English Teacher Education: The Need for a New Perspective

The paper explores the drawbacks that may arise from an excessive emphasis on either teacher education or teacher training in the syllabus of the future English language teacher. Then it analyses the present limitations in the teaching practice within the E.U. del Profesorado de E.G.B. and how some of the existing problems might be overeóme. When we design the syllabus for future English language teachers there are some problems which must be faced inexorably and to which there are no clear-cut solutions. Widdowson's dichotomy between teacher training and teacher education does not help us much. It is obvious that we cannot opt only for training, as preparation for «the achievement of a range of outeomes which are specified in advance» (62) is not advisable in a field where evolution flourishes, because, as Widdowson puts it, «this involves the acquisition of goal-oriented behaviour which is more or less formulaic in character and whose capacity for accommodation to novelty is, therefore, very limited» (62). Education, however, seems more adequate, for it focuses «not on the application of ready-made problem-solving techniques but on the critical appraisal of the relationship between problem and solution as a matter of continuum inquiry and of adaptable practice» (Widdowson 62). So it would seem advisable to back what is considered a «holistic approach» to teacher education such as Larson-Freeman advocates, instead of siding with Fanselow and his «competeney-based approach.» Nevertheless, we cannot avoid including a part of the syllabus oriented to provide students with some training, because «critical appraisal» without the acquisition of some skills and techniques is not enough to face a classroom of English learners, and in English teaching there are a number of situations which can be predicted. The knowledge of skills and techniques linked to the carrying out of certain tasks necessary for the performance of the job of teaching will help the new teacher when he begins his teaching career, and compénsate for his lack of any real teaching experience. A competent teacher falls back on his stock of experience where repeated situations form a predictable pattern. It would seem that skill-acquisition is necessary for the young teacher in order to balance his lack of experience. This might be one reason for postponing some aspeets 72 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses of teacher education until future in-service training. This is a somewhat risky decisión to take, for we cannot equate experience in actual teaching with the acquisition of the skills considered necessary for teaching, ñor can education, viewed as «critical appraisal,» be left for a time when the teacher has become set in certain teaching habits which he is not equipped to evalúate critically. So most syllabus designers opt for a compromise and try to find a balance between the education or holistic approach and the training or competency-based approach. This is what Martha C. Pennington proposes as a conceptual bridge between the two extremes, which she calis «professional teacher preparation» and which has «as goals the development of an extensive repertoire of classroom skills and the judgment to apply these skills as needed» (134). Initial training or education must be as extensive as possible and it is undoubtedly influenced by the tendencies of the moment. Afterwards it can be assumed that most teachers will then develop their professional activity for a long period of time; in the meanwhüe approaches to teaching may change, and actual teaching conditions or social context can also vary. Of course pre-service training does not have to be considered as final and unique, as nowadays opportunities for in-service training are increasing, for it is viewed as a necessity. Nevertheless, initial education cannot count on future retraining to cope with deficiencies acquired at the beginning. In a changing world, where tendencies in theories and practice are not considered definite in any way it is to be hoped that young teachers will be able to face changes with a flexible and critical attitude. So, when we teach methodology we must, on the one hand, face an ever growing programme, while on the other try to encourage in our teachers-to-be a flexible attitude with regard to the different needs, situations and approaches that the future almost certainly holds in store. The present moment with its emergent LOGSE is a good example of what I am saying, as the new law on education implies an important change in teaching. Another challenging choice which faces the syllabus designer involves finding the right balance between theory and practice. Initial training or education requires some instruction on theoretical subjects, which the trainees must obtain as students. At the same time part of what they need is not theoretical and must be obtained as skills, and in a more participatory way. All this can be introduced under the general heading of «methodology.» As Richards puts it: In second language teaching, teacher education programs typically include a knowledge base, drawn from linguistics and language learning theory, and a practical component, based on language teaching methodology and opportunity for practice teaching. (3) It is often impossible to alter the existing conditions for the practice of teacher trainees, as this involves agreements with other institutions, and which are beyond the power of the lecturer to arrange when he designs the syllabus for methodology. This happens to be my case. Our students, before they study methodology, have only been on a short visit to schools where they have learnt school organization and have been able to observe some classroom teaching. They have the opportunity to do some real teaching once they have finished the course on methodology. So, the subject is English Teacher Education 73 sandwiched between two practice periods, and there is no possibility of any teaching practice while they are studying methodology. This may not present a problem if theoretical teaching is our only concern, but it renders alternating lectures with teaching practice impossible. Their teaching practice is completely detached of their learning of methodology and on some occasions it becomes quite disconnected, since the schools they practice in have been selected by the Ministry of Education without our having had any say on how English is taught there. So they do their teaching practice in ordinary schools, not in a special type of demonstration schools, with specially appointed teachers. I have had direct experience of the result of such procedure when visiting students who were giving their practice classes. I saw them teaching in imitation of the English teacher in that school with a complete dependence from the textbook, or reverting to the type of teaching they had endured in the past. One conclusión I drew was that their methodology course (in which they had been examined) had had no influence whatsoever on their praxis. It confirmed my belief that, instead of limiting the transfer of instruction to the traditional type of lecture, which is eventually followed by a repetition of the contents by the student in writing, it was a better procedure to sequence theoretical explanations with practice. As I said before, this is not possible in the present system, so another solution had to be provided. In an attempt to avoid this situation I tried to link the practice period with methodology asking them to write a paper during their teaching practice, (a teaching diary, lesson plans, etc.). However, this was not enough to render their theoretical knowledge active, for in some cases the objectives stated at the beginning of the paper were contradicted by the procedures they said they had been using. This proyed that most of my teaching had been almost completely ineffectual and made me wonder why it had to be so and try to find an answer. I considered two possible reasons: A. This type of learning, which is so useless because it is quickly forgotten, and is unrelated to the practical side of teaching, could be explained by Ausubel's cognitive learning theory. He separates rote and meaningful learning. Rote learning does not allow the establishment of a meaningful relationship and it promotes the mental storage of new information that bears little or no association with other existing cognitive structures. In order to produce meaningful learning it is necessary to relate new material to relevant existing items in cognitive structures. It is then taken up into a more inclusive conceptual system and this will stay in long-term memory. My students' learning would come under rote learning. B. The lack of transfer of what they had learnt to their teaching practice might lie in their attitude towards teaching. It has been proved by current research that attitudes are essential for learning, and, subsequently, they can be even more important in learning how to teach. Attitudes, although they have a cognitive component, condition the perception of reality and provoke certain reactions, like rejection of schemata contrary to the beliefs the subject has. So in order to cope with the first problem the students had to learn in a more efficient mode, in such a way that learning would not only be retained but the knowledge acquired would be related to practical experience, ready to be used when it 74 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses became relevant. In other words, I had to try making the process of learning more