|
ÊñéôéêÝò ôïõ Üñèñïõ |
Identifying English
language teachers’ in-service training needs and wants
Dr.
Tsakiridou E. and Dr. Griva E.
Abstract
An educational system is not considered
complete if it does not provide frameworks and means for teachers’ continuing
education and training. Considering professional development as a systematic,
continuous, lifelong process from the early days of the teachers’ initial
education throughout their career (Widdowson, 1990; Lange, 1990; Wallace,
1993), teachers are in need of opportunities for continuing education in order
to “update their knowledge on their subject matter, to renew the teaching
methods” (Lawton, 1990). Teachers’ Training constitutes a process of
challenge for the development of their professional knowledge, skills, competence
and interests, a process of reinforcement and provision of opportunities, which
contributes to the familiarization with new educational – teaching methods and
techniques and to the change of their mentality, their attitudes, their roles
as teachers.
The present empirical study, which comprised
English language teachers of Primary Sector of Education, aimed at shedding
light on the current training provision for English language teachers in
1. Introduction
The
important changes that have been carried out in all sectors of education and
society, the role of English as an
international language of communication, the new methodological trends in English language teaching and the
current tendency of the exclusive use of target language in the classroom
(England, 1998) call for readjustments not only in the way of teaching and
learning, but also for changing teacher’s role.
English language occupies an important place in Greek education as the main foreign language and its considerable international status led the Greek government to include English in the primary school curriculum, in 1992, at fourth, fifth and sixth grade in public primary schools and at the third grade in 2004.
The introduction of English language teaching in Primary Education has raised new teaching demands. Furthermore, the cultural, socio-economic, linguistic and academic differentiations in the school population presuppose foreign language teachers’ ability to work with students of various needs, experiences and different cultural background, and with different linguistic competence both in the first language and foreign language (Tokatlidou, 1985). Consequently, the teachers’ need of acquiring a repertory of teaching strategies and tactics and the need of improving teaching skills has been increased.
In
order for a teacher of foreign languages to be effective, it is necessary to
possess a satisfactory level of linguistic competence, explicit language
teaching knowledge, teaching skills, knowledge of the culture of the country of
the target language and some basic elements of Pedagogy.
Through
a successful training programme, English language teachers have to be
“equipped” with:
-
That is, high level of competence
in the productive and receptive language skills.
-
Ability to use the language in real
situations (real life) not only for social but also for professional purposes.
-
Ability to comprehend and interact
both in the written as well as the oral speech with native speakers (Phillips,
1991).
-
Understanding of the social,
political and cultural reality of the states where the English language is
spoken.
-
Pedagogical knowledge and skills
related to the student’s development, the theories of learning and theories of
language learning, variety of the strategies for students’ development of
language competence (Guntermann, 1992).
-
Teaching skills for young learners.
-
Understanding of their new role, which
requires the teachers to be able to act as facilitators, guides, advisers and
not as experts.
-
Ability to use computers in
language teaching.
-
Familiarization with the principles of the innovative National
Curricula.
Thus, the policy makers and the training
planners should design INSET (In-Service Training), which aim at: a) better
teaching results, b) higher moral and better working conditions, c) meeting
teachers’ needs and d) contributing to the improvement of instruction for young
learners (Nunan, 1989; Akon, 1990).
2. Research Procedure
2.1. Rationale
and objectives
The absence of empirical studies related to the issue of English language teacher training in Greece, the obvious dissatisfaction, on behalf of the teachers for the training provision are the basic motives for conducting the particular research, which tried to identify teachers’ INSET needs and wants.
More precisely, the basic objectives of the research were the following:
-
To provide with some information about teachers’ in-service training
experience.
-
To elicit and record the participants’ evaluation of the current INSET
provision
-
To identify teachers’ INSET needs
and wants, concerning the content of
future INSET courses.
2.2 Sample
The study
covered the whole country, the 12 main geographical regions of Greece- both
urban and rural areas-, in order to obtain more comprehensive and valid data
and to draw more generalizations from the findings on the target population, as
the greater the coverage permitted by the survey, the valid the results will
be.
We used
stratified sampling: the prefecture was considered to be the basic “stratum”.
The sample consisted of 856 teachers, covering the 32% of the total population
(2.662) of primary school EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers in
314 (36,7%) of the participants had teaching
experience ranging from 6 to 10 years. 258 (30,1%) of the total number had
11-20 years of teaching experience, 244 (28,5%) had 0-5 years of teaching experience,
while the smallest number 40 (4,7%) of the total had over 20 years of teaching
experience.
With regard
to teaching area, 268 (31,3%) of the sample teach in
2.3.Measures
For
conducting this research we used the questionnaire as the basic
instrument, which was tested on its reliability and validity. The questionnaire
was divided into three sections:
The first section, entitled “personal details”, consisted of items related to personal details about EFL teachers’ level of qualification, teaching experience, current place of teaching.
The second section, entitled “INSET” provision”, consisted of questions related to teachers’ initial training, teachers’ in-service experience and the evaluation and usefulness of the attended courses.
The third section was concerned with “Future INSET needs” and it consisted of items related to teachers’ needs, concerning the content of INSET courses, which fell into four main categories: a. knowledge related to theoretical linguistics b. educational pedagogy c. teaching methodology d. techniques for teaching
In order to record teachers’ training needs concerning the content of a program, we proposed various statements classified into four basic areas:
- Knowledge areas related to Theoretical Linguistics
- Knowledge areas related to Pedagogy
- Knowledge areas related to Teaching Methodology
- Knowledge areas related to Teaching Techniques
The teachers were asked to select the degree of training needs concerning the above mentioned areas in a Likert type scale ranking between very much, enough, fairly, little, very little.
2.4.Statistical
analysis: The principal
component factor analysis was performed in each of the four items, mentioned
above, in order to classify every item in particular subgroups. To investigate
potential differences in teachers’ needs (in each subgroup) according to their
demographic characteristics (area, teaching experience, training experience,
evaluation of training experience, level of initial education), the techniques
of t-test and ANOVA were performed on standardized factor scores as dependent
variables.
3. Results
3.1. In-service experience
The questionnaire data indicated that 713 (83.3%) of the total number of EFL teachers attended INSET courses or seminars during their professional lives. However most of the teachers (69%) found the content of the current INSET courses irrelevant to their needs and they were not helped to improve their performance in their classrooms.
3.1.1. Usefulness of the attended courses
The content of the current courses and seminars does not reflect a concern for developing teachers’ skills in any aspect of language teaching. Most of the participants (73%) reported that the content and the practical arrangements of the INSET provision are not related or relevant to their INSET needs which cause the INSET provision to be unacceptable for them. The majority of EFL teachers (75%) expressed their dissatisfaction with the present content of INSET, which suggests that they would be willing to receive alternative types of INSET content. In this section, we will describe the expressed INSET needs as perceived by the teachers themselves.
Most of the teachers (76%) found that the current courses did not help them to improve or update their theoretical knowledge; moreover they found the same courses do not help in improving their teaching techniques in their classrooms.
3.2.Future INSET needs
3.2.1. INSET course content
Four main categories were established involving
theoretical linguistics, pedagogy, teaching methodology and teaching
techniques. These skills and areas of knowledge derived extremely from the
literature related to the professional preparation and development of EFL
teachers (
3.2.1.1.
Training needs concerning “Theoretical Linguistics”
A principal-component factor analysis, using
varimax rotation, was performed in order to examine whether the items (Language
system items, Branches of linguistics, Theories of language learning, Language
system items) conformed to the a priori classification. The values for the
three factors were 3.731, 1.531, and 1.348 respectively. A
principal-component factor analysis, using varimax rotation, was performed in
order to examine whether the items (statements) conformed to the a priori
classification.
Alpha coefficients reached acceptable levels for all three scales (90%, 91.5%, and 76.25%).
Insert
Table I about here
The Language system items factor, including 4 items, accounted for the 38.37% of the total variance, with loadings between 0.787 and 0.855. The Branches of linguistics factor, included 2 items, accounted for the 23.7% of the total variance, with loadings between 0.749 and 0.776. The Theories of language learning factor, including 2 items, accounted for the 20.5% of the total variance with loadings between 0.680 and 0.729.
Concerning the Language system items, the majority of the teachers declared that the need for training is not so high, as the higher percentages ranged from “little” to “very little”. Specifically, only 2.6% of the participants scored ranking “very much” for morphology, 4.7% for phonology, 3.5% for semantics, and 3.6% for syntax. There was a statistically significant difference in the needs in the “Language system items” between:
- The teachers who work in various areas (F4,754= 3.700 p<0.01); the teachers who work in urban areas showed less need than those working in rural areas.
- The teachers with different teaching experience (F3,755=8.377, p<0.001 ); the novice teachers, with 1 up to 5 years of working experience declared higher degree of necessity.
- The teachers, who evaluated their training experience in a positive way, gave more preference to get trained in the specific area (F2,608= 18.195, p<0.001).
Concerning the second factor Branches of linguistics, teachers indicated higher degree of need, as Psycholinguistics collected (41.2%) and Sociolinguistics (42.8%), meanwhile an important percentage of participants gave mediocre percentages in term of training needed: Psycholinguistics 22.5% and Sociolinguistics 25%. There was a statistically significant difference in the needs in “Branches of linguistics” between the teachers who have in –service training experience (t = 4.028,df = 739, p<0.001) and those who have not, as this group of teachers declared higher degree of necessity for attending training programs.
It is worth mentioning that concerning the Theories of language learning, the majority of the teachers declared that the need for training is not so high, as the higher percentages range from “little” to “very little”. Specifically, 4% of the participants scored ranking “very much” for “First language acquisition”, and 6.5% of the participants scored ranking “very much”.
There was a statistically significant difference in the needs in the Theories of language learning between:
- The teachers who work in different areas (F4,754 = 3.385 p<0.01); the teachers who work in rural areas showed more interesting in receiving training in the specific sector.
- The teachers with different experience in “ELT methodology”, during their initial education (F2,756 = 4.502, p<0.05)
-
The teachers who
evaluate in a different way their training experience (F2,608 =
7.259, p<0.05); The teachers who are not satisfied with their in-service
training experience expressed higher degree of need in theories of language
learning.
3.2.1.2. Training needs concerning “General
Pedagogy”
Using the specific statement, we aimed at recording teachers’ needs in General Education. The following factors resulted from the principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation: a. Educational Pedagogy b. Branches of Educational Studies accounting for the 60.9% of the total variance.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached acceptable
levels for both scales (84.5%, 78.7%).
Insert
Table II about here
The “Educational Pedagogy” factor, including 4 items, accounted the 31.06% of the total variance, with loading between 0.736 and 0.857.
The majority of the teachers viewed great training need in Items related to Educational Pedagogy: Pedagogic 41.4%, Educational Psychology 40.5%, Theories of learning 32%, General didactics 25.7%. Teachers’ needs differentiated depending on a) the area teachers work (F4,754= 3.054 p<0.05); those who work in semi-urban and rural areas declared higher degree of training need, b) on their training experience (t = 2.342,df = 739, p<0.001); those who did not attend training courses declared higher degree of training need, c) on the evaluation of their training experience(F2,607 = 6.178, p<0.005), d) on their initial education (F2,747 = 16.995, p<0.001).
The Branches of Educational Studies factor,
including 5 items, accounted the 29,81% of the total variance, with loading
between 0.607 and 0.858.
The majority of the participants declared that they need training, concerning the Branches of Educational Studies, at a high enough degree in Multicultural Education (43%) and Educational Research (39.1%). On the other hand teachers rated the rest of the items with lower percentages and scored a mediocre degree of need for School management (36.7%), Evaluation and Assessment (36.7%) and Curriculum design (31.1%).
Statistically, there were significant differences between the teachers who work in rural schools and those in big urban areas (F4,754= 4.300 p<0.005) in regard to the need in in-service courses, between novice teachers and the rest (F3,746= 5.679 p<0.005); the teachers with up to 5 year working experience rated higher percentages in training needs in the Branches of Educational Studies. Moreover there were significant differences between a) the teachers having no in-service training experience, who declared greater need in training, (t = 2.003, df = 748, p<0.005), and those who attended training courses and b) between the teachers who had inadequate initial education in educational studies and the rest of the participants (F2,747= 8.320, p<0.001).
3.2.1.3.Training needs concerning “Teaching Methodology”
In order to record teachers’ needs concerning “Teaching Methodology”, we formed fourteen statements. Two factors resulted from the factorial analysis (principal components with varimax rotation): a) Methodological components b) Skills of teaching English to young learners, which accounted for 70% of the total variance.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached acceptable levels for both scales (89.7%, 94.2%)
Insert
Table III about here
The Methodological components factor, including 7 items, accounted the 35.75% of the total variance, with loading between 0.650 and 0.747.
Most of the teachers were in complete agreement in rating the majority of the methodological components with very high percentages: Motivation (57.2%), Teaching mixed – ability groups (69.7%), Pupils’ needs analysis (42.8%), Modern methodological trends (37.6%), Teaching young learners (53%), Lesson planning and preparation (29.2%), Design of authentic material (32.9%). In this way, a high number of participants stated that these items are important for their teaching practice and they showed very high preference in being trained in this sector.
Statistically, there were significant differences resulted from:
- The areas the teachers work (F4,754= 4.489 p<0.005); The teachers who work in rural and in semi urban areas declared higher needs than the rest of the participants.
- Working experience (F3,753= 3.784 p<0.05); The teachers who have working experience more than ten years showed greater need in training at the specific sector.
- The usefulness of the training experience (F2,636= 3.407, p<0.05); those who evaluate positively their training experience need training to a lesser degree.
- The initial education concerning the area of teaching methodology (F2,754= 42.693, p<0.001); The teachers who declare that they have deficiencies, from their initial education, in the specific field scored greater needs.
The “Skills of teaching English at primary sector” factor, including 7 items, accounted the 34.31 % of the total variance, with loading between 0.503 and 0.871.
It is worth mentioning that the great majority of teachers declared very high percentages of training need in the Skills of teaching English at primary sector.
More precisely, a considerable number of respondents (57.2%), ranking the scale “very much”, stated that they need to attend training courses, emphasing on teaching productive skills (writing and speaking) to primary school pupils. Moreover, an important percentage of participants (55.7%) declared that they need training in teaching receptive skills, and a great number of participants (52%) declared that they need training in teaching vocabulary. Furthermore, they stated a high training need in teaching pronunciation (37.7%), teaching grammar (31.8%), pupil assessment (28.3%) and test design (28.5%).
Statistically, there were significant differences resulting from:
- The areas the teachers work (F4,752 = 5.125 p<0.001). The teachers who work in rural and in semi-urban areas declared higher needs than the rest of the participants.
- Working experience (t = 2.474, df = 753, p<0.05). The teachers who have working experience more than ten years showed greater need in training at the specific sector.
- The initial education in relation to the area of teaching methodology (F2,754= 10.619, p<0.001). The teachers who declared that they have deficiencies, from their initial education, in the specific field scored greater needs.
3.2.1.4.Training needs concerning “Teaching
Techniques”
In order to record teachers’ needs in Teaching Methodology, twelve statements were formed. Two factors resulted from the factorial analysis a) Techniques for teaching specific skills b) Use of Technology in teaching English language, which accounted for 60.8% of the total variance.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached acceptable levels for both scales (91.9%, 84.8%).
Insert Table IV about here
The Techniques for teaching specific skills factor, including 9 items, accounted the 44,14% of the total variance, with loadings between 0.676 and 0.855.
It is worth mentioning that the data of the study indicated that a significant number of teachers need training in “Techniques for teaching specific skills”. Teachers’ preferences scored significant percentages on the rating “very much”. Concisely, the use of “dialogues” gathered 33.5%, “role-playing” 42.9%, “games” 46.7%, “stories” 45.1%, and “comics” 34.9%. Moreover, a significant number of participants scored high percentages on the rating “mediocre”. Concisely, the use of “dialogues” gathered 31.2%, “role-playing” 27.5%, “games” 25.4%, “stories” 28.4%, and “comics” 33.5%.
Statistically, there were significant differences resulted from:
- The area the teachers work (F4,754= 6.100 p<0.001). The teachers who work in rural areas declared higher needs than those working in big urban areas.
- Working experience (F3,757= 6.921 p<0.001). The teachers who have not had any working experience more than twenty years showed greater need in training at the specific sector.
- Training experience (t = 2.247, df = 753, p<0.05). The teachers who had no training experience declared higher needs than the rest of the participants.
- The initial education concerning the area of teaching methodology (F2,758 = 37.186, p<0.001). The teachers who declared that they have deficiencies from their initial education, in the specific field, scored higher percentages for training need.
The Use of Technology in teaching English language factor, including 3 items, accounted the 28.62% of the total variance, with loading between 0.604 and 0.661.
In the vast majority (78%) the teachers stated that they need training in technology use, as the scales “mediocre” and “very much” gathered high percentages.
Statistically, there were significant differences resulted from:
- The area the teachers work (F4,754 = 4.300 p<0.005). The teachers who work in rural and semi-urban areas declared higher needs than those working in big urban areas.
- The initial education regarding the area of teaching methodology (F2,758 = 5.229, p<0.001).
- The teachers who declared that they have deficiencies from their initial education, in teaching methodology, scored higher percentages for training need.
On the other hand, there were no significant differences among the teachers who have different working experience and among the teachers who evaluate their training experience in different ways.
4. Discussion
The results showed that the majority of the participants declared dissatisfaction and insufficiency in regard to their pre-service preparation, not only in the field of foreign language teaching methodology to young learners, but also in the field of pedagogy, while the picture is different concerning their pre-service training as far as theoretical linguistics and teaching methodology are concerned.
Moreover, there is a high degree of consensus in teachers’ perception that training is needed in the cluster of items related to teaching methodology, which, however, does not have exclusively theoretical character, and is not cut off from teachers’ working place, but will include extensively practical applications with the support of modern teaching material; this may mean that teachers prefer practical-oriented and skill-based training rather than theoretical. The high ratings given to English language teaching methodology may be due to the fact that EFL teachers received insufficient initial education in the specific field and due to the recent development in language teaching methods. The teachers perceive these teaching skills as basic components of the effective teaching practice and basic prerequisite to develop and implement modern language teaching techniques. They felt that theoretical training brings little change to their teaching practices in the classroom (Ellis, 1986; Richards, 1990; Wallace, 1991), as training should be a practical process, directly applicable to the teaching context (Duff, 1988).
They had a marked preference for continuous
briefing on issues involving modern teaching methods and approaches, basic
elements of pedagogy, and guidance on everyday educational and teaching
problems and on new teaching tendencies in order for them be able to implement
new approaches and techniques (Hawley êáé Valli, 1999), as the
effectiveness of a foreign language teacher depends on “the specialization on
both techniques and language teaching methods” (Witkins, 1981:53).
More precisely, they stated the demand for teachers’ renewal concerning the areas of pedagogy, ELT teaching methodology for primary school pupils giving priority to the skills of teaching to heterogeneous groups, teaching of productive skills, teaching of receptive skills, teaching of vocabulary, using of role playing – games - stories as well computer technology, assessing techniques and teaching children with special needs.
The teachers asked for being trained in these sectors in order:
a) To familiarize
themselves with the group/pair work teaching, which contributes greatly both to
the linguistic-communication and social development.
b) To acquire knowledge about planning
communicative activities, such as role-playing and songs aiming at a more
creative use of language. The children need to be occupied
with different things that alternate relatively fast, because they cannot focus
their attention on an activity for a long time; children like discussing,
playing, singing and role-playing during the lesson. They learn participating
actively in procedures assimilating reality, that is why the trainees should
get acquainted with a variety of pleasant activities, which will help the
pupils to develop reading, writing, listening and speaking skills and sub skills.
c) To familirise
themselves with various techniques enabling them to get over any problems
related to mixed-ability language classes, which is a common phenomenon in
Greek school reality.
5. Suggestions for the content and the
methodology of a training programme
The content of the program is determined from a combination of the teachers’ individually felt needs (“subjective needs”), the actual educational needs (“objective needs”) (Nunan, 1988; West, 1994) and the teacher training models presented by Nunan (1993) and Wallace (1993).
The present programme, which is composed of two interrelated stages, a theoretical and a practical one, provides opportunities for teachers to practice and develop the skills necessary for successful implementation of course ideas.
Both theory and practice are of crucial importance for language teacher education (Stern and Stevens, 1983). Theory forms the basis of background knowledge, which is predominantly received knowledge (Wallace, 1991) and provides a sound basis for making decisions in various areas of ELT (Stern, 1983; Brumfit, 1983). On the other hand, there is agreement (Wallace, 1991; Duff, 1988; Thomas, 1987) that practice needs to be based on theory and practice provides theory with a context and essential experience that assign meaning to it.
5.1. Theoretical stage
The main purpose of this phase is to
increase the EFL teachers’ theoretical knowledge by means of lectures,
demonstration, discussion and other learning modes (Ellis, 1986; Richards, 1990; Gebhard, 1990;
Wallace, 1991). Lecturing for instance would be used to transmit informational
content to the teachers and demonstrations would be the appropriate method to
demonstrate the skills or techniques in front of the teachers (Doff, 1988).
Moreover, EFL teachers would be given frequent opportunities to put the
knowledge they have learnt, into use (Tylor, 1983), as teaching tends to become
a practice – based profession (
The theoretical part comprises the following thematic sections:
English language teaching methodology: The teachers’ effectiveness depends on two factors: a) proficiency in the target language and b) knowledge and expertise in the techniques and methods of language teaching (Witkins, 1981). There is a need to increase teachers’ knowledge in the field of pedagogy and new teaching methods.
Pedagogy: The areas that attract teachers in
Curriculum: There is a need to modernise and
update teachers’ knowledge and skills concerning the National curricula.
Classroom
management: There
is a need to improve the teachers’ ability to control pupils effectively in the
classroom
Computers
- New Teaching aids:
There is a need to increase the teachers’ ability and knowledge in using
computers and other modern teaching aids.
Testing
techniques: There
is a need to acquaint teachers with new methods and techniques in the field of
assessing pupils’ work.
By the end of the theoretical stage, teachers would
be expected to have an adequate grasp of theoretical knowledge, which would
form the basis of their language teaching (
5.2.Practice stage
In this practice stage, the program requires teachers to “translate” what has been learnt during the theoretical stage directly into classroom teaching performance. This “teaching in action” or the “transference” of the theoretical knowledge into practice would involve improving teaching skills at two practical levels: a) the “ first phase of practice” and b) the “ main phase of practice” providing teachers with the opportunity to practise in both simulated and real teaching situations (Carr, 1993).
The “ first
phase of practice”, contributes to the transfer and practice of the “received”
knowledge, from the theoretical stage, into training session activities.
Teachers will apply the “received” knowledge in active teaching sessions with
each other before the “ main phase of practice” in their classrooms. They
discuss, negotiate, consult, demonstrate, observe, coach each other and discuss
with trainers and advisors in order to decide which skills or techniques are
important for classroom (Dubin and Wong, 1990; Peacock, 1993; Lamb, 1995).
Teachers’
training should not only take place outside the classroom at organized, formal
INSET sessions, but also inside the classroom, in real classroom situations. In
the “ main phase of practice” the teachers will be expected to come to classroom
and implement the newly acquired techniques, with a higher degree of confidence
and less anxiety. EFL teachers will not be without support and feedback, from
their instructors, they should be supervised by trainers and advisors and will
be in communication with colleagues about practice. They reflect on their
teaching experience, they become researchers, reflective practitioners (Brumfit
and Mitchel, 1990; Parrott, 1993), conducting action-research in their
classrooms (Lomax 1985; Kemmis, 1988; Goodson, 1991).
References
Akon, E. (1990). In-service teacher education in
Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (1990). The language classroom as a focus for research, in: C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), in Research in the Language Classroom, ELT documents 133. British Council.
Brumfit, C. J. (1983). Problems and
principles in English teaching.
Carr,W.
(1993). Quality in Teaching: arguments for a reflective profession.
Doff,
A. (1987). Teach English. A training course for teachers.
Dubin,
F. & Wong, R. (1990). An ethnographic approach to
in-service preparation: the
Duff, T. (1988). Explorations in Teacher
Training. Problems and Issues.
Ellis,
R. (1986). Activities and procedures for teacher training, ELT Journal,
40(2): 91-99.
Guntermann, G. (1992) Developing tomorrow’s
teachers of world languages in ERIC digest.
Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999). The
essentials of effective professional development, in the Darling – Hannond, L.
& G. Sykes, (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice, 127-150.
Gebhard,
J. (1990). Models of supervision: choices, in: Richards, J. & D.Nunan,
(Eds), in Second Language teacher education.
Goddson,
Grenfell, M. (1991). Practice makes perfect, Language
Learning Journal, 3: 6-8.
Kemmis,
S. (1988) Action Research, in Keeves K. (Ed) Educational Research:
Methodology and Measurements. An International Handbook.
Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET, ELT Journal, 49 (1): 72-80.
Lange, D. (1990).
A blueprint for a teacher development programme, in Richards, J. & D.Nunan,
(Eds), Second Language Teacher Education.
Lomax, P.
(1985). Action researchers’ action research: a symposium, British Journal of
Inservice Education, 12(1): 42-49.
Nunan, D. (1988). The
Learner – Centred Curriculum.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language
Classrooms. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Parrott,
M. (1993). Tasks for language teachers: a resourse book for training and
development.
Peacock, A. (1993) The in-service training of
primary teachers in science in
Philips, S. (1993). Young Learners.
Richards, T. (1990). The
dilemma of teacher education in second language teaching, in: Richards, J.
& D. Nunan, (Eds), Second Language Teacher Education.
Stern, H. (1983).
Language teacher education: an approach to the issues and perspectives.
Thomas, A. (1987). Language teacher competence and
language teacher education, in Bowers, R. (Ed.), Language Teacher Education:
An Integrated Programme for EFL Teacher Training. ELT Documents: 125,
Modern Association Publication with the
Wallace, M. (1991). Training Foreign
Language teachers.
Wallace,
M. (1993). Towards creating and maintaining a professional dynamic in ELT.
Paper presented at the ITTI conference on Future directions in teacher
education.
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language
teaching, Language Teaching, 27(1): 1-19.
Widdowson,
H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching.
Witkins,
B. (1984). Assessing needs in educational social programs.
Tokatlidou,
B. (1986). Introduction to modern language teaching.
Table I.
Factor analysis regarding teachers’ needs in “Theoretical Linguistics”
|
Factor |
Factor
interpretation (% variance explained) |
Loading |
Statements |
|
Language system items |
38.37% |
0.855 |
Semantics |
|
0.836 |
Morphology |
||
|
0.826 |
Phonology |
||
|
0.787 |
Syntax |
||
|
Branches of linguistics |
23.70% |
0.776 |
Sociolinguistics |
|
0.749 |
Psycholinguistics |
||
|
Theories of language learning |
20.50% |
0.729 |
First language acquisition |
|
0.680 |
Foreign language learning |
Table II. Factor analysis regarding teachers’
needs in “General Education”
|
Factor |
Factor Interpretation (% variance explained) |
Loading |
Statement |
|
|
Items related to Educational Pedagogy |
31.06% |
0.857 |
Pedagogic |
|
|
0.845 |
Educational Psychology |
|
||
|
0.822 |
Theories of learning |
|
||
|
0.736 |
General didactics |
|||
|
Branches of Educational Studies |
29.81% |
0.858 |
School management |
|
|
0.754 |
Curriculum design |
|
||
|
0.745 |
Educational Research |
|
||
|
0.630 |
Multicultural Education |
|
||
|
0.607 |
Evaluation and Assessment |
|
Table III. Factor analysis regarding teachers’
needs in “ Teaching Methodology”
|
Factor |
Factor Interpretation (% variance explained) |
Loading |
Statement |
|
Methodological components |
35.75% |
0.747 |
Motivation |
|
0.728 |
Teaching mixed – ability groups |
||
|
0.724 |
Pupils’ needs analysis |
||
|
0.683 |
Modern methodological trends |
||
|
0.676 |
Teaching young learners |
||
|
0.660 |
Lesson planning and preparation |
||
|
0.650 |
Design of authentic material |
||
|
Skills of teaching English to primary sector |
34.31% |
0.871 |
Teaching grammar |
|
0.859 |
Assessment techniques |
||
|
0.858 |
Teaching pronunciation |
||
|
0.827 |
Test design |
||
|
0.705 |
Teaching vocabulary |
||
|
0.501 |
Teaching productive skills |
||
|
0.503 |
Teaching receptive skills |
Table IV. Factor analysis regarding teachers’
needs in “Teaching Techniques”
|
Factor |
Factor
Interpretation (% variance explained) |
Loading |
Statement |
|
Techniques for teaching specific skills |
44.14% |
0.855 |
Stories |
|
0.832 |
Games |
||
|
0.816 |
Dialogues |
||
|
0.800 |
Roles |
||
|
0.799 |
Comics |
||
|
0.792 |
Teaching aids |
||
|
0.734 |
Evaluation of teaching material |
||
|
0.723 |
Use of English language in the classroom |
||
|
0.676 |
Use of mother tongue in the classroom |
||
|
Use of Technology |
28.62% |
0.691 |
Internet |
|
0.688 |
Multimedia |
||
|
0.604 |
Computers in language teaching |
© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved
