The role of CELTA in the CPD of non-native speaker teachers

1. The role of CELTA in the CPD of non-native speaker teachers Jason Anderson CETA Symposium 2017: Sheffield, UK September 2017 …natives and non-natives have an equal chance to become successful teachers, but the routes used by the two groups are not the same. (Medgyes 1992: 340)

2. Proposed rough time plan Please ask questions, make comments, disagree, etc. whenever necessary! • Introduction • 5 mins – 1st study, ELT Journal - quantitative • 20 mins – 2nd study, dissertation for MA - qualitative • Discussion of recommendations • Discussion – An NNEST-friendly CELTA • ? – my thoughts - ?

3. Abbreviations and acronyms ITC – initial teacher training course (CELTA or CertTESOL) L1 – prior ‘languaculture’ of the learning community NNEST – non-native English-speaking teacher NEST – native English-speaking teacher NNS – non-native speaker (of English) NS – native speaker (of English) TP – teaching practice

4. My background & experience on ITCs • 1996 CELTA IH, London. 1999 DipTESOL Oxford House, London. • 1996-1999 Teacher in Ukraine. • 1999-2003 ADoS, DoS, In-service trainer (mainly London). • 2003-2005 CELTA trainer, central London. • 2005-2011 Teacher / teacher educator overseas, mainly in Africa. • 2011-2013 Set up and ran CertTESOL, central London. • 2011-2016 Ongoing consultancy work. • 2016-2017 Started doing CELTAs again (all overseas, mainly with NNESTs).

5. Who are you? Show of hands, please: • I’m a CELTA trainer. • I work in the UK. • I’d say that the majority of my trainees are ‘native-speakers’. • I feel I understand the differences (teaching contexts, needs, wants, interests, future plans) between my NS and NNS trainees well.

6. The current situation • c. 50% of CELTA and CertTESOL trainees today identify themselves as non-native speakers of English (unofficial stats.)… • …yet the course is still premised on the typical candidate profile and needs of native-speaker participants (Ferguson & Donno 2003, Hobbs 2013, CELTA Syllabus 2015, Anderson 2016). E.g. little or no experience as teacher, v. high (intuitive) competence in English, no experience of learning English as a foreign language, no qualifications as a language teacher.

7. My 1st study: ELT Journal (2016) 70/3: 261-274

8. Research questions 1 What differences exist between NNS and NS course participants on initial training courses with regard to: a prior teaching experience and qualifications? b reasons for taking initial training courses? c aspects of the course they found most useful? d likely future teaching location and age group of learners? 2 To what extent did NS and NNS course participants perceive that their needs on the course were provided for, and what needs of NNSs were not provided for?

9. Respondents • 82 respondents. 41 NS, 38 NNS. (3 who selected ‘other’ discounted) • 48 CELTA; 30 CertTESOL, 1 equivalent.

10. Prior qualifications

11. Previous teaching experience

12. Reasons for taking CELTA

13. Most useful components

14. Expected teaching contexts

15. Probable future students

16. How well were your needs provided for?

17. What needs did it not provide for? … one respondent: “Career prospects. After spending a lot of time and money I decided to use all the knowledge at the lessons of English. To my great disappointment, students began to complain and leave the group saying that my lessons are too complicated and they didn't understand anything. I lost my job instead of being offered more groups. What is it all for - just for a document. BTW, I got Grade B and I have been teaching for about 25 years and have a PhD in pedagogical psychology - i.e. I was not born as a teacher yesterday.”

18. More questions than answers! • How do course participants with prior teaching experience see initial training courses fitting into their continuing professional development and career paths? • How accurately do participants feel that their course reflected the course description as portrayed in marketing literature? • What areas of the course did participants find most and least challenging, why, and what assistance would have helped? • What areas of the course were most and least useful and why? • How can NNSs contribute to the knowledge base of the course, and possibly assist NS colleagues (for example with language awareness, prior teaching/learning experience, learner profile insights)? • What are the benefits and possible disadvantages from having NS/NNS mixed participant groups on initial training courses? • How can course participants usefully explore issues of identity, NNS/NS status, and culture during the course? (now see: Kiczkowiak et al. 2016 in ELTED Journal)

19. 2nd study: What role do ITCs play in professional development and career of experienced NNESTs? • Anderson, J. (2016). A qualitative study into the role of initial teacher training courses in the professional development of experienced non-native speaker teachers of English. MA Dissertation. King’s College London. • Anderson, J. (2017). The role of initial teacher training courses in the professional development of experienced non-native-speaker English language teachers. ELT Education and Development. (21, forthcoming)

20. Research questions • What factors contribute to NNESTs with prior teaching experience taking the decision to enrol on ITCs? • How useful and productive do experienced NNESTs find ITCs? • What impact do ITCs have on the teaching practices, professional development and career path of experienced NNESTs? • What suggestions/feedback do respondents have to ensure that ITCs are as useful for NNESTs as for native-speaker participants?

21. Participants 19 interviews (five face-to-face and 14 via email), 13 nationalities: Algerian, Argentinian, Chinese, French, Greek, Indonesian, Italian, Moroccan, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian and Uzbek. 10 CertTESOL graduates, 9 CELTA. 12 involved courses in the UK (63%). 17 had a prior English language qualification, 13 had a pedagogic qualification. All had teaching experience (average 8.6 years) before the course, and had completed it at least 6 months before the interview.

22. Pseudonyms used

23. Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews Interviews were semi-structured, with pre-specified, open initial questions. Follow-up questions depended on responses. Email interviews involved several exchanges. Face-to-face interviews allowed for in-depth exploration that informed email interviews. Use of email allowed a wider variety of respondents. Data was codified for themes and analysed. Both individual and shared narratives emerged.

24. Findings: Motivation and envisaged outcome

25. Findings: Career prospects and classroom practice Why did they take the course? In simple terms: mainly to improve career prospects (15) and to improve classroom practice (15). But the relationship between these two areas was complex. Key quotes: “There was one main reason for taking the course: become a world-wide recognised ESOL teacher and be able to be hired as one abroad … I also felt I needed an honest opinion from native English teachers with recognised expertise in teacher training, and benefit from their advice and guidance for further improvements.” (Angela) “Either I take the CELTA or look for a new job. … What I hoped to learn from CELTA as a teacher is the art of teaching English by being trained by professional and near or near-native trainers.” (Habib)

26. Findings: The ‘dream’ of mobility While many respondents expressed a hope to work in other countries after the course (11), few seemed confident of this outcome. For two, this desire was described as a ‘dream’ (Monica, Sabina), and for others (4), uncertainty was evident in their responses: “[The CELTA] is like a passport for teaching in London, I heard. I’m not sure whether it’s right or wrong.” (Andrew)

27. How useful, and what was useful? ... TP The majority clearly found it ‘very’ (8) or ‘extremely useful’ (3), especially TP, TP feedback and planning for TP: “All parts were useful and interesting to me, especially the teaching practice sessions and the feedback sessions we had afterwards. I also appreciated very much all the aspects we were forced to consider when building our lesson plans.” (Carla) … some implied ‘useful for others’: “I find this course very useful, especially for those specialists whose majors were not the aspects of the English language. They now became qualified teachers. For me it was more like sharing experience, observing the process of teaching, colleagues and students, comparing, enjoying the atmosphere.” (Nina)

28. Not very useful? “language awareness” “Regarding language awareness, I did not learn any new things compared to native speakers of English as I’m a linguist and I’m familiar with grammar, phonetics and so forth.” (Isabel) … and to a lesser extent, pedagogic theory: “Me and my other non-native English-speaking trainees feel [the pedagogic theory] was a bit too basic, but they can’t really teach advanced for the others, otherwise it’s really difficult.” (Farah)

29. Challenges? ‘Old habits’ and new skills The most commonly discussed challenges related to adding new teaching skills and procedures to their practice. Several reported conflict between course expectations and their current practices. Five respondents seemed to blame themselves, presuming that they were the problem: “Changes in teaching practice are really difficult to internalise. You need to fight with yourself constantly.” (Manuela) “The biggest challenge was to overcome the old wrong habits I had in my teaching which I had to eradicate from my teaching practice.” (Nadia)

30. Mixed messages regarding use of L1 “You feel like you’re being a kind of fraud if you are teaching in English and you have to speak in Spanish.” (Lucia) “…6 people in the course couldn’t speak Spanish and that was definitely a big point in favour. All in English. We talked about different teaching methodologies and about the possibility of using L1 in class but they told us it wasn’t the Cambridge style.” (Carla) “I was lucky in this aspect. Our students were Spanish so many times when they were lost in any part of the lesson we could explain something in L1 and they felt really comfortable.” (Sabina)

31. Impact in the classroom? 15 reported changes towards more communicative practices: “I have considerably reduced my TTT in class. I have a clear idea of the importance of teacher-independent students in a class and having them participating as much as possible... I try to make the lesson more dynamic, regrouping students differently and for different purposes.” (Carla) 4 reported eclectic appropriation: “…our methodology in Russia is a compilation of different methods and techniques depending on the aspect of the language you teach and the age range of the students in the groups.” (Nina)

32. Impact on career? A big split here. For some it was positive (at least 5) and even life changing: “It was a life-changing course for me, you know. Because of this I found my way back to teaching and I feel qualified now… I feel like my teaching skills have been recognised.” (Farah) Others (at least 4) found a glass ceiling of native-speaker prejudice: “One of my course partners was told they couldn´t hire her as she was Spanish, only when she was in the interview and just said her surname. She did not have this problem when she was on the phone and the employers did not even notice her accent, they took her as a ‘native’ speaker.” (Isabel) “Last year I applied for a job in a top International School in Bangkok and they openly told me they would only consider English native speakers for the position, even for the teaching of Science.” (Camille, MA-qualified science teacher with 5 years teaching experience in the UK)

33. Would you recommend it to NNESTs? 14 of the 19 respondents would recommend the course to non-native speaking colleagues. Of these, four included no provisos: “I would say that it is really worth to take this course no matter whether you are new to teaching or an experienced teacher, but without teaching qualification.” (Nadia) 5 respondents did not recommend it: “I would tell them that such a course is more appropriate for less experienced teachers who need to benefit from teacher training in an English-speaking environment. I would also advise them to think twice before taking this course because there is no job guarantee for a non-native teacher of English.” (Angela, took course in UK)

34. The importance of having the same qualification as NSs “I feel like this certificate helped me to be in the same position as a native speaker.” (Farah, SD) “[Unqualified NESTs] are valued as better than you, and I really feel uncomfortable because I think it’s not fair. I think [the qualification] is a good way to say: ‘Well you’re native, but I’m a teacher. You’re not a teacher.’” (Lucia, SD) ICELT? Only four indicated that they might have been interested in ICELT. Most perceived that the CELTA and CertTESOL were the internationally accepted benchmarks in the industry, and crucial to mobility: “I chose the CertTESOL because this would help me to get the certificate to work more easily abroad.” (Isabel) The paradox: I need the ‘NS’ qualification.

35. Recommendations summarised Discussion? Pairs/groups then plenary? NNESTs need: • a more developmental approach to TP; • discussion of appropriacy of methodology and context; • discussion of norms and models esp. English as a lingua franca; • more L1-inclusivity; • less grammar awareness, more work on lexis (esp. idiomaticity); • Cambridge and/or Trinity to develop a publicly accessible database of organisations that offer equal opportunities to all job applicants, and welcome applications from non-native speaker teachers. my current research supports these strongly

36. Discussion: An NNEST-friendly CELTA Work in groups of 3-5. Discuss: • What would an NNEST-friendly CELTA be like? Think about: • ‘delivered’ course content (esp. inputs) • Cambridge syllabus (incl. course aims) • pre-course preparation • models and norms • other areas One member of each group to take notes (with your permission I may use at IATEFL).

37. Discussion: A NNEST-friendly CELTA? Some of my thoughts: • Target candidature & course aims • Expectations of prior ‘knowledge’ (competence vs. awareness) • Differentiation at pre-course preparation stage • ‘Multilingual’ and ‘monolingual’ classrooms • Models and norms: Native-speaker competence vs. lingua franca competence

38. CELTA ‘Target candidature’… ignoring NNESTs? CELTA Syllabus and Assessment Guidelines 4th Ed. (2015) p. 2 and also for participants with prior experience and qualifications who require international certification. demonstrate demonstrate ____________________________________

39. Expectations of prior knowledge: Language competence and language awareness Applicants must… • have an awareness of language and a competence in both written and spoken English which will enable them to undertake the course and prepare for teaching a range of levels (The recommended candidate language level is C2 or high C1 – Grade A or B, on the CEFR.) CELTA Administration Handbook 2014, p.9

40. Pre-course tasks could differentiate • Stronger LA focus for NSs, esp. grammar • Stronger classroom language focus (see, e.g. Freeman et al. 2016), essay writing focus for NNSs Result: Brings candidates to closer ‘starting positions’. • Possible to standardise (e.g. via online CELTA)?

41. Multilingual (mixed-L1) and monolingual (shared-L1) classrooms and CELTA • L1 mentioned in syllabus (1.6), but not in TP assessment criteria – where it matters • Potential scope of effective L1 use across all topics. E.g. 1a-d (Ls’ needs, culture, background, rapport); 2a (own lang. use), 2e (MFP); 4j/k (planning - potential difficulties and solutions); 5f (instructions), 5g (checking understanding) • Would L1 warrant its own item? 2h making effective use of learners’ prior languages (languaculture) to facilitate learning’ • L1-use can be explored and encouraged even in multilingual contexts: Active advocacy can impact significantly on NNESTs’ practices.

42. Models and norms: Native speaker correctness vs. lingua franca competence • Use of phonemic script (cf. IPA) implies need to conform to (UK RP) norms, inappropriate for all non-UK participants, irrelevant in lingua franca interaction (Jenkins 2000); • Whose English is the best model for (e.g.) an intermediate Turkish learner of English? A UK native speaker or a Turkish expert speaker of English? • Assignments: “written language that is clear, accurate and appropriate to the task” Whose ‘accurate’? How might we separate conformity to (one set of) NS norms vs. internationally clear and unambiguous?

43. Potential directions for future research? • Classroom-based observations of CELTA participants with prior teaching experience – before and after, combined with stimulated recall interviews (Anadolu University research); • Potential symposium & round table discussion: The future of CELTA & CertTESOL to consider how these qualifications may need re-theorising to recognise current and future roles in profession; • Analysis of different CELTA course timetables and provisions, comparing courses in Anglophone countries with mainly NS participants, those in non-Anglophone countries with mainly NNS participants, and those including both, involving interviews with trainers and participants; • Investigation into the pros and cons of having NS/NNS mixed participant groups on initial training courses.

44. The role of CELTA in the CPD of non-native speaker teachers References Anderson, J. (2016a). Initial teacher training courses and non-native speaker teachers. ELT Journal 70/3: 261-74. Anderson, J. (2016b). A qualitative study into the role of initial teacher training courses in the professional development of experienced non-native speaker teachers of English. MA Dissertation. King’s College London. Anderson, J. (2017). The role of initial teacher training courses in the professional development of experienced non-native-speaker English language teachers. ELT Education and Development. (21 forthcoming). CELTA Syllabus and Assessment Guidelines 4th Edition. (2015). Cambridge English Language Assessment. CELTA Administration Handbook 2014. (2014). Cambridge English Language Assessment. Freeman, D., Katz, A., Garcia Gomez, P. and Burns, A. (2016). English-for-Teaching: rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom. ELT Journal 69/2: 129-39. Ferguson, G. and S. Donno. 2003. ‘One-month teacher training courses: Time for a change?’. ELT Journal 57/1: 26-33. Hobbs, V. (2013). ‘“A basic starter pack”: The TESOL certificate as a course in survival’. ELT Journal 67/2: 163-174. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: OUP. Kiczkowiak, M., Baines, D. & Krummenacher, K. (2016). Using awareness raising activities on initial teacher training courses to tackle ‘Native speakerism’ ELTED, 19: 45-53.