Design and Certification of a 120 hr TESL Canada Teacher Training Programme

April 2015

Project Aim and Rationale

Project Focus

This report will outline the design, certification, implementation and continual improvement of a 120 hour TESL Canada certified pre-service teacher training course at GEOS (Global Education Opportunities and Services) Language Academy in Victoria, BC, Canada.

The project was designed to raise the profile of the institution by creating a recognised teacher training programme. It also assists pre-service teachers in securing employment in Canada and abroad, and allowed me to demonstrate and apply both my theoretical knowledge and practical skills in one cohesive project. There is significant demand for courses such as this, as TESL Canada certification is a requirement to teach at language schools, colleges and universities in Canada, and therefore without TESL Canada certification of our programme, many perspective teachers wouldn’t take our course. There are two distinct groups of individuals who would potentially take the course: L1 and L2 speakers. The demographics of these groups, as well as the specific needs of pre-service teachers, which led to the design and delivery of the course, will be outlined in this paper.

Project Outcomes

The positive aspects included increasing student enrollment and institutional reputation, as well as the creation of a formally recognised comprehensive pre-service training programme. The negative aspects included the paperwork, costs, as well as the difficulties in satisfying some of TESL Canada’s requirements.

Potential Risks

Management recognised that there was considerable market saturation for pre-service teacher training courses in Victoria, and it was therefore imperative to ensure that our course was competitive. Factors involved in this include course design, content and delivery, instructor selection, marketing and promotion, competitive pricing, facilities, as well as scheduling and location.

Project Environment and Challenges

Organisational Context

GEOS Language Academy originated in Japan, but was later bought by the European company Sprachcaffe. The North American schools use American English materials, and the Canadian schools operate under TESL Canada regulations. GEOS Victoria is a medium sized school (80-100 students), which focuses on general English and exam preparation, and is attempting to make teacher training a central part of their future business model.

Potential Challenges

There was a potential for differing views about the curriculum, syllabus, assessment and delivery of the course. Management and the Academic Coordinator had the opportunity for input, but generally left the pedagogical decisions to me, as I would be the instructor, and they instead focused on the administrative and financial aspects. TESL Canada might have rejected our application, and therefore I closely followed their guidelines to ensure that their specifications were adhered to. Additionally, following certification, trainees might not have felt the course was useful, and therefore I tried to balance both theoretical and practical aspects. As with most courses, diverse needs arose based on the student profile and their objective(s). I ensured that the syllabus was flexible enough that these could be addressed accordingly, on a course by course basis, but still meet TESL Canada’s requirements.

Funding

Management felt it would be competitively advantageous to have a certified teacher training programme to expand into this developing market, in particular as many potential teachers hadn’t chosen our course because of its lack of TESL Canada certification. GEOS funded the TESL Canada registration costs ($420.00) and paid the application fee ($100.00). As GEOS had previously operated TESOL courses, they were not required to apply for interim status, which only remains valid for one year, and instead applied directly for full-program recognition, which remains valid for five years. Following this, an annual report must be submitted ($100.00/year), and in addition there is the TESL Canada annual membership fee ($157.50/year), which GEOS also paid. After five years, GEOS must reapply and pay the full registration costs ($420.00) again. I spent my own time planning and designing the course and materials and was not remunerated for this, although creating and delivering the course was incredibly professionally satisfying.

Project Staging

I. Background and Summary of TESL Canada Requirements

TESL Canada certifies, accredits and endorses language schools in Canada which meet and comply with their standards. The accreditation process for GEOS’ TESOL programme was less complex as GEOS was already an institutional member of TESL Canada and had had an unaccredited teacher training course in operation for several years, although when I arrived there was only a limited course outline as the previous trainer had taken their syllabus and materials when they left. As a result, the programme that emerged after the accreditation process was GEOS’ first permanent and recognised course. The first time I taught the course it was not certified, which allowed me to explore the delivery of a pre-service training programme before officially committing to a formalised curriculum and syllabus.

I was responsible for creating the curriculum (including outcomes, course content and assessment), as well as the syllabus (Appendix 1), both of which had to be submitted for TESL Canada approval. Additional requirements for course certification include a TESL Canada certified trainer, preferably with a Master’s Degree, and therefore documents proving my qualifications (Master’s Degree, Undergraduate degree and TESL Cert.,) as well as teaching experience (Number of years and hours), were submitted and verified.

GEOS also decided to market the course in two ways: With or without a twenty-hour practicum. The first option is the GEOS TESL Canada certificate, which entitles trainees to teach in Canada; however, they are required to pay more to complete the twenty hour teaching practicum. The practicum requires a practicum supervisor, and as I was teaching the course, it was determined that it would be more appropriate if another instructor took on this role. Administratively, the practicum exists separately to the course, and I was not responsible for its implementation or operation. As a result of this marketing decision, I included as much micro-teaching and observation as I could directly on the course to ensure that all trainees had as much practical experience as possible. The second option is a GEOS TESOL certificate, which is not TESL Canada certified, as many trainees either did not have the TESL Canada required IELTS 6.5 and/or a university degree. However, these trainees were given a placement test and/or an interview to determine their language level and suitability for the course. This also means that they are not required to do the practicum, which lowers the total cost of the course, and this is another motivation for trainees to opt for this.

A further requirement for certification is a TESOL resource library list, which requires thirty teacher trainer books and twenty ESL/EFL classroom books, of which fifty percent must be less than fifteen years old. This was quite a challenging task as it was costly and difficult to justify to a fiscally conservative company. Furthermore, selecting the books also required considerable research, but this was beneficial in that it deepened my awareness and understanding of course books and TESOL literature. I collaborated with the Academic Coordinator and colleagues, and we selected a variety of practical books, as this is a pre-service course and trainees have neither the time nor the energy to be reading dense theoretical texts. Some of the texts had been on my MA course, as well as those that we had encountered professionally.

II. Pedagogy: Background Research

A) Course Design Framework

There is considerable theoretical focus in this paper in order to examine and understand the pedagogical decisions that have been made regarding the design and delivery of the course, which reflect my core teaching values. Richards (1990) asserts that the central dilemma in creating a SLTE (Second Language Teacher Education) programme is to balance macro and micro teaching approaches, but I feel these potentially conflicting areas have been mediated on this course. I have applied a macro or holistic approach, which recognises that interactions among the teacher/trainer, students/trainees and classroom tasks greatly shape learning, and the development of macro teaching qualities such as ‘creativity, judgement and adaptability’ (Britten 1985 in Richards 1990, p. 9) are crucial for pre-service teachers. These are generally high-inference, which are difficult to separate into discrete training areas and evaluate; however, as an experienced teacher, it is possible to consciously demonstrate these in the hope that some of these skills will be assimilated by trainees, as well as be strengthened and developed through reflection. Blum (1984 in Richards 1990) identifies twelve macro areas of effective classroom practice, which I have integrated into the design and delivery of this course.

1. Instruction is guided by a preplanned curriculum.

2. There are high expectations for successful learning.

3. Students are carefully oriented to learning.

4. Instruction is clear and focused.

5. Learning progress is monitored closely.

6. When students don’t understand, they are retaught.

7. Class time is used for learning.

8. There are smooth, efficient classroom routines.

9. Instructional groups formed in the classroom for instructional needs.

10. Standards for classroom behaviours are high.

11. Personal interactions between teachers and students are positive.

 Incentives and rewards for students are used to promote excellence.

Furthermore, Gebhard, Gaitan and Oprandy (1990) assert that there is no best way to teach and therefore developing effective contextual decision-making skills and a sense of autonomy are key areas for trainee development. Also important to a pre-service programme are micro or atomistic approaches, which are much easier to operationalise and measure, as they involve low inference, easily observable teaching skills such as the use of questions, teacher and student talk time, as well as timing.

The conceptual framework used to organise this project is Richards (1998, p. 1) six domains of SLTE. Richards argues that these six areas are crucial to any SLTE programme.

1. Theories of Teaching

2. Teaching Skills

3. Communication Skills

4. Subject Matter Knowledge

5. Pedagogical Reasoning and Decision Making

6. Contextual Knowledge

These will be delineated and analysed in the remainder of this paper, beginning with the first: Theories of Teaching. This domain is crucial as it encompasses both the what and how of a TESOL teacher training course. This section provides an overview of key historical and contemporary educational theories, approaches and methods that have shaped SLTE and have ultimately underpinned the development of this project.

B) Mainstream Educational Influences

SLTE does not exist in a vacuum and instead exists within, and is informed by, a larger educational context. In order to more comprehensively understand SLTE and the rationale behind the development of this project, it is necessary to examine externally relevant theories, approaches and methods, which may not figure significantly in contemporary SLTE writing. The development and specialisation of SLTE in the latter part of the twentieth century means that some of these parallels or connections are not always immediately apparent, in particular as a greater degree of professionalization has emerged, in which the field achieved ‘a sense of autonomy, with its own knowledge base, paradigms and research agenda’ (Richards 1990, p. 3). This section highlights that as educators we are more similar than different, and that much can be learned by integrating pedagogical knowledge and experience from a variety of fields. This creates an inter-disciplinary approach that helps connect and unite teachers and trainers, which ultimately aids in professional growth and development. Furthermore, it is hoped that by incorporating more general education theory in the design of this TESOL course, that these ideas and ideals will be translated into future ELT classrooms.

Central among these theories is Constructivism, which is an inter-disciplinary approach that places the learner at the centre, with the central premise being that learners continually participate in and construct their own learning and knowledge, and that this is beneficial in that it leads to deeper learning (Dewey 1938, 1966; Piaget 1966). Perhaps most influential on SLTE is Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which focuses directly on the roles of the teacher and student, and the relationship that exists between the two. Vygotsky posits that developmental goals are reached with the assistance of a more skilled individual, in this case the teacher trainer. Although he is not directly responsible for the term ‘scaffolding,’ it is through this method that a considerable amount of trainee development occurs. (Van der Veer & Valsiner 1994). This is reflected in most SLTE programmes in that a more experienced teacher guides and supports new or less experienced teachers in their development. Crucial to the success of this is that it occurs in a cooperative social environment with the participation of all members. These are central tenets of Humanism, which also emphasizes human agency, social and group cooperation and critical thinking. Each of these aspects has featured strongly in the design of the GEOS TESOL course, as well as the classroom environment that is maintained throughout the course.

In order to understand the current state of SLTE, these theories can be contrasted with earlier more traditional models of education such as Instructivism, which like Objectivism, assumes that knowledge is simply transferred from teachers to students. (Gagné, Briggs & Wager 1988; Bednar et al 1991; Jonassen 1991). There is also more concern with content, i.e., pedagogical knowledge, rather than on the learning process or development of skills, and this is problematic in a teacher training course because teaching requires the acquisition of transferable skills. Furthermore, teachers are continuously changing and evolving depending on the educational context, as well as the developmental stage they are at in their careers. Instructivism assumes that learning is transactional and that knowledge is simply transferred from the teacher to a passive learner, in this case the teacher trainer and the trainee teacher, which neglects to acknowledge the active role learners play in learning. In fact, learning about teaching and how to teach is a very complex process, and therefore impossible to successfully transmit via an Instructivist model. Although a more traditional method of disseminating information is sometimes appropriate, it is certainly not appropriate as a primary model for future language teachers on a SLTE course, nor is it sufficient to meet the dynamic needs of today’s trainee teachers or ELT students. Trainee teachers in intense pre-service TESOL courses need to negotiate meaning, directly engage with the material and synthesize and apply the knowledge and skills they learn.

Connectivism is another appropriate model in teacher training because it acknowledges the continuity of learning: It occurs long before the trainees enter the TESOL classroom and will continue long after they graduate. It also stresses that ‘know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where’ which is ‘the understanding of where to find knowledge needed’ (Seimens 2004), in other words, the acquisition of effective problem solving skills. This is exemplified in TESOL courses where trainees share their experiences to come up with new ways to solve problems, as well as analyse and apply theories to practical situations and case-studies. Connectivism also emphasises that ‘learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks’ (Seimens 2004). This approach stresses the development of trainee autonomy and the building of a support network outside of the TESOL classroom, which will help support trainees’ transitions into their professional ELT careers.

An additional approach that is useful for contemporary TESOL courses is Contemplative Education. This approach involves metacognition through extensive reflection and self-awareness, both at the professional and personal level (Craig 2011). TESOL trainees are often required to reflect on their own teaching practice, and also on that of their peers, other teachers and the trainer to develop and improve their teaching practice. Contemplative Education also focuses on the teacher as a whole, both inside and outside of the classroom, and views issues such as stress management and maintaining a positive outlook as essential, which is necessary if our trainees are to become great teachers. It does not however require extensive class time or focus, but rather the acknowledgement that pastoral care and non-pedagogical factors are part of teaching and SLTE. Therefore, TESOL trainers must model this caring and observant behaviour to future teachers, but also not be afraid to recognise and acknowledge their own imperfections as areas for development.

C) Twentieth Century ELT Methods: Historical Overview

The development of ELT from its early days of the Direct Method and Grammar Translation, through to the Behaviourist influenced Audio-Lingualism, to the Designer Methods of the 1970s, which include Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, Community Language Learning and the Silent Way, has been a turbulent journey in which limiting, prescriptive methods were continuously replaced by the next ‘superior’ methodology (Howatt and Widdowson 2004). Finally, in the 1980s, CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) emerged (Harmer 2001). It has been defined as an approach, rather than a methodology, in that it is less prescriptive and allows for more teacher interpretation. Key features include a student-centred classroom which focuses on authentic communicative contexts so that learners are prepared for real world communicative contexts (Richards and Rodgers 2001). This most likely explains CLT’s success in remaining current and valid in an environment that has been referred to as the post-methods era, a time in which the exclusive use of one methodology no longer seems appropriate or possible (Kumaravadivelu 1994). Another more recent approach that has influenced SLTE is Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), which like CLT focuses on real world interaction (Willis 1996), and consequently, is applicable to TESOL programmes, not only because it serves as an appropriate teaching model, but also because it requires extensive practical trainee participation and input.

An analysis of historical and contemporary theories, approaches and methods is crucial because it ultimately informs how a course will be taught, as a trainer is always connected to and influenced by their pedagogical beliefs. This section is particularly salient for teacher development because not only are the trainee teachers students in our classroom, but they ultimately have to decide what their role will be in their future classrooms. By critically examining the history of ELT, trainees can become more critically reflective of their prior educational experiences, as well as how they see themselves developing as teachers. A trainer must not only have an in-depth understanding of pedagogy, but also be open and willing to explore it with their students, and to be fully prepared beforehand that they need not, nor will not, necessarily share the same viewpoints.

D) SLTE Models/Frameworks

There are a variety of conceptions of teaching and how a trainer or institution views training and development is key as it will affect the design and delivery of a course. Many models have influenced the planning of this TESOL course; however, the most influential are summarised below. 

One way to view teaching is to divide it into categories. Zahorik (1986) classifies teaching into three areas: Art/Craft, Theory/Philosophy and Science/Research and all three have valuable points. Teaching is an art/craft that takes time to develop, but individual exploration and creativity are crucial aspects. All teachers/trainers/trainees have theories/philosophies regarding education, and these ultimately affect their teaching decisions, both inside and outside of the classroom, and we must be aware of how these affect or even impede our delivery of teaching and training. Furthermore, new theories and methods are often uncritically accepted as fact, without considering their applicability in the classroom or grounding in SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research, and this is where a science/research approach becomes relevant. However, viewing scientific research as the sole method to determine course content can often remove the personal element from teaching, which is not something that can easily be quantified or measured. Richards (1998) sees teaching operating on a developmental plane, with the acquisition of basic teaching skills, which he compares to science/research, as a place for trainees to begin. Ultimately, they can progress to in-depth reflection, which he views as similar to an art/craft, in which teaching decisions are made based on student needs, rather than purely conforming to a certain method or set of externally prescribed practices.

Zahorik’s Theory/Philosophy can also be viewed as teacher belief, and this is a research area that has grown considerably (Richards 1998). Almarza (1986) asserts that teachers have a ‘filter,’ i.e., their belief system, through which they view students, education and teaching, and that this will always exist, although it is not static. Johnson (1992) writes that teachers’ belief systems affect their ideas about theories of language, the nature of language learning, the role of the teacher and effective teaching practices, which covers the major components of teaching; in other words, it determines who they are as teachers and what they do in the classroom. Richards and Lockheart (1994) suggest that teacher beliefs create a ‘culture of teaching’ which permeates all aspects of teaching.

ELT theories and approaches can also often be successfully applied to SLTE. Johnson (1992) identifies skills-based, rules-based and function-based approaches to ELT. These need not be mutually exclusive, and my teaching philosophy and the GEOS TESOL course incorporate skills and function-based approaches, but I do not focus heavily on rigid rules or prescription as a pre-service teaching course should incorporate exploration. Ponber (1985) asserts that teaching could be viewed as a didactic activity, which postulates that a teacher’s role is to disseminate facts for the students to receive; a discovery activity, whereby students explore and engage with the subject and learn for themselves with limited direct intervention by the teacher, or as an interactional activity, in which the students/trainees come with existing ideas about the world, where the teacher/trainer is directly involved in the interaction between these existing beliefs/knowledge and the new information being presented and learned in the classroom. When delivering the TESOL course, I use a discovery approach, scaffold and support in an interactive capacity and avoid didacticism as much as possible.

Another key SLTE framework is Teaching Maxims (Richards 1998), which focus on teaching beliefs as they are translated into classroom reality. These include the Maxims of Involvement, Planning, Encouragement, Order, Accuracy, Efficiency, Conformity and Empowerment. These are not mutually inclusive and instead are often mutually exclusive. For example, the Maxim of Empowerment advocates greater student/trainee control of the classroom and learning; however, the Maxim of Order posits that a teacher/trainer must always be in firm control, which fails to appreciate that learning is often not neat and tidy and can be noisy. Similarly, the Maxim of Involvement argues for a learner-centred classroom, whereas the Maxim of Planning favours following a strictly delineated lesson plan to ensure that pre-determined objectives are met. With the TESOL course, I wanted to ensure that there was room for flexibility so that I could attend to specific trainee needs and interests, while also ensuring that the curriculum was covered, which has involved continuous balancing. A teacher/trainer can apply different maxims throughout a lesson or activity, but they generally employ certain maxims more frequently, and by observing these we can ascertain a more detailed understanding of their teaching beliefs, which are reflected in classroom decision making.

​

The TESOL course was specifically created with the acknowledgement of teacher beliefs. Trainees have already been students, many of them ESL/EFL students, and these previous experiences will greatly shape their beliefs about teaching and the role of a teacher. Therefore, a considerable amount of anecdotal sharing and introspective activities were built into the course to accommodate these valuable insights. Furthermore, in order to be as authentic a trainer as possible, I closely examined who I was as a teacher and trainer, as well as my pedagogical beliefs.

E) Pre-Service SLTE Courses

It is essential to first examine the purpose and organisation of a variety of TESOL pre-service courses to determine the needs of pre-service teachers, which is what I did prior to creating the GEOS TESOL course. In my view, teaching is a lifelong activity, and I see this course as an introduction to teaching. It is therefore necessary to create opportunities for trainees to be inspired to teach, and to explore different aspects of teaching in a safe environment, while still acquiring a sound introductory understanding of ELT. This section introduces the two most well-known pre-service ELT courses: the Trinity Certificate in TESOL and the Cambridge CELTA, which are level 5 qualifications on the UK NVQ; the TESL Canada pre-service qualification I received from Pan Pacific International English College in 2006 in Victoria, Canada and the Materials and Methods course on my MA in English Language at the University of Sussex.

The Trinity CertTESOL syllabus states that its aim is to provide teachers with the ’initial skills and knowledge needed to take up posts as ESOL teachers and gives them a firm foundation for self-evaluation and further professional development’ (p. 5). Trainees either receive a pass or a fail, although they may also get a referral, where they may resubmit not more than two assignments. The course consists of 130 timetabled hours: Ninety hours of supervised input including six hours teaching and four hours observation, thirty hours of private study to prepare and complete assignments, as well as fifteen non-timetabled hours. The course is organised into five units: Unit One: Teaching Skills; Unit Two: Language Awareness and Skills; Unit Three: Learner Profile; Unit Four: The Materials Assignment and Unit Five: Unknown Language.

The Cambridge CELTA course consists of a minimum of 120 contact hours (Including six hours of observation and six hours of teaching) along with a minimum of eighty hours for work outside of class. Trainees either receive a pass A, pass B, pass or a fail. The syllabus states as the three principle aims for candidates: ‘Acquire essential subject knowledge and familiarity with the principles of effective teaching; acquire a range of practical skills for teaching English to adult learners and demonstrate their ability to apply their learning in a real teaching context’ (p. 2). The CELTA is also organised into five areas: Topic One: Learners and teachers and the teaching and learning context; Topic Two: Language analysis and awareness; Topic Three: Language skills: reading listening, speaking and writing; Topic Four: Planning and resources for different teaching contexts; Topic Five: Developing teaching skills and professionalism.

Both the TrinityCert. and CELTA have been adapted since their creation, and have the advantage that many talented and experienced ELT professionals have responded to the changing needs of ELT teachers and students by ensuring that these continue to be relevant high quality courses. Moreover, as these courses were some of the first professional ELT designations, their influence on international organisations such as TESL Canada cannot be disputed, although it is difficult to ascertain exactly how and to what degree. However, TESL Canada’s course requirements closely resemble the Trinity Cert. and CELTA, particularly in terms of length, course content, practicum and language ability requirements of participants. When I first designed the GEOS TESOL course, I did not have a considerable amount of time to analyse the Trinity CertTESOL or CELTA syllabi; however, there are similarities to the TrinityCert, such as a grammar test, non-timetabled hours to not only accommodate unplanned events, but also exploit teachable moments, as well as considerable critical reflection.

The Pan Pacific International College TESL Diploma (Equivalent to a pre-service certificate) includes 100 hours of input and a twenty hour practicum (ten hours of observing experienced teachers and ten hours teaching). The marking scheme consists of A+ (90-100), A (80-89), B (70-79), C (60-69), D (50-59) and a fail. The school no longer exists, so it is not possible to present the specific objectives as they are not in my records.

The course is divided into ten modules:

1) Theories and Methods – Overview of TESL

2) Pronunciation to Conversation - Teaching Listening and Speaking

3) Literature and Life – Teaching Reading

4) Communicating Creatively – Teaching Writing

5) Communicating Effectively – Teaching Grammar

6) Putting it all Together – Designing ESL Curriculum

7) Creating Communicative Tests – Testing in ESL

8) Making the Classroom work – Class Dynamics

9) Finding your first ESL job – TESL or TEFL

10)  Going Solo – Tutoring in ESL/EFL

The GEOS TESOL certificate has been heavily influenced by my experience as a trainee teacher at Pan Pacific, and this includes components and methods of delivery which were included, as well as those that were specifically avoided. There were numerous benefits of the course including a very professional and attentive trainer, many examples of suitable resources and practical lesson and activity ideas, as well as opportunities for anecdotal sharing, both from the trainer and the trainees. The course involved a considerable amount of reflection, both in terms of being an observer in an ELT classroom, as well as during and after our practicum. Several aspects of the course that were not beneficial were that it was very trainer centred, and therefore the level of trainer talk-time to trainee talk-time was very disproportionate. Furthermore, this was compounded as there was limited small group work, which meant that in a class of fourteen, it was difficult for everyone to share and participate. Finally, the specific focus on practical aspects meant that even briefly addressing areas such as SLA, phonology, sociolinguistics or critical ELT was compromised.

The final, and perhaps most significant influence on the GEOS TESOL course, with the exception of the authentic teaching experience acquired over the years after I completed my certificate, is the Materials and Methods course I took at the University of Sussex. This course included considerable theoretical input, but was designed so that participants were directly responsible for critically engaging with the material. This was achieved through seminars, both in class on the Moodle VLE (Virtual Learning Environment), and meant that we were deepening our teaching practice, while also increasing our understanding of ELT pedagogy. Unlike the Pan Pacific course, we were also responsible for locating, analysing, synthesising and applying ELT literature and materials. Although there are many differences between an MA and certificate level course, including teaching experience, outcomes and objectives, I consciously tried to include autonomy, critical thinking and accessible SLA and ELT theory into the GEOS TESOL course.

III. Prior and Potential Student Demographics

In order to design a TESOL course to best prepare trainees, the teaching and learning environment must first be examined. Richards’ (1998, p. 12) Contextual Factors is the sixth domain of content in SLTE, and he identifies aspects including language policies, language teaching policies, learning factors (motivation and learning style), community and socio-cultural factors and level and age. Prior to teaching the course, this information was collected by consulting with previous TESOL instructors and management. It was then later modified once I had taught the course and gathered additional information about the trainees. In order to understand why the course was developed in the manner it was, general demographic patterns of the trainees such as first language and educational and cultural backgrounds must be examined, and although each cohort was different, there were many overarching similarities.

Perhaps most importantly, the trainees fall into one of two categories: L1 or L2 speakers, which necessitates a greater focus on Richards’ (1998, p. 15) third domain of SLTE: Communication Skills and Language Proficiency, in that not only do all trainees need to ‘develop effective communication skills as a basis for teaching’, but L2 speakers also need to have an ‘advanced level of proficiency in the language to be taught’ and ‘be able to use the target language effectively as a medium of communication’. To receive the GEOS TESL Canada certificate, the L2 speakers had to have no lower than an IELTS 6.5 in all four skills, and to do the TESOL course without the TESL Canada certificate, students had to have a good command of English and/or be in either level five or six at GEOS (The two highest levels in the school).

Having L1 and L2 speakers on the course together immediately raises issues of language ownership, as well as what constitutes Standard English. This also raises issues regarding the acceptance of regional varieties, in particular in regard to vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation, which are crucial areas to consider in TESOL course development, delivery and assessment, as these future language teachers will be the arbiters of English.

There is a growing body of critical ELT and SLTE research, which TESOL trainers should be aware of, even if only to address or challenge current (mis)conceptions. Widdowson (1994) and Pennycook (2001) argue that language teaching carries added responsibility in that it also includes cultural content, and ultimately that it is never a neutral endeavour. Phillipson (1992) goes further and asserts that ELT is a form of linguistic imperialism, which exists to maintain and reinforce power. Therefore, in response to the multilingual and multicultural composition of the course, as well as the fact that most trainees would teach internationally, it was therefore essential that this course possess a critical perspective of ELT; one which embraced mutual inclusivity, as each trainee carries with them their own pedagogical perspectives, which must be respected. This was achieved through open dialogue, in which notions of language ownership, ESL/EFL textbook content (British or North American images, ideas and culture, in particular when these books were to be used in non-UK/North American teaching contexts), the role of L1 and/or L2 teachers, as well as the role of prescriptive methodology, which often emerges from national or regional educational policies. The inclusion of this in the course was designed to allow trainees to critically examine their own ideas, as well as highlight how critical thinking can be beneficially used in the ELT classroom.

The distinction between L1 and L2 speakers influenced multiple aspects of the course, including specific areas for focus (I.e., L2: Pronunciation and grammatical accuracy and L1: meta-language, awareness of linguistic forms and what to expect in a language classroom). There was generally a mix of L1s and L2s, meaning that these competing factors had to be balanced in an environment that never provided sufficient time. However, as a result of my MA, which had many international teachers, I realised this could be mediated in that the trainees would be able to learn a considerable amount from one another. L2 strengths, in particular grammatical awareness and meta-language, were areas in which the L2 trainees helped the L1s, whereas the L1s were able to help the L2s with accuracy and fluency. Both were able to gain greater intercultural awareness and develop their autonomy and teaching skills, and therefore, what was initially perceived as detrimental, actually proved to be very beneficial. Each time this course has been taught, this has been a central feature in planning and delivery.

L2 trainees, despite their commonality in not having English as a first language, are still a very heterogeneous group, and therefore, it was also crucial to recognise the unique educational contexts of their countries. At GEOS, trainees were primarily from North Asia, in particular Korea and Japan, where the national governments were in the process of implementing policies which focused on increasing communicative competency in students. Despite this, trainers must acknowledge that alternative teaching methodologies exist, and that most of the trainees had been products of educational systems which did not feature a ‘western’ model of teaching, nor a communicative model of ELT, although this has changed and continues to change, but not without multiple challenges (Hu 2005; Abe 2013). Central among these is the tenuous position of the teacher, who must address the conflicting goals of ensuring competitive results on high-stakes standardized university entrance exams, while simultaneously trying to encourage and develop L2 communication skills in the classroom. Therefore, as both a trainer and course developer, it was crucial for me to recognise that many trainees were unfamiliar with and/or resistant to the trainee-centred, communicative teaching styles on the TESOL course, in particular if they had never attended a language school. I therefore used a dialogic method, which featured considerable trainee reflection on their experiences as students, in conjunction with case studies and scenario-based activities, to contextualise TESOL within a broader educational framework, as well as justify the necessity of CLT in achieving communicative competence.

The L1 speakers also had many interesting anecdotes to share, and these memorable accounts of their experiences as language learners in state schools bolstered support for CLT because like the L2 students, they had spent many years studying a foreign language (In this case French, as Canada is a bilingual nation), yet most could not communicate beyond simple greetings.

The majority of the L2 trainees were either in college, or had just recently finished, although a few had worked as teachers in their countries, whereas only a few of the L1 trainees were university graduates. Most L1 trainees came to the course for two different reasons: Some were in their twenties and wanted to pursue a career in TESOL to travel the world, while others were middle-aged (40-60) and had left occupations to embark on a new career path. By accommodating the unique circumstances of each trainee, and allowing them to share and explore their educational experiences and conceptions of ELT, the courses always progressed differently, with each course embodying its own distinct atmosphere.

IV. Course Book Selection

ELT and SLTE course books have developed considerably as the field has grown, and there are now many options to choose from. There are conflicting views about the role of course books: some view their use as teacher laziness, while others see them as an invaluable resource. It is paramount however that a SLTE course book ‘support and facilitate teaching rather than dominate it’ (Richards 1998, p. 140). Selecting a SLTE course book is therefore of great importance, as it will shape the course. It also reflects a trainer’s educational philosophy, if they are fortunate enough to select it. In order to develop critical reading skills, as well as the ability to effectively evaluate course books, trainees analysed our course book, as well as many ELT course books available at the school and public library.

When I came to the course, Brown (2007) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy was the course book used. I immediately expressed concerns about this for several reasons. Firstly, I was worried the book would be inaccessible to many trainees taking the TESOL course, both L1s, as well as L2s. The book focuses on complex theoretical concepts regarding applied linguistics and SLA, rather than on the practice of teaching. In fact, there is limited information or guidance on teaching, in terms of lesson planning, activities or classroom management. Therefore, although there are informative and interesting sections, these are related primarily to theories about learning a language, versus information about teaching a language, and as a result it is unsuitable for a pre-service training course where teachers have little or no practical experience to relate theories to. It is however more suited for in-service training courses (Diploma level) or an MA. Additionally, the trainees did not and could not engage directly with the material. Barrett’s reading comprehension taxonomy (1968 in Richards 1998, p. 137) identifies basic reading as ‘literal comprehension’ which involves ‘recognizing and recalling information’. The trainees were often able to do this; however, they were rarely able to progress to the higher levels of analysis, synthesis, conjecture/hypothesis or evaluation, which further highlighted its lack of fit for a reflective trainee-centred course.

Furthermore, from a curricular perspective, Teaching by Principles is very lengthy, detailed and difficult to separate into meaningful areas of delivery, which when combined with the condensed nature of the course: 100 hours over four weeks, in addition to assignments and in-class micro-teaching, meant that it was not fit for purpose, and that an accessible, practical and focused book on teaching would be more beneficial for the trainees. Richards (1998) designed a very useful checklist to consult before selecting a course book, which includes many of the factors listed above, and since they were not applicable to Teaching by Principles, it was necessary to find a new course book.

​

Other books such as Scrivener (2005) Learning Teaching and Harmer (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching and Harmer (2007) How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching were therefore evaluated. Scrivener’s book and Harmer’s books still cover the necessary ELT pedagogical concepts, yet the language is clear and the level is much more suitable. Furthermore, these books are much more practical in that they include lesson ideas and activities, which are useful and motivating for trainees. They also feature case studies, role plays, ranking tasks, activities for improving or adapting materials, as well as activities for assessing materials for age, level and purpose. These meaningful tasks require trainees to explore and analyse ELT theory, principles and activities, which is useful for several reasons. Key course aims are for trainees to develop an analytical and reflective outlook, while simultaneously being exposed to student-centred activities that could be modified to fit their learners. These interactive activities entail cooperative learning through group work, and utilise higher order thinking skills such as evaluation, analysis, and synthesis, which in turn fosters deeper learning and engagement. Scrivener’s book is a bit lengthy, and overall I felt that Harmer’s How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching would be the most beneficial. When I approached management they informed me that as Brown’s Teaching by Principles had already been used previously, they had preordered multiple copies and therefore I would be using it the first time I taught the course, although for the second session we could use a different book of my choice. I used Teaching by Principles for the first session (Non-TESL Canada certified), although as predicted, the trainees found it dry, irrelevant and unnecessarily complex. I tried to mediate this by supplementing whenever possible and assigning sections for different groups to summarise and present. The second session (TESL Canada certified) we used How to Teach English, which the trainees responded very well to.

​

V. Curriculum Development

Curriculum development is a challenge for any course developer as what constitutes a curriculum is widely debated. Wiles (2009) considers it possible to approach curriculum in four different ways, although these are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

​

1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted

2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students

3. Curriculum as a process

4. Curriculum as praxis

5. Curriculum can also be viewed as a procedure, and my role was to interpret the TESL Canada content requirements, develop general learning objectives/outcomes and translate them into a GEOS TESOL syllabus. It is crucial to recognise that curriculum is much more than content and a course document, but as there would be different trainers teaching the course over time, as well as differing trainee needs, I wanted to ensure that the document would not be so prescriptive that it limited the creativity and unique approaches of other trainers. It must also be recognised that within the scope of a curriculum, there is the intended/official/written curriculum, the implemented curriculum, the learned curriculum and also a hidden curriculum (Wiles 2009), each of which are individually reflected by the trainer’s approach, in the output of different trainees, as well as the overall atmosphere of each session delivered.

There is debate on what to include in SLTE courses, but more so about how to balance the practical and theoretical elements of training teachers. This also varies greatly depending on whether the course is a pre-service course like the GEOS TESOL course, or an in-service course such as a diploma or MA course. As outlined above in the comparison of pre-service courses, the content tends to be fairly similar, although the manner of delivering and assessing this differ greatly. Richards (1998, p. 15) refers to course content as Subject-Matter Knowledge, which is the fourth of his six domains of content in a SLTE course, and includes understanding ‘the nature of language and language use, particularly pedagogically based descriptions of the systems of phonology, syntax and discourse [and] the nature of second language learning’. Additional areas include being ‘familiar with principal approaches to language teaching, curriculum development, testing and evaluation and materials development’.

TESL Canada (2012, p. 35-7) lists their core areas to be covered in a TESOL course, which are more detailed, but very similar to Richards’:

1. SLA theory

2. Linguistics: Syntax, phonology, morphology, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and pedagogical grammar

3. Pedagogical theory: Learning strategies and styles, factors affecting language learning, adult teaching and learning principles/andragogy, methodologies/techniques for teaching: Four skills, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, communication, inter-cultural awareness, assessment, evaluation and testing

4. Materials analysis and development

5. Professional conduct and practices

6. Assessment/Feedback: Error correction, standardised exams and classroom tests

7. Professional issues: Resources, professional conduct and practice, classroom management and professional development

    

   These specifications were closely adhered to when designing this course, but were also very similar to the areas I had already covered when I taught the course for the first time, prior to TESL Canada certification.  

    

   The first stage in designing the curriculum was to create course outcomes to reflect TESL Canada’s requirements, as well as my beliefs about successful language teaching and learning. These also had to be accessible to non-TESOL specialists for marketing purposes, as well as to attract potential trainees. My task was to clearly and succinctly summarise the main objectives of the course and I therefore created five broad objectives:

    

   By the end of the course, teachers should be able to:

1. Develop a variety of organized and meaningful lesson plans

2. Refine and improve their knowledge, understanding and use of English (listening, reading, writing and speaking skills) and develop an understanding of issues related to the teaching of grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary

3. Develop specific skills for teaching and assessing the listening, speaking, reading and writing of non-native speakers

4. Explore and evaluate different classroom management strategies

5. Develop the ability to assess their own teaching skills

A calendar was also created and included in the syllabus so trainees could see what would be covered and the sequencing of this. However, I always make it clear to trainees that this does not contain everything we will cover and is subject to change, based on their needs and time constraints. Furthermore, if another trainer were to teach the course, they could adapt it as necessary. The TESL Canada content requirements were spread throughout the course by creating a general theme for each day, which was incredibly difficult using Teaching by Principles (Brown 2007) the first time I taught the course, but for the official TESL Canada certification, we submitted a revised syllabus (Appendix 1), which used The Practice of English Language Teaching (Harmer 2001). I aligned the chapters with the content being covered that day, which created a very user-friendly document, both for the trainer, as well as trainees. This was important, as management indicated that as our programme was the only TESL Canada certified course in Canada, it would possibly be the future model of other GEOS TESOL courses throughout Canada and North America.

Other areas that were developed and included on the syllabus were policies regarding attendance (Minimum 80%; however, it was emphasized in a pre-course interview that missing classes or assessments would not result in a passing grade, as each assessment was mandatory for course completion), and lateness. Course assessments and their weighting, were also outlined, which is discussed in detail below.

VI. Course Methodology, Approach and Delivery

Curriculum is not limited to content or a syllabus, but also includes the manner in which the course is taught, although each instructor approaches courses differently. In a course on teaching, the delivery is of great importance to both the trainer and trainees. Richards (1998, p. 15) refers to this as Teaching Skills, which is the second of his six domains of SLTE, where the aim is to ‘master basic teaching skills, develop competence in using one or more language teaching methodologies, [and] be able to adapt teaching skills and approaches to new situations’. How the trainer conducts him/herself and the methodology and/or approach they use is crucial as they are the model for the trainees, and in the case of many L1s, they are often the first language teacher outside of their primary and/or secondary education. Their classroom behaviour is often what trainees assume all or many instructors embody, and often what they view as being the ‘correct’ or ‘desired’ approach.

My core SLTE values centre on a trainee-centred classroom, with learning being trainee-led and directed wherever possible. This is feasible with content related areas such as the survey of ELT methodology, SLA, theories and principles of teaching and theories of motivation. However, the pre-service course I completed, as well as other professional development sessions I have attended, have not featured this. Whether this is a result of trainer obliviousness, or a conscious pedagogical decision, the negative effects of a trainer-dominated classroom are nevertheless still experienced by trainees. When input is trainee-delivered, or at the very least, elicited from trainees, they develop their teaching skills and acquire a deeper understanding of and engagement with pedagogy. Furthermore, as they are responsible for delivering information, they really try to engage their peers using a communicative approach and creative activities. This allows them to engage in cooperative learning and build a strong group dynamic. This is essential in a course which requires considerable trust and openness, in particular as many trainees are very anxious as it is their first time teaching. Using a trainee-led approach also allows me to indirectly concept-check comprehension of key areas, and when content is incorrect or missing, I can guide them in the right direction. This illustrates a ‘medium as method’ approach, which has proven successful and received positive feedback when I have taught the TESOL course. This approach is also termed LBD (Learning By Doing), Experiential Learning or Guided Learning. There are several phrases that also reflect its key tenets for teachers: ‘Teach as I say and do’, as well as ‘Teach as I preach’. I do not view myself as a ‘sage on the stage’ and want to model student-centred behaviour with the hope that it will create transferable skills which will translate into classroom practice after the trainees graduate. From a trainees’ perspective it resembles: ‘Teach me; I forget, show me; I remember, involve me; I understand’.

​

​

​