Allowing for practice: a critical issue

in TESOL teacher preparation

Caroline Brandt

This paper considers teaching practice in short, intensive, pre-service

TE S OL certificate courses, drawing upon outcomes of recent research into
the experiences of participants on courses offered internationally by a
UK-based provider.
Qualitative methodology led to the identification of 26 critical issues,
including several related to the teaching practice component of such
courses. It is suggested that the component is used by tutors primarily for
assessment purposes while practice and feedback take on a secondary
function, leading to an emphasis on assessable performance at the expense
of developmental practice.
The implications of this for trainees, tutors, and language students are
discussed. An opportunity to improve the quality of initial T E S O L training is
identified, through courses designed to account for current conceptions of
adult learning and reflective practice, in which a more learner-centred
approach to both trainees and language learners is taken, and trainees are
guaranteed authentic and developmental practice opportunities.

Introduction Every year, some 10,000 people take one of the many teacher training
courses in TESOL that are currently available and which lead to the award of
a certificate validated by one of two UK-based examinations bodies: Trinity
College London and Cambridge ESOL. Annually, around 3,000 people are
awarded a Trinity College London Certificate in TESOL (‘Cert TESOL’)
through approximately 100 institutions in the UK and overseas (British
Council, UK: ‘Getting Qualified—English’, 2004), while over 7,000 people
pass a Cambridge ESOL Certificate in English Language Teaching to
Adults (‘CE LTA’) through approximately 600 courses offered worldwide
(Cambridge ESOL: ‘For prospective teachers’, 2004b).
Courses leading to the award of both of these certificates are pre-service,
short, and intensive. The validating organizations take responsibility for
the design of the curriculum, which is implemented locally. Tutors make
decisions such as the course length, which may be full-time or part-time,
and they determine the precise schedule. The syllabus of such courses is
typically objectives-driven and encompasses both teaching skills and
language awareness development. These are normally specified in the form
of course components, topics or units, syllabus content descriptors, and

E LT Journal Volume 60/4 October 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/ccl026 355

ª The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 course objectives or learning outcomes. Courses are usually delivered
through a combination of input, tutorials, feedback, supervised teaching
practice, and guided observation of experienced teachers. They tend to
be around 120 hours long. One of the main advantages of this model is
that it seeks to improve the standardization of courses validated by one
organization but held in many different locations and contexts throughout
the world. Assessment is usually continuous, and there are no formal
examinations.
Teaching practice (TP) is a significant component of such courses. Trainees
typically complete a minimum of 6 hours, distributed throughout the
course. On the courses which were investigated during this research, all
6 hours were supervised by a tutor. Trainees were required to teach
students at two different levels, such as elementary and upper
intermediate, and this was generally achieved by arranging for trainees
to change levels midway through the course. Trainees were arranged into
TP groups of 4 or 5, and expected to collaborate to design cohesive and
coherent lessons for their students. Students for TP purposes were either
volunteers drawn from the local community or were already registered as
fee-paying students at the centre.
The research identified a number of problems related to such TP
arrangements. In particular, given the limited available time, trainees felt
compelled to perform key techniques according to their tutors’ expectations
and preferences. They felt that they had insufficient opportunity in which
to experiment and make mistakes without being judged. They also
experienced difficulty finding opportunities to reflect upon their
performance, and to identify and address the real needs of learners. It is
suggested that some of these problems arose because assessment was
a priority for tutors in TP. In this context, developmental practice and
feedback tended to acquire a secondary function. Tutors also experienced
a dual, conflicting, role: that of guide (to the practising, developing teacher)
and that of assessor (of the trainee’s performance). These, and other issues,
are explored below.

Research focus The intention at the start of the enquiry was to investigate certificate courses
from the perspective of participants, including both trainees and tutors.
As the research progressed, a number of questions emerged that led to
a focus on trainees’ learning-related concerns, with ‘concern’ being
defined in this context as ‘a matter that was problematic, or of particular
interest or importance, for a trainee or a tutor, that applied specifically to
trainees’ learning’. Such research may be timely. Ferguson and Donno
(2003: 26), in a discussion of these training courses, observed:
Considering, then, the relatively large scale of this training activity,
the dearth of published research into the phenomenon is curious.
This ‘dearth of published research’ in part prompted the project reported
here.

Research Given that the research aim was to understand the course from the
methodology and perspective of the participants, and that there was no intention to evaluate
outcomes the course or establish the frequency of occurrence of any aspect of the

356 Caroline Brandt

 data in order to identify laws, rules, causes, or effects, an ethnographic
approach to the enquiry setting was developed. Such an approach,
defined by its use of qualitative methods of enquiry, allowed for the
interpretation of data and the emergence of themes.
The methodology included two fieldwork phases involving 95 participants
in 9 countries, over a period of 4 years. Of the participants, 63 were past
or present trainees and 32 were tutors at the time of the research. Both
part-time and full-time courses were represented. Various data-gathering
techniques were developed and included: asking participants to keep
journals; interviews; questionnaires; and shadowing one group of trainees
throughout a complete course. All data were gathered according to
an ethical framework of 7 criteria (Patton 1990), including informed
participant consent, guaranteed anonymity, and confidentiality.
Phase 1 was a case study of 23 participants attending a 12-week, part-time
course. Outcomes from this phase informed the development of
questionnaires used to elicit further data in Phase 2, the aim being to
triangulate and enable the rejection, substantiation, modification, and
supplementation of Phase 1 outcomes. In Phase 2, an approach was
developed, termed ‘generative networking’ (Brandt 2004: 389–99), that
gave access to a large number of potential questionnaire respondents
around the world. Outcomes from this phase led to the rejection of several
issues, as these were poorly supported in the new data. Conversely,
a number of new issues were suggested in Phase 2, but unsupported in
Phase 1 data. Only issues supported by both fieldwork phases were
considered further, and these were termed ‘critical’. Through this process,
26 critical issues for the preparation of TESOL teachers emerged, of
which 10 were identified as relating to TP.

Experiencing TP The TP component of the course was found to cause participants the
greatest concern, followed closely by feedback. The 10 critical issues relating
to TP are outlined below.
Critical issue 1: Trainees expressed a need for a second TP tutor, in
case the first relationship was a poor one. This led trainees to seek
information concerning tutors’ preferences, to facilitate corresponding
performance modification.
This critical issue relates to trainees’ desire to have more than one
TP tutor, that is, one for the first half of the course, and another for the
second. The most common reason for this was that should the first
relationship be poor, there was an opportunity for improvement with the
second. A good relationship was considered essential as some felt this
increased the chances of receiving a good final grade.
However, changing tutors created a number of problems for trainees, in
particular an urgent need to familiarize themselves with their new tutor’s
preferences. This course graduate commented:
My group felt penalized [in the second half of the course] because
instructions and individual tutors’ peccadilloes [preferences] were not
explained.
(Jim, case study centre)

Allowing for practice in teacher preparation 357

 Examples of preferences frequently referred to included drilling and
pronunciation work. Trainees seemed to believe that there was a correlation
between final grades and the frequency with which they could demonstrate
their tutor’s favoured skills. Judith described the discomfiture caused:
Laura [tutor] seems to approve of drilling—so my plan was to drill,
drill, drill. I did but it was uncomfortable and I need more practice.
(Judith, case study centre)
Critical issue 2: Trainees had particular difficulty complying with tutors’
expectations when the latter were counter-intuitive.
Trainees needed to feel secure in TP. Consequently they experienced anxiety
and frustration when asked to demonstrate techniques they did not agree
with, see the relevance of, feel confident performing, or understand. Wendy,
a trainee, described this as ‘having to live in this state of suspended belief’,
while Brenda, like Judith above, was uncomfortable with various techniques
she was expected to demonstrate:
I was never comfortable with ritualized techniques for drilling and
eliciting, nor with the use of flashcards in any form. Some of these
things had, for me, an element of a ‘performing monkey’ to them.
(Brenda, case study centre)
Critical issue 3: TP tended to be equated with assessment, with trainees
feeling under pressure to demonstrate key techniques in a limited time to
allow assessment to take place.
This issue develops the theme of tutors’ preferences, and focuses on
trainees’ perceived need to ‘jump through hoops’ in order to pass the course,
contributing to the equating of TP with assessment. Aileen commented:
The different tutors had different preferences e.g. one was very into
phonology and the way to get positive feedback was to stress that.
It was very much a case of identifying the hoops and then jumping
through them. [. . .] It would have been nice to make mistakes and
not feel that by doing so you were being pushed closer to the brink
of failure.
(Aileen, UK)
Georgina described some of the difficulties experienced:
We were all frightened to deviate from our lesson plans and deal
with any real issues that came up. There was also little continuity
between one session and another. Everyone was very time-focused
and worried about running over, achieving aims, etc., so interruptions
of students ‘not getting it’ really panicked us.
(Georgina, Bahrain)
Tutors, however, tended to feel that it was beneficial to trainees to refrain
from deviating from the model presented. One observed:
I think I know best and I like them to follow my model, but I would
love them to surprise me. [. . .] Experimentation is dangerous, if it
goes wrong they could fail the TP.
(Louise, case study centre)

358 Caroline Brandt

Critical issue 4: Trainees and tutors described significant differences
between TP language learners and those attending regular classes.
Trainees found that their TP learners differed in a number of ways from
those attending regular classes. One of the most significant differences
was that trainees found that language learners could be ‘primed’. One
trainee described TP as being more akin to role play, because of this:
Why can’t I get to some real language learners, who are unprimed
and have a genuine desire to learn, in a real classroom situation,
rather than all this role-play and simulation?
(Jan, case study centre)
This trainee described what he perceived to have been a commonly-held
understanding during his course:
They [language students] know what the score is, so they will be
supportive during your lessons.
(Simon, Bahrain)
Tutors agreed that there were many differences between the role and
behaviour of TP language learners and those attending regular classes.
They described TP learners as, for example, ‘more co-operative’ and
‘more tolerant’.
Critical issue 5: Collaboration was found to be essential in the early part
of the course but difficult in later stages of the course.
Collaborating towards a TP lesson was described as very useful in the
early stages, as trainees enjoyed working together and learnt from each
other, but it became increasingly problematic. Trainees reported anxiety
in particular with regard to opportunities created while collaborating for
peers to ‘pinch ideas’. This was felt to be threatening in the context of
assessed TP, where trainees were keen to receive credit for their own
ideas. For example, Jan, a case study centre trainee, noted:
TP planning—we are starting to have problems with
[trainee 1]—there’s a difference between an exchange of ideas and
pinching ideas—poor [trainee 2] was the victim.
Critical issue 6: Trainees appreciated video-recorded TP.
Issue 6 describes trainees’ call for TP to be video-recorded more frequently,
to allow for later reflection and analysis. This course graduate noted that:
Of tremendous value was the video recording. Much more should be
made of this. Over one year after the course I still refer to my tapes.
(Peter, case study centre)
Of the courses studied, most were able to provide trainees with at least one
video-recorded lesson; while appreciated, this was generally felt to be
insufficient.
Critical issue 7: Trainees found themselves unable to address the needs of
language learners, who were rarely felt to be the focus of training.
Issue 7, like issue 4, relates to the role of language learners in TP. Many
trainees were surprised to find as the course progressed that language

Allowing for practice in teacher preparation 359

 learners were not the main focus of their work. In particular, trainees felt
overwhelmingly unable to take their needs into account. Language learners
were described variously as being there ‘to use’; as a ‘means to an end’; and
as ‘guinea pigs solely for us to practise on’. For example, this graduate wrote:
For the duration of the course I must say I viewed [language learners]
as tools for me to use to improve my teaching technique. I was also
extremely conscious [. . .] that they were not really getting value for
money.
(Jim, case study centre)
While another graduate observed that:
It was more about us than them, the exact opposite of how it
should be.
(Anna, UK)
Others noted that TP classes were ‘short and bitty’ and ‘lacked continuity’
and that as a result it was very difficult to take language learners’ needs into
account.
Critical issue 8: Tutors feel that a limited language learner focus is inevitable
in the available time.
Tutors felt that the main course focus was trainees’ learning rather than that
of language learners. Several tutors described this focus as inappropriate,
while others felt that it gave a contradictory message:
I feel it focuses more on the trainees’ learning, in fact, despite the fact
that we’re always telling them to focus on their students.
(Robert, Thailand)
Critical issue 9: Trainees need immediate feedback on failing lessons; this is
contrasted with tutors’ preference to delay such feedback, in case of
subsequent improvement.
This issue expresses trainees’ appeal for immediate performance feedback
on a ‘fail’ lesson, to ensure adequate remaining time for demonstration of
improvement. The data suggested that some tutors delayed informing
trainees of failure, in case improvement was apparent in subsequent
lessons. This graduate found that:
. . . the tutor took action only when it was nearly too late. Ongoing
observation should guarantee that major problems for [trainees] are
picked up immediately [. . .]. In my group we had one student who
literally until the end of the last TP wasn’t sure if she’d made it or
not . . . that’s too late.
(Angela, case study centre)
Critical issue 10: Trainees expressed a strong desire for unsupervised TP.
This issue expresses trainees’ desire for unsupervised TP, to provide an
opportunity for practice without assessment. Sandra felt very strongly about
being observed all the time. She wrote:
I [. . .] HATE being observed and it is creating this block
between myself and class. [. . .] A N D it’s A L L TH E T I M E.

360 Caroline Brandt

 WHY don’t they let us have some classes with NO ONE
observing?
(Sandra, case study centre)
Although unsupervised TP was not precluded in the documentation of any
course studied, in practice it was found to be available only by special
arrangement, and was rarely taken up by trainees.

The aims of a What are the aims of such a component on short, intensive, pre-service
TP component TESOL certificate courses? In Cambridge E SOL CE LTA documentation,
TP is described under the heading of ‘course requirements and components
of assessment’. The purpose of TP is stated as being ‘so that opportunities
are provided for trainees to show that they can apply theory to practice
in their classroom teaching’ (Cambridge ESOL ‘Certificate in English
Language Teaching to Adults (CE LTA)’: Syllabus, 2004). Documentation
for the Trinity College Certificate in TESOL, on the other hand, takes
a slightly different approach, describing TP as a component of Unit 1,
‘Teaching Skills’, during which ‘all trainees will complete a minimum of
6 hours TP with genuine classes’ (Trinity College London, ‘Certificate in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CertTESOL)’, 2004).
Nevertheless, all 6 hours of TP are intended to be used towards assessment.
For example, one centre offering this course, Languages Training and
Development, UK, state that one of the assessment criteria is the
‘satisfactory planning and delivery of a minimum of 6 one-hour lessons’
(Languages Training and Development Courses: TESOL, 2004).
Yet, when asked about the purpose of TP from the perspective of the
trainee, tutors expressed the view that it exists in order to: ‘give [trainees]
the chance to develop the skills they need’ (Mary, UK). This is in accord
with a craft or apprenticeship view of learning teaching (Wallace 1991: 6),
which, through observation and practice, enables new teachers to develop a:
. . . working command of the necessary tools of their profession;
control of the techniques of class instruction and management;
and skill and proficiency in the work of teaching.
(Dewey, cited in Gitlin and Teitelbaum 1983: 226)
It is clear therefore that TP in this context has two conflicting functions: the
data and documentation above suggest that from the tutor’s perspective, it is
there (in significant part) to facilitate assessment; while from the trainee’s
perspective, it exists to allow them to develop ‘skill and proficiency in the
work of teaching’. This situation bestows upon tutors dual, conflicting,
roles: to provide formative guidance and support to the practising trainee on
the one hand, while simultaneously being required to make a summative
assessment of the performing trainee on the other.

Allowing for practice The data suggested that there is currently an emphasis on performance
on the course, in particular on replicating and demonstrating technique.
In the 6 hours of TP, tutors are required to look for mastery of identified
skills and techniques, and assess trainees’ performances against established
criteria. In this context, it is not surprising to find that tutors appeared to
concentrate on collecting evidence to justify grades, at the expense of
developmental feedback. It is equally unsurprising, as trainees invest

Allowing for practice in teacher preparation 361

 significant personal resources in taking such courses, to find them more
concerned with performing the required techniques to an appropriate
standard, than with using the opportunity to experiment, and make and
learn from inevitable mistakes.
While this situation might be understandable in the context of short courses
where tutors are keen to make accurate judgements based on evidence, and
where there is a perceived need to standardize a course offered in many
countries but validated by one institution, it cannot be justified when it
encourages a mechanistic, compliant response that limits opportunities for
insight and stifles initiative, when it prevents genuine practice taking place,
or when it disrupts trainees’ ability to attend to their learners. It also appears
to limit opportunities for the development of personalized learning
strategies; instead trainees were observed going to considerable lengths to
avoid making errors, to the extent of familiarizing themselves with their
tutors’ preferences in order to improve their chances of success by
displaying preferred behaviour.
Reducing learning to how to teach to a set of demonstrable techniques
which may be expert-judged fails to take account of the richness,
uniqueness, diversity and opportunity of each language learning
classroom. It also fails to account for the distinct contexts in which the
course is offered around the world, encouraging instead a decontextualized
‘one-size-fits-all’ approach which restricts the opportunities for trainees to
develop the skills needed to meet the challenges inherent in their local
environment, and promotes a view of teachers as contextually-isolated
technicians. When language learners are ‘primed’, or seen as ‘tools’ and
‘guinea pigs’, and when they differ significantly in terms of motivation and
experience from registered fee-paying students, the approach appears to
marginalize learners, rather than recognize the pivotal function that this
group could—and should—play in the training process. In so doing,
a number of questions arise: What message are we giving new teachers
regarding the status of the language learner in our profession? How
morally and ethically responsible is it to ignore our language learners
and reduce a complex social, cultural, and linguistic environment to a set
of hoops to be jumped through for our own convenience? What signals
are we giving when TP, ostensibly for trainees, actually means Teaching
Assessment carried out by tutors, and in reality is a misnomer as little
or no opportunity for genuine practice normally exists? What are we
saying about learning and teaching when trainees’ needs develop and
change, but significant aspects of the course remain static and fail to
accommodate them?

Learning to teach To address these issues, drawing on the extensive literature in adult
education, it is suggested that conceptions of learning how to teach
need to move away from a ‘being told’ transfer approach, which is
expert-directed, subordinating, replicating, dependent, and rational,
towards an exploratory ‘finding out’ or transformative approach, which
includes the following characteristics: it builds on existing knowledge,
allows for different learning styles, provides opportunities for problem-
solving, encourages autonomy, and is reflective (Tusting and Barton
2003: 36). Within such an environment, the development of a capability

362 Caroline Brandt

 of critical reflection in action (Mezirow 1990) is more likely to create
meaning and learning for the novice teacher. The notions of questioning
assumptions, taking action, and reflecting on those actions would form
the centrepiece of a learning process that focuses on questioning rather
than accepting knowledge. The creation of professional competence
would be seen less as the replicating of technical expertise, or training,
and more as the development of artistry (Schön 1987), or education,
where social interaction constructs and transforms processes, where
dialogue and discussion underpin collaborative enquiry, and where
learning and language learners are assigned a pivotal and locally-
contextualized role.
With such understandings, the foregrounding of language learners’
problems and issues for dialogue and critical reflection naturally
becomes the central activity for tutors and trainees. In such a context,
trainees’ own needs as learner-teachers may be more readily recognized,
ensuring the provision of genuine practice opportunities, with
assessment being achieved through other, distinct, means. The
opportunity would also be created to separate and clarify tutors’
conflicting dual roles.

Conclusion Many would argue that such considerations are beyond the scope of
short introductory courses. It may also be argued that such courses fulfil
a useful function, and that they carry this out with considerable success
from many perspectives. Such courses furthermore do not pretend to be
anything more than they are: the delivery of a range of classroom
survival techniques enabling the novice to approach the E LT classroom
with a degree of confidence and the capacity to develop and experiment
from that point forward.
The research did not set out to evaluate the course or provide
recommendations for improving it. Had this been the intention, the
methodology—and outcomes—would have differed. It should also be
recognized that several of the research outcomes, including some of those
discussed here, appear to be incompatible with a short, intensive, course
design. It is therefore suggested that the issues raised above are more
appropriately seen as an opportunity to learn from these participants’
experiences, offering a number of challenges to the designers of new, future,
pre-service courses.
This discussion in particular suggests that allowing for practice in pre-
service courses would have a number of benefits, including the opportunity
to reconsider the roles of tutors and language learners, the place and nature
of trainee assessment, and the effects of standardization. Allowing for
practice would provide new teachers with opportunities to experiment
and make errors free of the burden and distraction of assessment, and
the possibility for language learners and their learning to be placed more
squarely in centre stage, creating an environment that would allow the new
teacher to begin to develop the capability and empathy to cope with the
inherent dilemmas, paradoxes, and inconsistencies in diverse learning
and teaching cultures around the world.
Final revised version received January 2005

Allowing for practice in teacher preparation 363

References Trinity College, London. 2004. ‘Certificate in
Brandt, C. 2004. ‘Using generative networking Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
to gather qualitative data’ in P. Davidson, (CertT E S O L)’. http://www.trinitycollege.co.
K. Bird, M. Al-Hamly, J. Aydelott, C. Coombe, and uk/_downloads/T ES O L/documents/certT ES O L_
M. A. Khan (eds.). 2004. Proceedings of the 9th Summary Retrieved 29 November 2004.
International T E S O L Arabia Conference: English Tusting, K. and D. Barton. 2003. ‘Models of
Language Teaching in the IT Age. Dubai, UAE: adult learning: a literature review’. National
T ES O L Arabia. Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy
British Council, UK. 2004. ‘Getting and Numeracy. UK: Institute of Education.
Qualified—English’. http://www.britcoun.org/ Wallace, M. 1991. Training Foreign Language
english/quals.htm#2b. Retrieved 11 December 2004. Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Cambridge ESO L. 2004a. ‘Certificate in English Press.
Language Teaching to Adults (C ELTA): Syllabus’.
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/teaching/ The author
celta8_251103.pdf. Retrieved 29 November 2004. Caroline Brandt has a PhD in T E S O L and is
Cambridge ESO L. 2004b. ‘For prospective Assistant Professor of English Communications
teachers’. http://www.efl.org.uk/teaching/celta/ with the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi,
celta14.cfm. Retrieved 12 December 2004. United Arab Emirates, where she teaches
Ferguson, G. and S. Donno. 2003. ‘One-month academic language and research skills.
teacher training courses: time for a change?’ Caroline has 22 years of experience in ELT in
ELT Journal 57/1: 26–33. diverse institutions in Europe, the Middle East,
Gitlin, A. and K. Teitelbaum. 1983. ‘Linking and the Asia-Pacific region. She has worked in
theory and practice: The use of ethnographic various capacities, including lecturer, curriculum
methodology by prospective teachers’. Journal specialist, centre manager, and teacher trainer. In
of Education for Teaching 9/3: 225–34. every position, she has pursued her interest in
Languages Training and Development. 2004. teacher education and development, having
‘Languages Training and Development Courses: taught Certificate, Diploma, BEd, and MA
T ES O L’. http://www.ltdoxford.com/c3.html. courses, and contributed to in-service teacher
Retrieved 29 November 2004. development programmes. She is the author of
Mezirow, J. 1990. ‘How critical reflection triggers ‘Success on Your Certificate Course in English
transformative learning’ in J. Mezirow and Language Teaching: A Guide to Becoming a
Associates. Fostering Critical Reflection in Teacher in ELT/T ES O L’, published by Sage
Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Publications, 2006.
Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Caroline’s other research interests include critical
Research Methods (Second edition). Beverley Hills, pedagogy and qualitative research methods. She is
California: Sage Publications Ltd. currently engaged in research into how teachers
Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective reconcile their own values and beliefs about
Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching teaching and learning with those of their students
and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: from different cultural backgrounds.
Jossey-Bass. Email: c.brandt@yahoo.co.uk

364 Caroline Brandt