed by the Ministry of Education. More recently, Saudi Arabia has adopted Vision 2030, which includes strategic objectives, including in education. In China (with national English curricula enacted in 2018), there has similarly been a shift in the goals of language education, away from a teacher-centered focus on grammar and towards a more studentcentered focus on language knowledge and skills, cultural awareness and critical thinking. Generally, there has been a trend towards integrating language with overall national educational policies, standards and practices. These policies include more centralized recommendations (either tightly controlled requirements or mandates for local units to follow) with regard to objectives for students to meet and suggestions for teaching to help meet those outcomes. These trends can also be seen to some extent in the ways in which teachers in various contexts are prepared to teach languages. Teacher Education Policy and Practice

As for policy and practice related to teacher education programs, there is a wide variation across different contexts. While in most countries there are some national-level criteria providing guidance about ‘best practices’ (whatever they might be), in some contexts (i.e. the USA, Canada) there are no centralized mandatory requirements for teacher education programs. In countries that provide national-level guidance, or some kind of national-level government organization in charge of higher education (e.g. ministry of education, national academy, etc.), there are strict requirements for teacher education programs and some sort of oversight to ensure the quality of these programs. In these contexts, for instance, teacher requirements for certification involve national-level exams, such as in Turkey. However, a few countries, notably Brazil, Canada and the USA, perhaps due to their size, leave the overall regulation of programs and certification of EAL teachers to the individual state/province education departments. In all the countries covered in this edited collection, EAL teacher education seems to be well established with various sociopolitical and sociohistorical developments specific to each country. Each country appears to have its own guidelines and competencies outlined in its EAL teacher education curricula, but certain similarities and overlaps across countries exist. In many countries where English is either spoken as an additional language by the majority of the population or used as a medium of instruction, the competencies, goals and guidelines for teaching English and English language teacher education are created by an entity that is in the ultimate position of power, which in most cases is the ministry of education. As expected, the levels of agency of teacher education programs in terms of curriculum design and decisions vary from country to country.

Conclusions and Future Directions  247

Whereas in Finland (Chapter 5), for example, universities are autonomous in designing their own programs, which still should be in line with the competencies defined by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Turkey (Chapter 11) seems to exercise almost no agency and has adopted instead a more top-down, mandated curriculum. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field of TESOL and its scholarship (Douglas Fir Group, 2016), it is not surprising that the teacher education curricula described in this book are also highly interdisciplinary. From theoretical linguistics to 18th century English literature, diverse disciplinary work is integrated into almost every undergraduate EAL teacher education program around the globe. Another similarity across the teacher education program curricula in the countries where English is the non-dominant language (e.g. Finland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) is the emphasis on proficiency in different language skills. Pronunciation and oral skills, academic reading and writing, and grammar are offered as separate and mandatory courses for pre-service teachers. While these programs offer courses on pedagogy and teaching methods to prepare their students to become teachers, they also offer courses to help them improve their English language skills. Culture (e.g. Russia, Saudi Arabia) and literature (e.g. Brazil, Turkey) are the two other major components of the EAL teacher education curricula that are consistently mentioned in this book. While most countries have many similarities in terms of the curricula of their teacher education programs, there are some differences in how the interdisciplinary nature of TESOL is interpreted in their specific contexts. For instance, the humanistic orientation towards education in places like Brazil and Finland leads to program designs that differ from those that are more influenced by a motivation to train teachers for a professional market. In Brazil, for instance, there is more focus on sociocultural theory and critical multiliteracies, and in Finland on the development of teachers’ professional identity development involving emotions, agency and personal beliefs. In the USA, there are often courses on culturally relevant pedagogy for pre-service teachers in order to help them develop positive dispositions towards multiculturalism and multilingualism, reflecting the diversity in the student population. Additionally, in some cases, there has been an expansion of requirements for teachers and thus teacher education programs, with increased emphasis on the vocation of teaching rather than general English language and teaching study. For instance, in Greece, recent changes required pre-service teachers to complete a specially designed ‘Pedagogic and Teaching Competence Programme’ in order to be appointed to public and private schools in the country. Similar moves can be seen in other countries in this edited volume, including Finland, South Korea and Canada. The necessity for and importance of mentorship and reflective practice have been widely addressed in the TESOL scholarly literature

248  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

(e.g. Farrell, 2013). The EAL teacher education programs portrayed in this edited collection also seem to value the importance of teaching experience and reflective practice. This shared recognition is clearly evident in practicum courses that are mandatory in a large number of the EAL teacher education programs covered in this book. These courses not only give preservice teachers an opportunity to collaborate with and learn from mentor teachers in the schools where they complete the required tasks for the practicum course(s), but they also help strengthen ties with schools and universities, creating mutually beneficial partnerships. The chapters covered in this volume also present a variety of professional learning opportunities for in-service teachers. An overview of these activities indicates that they are not offered in a regular or systematic way. While a number of countries (e.g. Finland, Turkey) offer compulsory professional development for in-service teachers, others offer only voluntary tasks and activities (e.g. Brazil). It is important to point out the scarcity of professional learning opportunities for in-service teachers. Quality Assurance and Accountability

The EAL teacher education programs are evaluated in almost every country for quality. While in several countries (e.g. Brazil) it is the same entity (e.g. Ministry of Education) that not only defines but also evaluates the curricula, in some others (e.g. Finland) there is either a governmental division in the country that is in charge of review and assessment or an organization that is paid to complete program evaluation and assessment. In each case, the review and assessment of the EAL teacher education programs and their curricula are heavily summative in nature across the countries. There seem to be a wide array of approaches when it comes to research expectations for EAL teachers and thus what is covered in EAL teacher education programs. In most bachelor’s-level programs, there are few requirements for teachers in training to learn about research methods or how to conduct their own research, although they do encourage students to learn how to read and interpret research in the field. However, in many master’s programs some kind of research coursework is often present, although it is not necessarily a requirement. In the USA, for instance, since there is no national-level curriculum required for teacher education programs, many use either external accreditation bodies (professional associations such as CAEP/TESOL) or State mandates to guide their practice. One of the TESOL standards is directly related to teachers’ knowledge and practice of research; however, since these are not necessarily binding, there is a wide array of practices when it comes to implementing research coursework in bachelor’s or even master’s teacher preparation programs. In some contexts, research coursework is optional (e.g. China, South Korea), whereas in others it is required at the master’s level (e.g. Russia).

Conclusions and Future Directions  249

Future Directions

This edited collection offers numerous insights and implications for a wide range of audiences including, but not limited to, teachers, teacher educators, administrators and policymakers. It also offers new directions in the areas of English language teaching and teacher education, curriculum development, policy and research. While we present some common directions based on the information presented in different chapters, we do emphasize the necessity of recognizing the research needs specific to each country, and we hope to see work in these areas in international scholarly venues, including in journals and at academic gatherings (e.g. conferences, workshops). Frequent education reforms, policy changes and their implementations in the context of English language teaching are reported in the majority of chapters included in this volume. Recent major educational reforms regarding English language K–12 curricula described in various chapters (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey) call for more empirical work to evaluate the sustainable impact of such changes not only on the curriculum and instruction, but also on program evaluation systems and accountability measures. While fully understanding that the effectiveness of new reforms and policies through research might take years, we believe that it is crucial to devote time and resources to studying these efforts. Especially in countries where the pressure of implementing top-down policies meets the pressure of bottom-up needs and expectations of English learners and teachers, involving all affected parties in ongoing research efforts is crucial. No policy, even great ones with good intentions, can be successful without buy-in from all constituencies affected by it. Another area where we believe that research and support are needed is accreditation. While accreditation seems to be a well-established practice with a long history in some countries (e.g. the USA), it is relatively new or an emerging area in other places (e.g. Turkey). This is clearly an area where various EAL teacher education programs need more support, both at the micro (e.g. university) and macro (e.g. government) levels. Indeed, as a field, program evaluation goes beyond just the identification of relevant areas of exploration (e.g. major competencies, credit hours) for quality assurance, involving the field of psychometrics and research methodology (preferably mixed-methods designs) to be comprehensive and rigorous. Therefore, as far as learning from each cross-cultural comparison is concerned, the use of solid methodological designs in program evaluation is arguably one of the most promising areas. Finally, the importance of classroom-based research is often highlighted in the TESOL scholarship, and publications around practitioneroriented research (e.g. teacher research, classroom research and action research) are increasing rapidly (Polat et al., 2019). Yet, we are surprised to see little integration of research into undergraduate EAL teacher

250  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

education programs in the countries spotlighted in this book. We do hope that policymakers will take into consideration the mismatch between the scholarship and actual teacher education practices as they continue to make curricular reforms or changes moving forward. Another rapidly growing area of research within the scholarly literature on language teacher education is teacher identity and agency (for a comprehensive review, see Kayi-Aydar, 2019). With its comprehensive overview of the state of English language teaching and teacher education in numerous countries, this book, we believe, offers crucial information on policy, curriculum and practice. These elements are closely tied to the professional identity development of English language teachers as identities are always contextualized. We hope that researchers will use the information presented in this chapter as they attempt to understand the professional identities of English teachers in the contexts presented in this book. References Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). See https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-referencelanguages/level-descriptions. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017) Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education 40, 291–309. Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal 100, 19–47. Farrell, T. (2013) Reflective Practice in ESL Teacher Development Groups: From Practices to Principles. London: Springer. Kachru, B.B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2019) Language teacher identity. Language Teaching 52 (3), 281–295. Polat, N., Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P.D. (eds) (2019) Research-Driven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of Language Skills. New York: Routledge.

Index

academic language, 76, 117, 189, 228, 230 accountability, 5, 13, 23–24, 47, 65, 86–87, 106, 128, 134, 149, 158, 161, 171–172, 188, 200, 217–219, 223, 227–228, 238, 242, 244, 248, 249 accreditation, 5, 8, 11, 13, 23–24, 32, 35–36, 41–48, 65–67, 86, 93, 106, 128, 134, 148–151, 158, 161, 171–172, 188, 199–200, 217–218, 223–224, 238, 248–249 additional language, 1, 2, 13, 15, 25, 28, 52, 54–55, 74–76, 114, 134, 159, 188, 192, 207, 232, 243, 246 administrative, 82, 168, 193, 202, 208, 213, 218 admission, 25, 43–44, 48, 81, 137, 218 advocacy, 10, 28, 233 assessment, 4–5, 13, 18, 21, 23–26, 37–38, 42, 45, 47–48, 54, 58, 60, 67–96, 76, 83–86, 88, 93, 96, 99–100, 102–103, 106–108, 110–111, 117, 125, 127, 129, 131, 145, 147, 150, 154, 158, 166, 171–174, 188–189, 191–192, 197–198, 201–202, 209–210, 214, 216–220, 223–224, 227, 230–239, 244–245, 248 autonomy, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 38, 51, 67, 74, 79, 82, 88, 95, 210, 216, 218 Brazil, 13–21, 23, 25–29, 242–243, 245–248

109–110, 149, 198, 213, 230–232, 235, 237, 246 China, 1–2, 7–8, 38, 52–70 clinical experience, 4–5, 223, 235 comparative, 1–3, 5, 145, 170 compensation, 4, 7, 19, 39, 139, 196 competencies, 4–5, 8, 20, 44, 54, 55, 61, 80, 83–84, 92, 99, 101, 111, 121, 124, 127, 134, 143–145, 147, 152, 168, 187, 191, 210, 213–216, 218, 223, 230, 232, 234–236, 238, 246–249 context, 2, 4–10, 13–16, 21–25, 28, 32–34, 37, 39–40, 43, 45, 47, 52–53, 55, 59, 61, 62, 66, 69, 74–75, 83, 92–95, 99, 101, 103–104, 107–108, 111, 114–118, 120, 122–123, 126–128, 130, 134, 136–138, 153, 158–159, 188–189, 193, 195, 202, 207–208, 219, 223–224, 230–232, 234–235, 237, 242–250 cooperating teacher, 64–65, 101, 200, 216–217, 237 core values, 8–10, 27, 41, 54–55, 76–80, 84, 87, 98–99, 105, 120, 122, 125, 137, 144, 146, 151, 189, 197, 227–228, 232, 242 credit hours, 5, 149, 168, 199–200, 249 cross-national, 2, 7–8 culturally responsive pedagogy, 9–10, 125, 233, 236 cultures, 9–10, 16–17, 21, 98, 120, 124, 128, 140, 147, 163, 190–191, 193, 210, 245

Canada, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 32–47, 49, 53, 242, 244–247 certification, 24–25, 28, 30, 35–36, 41–43, 46, 66–67, 96, 100,

department of education, 8, 27, 228, 230–231 dispositions, 5, 59, 62–63, 68, 146, 154, 231–233, 235, 237, 246 251

252  The Preparation of Teachers of EAL around the World

diversity (linguistic, cultural, racial), 98, 110, 115–116, 120, 124–125, 128, 210, 228, 233–234, 247 English language education, 4, 5, 33, 70, 92, 139, 207 equality (equity), 9–10, 20, 62–63, 70, 93, 110, 125 fieldwork, 5, 213, 237 Finland, 74–89 formative assessment, 5, 11, 13, 25, 47, 67, 88, 93, 106, 129, 150, 158, 172–174, 201, 218, 239 funding, 33, 63, 88, 93, 117, 120, 123, 126, 128, 130, 224, 244 global, 1, 3, 5–6, 14–15, 22, 28–29, 54, 56, 78, 94, 99, 135, 145, 158–159, 188–189, 206, 242–244 grammar, 21, 45, 55, 85, 139, 142–143, 146, 169–170, 189–190, 193, 198, 211–212, 237, 246–247 Greece, 3, 10, 92–111 immigration, 5, 32–34, 38, 77, 115, 116, 229 impact, 7, 16, 24, 35, 65, 172, 176, 207, 211, 221, 239, 249 implications, 2, 4, 7, 116, 206, 248 inclusion, 3, 10, 16, 28, 210 interdisciplinary, 22, 84, 98, 247 internationalization, 15, 135, 151, 218 internship, 64–65, 168, 214 language learning, 16, 34, 37, 38, 53, 63, 85, 95, 96, 98, 101–103, 117, 126–127, 130–131, 153–154, 206–208, 210–211, 220, 228, 234, 236–237, 245 leadership, 10, 41, 120, 123 legislation, 79, 107, 123, 214, 224, 226 lesson plan, 61, 63, 86, 100, 103–104, 106–107, 109, 117, 120 license, 40, 148, 165, 232 linguistics, 14, 18–22, 44–48, 85, 98, 103, 105, 109 ,124, 134, 144, 146–147, 166, 168–170, 197, 213, 216, 233, 236, 247 listening, 23, 37, 163, 169, 192, 210–211, 227, 237

methodologies, 111, 125, 234 minority, 56, 69, 75, 77, 116, 211, 224–226, 235 multicultural, 9, 38, 98, 103, 147, 153, 192 multilingual, 5, 38, 147, 207, 231 national policy, 4–5, 13, 16, 19, 36, 42, 54, 58–59, 75, 81, 92–94, 100, 116, 123, 136, 139, 143, 158, 160, 166, 190, 195–196, 200, 209, 214, 223–224, 226, 234 New Zealand, 2–3, 10, 53, 114–131 official language, 14, 56, 141, 207, 225 perspectives, 1, 6, 28 political, 3, 17, 28, 32, 75, 87, 99, 109, 134, 136, 143, 192, 224, 229, 232 power, 28, 79, 134, 121, 144, 146 practice, 134, 138, 142–143, 146–147, 152, 158, 171–173, 185, 188, 195, 198–200, 206, 210, 212, 216–217, 223–224, 230, 232, 233–234, 238–239, 242, 244–250 practitioner, 42, 45, 111, 130 professionalism, 10, 42, 45, 67, 111, 115, 145, 197, 232–233, 236–237 pronunciation, 45, 85, 102, 104, 247 quality assurance, 1, 5, 8, 11, 13, 23, 27, 47–48, 65, 67, 69, 86, 87, 93, 106, 128, 134, 148–152, 158, 171–172, 200, 206, 217–218, 223–224, 237, 242, 248–249 reading, 5, 15, 19, 22, 24, 37, 45, 53, 63, 77–78, 103, 117, 123, 138, 140, 142, 163, 169, 189, 193, 195, 198, 210–212, 227–228, 230, 233–234, 236–237, 247 reform, 15, 54–55, 59, 61–63, 65, 67, 95, 108, 190–191, 207–209, 212, 220 regulations, 14, 35, 64, 93, 98, 137, 165, 185, 188, 196, 200, 224, 227, 244 research foundation, 5, 18–19, 42, 58, 79, 92, 99, 122, 142, 147, 158, 165, 188, 195, 209, 213, 223, 233

Index 253

research methods, 5, 18–19, 42, 80, 84, 85, 122, 166, 170, 195, 213, 248 Russia, 2–3, 10, 54–58, 134–154, 241, 243, 245–248 salary, 26, 81, 145, 165–168, 196–197, 212 Saudi Arabia, 2, 10–11, 158–185, 242, 245–247, 249 sociocultural, 6–8, 21, 139, 247 South Korea, 2, 3, 188–203, 242–243, 246–248 speaking, 5, 21–22, 37–38, 43, 45, 49, 53, 63, 103, 117, 119, 135, 138, 140, 162, 169, 175, 189, 193, 198, 210–211, 227, 237 student teaching, 64, 144, 147, 232, 233, 237–239 study-abroad, 4, 6, 44 summative assessment, 5, 14, 25, 47, 67, 88, 93, 106, 129, 150, 158, 172–174, 201, 218, 239, 248 supervisors, 28, 65, 68, 127, 174, 217, 235 teacher demographics, 5, 14, 18, 39, 56, 74, 78, 93, 98, 119–220, 140, 164, 188–189, 192, 207, 212, 224, 230 teacher education programs, 8, 41, 194–195, 235, 237–238, 246–248 teacher identity, 18, 250 teaching experience, 43, 64, 69, 82, 86, 100, 104, 107, 117, 123, 130, 212, 231, 237, 248 teaching methods, 13, 22, 54, 76–77, 95, 107, 110, 141–143, 146, 153–154, 190, 198, 231, 247

technology, 6, 10, 29, 49, 102, 109, 146–147, 162–163, 169, 174–176, 185, 188, 198–199, 203, 219, 233 tertiary, 76–78, 117, 122, 128, 207 TESOL, 24, 40, 43–49, 74, 101, 130, 145, 154, 194–195, 214, 232–233, 235–236, 238–239, 247–249 testing, 62, 102, 143, 198, 210, 216, 227 textbooks, 5, 21, 56, 78, 93–94, 98, 116, 138, 143, 160, 162–163, 175, 180, 190, 210–211 translation, 15, 22, 98, 138, 142, 144, 147, 166–168, 170, 190 Turkey, 2, 3, 10, 206–220, 242–243, 245–249 undergraduate, 5, 15, 19, 20, 23–25, 27, 35, 43, 48, 57–58, 62, 64, 97–98, 100, 122, 126, 128, 130, 142, 150, 193–196, 209, 213, 247, 249 USA, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 24, 38, 53, 142, 167, 189, 208, 223–239, 242, 244–249 vocabulary, 45, 55, 77, 101, 102, 117, 139, 163–164, 168–169, 189, 192, 212 vocational, 35, 76, 79, 94, 100, 101, 137, 141, 145, 160, 190 writing, 4, 22, 24, 28, 37, 45, 53, 59, 63, 77–78, 82, 85, 117, 140, 143, 147, 163, 169–170, 185, 189, 195, 198, 210–213, 227, 234, 237, 247