Minnesota in-service teacher perspectives on pre-professional education

Karen Lybeck

ABSTRACT

This report gives the results of a survey given to in-service ESL teachers in Minnesota regarding the relationship between their pre-service preparation and their current practice[1]. The purpose of this survey was to help inform teacher educators about those areas that in-service teacher’s felt they needed more preparation in order to strengthen both pre-service preparation and continuing professional development. The purpose of this report is to share this information with other programs that might also benefit from it.

 

IMPETUS FOR THE STUDY

As a result of our experiences teaching TESL content and methods courses, observing pre-service and in-service teachers in their teaching practice, and in conversations with teachers, teacher educators, and supervisors at various professional development opportunities, we felt that a number of teachers were not necessarily exhibiting the skills in their classrooms that we felt they were or should be getting in their professional education programs. While there are many factors that might contribute to such a gap, such as institutional constraints, cognitive overload, classroom management issues, etc., we wanted to find out what in-service teachers could tell us about the relationship between their pre-service training and their current practice. We hypothesized that the perceived gap might be related to, 1) differences between what we, as teacher educators, perceived we were giving students compared to what they actually came away with, 2) whether pre-professional programs focused on something different than what was needed in the classroom, or, 3) if the gap was more a problem of transferring knowledge from theory to practice. In order to better understand where the problem lay, and ultimately decide if there were changes that we could facilitate at the pre-service level, we decided to survey in-service teachers for their input. 

 

Research Questions

In order to answer the more global question listed above, we collected data that would allow us to answer the following set of sub-questions:

1.    What is the participants’ level of satisfaction with their pre-service professional development in theory and research? 

2.    By what means were participants prepared to use theory/research in their teaching practices?

3.    What was their level of satisfaction with each of these opportunities/activity types?

4.    How do the participants use their knowledge of the theory to teach ELLs today?

5.    What advice do the participants have for teacher educators and TESL students on this topic?

 

We decided to ask the first three questions because they reflect typical areas of course work that provide students with much of the knowledge and skill they need to make informed pedagogical decisions once in the classroom. These three questions also appeared to us to elicit information about where the gaps appeared between learning and practice, and to be readily assessable for the participants. We chose the last two questions because they are the means through which in-service teachers continue to acquire and update their knowledge and skills. We felt that while in-service professional development is provided at the school and district level, and while many teachers engage in reflective teaching and peer coaching, that ultimately being prepared to carry out action research and to know what professional development opportunities specifically for ESL teachers are available were two areas that the pre-professional program should provide.

 

METHODS

 

This study was conducted via a Zoomerang online survey (See items in Appendices A & B) during the spring of 2007. Participants were recruited through the MinneTESOL K-12 interest sections’ email lists and the Southern Minnesota ESL Networking list-serve. Twenty-nine people attempted the survey which was divided into the following 5 content-area categories:

 

We asked the respondents to report on their satisfaction with their coursework for each of these five areas, what types of activities their instructors used in order to help them acquire knowledge and skills in these areas, how the participants currently used this knowledge/skill set in their profession, what advice they had for teacher educators in each area, and in what types of professional development they would be interested in participating. Participants were given an exhaustive list of activities from which to report and evaluate under each category. While we tried to think of all possible types of activities that might be used in any of the five areas, we also provided space for possible other answers we might not have considered and any comments they chose to share.

 

Of the 29 volunteer participants that logged on and gave their consent to use their input, 2 discontinued taking the survey after the first of the five sections, and two others skipped either the fourth or the fifth category. Additionally, one respondent gave overall ratings and global comments in all five categories, but left all of the activities unmarked. On a side note, we received two comments on the extensive nature of the survey directly through email; one participant complained of the length of the survey, while the other thanked us for gathering this kind of data.

 

We did not collect demographic information from the participants because we did not want to connect results or remarks with any specific pre-professional programs, however, several comments made by the participants made it possible to conclude that this was a diverse group. Their comments showed that the participant pool was comprised of a wide range of experiential levels, from young, first-year teachers to those retiring at the end of 30 years of service, and that they taught in a variety of K-12 contexts. Some noted where they received their pre-professional education, which ranged from Minnesota institutions, both small liberal arts colleges and public universities, to educational institutions in other states, as well as online programs. Through their list of professional development activities, it was also notable that they had wide and varied experiences within the profession outside of their classroom teaching, such as service to professional organizations and engagement in professional development.  While the survey asked about their own experiences, many also answered from the perspective of mentors for new colleagues, giving their impressions of the gaps these less experienced teachers exhibited.

 

The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The participants’ overall satisfaction rating within each content area were calculated, as well as the consistency with which the respondents evaluated the different content areas from their pre-professional education. The most frequently used activity types for acquiring knowledge in these content areas are shown, as well as overall satisfaction with each of these activities. The qualitative data are organized into categories of comments the participants gave in terms of how they use their knowledge, how they believe pre-professional programs can improve, and their current needs for professional development.

 

RESULTS

1.    What is the participants’ level of satisfaction with their pre-service professional development in theory and research?

 

Table 1.  Percent of Participants Rating Satisfaction with Pre-Professional Preparation in 5 Knowledge Areas

 

L2 Theory

n=29

Ling IL n=27

Ling Text n=27

Act Res

n=26

Prof Dev

n=26

Well

.72

.14

.13

.67

.19

.15

.67

.15

.18

.46

.19

.35

.54

.31

.16

Adequately

Inadequate

 

Table 1 shows the results of the participants’ satisfaction with their pre-professional education in the five different areas questioned in the survey. In order to more easily see where the knowledge gaps seem to occur, Table 1 shows the results by conflating the top two categories, very well prepared and well prepared into one category, well prepared, and the bottom two categories, somewhat and inadequately prepared, into under prepared (find the raw data and percentages in Appendix C). In terms of satisfaction with their course work and preparation for ESL teaching, the majority of respondents (54 – 72%) felt well or very well prepared in all categories except for Action Research, where a full third of the respondents felt under prepared. In the other four categories, the results still showed that between 13-18% of the respondents felt under prepared.

 

While we did not ask for overall satisfaction with pre-professional programs, the individuals’ scores, as shown in Table 2, reveal consistency between the highest rating, L2 Theory, and the other categories. Table 2 shows the individual scores ranked according to satisfaction with L2 Theory, 5 being most satisfied and 1 being least. Those scores that vary by more than 1 point from the L2 Theory score are highlighted. Approximately half of the participants used only two descriptors for their programs, showing that these people experienced their programs as consistent across these categories. With the exception of one participant, the other half reported 1 score that was two or more points away from the others, most of which (7) were in the category of Action Research, though four were in the area of professional development and two were in the area of Linguistic Analysis of Texts. Of the four who rated their L2 Theory and Linguistic preparation poorly, three rated either action research or professional development more highly from adequate to good.

 

Table 2. Individual Satisfaction Scores

L2 Theory

Ling: IL

Ling: Text

Act Res

Prof Dev

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

5

4

4

5

5

5

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

2

4

5

4

4

4

2

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

 

 

 

 

4

3

4

4

 

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

3

3

4

5

2

5

5

4

4

4

2

5

4

4

4

2

3

4

4

4

2

4

4

3

4

2

3

4

4

3

2

5

4

4

3

 

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

 

 

 

 

3

2

4

3

3

3

3

1

1

3

2

2

2

3

4

2

3

3

4

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

Average Rating

4.03

 

3.67

3.55

3.23

 

3.69

 

 

2.    By what means were participants prepared to use theory/research in their teaching practices?

The survey gave the participants a list of activities they might have engaged in during their courses (See Appendix B). The lists of activities for the first three categories dealing with L2 Theory and Linguistic knowledge were the same. Within these three categories, most participants acknowledged that they had engaged to some extent in each of the 16 activity types presented. Table 3 shows the activities in which at least 6 participants indicated they did not engage during their course work. If an activity did not fit in a category, such as using interlanguage data to understand the linguistic structure of authentic texts, then it was eliminated from this list.

 

Table 3. Number of Participants and Activities not engaged in during Pre-professional Preparation

L2 Theory

Ling IL

Ling Text

n=28

n=26

n=26

10 Analysis of Classroom Interaction

8 Microteaching

8 Use of Videos

6 Interlanguage Data Analysis

10 Library Research

8 Classroom Interaction Data 7 Small group/pair work

6 Observation

 

8 Library Research

7 Teacher Modeling

7 Small group interaction

7 Reflection

6 Observation

6 Discussion

 

When it came to action research and professional development, however, there were many more who were not engaged in activities in these areas. Five of the 25 respondents did not receive any instruction on action research. Of the twenty who did, it was generally through lecture/discussion, primary research, writing, and reflection. The activity types in the professional development category differed greatly from the other categories and were responded to by 24 participants. Of the 12 given activities, only 5 were engaged in by most of the participants; instructor reports, lecture, membership in professional organizations, attending conferences, and district professional development functions.

 

3.    What was their level of satisfaction with each of these opportunities/activity types?

 

The participants were also asked to evaluate how well these activities were used in the learning process, with 3 representing excellent, 2 being adequate, and 1 inadequate. Figure 1 below shows the overall rating of each activity given by the participants as a group. Each subject area is designated by a different color and organized from the most satisfactorily used activities in the L2 Theory category on the left and descending to the right. Across subject areas the highest scoring is in the back, L2 Theory, and the lowest in the front, Action Research and Professional Development.

 

For the most part it appears that satisfaction within activity type works similarly to overall satisfaction, with each activity most highly ranked in L2 Theory and descending forward, such as the ratings for lecture. There is only slight variation in this pattern. For example, group work and library research score slightly lower in Linguistic Analysis of Interlanguage than in Linguistic Analysis of Text. Another anomaly occurs in teacher modeling and observation, where professional development scores higher than action research, and about the same as Linguistic Analysis of Text. The only time a subject area out scores L2 Theory is when Linguistic Analysis of Interlanguage is rated slightly higher in case scenarios and interlanguage data analysis.

 

Figure 1. Satisfaction with Activity Types by Subject Area

Within the subject areas neither professional development nor action research had any activities with an overall adequate score. Professional development shows only applying for membership in professional organizations nearing the adequate range, while action research nears that mark in writing assignments and lecture. On the other end of the spectrum, pre-professional programs seem to utilize many activities effectively in classes on theory and applying theory to practice. Eight of 16 categories scored above adequate, however, use of micro-teaching and videos were rated closer to inadequate. When it comes to the two types of linguistic analysis, all but a few tasks are rated between inadequate and adequate. The only tasks that score above a 2 are the more traditional classroom activities, such as lecture, discussion, and writing assignments, while more interactive and applied tasks, such as group work and micro-teaching fare rather poorly.

 

4.    How do the participants’ use their knowledge of the theory to teach ELLs today?

 

Participants were asked at the end of each content area how they apply what they learned in their pre-professional programs in their current teaching situations. Table 4 shows the summary of the comments the participants gave. The number of participants who answered each questions is given, as well as the number of participants making each comment type. Many of the respondents gave multiple comments; therefore the number of comments is larger than the number of participants.

 

          According to the comments given it seems that most of the participants were confident in and regularly used their knowledge of L2 theory and methods and linguistics to diagnose and meet the needs of their students. They seem slightly less confident in their linguistic ability to analyze authentic texts, but many have and use this knowledge as well. In the area of professional development, almost all the participants were active in multiple ways each year to engage in continued learning. The area with the least amount of engagement by the participants was the area of action research. Only 13 of the 26 respondents in this area gave comments about action research and slightly over half of those did not engage in it due to lack of interest, time, or preparation. Some of the comments in this section, such as saying that they engaged in reflective teaching, made it unclear if some of them were not familiar with action research or if, because they had not engaged in it, were looking for something they could contribute to the category.

 

Table 4. Self Report of how Respondents use their Knowledge in the Five Content Areas

 

Category

L2 Theory

Ling IL

Ling Text

Act Res

Prof Dev

Number of responses

n=23

n=15

n=22

n=13

n=20

How knowledge is used

16 –daily lessons, inform all aspects of teaching.

5 - limited contexts: beginners, placement, student problems

2 – while mentoring, collaborating.

2 –inform teaching, but knowledge did not come from pre-professional courses.

 

9 - daily

5 – frequently: placement, evaluate outcomes & teaching effectiveness,    set expectations, contrastive analysis.

 

9 – frequently:      error analysis, scaffolding,        teach forms & functions,        find patterns, choose, analyze, & modify text, collaborate.

5 - contrastive analysis.

4 – daily lessons.

2 - only indirectly or with beginners.

6 – in at least one of the following: pronunciation, reading,         brain gym, collaboration, bilingual ed., standardized test scores.

 

20 – in at least one of the following: conferences, committees, workshops, district functions, in-service, memberships, newsletters, coursework, additional license, book clubs, learning communities.

 

Why knowledge is not used

1 – lack of knowledge.

1 – lack of time.

1 – time/emphasis on formal assessment.

 

2 – lack of knowledge.

2 – lack of time/time on mandates.

1 –not useful.

 

5 – lack of preparation/ support.

2 – engagement in reflective teaching is enough.

 

 

Table 5. Participant Advice to Teacher Educators

 

Perceived Gap

Field Experiences

Classroom Reality

Collaboration

Literacy

Age & Proficiency Levels

Responses n=23

n=8

n=8

n=7

n=6

n=5

Comments

More of the following:

Observations - ELL & Mainstream, a variety of teachers & programs.

Student-contact time.

ESL-teacher contact.

Interaction with specialists.

 

Do not:

exempt anyone from student teaching.

 

More information/ practice with the following:

Classroom management.

Diversity issues.

Advocacy.

Standards, formal assessments, mandates, title 1.

Time constraints.

Multi-tasking.

Program types & how to teach in them.

 

Awareness:

Working as part of a team.

Working with paraprofessionals, translators, classroom teachers, special education professionals, & other specialists.

Networking with others at your site, within the district, and others in the profession.

Mentoring.

 

Add:

Support groups of student-teachers or new teachers.

Pre-professional ESL training for classroom teachers and specialists.

More coursework on:

All aspects of literacy, including trends in methodology.

More information/ practice with the following:

Illiteracy and reading materials for older students.

Differentiated instruction.

Differences between elementary and secondary ESL settings and teaching.

ELLs and Special Ed.

 

5.    What advice do the participants have for teacher educators and TESL students on this topic?

 

All of the written comments given by the participants on what could be improved in ESL teacher education could be categorized into one of five areas. These categories can be considered to be gaps the in-service teachers said either they themselves or their less-experienced colleagues encountered between their preparation and their on-the-job needs. These gaps, listed in Table 5, were in the amount of observation and practical experience gained, understanding the realities of the job, preparation for collaborating with other professionals, literacy training, and understanding variation in learner needs by age, language proficiency, and literacy experiences.

 

Eight of the participants suggested that pre-service teachers get more time in the classroom both observing and working with students before they graduate. Not unrelated to this were 8 comments on having a better sense of the everyday reality of the job. More time in the classroom, especially simultaneously with coursework, would allow for more clarity on the work environment, as well as for multiple venues to ask their questions and come up with techniques to improve their repertoire. Also related to the on-the-job experience are 7 comments on learning more about collaboration. Teachers wanted training on how to work well with classroom teachers who were not trained to work with ELLs. Seasoned teachers also expressed that some colleagues new to the profession had difficulty working as part of a team or knowing how and with whom to network.

 

Discussion

Over two-thirds of respondents reported being well prepared for their profession in terms of their theoretical and linguistic knowledge, and they appeared to be putting that knowledge to effective use. Despite this satisfaction, the participants’ advice for teacher educators pointed out two theoretical areas in which at least a quarter of the teacher’s felt they lacked adequate knowledge, namely literacy and differentiated instruction. The respondents who reported lower preparation scores in theory and linguistics generally seemed not only to lack preparation, but were the same respondents who, through their comments, showed a lack of understanding as to why such preparation is useful, and/or did not have proficient enough analysis skills to make efficient use of them. While professional development seemed to have a low profile during pre-service preparation, the participants were generally satisfied with this area and, in line with their written comments, were not hindered from finding and taking part in numerous professional development activities.

 

The most broadly neglected area, according to the survey, appears to be action research, with a full third of the group reporting that they were inadequately prepared to conduct action research, and less than a quarter commenting on specific projects. Because the ability to conduct local research is an important skill set for teachers, allowing them to investigate what is working in their specific contexts or with specific groups of students, we felt teachers should at least be familiar with the tools to engage in action research as a form of inquiry, even knowing they might be too overwhelmed to engage in it during their first years of service. Because programs are often obliged to justify their existence, make the case for additional resources, or legitimize program changes to individuals outside the field, teachers need to minimally understand what action research involves and where to find the appropriate resources to proceed with such exploration. Perhaps related to these obligations, many participants commented on the desire for strategies for successful networking within their schools and for eliciting peer coaching between programs in or across districts, especially for those who may be the only ESL specialist at their site.

There appears to be consistency between the participants’ reports of the activities their instructors employed in their classes, the participants’ satisfaction with these activities, and their comments advising more hands-on practice for pre-service teachers. The more traditional classroom activities were used most frequently and effectively according to the survey, but they are typically not the ones that simulate the work of the classroom, such as guided video-viewing, instructor-modeled teaching practice, observations, role-play, case scenarios, and microteaching.

 

Conclusion

While this survey only netted between 26-29 responses in each of the 5 categories, it gives insight into the experiences and concerns of a cross section of in-service teachers. While the sample was not random, indications are that the population was diverse in its age, experience level, employment, student populations, and pre-professional institutions. One drawback may be that recruiting via voluntary listservs may have provided a disproportionate number of highly engaged professionals. Despite this, many comments were given not just about the participants themselves, but also about their contact with less-experienced colleagues, and the gaps the respondents observed these newer teachers to have. The participants notwithstanding, their responses give specifics into how knowledge usually taught in pre-professional preparation is or is not used by ESL teachers on the job. While the survey suggests that there are a number of areas in which pre-professional programs are doing well, it also provides information implying that the gap between theory and practice can be reduced.

 

Returning to our original pondering of possible reasons for why that gap exists, the survey appears to indicate that all three of our concerns are in play. 1) The differences between what teacher educators perceive they are giving students compared to what students actually come away with was shown by a small number of participants indicating that their theoretical and linguistic background was limited, useless, or inefficient. 2) A significant number of comments requesting more background in literacy, classroom management, networking strategies, and differentiated instruction indicate that pre-professional programs are not giving enough time to every area in-service teachers find necessary. 3) The problem of transferring knowledge from theory to practice was clearly indicated in the large number of comments in this area, and may be due to both a. limited practice opportunities in schools, and, b. the more traditional teaching activities used during coursework. There are certainly other factors that affect teachers’ methodological choices in the classroom, not the least of which are institutional resources and expectations, however, the three issues identified here are areas where teacher educators can strive to improve.

 

While pre-professional programs cannot provide all the experiences individuals may need upon entering service, it may be possible to use the information provided in this survey to begin to close some of the gaps between coursework and classroom. It is not the intent of this report to provide solutions to the issues these in-service teachers raised, nor even implications for improved language-teacher education, but rather to make this data available to area colleagues so that they might benefit from considering this feedback within their specific context. While each program differs depending on its faculty and audience, the results of this survey may help any TESL program in our area to better understand the development needs of pre-professional students.

 

AUTHOR

 

Karen Lybeck is an Assistant Professor of TESL in the English Department at Minnesota State University, Mankato. She received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Minnesota in 2002. Her research interests include social and affective factors in L2 acquisition, academic English, and various aspects of language teacher education.

Appendix A[3]

Second Language Teacher Professional Preparation Survey Questions

         

This anonymous survey will aid us in better understanding the ways in which teacher candidates process new knowledge during their education and how they utilize this knowledge when faced with the realities of the classroom and their responsibilities beyond. In order to understand your specific situation, we have included a number of comment boxes. In addition to the radio buttons, please feel free to complete as many or as few of these comment sections as your schedule allows.

 

The following survey is split into 5 sections, with similar questions in each section. The topics are: 1) Teaching decisions based on research, 2) Linguistic analysis of classroom texts,

3) Linguistic analysis of student output, 4) Engagement in action research, and

5) Continuing professional development specific to ESL

 

Teaching Decisions Based on Research

1.    How well do you feel your Professional Education in TESL prepared you to apply your knowledge of research in the areas of second language acquisition and second language pedagogy to decision-making in the ESL classroom?

2.    What kinds of activities/assignments did you engage in during your coursework in this area and how effective were they? If you did not engage in an activity listed, just leave it blank.[5]

3.    How do you currently utilize your knowledge about second language acquisition and second language teaching methods to teach your classes?

 

Linguistic Analysis of Classroom Texts

1.    How well do you feel your Professional Education in TESL prepared you to apply your knowledge of linguistics to analyzing classroom texts, for example to evaluate the level of a text in relation to the target audience, to determine which elements of the text might be problematic for learners, to plan activities where students analyze texts to understand specific aspects such as genres, grammatical features, rhetorical structures, meaning, academic language, etc.

2.    What kinds of activities/assignments did you engage in during your coursework in this area and how effective were they? If you did not engage in an activity listed, just leave it blank.

3.    How do you currently utilize your knowledge of linguistics in preparation for teaching?

 

Linguistic Analysis of Student Output

1.    How well do you feel your Professional Education in TESL prepared you to apply your knowledge of linguistics to analyze student output; that is to assess students’ strengths and areas for improvement, and/or to understand the source of learner error?

2.    What kinds of activities/assignments did you engage in during your coursework in this area and how effective were they? If you did not engage in an activity listed, just leave it blank.

3.    How do you currently utilize your knowledge of linguistics in assessing student output?

 

Engagement in action research

1.    How well do you feel your Professional Education in TESL prepared you to engage in action research; that is any type of data collection to help you solve problems, develop curriculum, or improve your teaching or your school’s program in any way?

2.    What kinds of activities/assignments did you engage in during your coursework in this area and how effective were they? If you did not engage in an activity listed, just leave it blank.

3.    What types of action research have you engaged in (not necessarily published or shared with others, but how have you engaged in action research to answer your own classroom questions) as a teacher and what did you gain from it?

 

Continuing professional development specific to ESL

1.    How well do you feel your Professional Education in TESL prepared you to connect to professional development activities, such as membership in professional organizations, conferences, workshops, summer institutes, courses, etc.?

2.    What kinds of activities/assignments did you engage in during your coursework in this area and how effective were they? If you did not engage in an activity listed, just leave it blank

3.    What discipline specific professional development activities have you engaged in since you received your license?

 

Follow-up questions:

1.    Do you have any advice for teacher educators (especially in the field of ELL) that would help us better prepare new teachers for the reality of the classroom?

2.    If you would like to improve your skills in any of the above-discussed areas, please comment on which and give any professional development ideas you have that you would be willing to participate in.

 

Appendix B

 

Survey Activity Options by Category

 

Each activity is rated Excellent, Adequate, or Inadequate or left blank if not engaged in.

Activity options provided for the theory and linguistics courses

 

Professional Development Activity Options:

 

Appendix C

 

Satisfaction with Learning in Pre-professional Programs – all 5 ratings

 

 

L2 THEORY

Linguistic analysis of learner output

Linguistic analysis of classroom texts

Action Research

Professional Development

N=29

%

N=27

%

N=27

%

N=26

%

N=26

%

Very well

Prepared

 

7

.24

5

.19

5

.19

6

.23

9

.35

Well prepared, could improve

 

14

.48

13

.48

13

.48

6

.23

5

.19

Adequately prepared

 

4

.14

4

.15

5

.19

5

.19

8

.31

Somewhat

Prepared

 

3

.10

2

.07

3

.11

6

.23

3

.12

Inadequately prepared

 

1

.3

3

.11

1

.04

3

.12

1

.04

 

 

© MinneWITESOL Journal    www.minnewitesoljournal.org        Volume 26, 2009

 


[1] The survey was created and conducted by Nancy Drescher and Karen Lybeck in the TESL program at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

[2] Action research here refers to any data gathering and analysis that teachers engage in within their own classrooms, or with peers within their school program, to better understand the needs of their ELLs or to assess the effectiveness of their program or their own teaching practices.

[3] This appendix provides the content, but not the format of the online survey.

[4] These five options were reprinted after question 1 in each of the categories. They have been left out here because of space.

[5] See Appendix B for the options provided the participants in the online survey.