1. education
2. english as a second language

European Journal of Teacher Education
Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 63–73
How to respond to the demands set by
the communicative approach? New
challenges second-language (L2)
teachers face in the classroom
Marian Amengual-Pizarro*
University of the Balearic Islands, Spain
This study investigates prospective teachers’ language needs in L2 teacher training programmes. A
questionnaire was constructed and administered to a total of 79 first, second and third year
students in the teaching training school at the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB). The
questionnaire attempted to elicit student teachers’ views on the following aspects: a) L2 teachers’
qualities; b) Relevance of a Methodology, a Theory and a Language Improvement component
in training courses; c) Perceived command of the English language and d) Potential use of
English in future classes. The results confirm the value of including a Language Improvement
component in teacher training courses to better meet the needs of future teachers and help
them respond to the new demands set by the communicative approach. Results also suggest that a
more balanced approach between both a Language Improvement and a Methodology component
can play a crucial role in the successful implementation of the communicative approach in L2
contexts.
Ce travail e´tudie les besoins linguistiques des futurs professeurs de seconde langue dans les
programmes des professeurs des e´coles. Pour ce faire, un questionnaire a e´te´ e´labore´ et administre´
a` un total de70 e´le`ves de premie`re, seconde et troisie`me anne´e de formation des professeurs a`
l’Universite´ des Iˆles Bale´ares.
Le questionaire aspirait a` obtenir l’opinion des e´tudiants au sujet de: a) Qualite´s des professeurs
de L2; b) Pertinence de la composante me´thodologique, the´orique, et de Formation Linguistique
dans les curricula (programmes) de ces e´tudes; c) Perception de l’autorite´ de la langue anglaise et
d) Utilisaton potentielle de la langue anglaise en classe dans le futur.
Les re´sultats confirment l’importance de l’inclusion d’une composante de Formation
Linguistique dans le curricula des e´tudes de professeurs pour mieux re´pondre aux besoins des
futurs professeurs et, en conse´quence, les aider a` s’adapter aux nouvelles exigences mises en place
par l’approche communicative.
*Department of Spanish, Modern and Latin Philology (English Philology), University of the
Balearic Islands, Edificio Beatriu de Pino´s Campus Universitario, Cra. de Valldemossa, Km 7.5,
07122 Palma de Mallorca (Baleares), Spain. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0261-9768 (print)/ISSN 1469-5928 (online)/07/010063-11
# 2007 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
DOI: 10.1080/02619760601120007
64 M. Amengual-Pizarro
Les re´sultats sugge`rent aussi qu’une approche plus e´quilibre´e entre les composantes
me´thodologique et de Formation Linguistique peut jouer un roˆle capital dans la mise en oeuvre
de l’approche communicative dans le contexte de L2
Este estudio investiga las necesidades lingu¨´ısticas de los futuros profesores de segundas
lenguas en los programas de formacio´n del profesorado de primaria. Para ello se elaboro´ un
cuestionario y se administro´ a un total de 70 alumnos de primer, segundo y tercer curso de
magisterio en la Universitat de les Illes Balears. El cuestionario pretendı´a recoger la opinio´n de los
estudiantes sobre los siguientes aspectos: a) cualidades del profesorado de segundas lenguas; b)
relevancia del componente Metodolo´gico, Teo´rico y de Formacio´n Lingu¨´ıstica en los programas
de formacio´n del profesorado; c) presunto dominio de la lengua inglesa y d) uso potencial del
ingle´s en clases futuras. Los resultados del estudio demuestran la importancia de incluir un
componente de Formacio´n Lingu¨´ıstica en los cursos de formacio´n del profesorado de magisterio
para poder responder mejor a las necesidades del futuro profesorado de primaria de modo que
puedan enfrentarse a las nuevas exigencias planteadas por el enfoque comunicativo. Los resultados
del estudio tambie´n sugieren que un balance equilibrado entre los componentes Metodolo´gicos y
de Formacio´n Lingu¨´ıstica puede desempen˜ar un papel primordial en la implementacio´n efectiva
del enfoque comunicativo en el contexto de segundas lenguas.
In der folgenden Untersuchung werden die Sprachbedu¨ rfnisse der auszubildenden
Fremdsprachenlehrer der Primarstufe ermittelt. Dafu¨r wurde einen Fragekatalog entwickelt, der
von 70 Studenten im ersten, zweiten und dritten Jahr des Lehrerstudiums an der Universita¨t der
Balearen ausgefu¨llt wurde. Das Ziel der Befragung war, die Meinung der Studenten u¨ber folgende
Aspekte ihrer Ausbildung zu erfahren: a) Fa¨higkeiten der Fremdsprachenlehre; b) Bewertung der
methodologischen, theoretischen und sprachlichen Inhalte in der Lehrerausbildung; c)
Einscha¨tzung u¨ber die Beherrschung des Englischen und d) Mo¨glichkeiten u¨ber den Gebrauch
des Englischen im zuku¨nftigen Unterricht.
Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen die Notwendigkeit einer sprachlichen Weiterbildung der
Lehrer wa¨hrend des Studiums, damit sie auf die zuku¨nftigen Anforderungen der kommunikativen
Methode in ihrer Lehrerta¨tigkeit besser reagieren ko¨nnen.
Die Ergebnisse deuten auch darauf, dass das Gleichgewicht zwischen methodologischen
Inhalten und sprachlicher Fortbildung eine zentralle Rolle in der effektiven Umsetzung der
kommunikativen Methode im Fremdsprachenunterricht spielen kann.
Introduction
In recent years, communicative methodology has greatly influenced second language
education. This pedagogical orientation recognizes the importance of classroom
communication and discussion. Therefore, the ability to communicate in the second
language has become the explicit goal of most teaching programmes. Although
communicative methodology has worked well with English native teachers, the
emphasis on communicative competence has created new demands for the L2
teacher since the language being taught is both the end and the medium of
instruction. The question now remains whether L2 teachers’ English language skills
are sufficient to enable them to cope with the demands of the communicative
approach. In other words, are L2 teachers using English as a genuine vehicle for
New challenges second-language teachers face 65
communication? Marton (1988, p. 47), for example, explains that this new approach
to language teaching has focused more attention on linguistic accuracy. According to
him, the communicative approach requires teachers at a high level of proficiency
who are prepared to deal with any linguistic emergency. This has given rise to
´ rva & Medgyes, 2000; Elder, 2001;
concerns about L2 teachers’ proficiency (A
Edelenbos and Kubanek-German, 2004). Medgyes (1999, p. 184) also highlights
the importance of L2 teachers’ (high) proficiency in English and states:
an EFL teacher with faulty English may be compared to a music teacher who can play
no musical instrument and sings out of tune, or a gym teacher who is grossly overweight
and too clumsy to catch a ball. (Medgyes, 1999, p. 184)
Although the issue of language proficiency is one of the greatest challenges L2
teachers have to face in the classroom, most contemporary research has paid little
attention to the specific linguistic needs of those teachers. Furthermore, the
relevance of a language improvement component in teacher training courses for
intending L2 language teachers has often been underestimated. Berry (1990), for
example, points out that the language level of L2 teachers is often taken for granted
even though most modern language teachers are aware of their language deficits and
feel a real need for improving their English language proficiency. Yet, Nicholas
(1993) claims that the language training which the teachers have received in their
teacher training studies does not equip them with either the discourse or pragmatic
competence necessary to cope with classroom communication. Therefore, an
inadequate level of English proficiency may be one reason why L2 teachers are
reluctant to implement the communicative approach.
It is important to stress here that we are not stating that a teacher’s ability to
speak in the L2 is the most important quality to be considered in teacher
education programmes. In fact, Seidlhofer (1996, p. 69) advises us against the
danger of an automatic extrapolation from competent speaker to competent
teacher based solely on linguistic grounds. However, we believe it is not
unreasonable to aim towards higher levels of L2 proficiency to enable prospective
teachers to meet their own communicative needs so as to be able to function
professionally in English.
Furthermore, according to Haritos (2004) a ‘lack of fit’ between prospective
teachers’ needs, on the one hand, and the demands of their academic environment
on the other hand, can lead to stress, frustration, anxiety and reduced personal
accomplishment. Reves and Medgyes (1994) also claim that the realization of L2
teachers’ limitations in the use of English might influence their self-perception and
teaching attitudes in a negative way. According to these authors, the higher the L2
teacher proficiency level in English, the less self-conscious, hesitant and insecure
s/he will be (Reves & Medgyes, 1994, p. 364). Supporting these findings, numerous
researchers report close links among self-confidence, proficiency and foreign
language anxiety. Thus, it seems that L2 teachers with a high level of English
proficiency appear to be more confident and tend to experience less anxiety than L2
teachers with a faulty command of English. The results of most studies on different
skill areas suggest that oral classroom activities are the most problematic and
66 M. Amengual-Pizarro
anxiety-provoking for foreign language learners (Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Matsuda & Gobel, 2004). Although
findings to date have yielded somewhat conflicting results, research also indicates
that anxiety levels toward speaking a foreign language are notably lower as
proficiency and training increase (Gardner et al., 1977). Therefore, efforts have to be
made to improve the English proficiency level of L2 teachers as far as possible so as
to help them to boost their own self-confidence.
But how can teacher educators respond to the new demands set by the
communicative approach? Since the communicative approach requires orally
proficient teachers, Richards (1990) and Nunan (1991) take the view that teacher
preparation should include instruction and practice in the oral proficiency needed
by teachers. In addition, Grant (1997, p. 38) points out that: Teachers should be
evaluated for their abilities to use the kind of language they will need to control in the
classroom. This practice would ensure better trained teachers who would
demonstrate by means of coursework and by test performance that they have
the teaching language proficiency to do the job (Grant, 1997). Thus, if the
pedagogy of teacher education is to prepare future teachers to function
competently and professionally in English, it seems reasonable to suggest that
we need to address both the L2 teachers’ language needs as well as their pedagogic
skills.
Berry (1990, p. 99) cites numerous reasons why the language level of L2 teachers
is important. He claims that language improvement is a valid aim of teacher training
since it:
N
N
N
increases teacher confidence;
facilitates the use of the target language in the classroom and;
widens the choice of methodology.
The aim of this paper is to investigate prospective teachers’ concerns and teachers’
role beliefs and examine the relationship between such concerns and beliefs and the
relevance of a language improvement component in teacher training programmes.
More specifically, this study attempts to capture the subjects’ views through a
questionnaire on the following aspects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What did prospective teachers consider to be the most important L2 teachers’
qualities?
What did they think about the presence of a language improvement component in
their training courses?
What was their perceived level of English proficiency?
How much English would they use in their future classes?
Questionnaire
A questionnaire (see Appendix) was constructed to gather prospective teachers’
feedback on these four issues. The questionnaire comprised four main sections with
various closed-ended questions which elicited answers from among a number of
New challenges second-language teachers face 67
options given to the respondent. Respondents were asked to judge their views on a
five-point Likert scale with 5 indicating a positive response (i.e. most important,
excellent or a lot), 3 indicating a neutral response (i.e. neither least important nor
most important, neither poor nor excellent and neither very little nor very much) and
1 indicating a negative response (i.e. least important, poor and very little).
The questionnaire was administered in the first semester of the 2004 academic
year under the supervision of the instructors. To increase the reliability of the data
collected, respondents were told specifically not to write their names.
Subjects
Participants in this study included 28 first-year students, 21 second-year students
and 30 third-year students (n- 79) in the teaching training school at the University of
the Balearic Islands (UIB). All of the respondents planned to be language teachers.
Questionnaire results
The first section of the questionnaire included ten statements which attempted to
obtain prospective teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of the most important L2
teachers’ qualities. Respondents were asked to rank the statements in order of
importance using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 15least important to
55most important. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. The figures
reported indicate mean responses.
As can be seen from Table 1, the three top most important ESL teachers’ qualities
cited by participants included humanistic qualities of being a teacher (Mahlios &
Maxson 1995) such as: ‘he/she is interested in his/her students’ and tries to help
when possible (statement 4), as well as didactic qualities such as: ‘he/she explains
concepts clearly’ (statement 2) and ‘he/she makes his/her lessons interesting’
Table 1. Descriptive statistics: teacher qualities.
N
1. He/She shows great patience
2. He/She explains concepts clearly
3. He/She is friendly and has a sense of
humour
4. He/She is interested in his/her students and
is helpful
5. He/She has a wide subject knowledge
6. He/She makes his/her lessons interesting
7. He/She speaks good English
8. He/She is able to maintain discipline and
order
9. He/She makes all the students participate
10. He/She has a good pronunciation
Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Dv.
79
79
79
2
3
1
5
5
5
3.97
4.53
3.68
0.84
0.63
1.04
79
1
5
4.59
0.74
78
79
79
79
2
2
1
2
5
5
5
5
4.37
4.49
4.41
3.91
0.75
0.73
0.74
0.70
79
79
1
1
5
5
4.00
4.34
0.87
0.78
68 M. Amengual-Pizarro
(statement 6). On the whole, those items seem to be closely related to the
methodology component or the HOW of language teaching (Berry, 1990).
However, statements concerning cognitive abilities and language improvement such
as statement 7 (‘he/she speaks good English’) or statement 5 (‘he/she possesses
subject matter knowledge’) were also considered to be relevant since they were
placed fourth and fifth in order of importance. Likewise, the quality of having a
‘good pronunciation’ (statement 10) was rated high on the scale. In fact, the latter
was given more importance than other qualities related to classroom management such
as ‘he/she makes all the students participate’ (statement 9) or control of the
classroom such as: ‘he/she is able to maintain discipline and order’ (statement 8).
Personality traits of the teacher such as ‘he/she is friendly and has a sense of humour’
(statement 3) were also mentioned but received less weight in the subjects’ answers.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the average mean response of all the
statements is above three points on a five-point scale. These results reveal a great
measure of consensus of high rating among student teachers and, therefore, indicate
that nearly all the cited qualities were perceived to be relevant to the demands of
their job.
The second section of the questionnaire asked student teachers to rank the
following three components, namely, methodology, theory and language improvement
on a five-point Likert scale (i.e. 15least important to 55most important) according
to what they thought they needed most. As can be seen from the data (Table 2),
methodology involving activities such as teaching observation and practice is given
primary importance. However, it is interesting to note that language improvement
holds off theory, this latter aspect being ranked in the last position.
From these results, it is apparent that student teachers consider that both the
methodology component (i.e. the HOW of language teaching) and the language
improvement component designed to improve their level of English proficiency play a
key role in teacher training courses. In contrast, the theory component dealing with
theories of language, learning and teaching (i.e. the WHY of language teaching)
(Berry, 1990) is regarded as less necessary, probably due to the fact that teacher
training has suffered from too great emphasis on theory at the expense of pedagogic
practice.
Student teachers’ opinions of their perceived level of English proficiency was
sought through another question (section 3 of the questionnaire) which asked
respondents to rate their command of English on a five-point Likert scale (15poor;
25marginal; 35fair; 45good and 55excellent). Results are summarised in Table 3
below.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics: components in teacher training programmes.
Methodology
Language improvement
Theory
N
Range
79
79
79
4
3
3
Minimum Maximum
1
2
2
5
5
5
Mean
Std. Dv.
4.39
4.19
3.54
0.81
0.77
0.80
New challenges second-language teachers face 69
As it can be seen, none of the student teachers admitted to having a poor command
of the language to be taught. This came as no surprise since it has been observed that
L2 language learners often overestimate their proficiency (Gardner et al., 1977).
However, it is interesting to note that student teachers consider that their command
of the so-called productive skills, that is, speaking and writing is on average less than
good (x¯53.32 and x¯53.37 respectively). The fact that speaking was marked as the
most common problem area should concern us since efficient classroom delivery
needs orally proficient teachers who can serve as good models of the language. In
fact, poor language skills will make a L2 teacher’s job quite difficult within
communicative methodology.
Although receptive skills (i.e. reading and listening) are rated slightly higher on the
scale (x¯54.01 and x¯53.85 respectively), results are relatively modest overall.
Therefore, we should really consider whether the student teachers’ command of
English is meeting the standards set by the communicative approach.
The last issue explored in the fourth section of the questionnaire (section 4)
concerns the amount of English that students, as prospective teachers of English,
would use in their future classes. Again, participants were asked to rate this matter
on a five-Likert point scale (15very little; 25little; 35neither too little nor too
much; 45quite a lot and 55a lot). Results are shown in Figure 1 below.
As might be observed, there seems to be a great deal of consensus among students
on this point since the bulk of the answers were gathered around quite a lot (43, 84
%) or a lot (41, 1 %). Only 13, 7 % of the student teachers gave a neutral response
and did not feel it necessary to speak neither too little nor too much English in class.
There were no negative responses.
At one level, these last results might appear reassuring. However, the results
looked at, in another way, might have disconcerting implications for the teaching of
English since we should be reminded that participants reported that their command
of the spoken L2 was thought to be on average less than good (section 3 above). The
question, therefore, remains whether student teachers’ English is good enough to
provide reliable input for young learners. The results of this study are in accordance
with those of Reves and Medgyes’s (1994) who point out L2 teachers’ reluctance to
accept any hindering effect on their teaching caused by their language difficulties.
Reves and Medgyes (1994, p. 363) suggest three possible interpretations on account
of these results:
Table 3. Descriptive statistics: perceived level of English.
N
1. My ability to
2. My ability to
3. My ability to
English is…
4. My ability to
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dv.
speak English is…
understand English is…
comprehend written
79
79
79
2
2
3
5
5
5
3.32
3.85
4.01
0.67
0.64
0.49
write in English is…
79
1
5
3.37
0.58
70 M. Amengual-Pizarro
Figure 1. Use of English in class.
Firstly, it may be that this majority speak English at a level high enough not to
encounter serious linguistic problems; in view of the long list of language difficulties
claimed by respondents, this does not appear to be a plausible argument. Secondly,
they may not have reflected upon the possible harm caused by deficient knowledge
of English. Thirdly, they may have assumed that language proficiency was not a
cardinal factor in terms of teaching efficacy.
The last section of the questionnaire (section 4) included a sub-section (4.1) to be
completed in case responses to section 4 had been negative (i.e. 1 or 2), or neutral
(i.e. 3). This sub-section contained four statements to find out the reasons given by
student teachers for not using English in their future classes. There were only 16
respondents. The most frequently mentioned reasons for this were that they thought
that: ‘it is not possible, even with the use of gesture, body language, facial
expressions etc. to communicate clearly in English with beginners’ (8 respondents
out of 16). Next followed: ‘I think I need to improve my speaking’ (7 respondents
out of 16). This last statement points to the fact that some student teachers seem to
be aware of the problems that emerge from their deficient command of English.
Indeed, it may be reasonable to assume that the limitations in the use of English may
contribute to an overuse of L1 in the classroom.
Surprisingly, one respondent out of 16 did not perceive the importance of using
English in the classroom. Although no arguments were put forward to justify this
choice, s/he might have assumed that language proficiency was not a key factor for
successful teaching. Also, it may well be that teaching in crowded classes, as happens
New challenges second-language teachers face 71
in most primary schools, allows teachers to conduct their lessons in L1 or at a level
just above that of the L2 primary students’ level so that teachers do not feel a real
need for the use of English in the classroom.
Conclusion
There are several broad implications that can be taken from this study with regard to
language improvement. The results obtained indicate that, in general, prospective
teachers consider that an adequate combination of both a language improvement and
a methodology component should play a crucial role in teacher training programmes
(see Tables 1 and 2). The data also reveal that prospective teachers seem to be selfconscious about their deficient command of English, since they report that their
speaking, writing and listening English proficiency is thought to be on average less
than good (see Table 3). In fact, almost half of the respondents admitted that their
limited knowledge of English was the main reason for their unwillingness to use
English in future classes (sub-section 4.1 of the questionnaire). The fact that
speaking is marked as the most critical problem area should be some cause for
concern, since a poor command of oral skills is incompatible with the successful
implementation of the communicative approach.
Despite their English language deficiencies, prospective teachers seem to have, on
the whole, a highly favourable opinion of the value of using English for
communication in the classroom. The majority of them (84, 94 %, see Fig. 1.)
responded that they would use either quite a lot or a lot of English in class. However,
the question remains whether student teachers’ English ability is sufficient to use it
as the medium of classroom instruction and thus face the new challenge set by
communicative language teaching.
On the basis of these findings, it is clear that teacher educators should require
prospective teachers to meet a certain minimum standard of language ability in
order to determine their fitness as teachers of English. By stressing student
teachers’ language handicaps, we are not claiming that pedagogic skills are
unimportant. Rather, this study suggests that L2 teacher preparation programmes
should include a more balanced approach between both: a methodology and a
language improvement component. The standards set would not only affect the
quality of English used in class but would also generate a more positive attitude
towards the fundamentals of the communicative approach and its implementation in
the classroom. As Grant (1997, p. 40) points out, future teachers need the
opportunity to learn and put into practice the language abilities that they will draw
on in the classroom.
Of course further studies on the teachers’ use of language in the classroom as well
as analyses of speech and writing samples would help shed some light on the
language proficiency needed by L2 teachers in order to promote better teaching.
Nevertheless, only through understanding prospective teachers’ learning needs as
well as their language needs and concerns will teacher educators be able to improve
teacher education programmes.
72 M. Amengual-Pizarro
Notes on author
Marian Amengual-Pizarro currently holds the post of lecturer in the Department of
Spanish, Modern and Latin Philology (English Philology) at the University of the
Balearic Islands. Her research has been mainly in the areas of testing and the
teaching of English as a foreign language. She is the author of numerous articles
and is also member of the editorial board of e-resla journal.
References
´ rva, V. & Medgyes, P. (2000) Native and non-native teachers in the classroom, System, 28,
A
355–372.
Berry, R. (1990) The role of language improvement in in-service teacher training: killing two birds
with one stone, System, 18(1), 97–105.
Edelenbos, P. & Kubanek-German, A. (2004) Teacher assessment: the concept of ‘diagnostic
competence’, Language Testing, 21(3), 259–283.
Elder, C. (2001) Assessing the language proficiency of teachers: are there any border controls?,
Language Testing, 18(2), 149–170.
Gardner, R., Smythe, P. C. & Cle´ment, R. (1977) Intensive second language study: effects on
attitudes, motivation and French achievement, Language Leaning, 27, 243–21.
Grant, L. (1997) Testing the language proficiency of bilingual teachers: Arizona’s Spanish
proficiency test, Language Testing, 14(1), 23–46.
Haritos, C. (2004) Understanding teaching through the minds of teacher candidates: a curious
blend of realism and idealism, Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 637–654.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. A. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety, Modern
Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. (1991) Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to
processing in native and second languages, Language Learning, 41, 513–534.
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. (1994) The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive
processing in computerized vocabulary learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,
1–17.
Mahlios, M. & Maxson, M. (1995) Capturing preservice teachers’ beliefs about schooling, life and
childhood, Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 192–199.
Marton, W. (1988) Methods in English Language Teaching (New York, Prentice Hall).
Matsuda, S. & Gobel, P. (2004) Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language
classroom, System, 32, 21–36.
Medgyes, P. (1999) Language training: A neglected area in teacher education, in: G. Braine (Ed.)
Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), 177–195.
Nicholas, H. (1993) Languages at the crossroads; the report of the national enquiry into the employment
and supply of teachers of languages other than English (Victoria, National Language and
Literacy Institute of Australia).
Nunan, D. (1991) Language teaching methodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
Richards, J. (1990) The Language teaching matrix (New York, Cambridge University Press).
Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. (1994) The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image:
an international survey, System, 22, 353–367.
Seidlhofer, B. (1996) If is an undulating feeling: the importance of being a non-native teacher of
English, Views, (5), 63–80.
New challenges second-language teachers face 73
Appendix
TEACHER TRAINING
AGE:
SEX:
Female %
Male %
1. What is your first language? __________________________________________
2. Where did you learn English? _________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 1. Look at the following ESL teacher’s qualities and rank them in order of
importance (15least important; 55most important):
1.
He/She shows great patience
1
2
3
4
5
2.
He/She explains concepts clearly
1
2
3
4
5
3.
He/She is friendly and has a sense of humour
1
2
3
4
5
4.
He/She is interested in his/her students and tries 1
2
3
4
5
to help where possible
5.
He/She possesses subject matter knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6.
He/She makes his/her lessons interesting
1
2
3
4
5
7.
He/She speaks good English
1
2
3
4
5
8.
He/She is able to maintain discipline and order
1
2
3
4
5
9.
He/She makes all the students participate
1
2
3
4
5
10.
He/She has a good pronunciation
1
2
3
4
5
SECTION 2. Which of these three elements below do you think you need most?
place them in order of importance (15least important; 55most important):
1.
METHODOLOGY
1
2
3
4
(i.e. teaching observation and practice)
2.
THEORY
1
2
3
4
(i.e. theories of language, learning and teaching)
3.
LANGUAGE IMPROVEMENT
1
2
3
4
(i.e. improvement of general English proficiency and/or
classroom specific language)
Please,
5
5
5
SECTION 3. Indicate your feelings about the following statements using the scale below.
Please circle your choice.
Poor (1)
Marginal (2)
Fair (3)
Good (4)
Excellent (5)
My
My
My
My
ability
ability
ability
ability
to
to
to
to
speak English is:
understand English is:
comprehend written English is:
write in English is:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
SECTION 4. As a teacher of English, how much English would you speak in class? Please
circle your choice
Very little (1) Little (2) Neither too little nor too much (3) Quite a lot (4)
A lot (5)
4.1. If very little, little or neither too little nor too much why is it so? Please, tick one of
the following choices:
1.
2.
I think I need to improve my speaking
It is not possible, even with the use of gesture, body language, facial
expressions, etc. to communicate clearly in English with beginners.
3.
I do not consider it necessary for a teacher to use mostly English in the
classroom.
4.
Other
Specify________________________________________________________________
Many thanks!
%
%
%
%