7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

1/12

BEYONDTRANNGAPPROACHESTOTEACHEREDUCATION

1 Approach

INLANGUAGETEACHNGJ ackCRi chards

Twoapproaches have emrged i n secondand forei gn l anguage teacher educati onprogramms i n recent years . Onei s educati onas "t r ai ni ng", amodel that hascharacteri zed tradi t i onal approaches to teacher educati onandwhi chs t i l l repre-sents themai nstreamof current practi ceAecondapproach i s referred to as"devel opmnt" . Thecontrast between trai ni nganddevel opmnt (wththeterm"educati on" bei ngamore genera and i ncl usi ve term i s auseful wayof character-i zi ng anddescri b ngopti ons i n teacher educati on (Lange, 1983, R chards 1987,Freeman1989) , and i n thi s paper i t w l l be used t o descri be al ternati ves ava l ab et o those p anni ngteacher educati onprogramms . Toc l a r i f y thedi f ferencebetweenthese twoapproaches and the imp i cati ons f or teacher educati onpro-gramms, I w l l examne 5 aspects of teacher educati on, contrasti nga"t rai ni ng"versus "devel opmnt" perspecti vefor eachone They areApproach, Content,Process, Teacher Ro es, andTeacher-Educator Rol es .TEACHEREDUCATONASTRANNGBy "approach" I refer to theconceptua f ramwork or ph l osophy underl yi ngtheprogramm, that i s , thetheoryandassumpti ons about teach ngandteachereducati on t hat provide thes tar t i ng po nt for programmedevel opmnt .Anumberof i nterrel ated thems characteri zeatrani ngperspecti ve Many of these arei mpl i c i t rather thanovert andhave tobe teasedout or i nferred f rom ooki ngattheprogramms themel ves andhowhey arei mp emnted( i ) Thef i r s t assumpti on i s that student teachers or teachers- i n-servi ceenter theprogrammewthdef i ci enci es of di f f erent kinds (Breen et al . 1989) . Thesemaybedef i ci enci es of knowedgeabout thesub ect matter ( e . g . , the Eng i shl anguage,Curri cul umDesi gn, Readi ng, ESP) or l ack of spec i f i c s k i l l s or competenci es ( e . g . ,i n theuse of computers or the ab i l i t y t o teachprocesswi ti ng) .( i i ) Thesecondassumpti on i s that the characteri sti cs of ef f ect i ve teach ngareknownandcanbe descri bed i n di screte term, oftenas s k i l l s or competenci es .Teach ng i s not vi ewedasmainly i ndi vi dua or i nt ui t i ve but as somth ngreduci -b etogenera rul es andpri ncipl es andderi ved f rompre-exi sti ngknowedgesources Oten these characteri sti cs are i dent i f i ed wtha speci f i c mthod ofteach ng Teachers shoul d set out t o improve t hei r teach ngthroughmatchng

*Aeynoteaddress g venat aworkshoponSecondLanguageTeacher Educa-t i on, Macquari eUniversi ty, Sydney, 15 J une 1989 .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

2/12

t hei r teachngs tyl e t o that of aproven teachngmthod, or by l earni ngwhat i t i sthat successf ul teachers do Theapproach i s , hence, prescri pti ve.( i i i )Ael atedassumpti on i s that teachers canandshould be changed, and thatthedi recti onof changecanbe l a i d out i n advance, p anned for , moni tored, andtested( i v ) Last l y, theteacher educati onprogramme i s essent i al l y theory dri venand t op-down Expertsmaybe the sourceof thenewnformati on, sk i l l s , andtheorywh chunderl y theprogramm, or i t maybebasedonnewdi recti ons i n app i ed l i ngui s -t i cs, second l anguage acqui s i t i on, or mthodol ogy

2ContentBy content, I meanthegoal s, t opi cs, and sub ect matter that theprogrammeaddresses Wenteacher educati on i s thought of as t r ai ni ng, goa sare t ypi cal l ystated i n term of performance, andcontent i s i denti f i edwths k i l l s and tech-ni ques andthetheoreti ca rati ona ef or those s k i l l s andtechni ques . Content i sgenera l ypre-determnedby theteacher educator . Theprogrammeaddressesobservab e, teachab e, andtestab easpects of teachng whi chareoftenl i nked tospec i f i c s i t uat i ons . Pre-andpost- tra ni ngdi f ferences canthen bemasured t odetermnetheprogramm' s ef fecti veness . For examp e, before t r ai ni ng, teachersmght be tested t o seewhat thei r t ypi cal wa t- ti mbehavi ours arewhenusi ngquesti ons . Fol l owngaworkshop i n wh chteachers are tra ned t omoni tor thei ruse of quest i ons, theteachers aretested t o see t o what extent thei r behavi ourshavebeenmodi f i ed as a resul t of trai ni ng . Or, fo l owngaworkshoponhowomakethei r cl assroommore commni cati ve, teachers areobserved i n t hei rschoo s t o see t owhat extent thei r cl asses arenowcharacteri zedby agreateruseof groupworkand l ess of adependence on teacher- frontedandteacher-di rectedact i vi t i es .

3ProcessProcess re fers t o themeans bywhi chthecontent of theprogrammei s transmt-t ed, that i s , the techni ques, act i vi t i es andexperi ences used t o impart newknow-edgeand s k i l l s to theteachers i n trai ni ngAnumber of techni ques arewel l sui tedt o a t r ai ni ng perspecti ve. Some ref l ect avi ewof l earni ngas "model i ng" : studentteachersmode the behavi ours of master teachers or ef f ect i ve teachers or theymode proven techni ques of teach ng For examp e, mcro-teach ngof fe rs t r ai n-er s achance t o model newbehavi ours t o teachers andthenfor teachers t o prac-t i c e and l earn thenews k i l l s . Observati on (ei ther of teachers i n the cl assroomorof model l essons onvideo) si ml arl ya l ows student teachers t o l earn throughmodel i ngor imtati on Demonstrati on, simlati on, androl e pay areal soproce-dures t hat canbeused t o hel pteachers master newechniques, wth the hope thattheyw l l l ate r t r y themout i n t hei r owncl assroom, i ncorporate themnto thei rreperto re of teach ngstr at egi es and, hence, becom better teachers .

4 Rol e of the teacherWat i s the teacher- i n- trai ni ng' s rol e i n the process of teacher educati onf romthetrai ni ngperspecti ve? Essent i al l y, the teacher i s vi ewed as atechni ci an

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

3/12

Accordingt o Zei chner andLi ston (1987, 27) , "the teacher as techni ci anwoul dbeconcernedprimari l ywththesuccessful accomp i shmnt of ends decidedbyothers" . Theef fecti ve teacher i s al sovi ewedas as k i l l e d performr of anumber ofprescri bedtasks Trai ni ng i s i ntended t o expand theteacher' s reperto re of tasksand t o improvetheeffecti venesswthwhi chtasksareused Theprospecti veteacher i s hencetreatedas anapprenti ce, andas apassi verecip ent of i nforma-t i o n and s k i l l s passedon tohimor her by experts - - theteacher educators . Theteacher' s chef r espons i bi l i t y i s t o t r y to suppress o dhab ts andrepacethemwthnewones, and t o matchhi s or her teachng s tyl e t o that prescri bedbyanewmthod or guru Theteacher i s al soexpected t o observeand imtateaccuratel y,usua l ywthout questi oni ngthenewwsdomPart i ci pants i naudio- l i ngua t r ai n-i ngworkshops or i n Gateggno' s Si l ent WyWorkshops w l l recal l the i nsi stenceon"suspend cri ti ci smdo i t ourway, andyou' l l seewe arer i ght . " Muchof what theteacher a ready knows i s seen as ah ndranceandw l l need to be supressed,suppanted, changed, or modi f i ed.

5Rol eof theteacher educatorFromatrai ni ngperspecti ve, theteacher educator i s seen as anexpert, as acata-l yst for change, as amodel teacher, andas thesource of newdeasand i nforma-t i on . Hs or herprimary functi ons are t o provide i deasandsuggest ions, t o sol veprobl em, and t o i nterveneandpo nt out betterways of doi ngth ngs.Limtati ons of tra ni ngThetrai ni ngperspecti vecharacteri zedabove exi st s i n a vari ety of form, andadvocates of tra ni ngcan attest t o i t s ef fecti veness. I t does not takeavery soph s-t i cated researchdesi gn t o demonstrate that for som aspects of teacher educa-t i on, t r a i ni ng works . Teachers' behavi ours canbe changed, often as a resul t ofr el at i vel y short peri ods of trai ni ng For examp e, i n astudy of thee f fects of t r ai n-i ngon teachers' questi oni ngs k i l l s (Borg Kel l ey, Langer,&al l , 1970, p 82) amni -course that consi stedof a f i l mexpa ni ng the concepts andtra ni ngi n thef ormof model i ng, sel f - feedback, andmcro-teachng, brought about s i gni f i cantchanges i n theteachers' use of questi ons . Trai ni ng i s wel l sui ted t o thetreatmntof s k i l l s , techni ques, androuti nes, part i cul arl y those that requi rear el at i vel y l owl evel of p anni ngand ref l ecti on Thereareti mswhena trai ni ng approachmaybe al l t hat i s requi red, suchaswhenagroupof teachers i n a schoo request ademonstrati on or workshopon theuse of newcomputer software for theteach ngof witi ng But desptethese advantages, anumber of l imtati ons areapparent .1 Trai ni ngref l ects avery l imtedvi ewof teachers andof teachng, one thatreduces teachng t o atechno ogy andvi ews teachers as l i t t l e more than techni -ci ans . I t l i kewsepresents a f ragmntedandpart i al vi ewof teachng, onewh chf a i l s to capturethe ri chness andcompexi ty of cl assroomi f e andthe teacher' sr o l e i n i t . I t t reats teach ngas somth ngatomsti crather than hol i s t i c ( Br i t t en,1985) .2 I t fo l ows that trai ni ng l i m t s i t se l f t o thoseaspects of teach ngthat aret r ai n-ab eanddoes not addressmore subtl e aspects of teachng, suchas howheteacher' sva ues and atti tudes shapehi s or her response t o cl assroomevents . Yetthese arecruci al dimnsi ons of teach ngand shoul dnot be i gnored i n teachereducati on3Tra ni ng i s not cl assroombased Thecontent chosen for i ncl usion i n the t r ai n-

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

4/12

i ngprogramm i s typi cal l y pr e- det ermned and sel ected accor di ng t o trends i ncurrent theory ( e . g . , t he appl i cat i on of i nsi ghts fromsecond l anguage acqui si t i onresearch), or accor di ng t o current vogues i n mthodoogy. Thef ocus f or t rai ni ngi s not on an expl or at i on of t he actual processes empoyed by teachers i n c l a s s s r o o m s h e i r e n c e , w i l l a d d r e s s e n t r a l

4Wtht rai ni ng, t he l ocus of responsi bi l i ty f or developmnt l i e s wi t h t he t eachertr ai ner, rather t han wi t h teachers t hemsel ves .Let us nowcompare a tr ai ni ng perspect i ve w t h a t eacher developmnt p er s p ec t i v e .

TEACHEREDUCATONASDEVELOPMENT1 ApproachAnumber of second l anguage t eacher educators have cont r i but ed t o cl ar i f yi ngt he di f f erence between "t rai ni ng" and "educat i on" or "t rai ni ng" and "devel opment "(see Larsen-Freeman 1983, Ri chards 1987, Penni ngt on 1989, Freeman1989) .Lange ( 1989) descri bes the termt eacher developmnt as descri bi ng aprocess "ofcont i nual , i ntel l ectual , exper i ent i al , and at t i t udi nal growt h" . Hedi st i ngui shes i tfromrai ni ng as bei ng "more encompassi ngandal l ow ng f or cont i nued growt hboth pr i or t o and t hr oughout a career" . Thedi sti ncti on i s not a newone i n teache r a t e s o n a to f t he century (Haberman1983) . At t he l evel o f appr oach, som of t hemanconcept ual f eat ures of t eacher developmnt are :( i ) Teacher s are not vi ewed as ent er i ng t heprogrammwi t h def i ci enci es . A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e o b v i o u s l y a r e a s c o n t e n t t h a t t e a c h e r s m a y n o t f a m i l i a r w i t handmaywi sh t o l earn about, more emphasi s i s pl aced on what teachers knowanddo andonprovi di ng tool s wi t hwhi ch t hey canmore f u l l y expl or e t hei r own b e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s , a n d p r a c t i c e s .( i i ) Whi l e t eacher developmnt acknowl edges a theory o f t eachi ng as cent ral tothe process of pl anni ng and i mpl ementi ng a t eacher educat i onprogramm( Ri chards 1987, Freeman 1989), such a theoreti cal basi s serves not as a source ofdoct r i ne whi ch i s used t o shape andmodi f y t eachers, br i ngi ng themmorecl osel yt o an i deal model , but serves as a start i ng poi nt . I t s rol e i s t o hel p teachers e x p l o r e , d e f i n e , c l a r i f y t h e i r o w n c l a s s r o o m p r o c e s s e s , t h e i r i n d i v i d u a lt heor i es of t eachi ng and l earni ng . Theappr oach i s , hence, non- prescri pt i ve .Teachi ng i s acknowedged t o be an i n t u i t i v e , i ndi vi dual , andper sonal r esponse t ocl assr oomsi t uat i ons and event s .( i i i ) Theprogrammdoes not start wi t h t he i dea that teachers must change ordi scard current practi ces . As Freeman ( 1989, 38) observes,

Changedoes not necessari l ymandoi ng somet hi ng di f f erent l y ;i t can be an af f i rmat i on of current pract i ce : The t eacher i s[ perhaps] unaware of doi ng somethi ngthat i s ef f ecti ve .Thef ocus i s , t hus, more on expandi ng and deepeni ng awar eness .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

5/12

( i v ) Theprogramme i s di scoveryori entedand i nqui ry based, andbottomuprather than top-down Insteadof theprogrammebei ngdependent upon externaknowedgeand expert i se, externa i nput serves as onl yonesource of i nformati onI t i s compl emntedby teacher i nput , andbothi nteract t o help teachers under-stand thei r ownat t i t udes, val ues, knowedgebase, andpracti ces, and t hei r i nf l u-enceoncl assroomi f e .

2ContentWenteacher educati on i s approachedf romhe perspecti veof developmnt,a thoughsom of the content areas i ncl uded i n tra ni ng-basedprogramms arenot necessari l yprecl uded, thecontent base i s expandedboth i n breadthanddepthand adi f ferent treatmnt of techni ques and s k i l l s i s requi red At the samt i me, goa s andcontent have tobe arti cul ated that gobeyond s k i l l s andtech-ni ques andaddress h gher l evel i ssues, i ncl udi ngconceptua , at t i tudi nal , andaf f ect i ve aspects of teach ng These i ncl ude suchh ddendimnsi ons of teach ngas thefo l owng

( i ) the decisi on-maki ngandp anni ngprocesses emp oyedby teachers( i i ) the cul ture of teachers, that i s , the concepts, va uesystem, knowedge,bel i ef s , andatti tudes that formthe basi s for teachers' cl assroomacti ons( i i i ) teachers' vi ewsandpercepti ons of themel ves( i v ) teachers' characteri zati ons of t hei r ownapproaches to teachngandthei r understandi ngof ef f ect i ve teachng( i v ) rol es of teachers and l earners i n the cl assroom

Wight ( i n press) sees afocus on teacher and l earner rol es i n thecl assroomas thecentral andessenti al focus of teacher educati onprogramms i n l anguage teach-i ng Thedi s t i nct i on betweentherecei ved rather than thenegoti atedor ref l exi vecurri cul ums al so rel evant here

Ontheonehand, acurri cul umthat fo l ows a recei vedperspecti vepresentsknowedgewththe i nt ent that student teachers accept i t as predomnantl ynon-negoti abl e.Student teachers are t o be rel at i vel y passi ve reci pi ents of that wh ch i simparted, whether the source i s thewsdomof experi encedpracti ti oners orthe l atest f i ndi ngs of researchon teachngOnthe other hand, aref l exi vecurri cul umdoes not t ot al l y predetermne that whi chi s to be l earnedbutmakesprovisi ons for sel f - determnedneeds andconcerns of studentteachers aswel l as thecreati on of persona mani ngby students . Aref l ex-i ve curri cul umal so i ncl udes provisi ons for the negoti ati onof contentamongteachers and l earners .Zei chner andLi ston 1987, 27

Hence, goa sandcontent are requi red that engage teachers i n r ef l ect i ng c r i t i c a l l yon thei r ownteachngandon thei r ownrol es i n thecl assroomAt thesam ti m,opportuni ti es areprovi ded for student teachersandteachers- i n-servi ce to devel -opthe ab i l i t y t o makej udgemnts about thecontent andprocess of t hei r work,and t o " act andreact - - t o i ni t i at e andrespond" (Roderi ck 1986, 308) .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

6/12

Ref l ecti on i s akey component of teacher devel opmnt . Thes k i l l of sel f - i nqui ryand cr i t i cal th nki ng i s seen as centra for conti nuedprofessi ona growh(Zei ch-ner 1982), and i s desi gned t o help teachersmovef romal evel where theymaybeguided l argel yby impul se, i ntui t i on, or routi ne, t o a l evel where t hei r acti ons areguidedby ref l ecti on andcr i t i cal th nki ng Zei chner andLi ston, (1987, 24) de-scri bi ng therati ona efor a ref l ect i ve model of teacher educati onbei ngimp e-mnted at the Uni versi ty of Wsconsi n, observe:Uti l i zi ngDewey' s (1933) concept of ref l ect i ve action as the organi zi ngpri ncipe of i t s curri cul umtheprogrammel i t er at ur e expresses adesi re t odevelop i n student teachers thoseori entations . . . . and s k i l l s . . . . wh chl eadt o ref l ect i ve acti on Theconti nui ngdevel opmnt of techni ca s k i l l i n teachi ngi s al soaddressed, but onl ywthn thi s broader context of r ef l ect i veacti on

Devel opmnt does not, therefore, necessari l y seek tobri ngabout any speci f i cchanges i n teachers' behaviours, but t o i ncrease awareness, to deepenunder-standi ngof causes andconsequences, and t o broadenpercepti ons of what i s andi s not possi b e .

3ProcessThedi f f erent kinds of goa sneededwthateacher-devel opmnt approach r e-qui reareth nki ngof thewholeprocess bywh chteacher educati on i s conductedThehgher- l evel cogni ti veand af f ect i ve dimnsi ons of teach ngt hat the approachseeks t o address cannot be acheved throughmodel i ng, practi ce, imtati onormastery l earni ng Other al ternati ves arethereforeneeded.Aumber of di f ferent kinds of l earni ngexperi ences arebei ngemp oyed i n anattempt t o movebeyond ski l l s- t r ai ni ng i n teacher educati on (R chards andNunani n press) . These i ncl ude

( i ) va ues cl ar i f i cat i on : act i vi t i es that engage teachers i n examni ngthei rownva ues, at t i t udes, andbel i ef system. Thesemaybe ei ther r el at i vel yi nforma ( e . g . , di scussiongroups, focus groups, brai nstormng) ormoreformal ( e . g . , questi onna re, structured i ntervi ews) .( i i ) observati on : act i vi t i es i nwh chteachers observe ei ther other teachersat work or themel ves throughvideorecordi ngs, i n associati onwth act i vi -t i e s that are desi gned t o hel pteachers expore the si gni f i cance of patternsof behavi our i denti f i ed (Nunan, i n press ( a&)) . Observati on i s emp oyedhere not i n order to demonstrategood teachng, but t o provi de dataf orref l ecti on and anal ysi s .( i i i ) sel f - r ef l ect i on : j ourna anddiaryaccounts canbe used t o provideopportuni ti es for student teachers to use theprocess of wi ti ngabout thei rownteach ngexperi ences as an anal yt i cal tool and t o provi dei nformati onfor l ate r ref l ecti on (Roderi ck 1986, Ba ley i n press, Porter et al . , i n press) .( i v ) sel f -reporti ng theuseof sel f - repor t s and i nventori esor check l i s t s , i nwh chteachers record i nformati onabout what they di dduri nga l essonanddescri bewhat worked or di dn' t work (R chards, i n press) .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

7/12

( v) pro ect work : i ndi vi dua or co l aborati vepro ects i n wh chteachersaddress speci f i c cl assroomssues andthendesi gnpro ects around them( v i ) probl emso vi ng sessi ons i nwhi chparti ci pants bri ngexamp es ofprobl em that haveari senout of thei r cl assroomexperi ence, ref l ect onpossi b ecauses, anddesi gn str at egi es t o address theprobl em .( vi i ) acti on-research sm l -sca ecl assroombasedpro ects i nwhi chteach-ers i dent i f y anaspect of thei r owncl assroomhat theywant t o l earnmoreabout and thendevel opanaction researchprogrammei nvo vi ngdatagatheri ng i nterventi on, moni tori ng, andeva uati on Such research i s notdesi gned t o producegenera i zab e theori es anduni versa truths but i si ntended t o provi deabasi s for practi cal cl assroomacti on (KemmsandMcTaggart 1982, Nunani n press (b ) ) .

4Rol eof theteacherTeachers takeondi f ferent rol es and respons i bi l i t i es i n aprogrammewh chcenters ondevel opmnt rather than trai ni ng . Theteacher i s no l onger i n asub-servi ent or subordi nate rol e, passi vel yandanxi ousl yawa ti nggui dance, di r ec-t i on, andsuggest i ons for change and i mprovemnt . Rather, the teacher i s i n aco laborati verel ati onshpwththe teacher educator . Theteacher i s an i nvest i ga-t or of hi s or her owncl assroomand hi s or her rol e i n i t anddetermneswhataspects of thecl assroomhe or shewants t o knowmore about . Theteacher, ratherthan the teacher educator nowassums theresponsibi l i ty for i denti fyi ngpr i or i -t ies for observati on, anal ysi s and, i f necessary, i nterventi on Theteacher-educator's rol e i n thi s rel ati onshp i s t o hel pbyprovi di ng i nformati onand r e-sources t hat w l l assi st i n theprocess . As Breen et al . (1989) emphasi ze, theteacher rather than theteacher tra ner i s theagent f or change, and theteacher' scl ass andthe l earners i n i t arethe source for i nformati onout of wh cha cl ass-roomcentered theory of ef f ect i ve teachngand l earni ngare devel oped

5 Rol eof the teacher educatorChanges i n the r o l e of the teacher i n teacher devel opmnt necessari l y i nvo vechanges i n therol e of the teacher educator . Theteacher educator has t o movef romthe r o l e of expert, t r ai ner , or supervisor, t o t hat of co l aborator, consul tant,or f aci l i t at or . Nol ongermrel y a transmtter of i nformati on, knowedge, andsk i l l s , the teacher educator i s nownvoved i n aco l aborati veand i nteracti verel ati onshp Freeman (1989) sees the teacher educator' s r o l e as primari l y "tr i g-geri ngchange throughtheteacher' s awareness, rather than t o i ntervene di rect l y" .Si m l ar l y, Roderi ck (1986, 308) descri bes teacher educators andstudent teachersas "co-parti ci pants i n and co-constructors of educati ona experi ence" .Thedi f ferencesbetween the trai ni nganddevel opmnt approaches i n teachereducati oncannowbe summari zed .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

8/12

TRAINNGANDDEVELOPMENTPERSPECTIVESONTEACHEREDUCA-TIONTRAINNG DEVELOPMENT

APPROACH def i ci ency vi ew devel opment vi ewmet hods based on- goi ng processexternal knowl edge i nternal knowl edgei mprovement or i ent ed awareness or i ent edprescr i pt i ve non- prescri pt i veatomsti c appr oach h o l i s t i c appr oacht op- down bottomup

CONTENT nar r ow br oadper f ormance based val ues baseds k i l l s and t echni ques process basedrecei ved cur r i cul um negot i at ed curr i cul um

PROCESS model i ng i nqui ry basedpracti ce r e f l e c t i v ei mtat i on acti on researchshort term l ong term

TEACHER t echni ci an knowerROLE apprent i ce i nvest i gator

passi ve a c t i v esubordi nat e co- par t i ci pant

TEACHER- expert col l aborat orEDUCATOR model part i ci panti ntervent i oni st f a c i l i t a t o r

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

9/12

IMPLEMENTINGATEACHERDEVELOPMENTAPPROACHI haveargued that a teacher devel opmnt approach to teacher educati onrepre-sents amore appropri atemodel thanatra ni ngperspecti vebecause ( a) i t of fe rs ar i cher andtruer conceptua i zati on of teachng, ( b) i t represents amoredemo-crat i c di vi s i on of student- teacher andteacher educator rol es, and ( c) i t hasmoreval i d goa s . However, what probl em canbeexpectedwhenwet r y t o imp emntsuchanapproach?Thefo l owngaresom of the i ssues that mayhave to be r e-sol ved .1 Devel op ngteacher educatorsAundamntal probl ems f i ndi ngfacul tywhoarew l l i ng or ab e t o makethemove f romteacher trai ni ng t o teacher devel opmnt . Unfortunatel y, most facul tyi n uni versi ty-based graduateTESOLprogramms have notrai ni ng i n teachereducati onandareoftenunwl l i ngt o see i t as rel evant t o thei r work . They aretypi cal l y sub ect-matter speci al i s tswhoabandonedsecond l anguage teachngyears ago ( i f they ever di dany) i n favour of morefash onabl e researchon Eng i shsyntax, second l anguageacqui si ti on or soc i ol i ngui s t i c s . They oftenho d thevi ewt hat bygvi ngteachers i ncreasing y soph sti catedknowedgeabout l anguage andl anguage l earni ngtheory, or by trai ni ng teachers i n quanti tati ve researchmth-ods, thei r ab i l i t i e s as teachers w l l i mprove But as Freemancomments (1989, 29) ,

A thoughapp i ed l i ngui s t i cs , researchi n second l anguageacqui s i t i on, andmthodol ogy al l contri bute t o theknowedgeonwhi chl anguage teach ng i s based, they are not ,andmst not be confusedwth, l anguage teachng i t s e l f .They are, i n fact, anci l l i ar y to i t , and thus they shoul dnot be theprimary sub ect matter of l anguage teachereducati on2 Prepari ngteachers f or devel opmntThenewol es requi red of teachers i n adevel opmnt- focussedapproachmaynotbe oneswh chteachers expect, arefaml i ar wth, or mayf eel comortabl ewthSometeachers prefer bei ngt ol dwhat to doandwhat works best, andaremorei nterested i n bei ngtaught t o use amthod than t o devel opt hei r ownresources asteachers .Anessenti al phase i n p anni nganewprogrammei s , hence, i n provi di ngteacherswthanunderstandi ngof the natureandprocess of teacher educati onand t hei rr ol e i n i t , negoti ati ngappropri ate goal s, andbui l di ngr e a l i s t i c expectati ons .

3Bui l di ngschoo supportAprogrammethat i nvo ves cl assroomresearch co l aborati ve pro ect work, andother schoo -based i ni t i at i ves , i s dependent upon thegoodw l l of co l eagues andsupervisors for i t s successful imp emntati on . Does theschoo see theva ue ofsuchanapproachandprovi de the necessary support andencouragemnt? I f not,wemaybe set t i ng out t o prepare teachers to carryout ar o l e wh cht hei r schoodoes notwant them o assum . Li asonandnetworki ngwthschoo sandengag ngsupervisorsandother schoo personnel i n thep anni ngphase of programmedevel opmnt canhelpaddress thi s probl em

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

10/12

4 Eva uati ngprogrammeaccomp i shmntsBecauseprogrammegoa s i n teacher devel opmnt are l ong- termongo ng, andof tennot masurabl e di rect l y, rather thanshort- termmasurabl e andperformancebased, i t i s di f f i cul t t o determne i f andwhensuchgoa shavebeenatta nedEffectsmaynot be immdi atel yapparent, creati nganauraof fuzzi ness andmaki ngeva uati ondi f f i cul t toaccomp i sh Case st udi es, ethnograph cand l ongi -tudi na approachesmaythereforebe needed tohel pfo l owthe effects of theprogrammeondi f ferent dimnsi ons of teacher devel opmnt .These l i mtati ons shoul d not, however, di scourageus f rommovi ngsecond l an-guage teacher educati on i nto anewandmore f rui t f ul phase of i t evol uti on, onewhi chi s characteri zedby l ess of arel i anceonapp i ed l i ngui st i cs, l ess of anemphasi s on t r ai ni ng, andmore attenti onto thenatureandprocess of teachngand to teacher sel f -devel opmnt andconti nui nggrowh Toomany teachers l eavesecond l anguage teacher educati onprogramms ei ther bursti ngwthi napp i cab etheory or wthabagof t r i cks that of fe rs onl y part i al souti ons t o thecomp exi ssues they confront i n the real worl dWmst dobetter . Thecha l enge for us i nteacher educati on i s to equi pteacherswththeconceptua and anal yti cal tool sthey need t o move beyond the l evel of s k i l l e d techni ci ans and t o becomematurel anguage teachngprofessiona s .

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

11/12

ReferencesBa leyK I n Press . Teacher di ar i es i n teacher educati onprogram . I n Ri chardsandNunanBorg,WR ,MKel l ey, PLanger andMGa l . 1970 . TheMni Course : AMcroteach ngApproach to Teacher Educati on Beverl y Hi l l s, CACol l i er-

Macml l anBreen,M, CCandl i n, L.DamandGGabri el sen. 1989 . Theevo uti onof a teacher trai ni ngprogramI nRK. J ohnson (edi tor) . TheSecondLanguageCurri cul umCambri dge: Cambri dgeUni versi ty Press . 111-135Br i t t en, D1985 Teacher trai ni ng i n ELT(Partl ) . LanguageTeachi ng 18. 2 .112-128 .Freeman, D1989 . Teacher t r ai ni ng, devel opmnt, anddeci si on maki ng amodelof teach ngandrel ated st r at egi es for l anguage teacher educati on TESOLQuarterl y, 23, 1 , 1989 . 27-46Haberman,M1983 . Researchonpre-servi ceandcl i ni cal experi ences : Imp i ca-t i ons for teacher educati on I nKHowey&WGardner (Eds . ) , TheEducati on of Teachers . NewYork : Longman 98-117 .Kemms, S andRMcTaggart . 1982 TheActi onResearchPl anner . VctoriaDeaki n Uni versi ty Press .Lange,D1983 . Teacher developmnt and cer t i f i cat i on i n forei gn l anguagesWerei s thefuture? ModernLanguageJ ournal . 67, 374-381.

. I npress . Ab uepri nt for the desi gn of ateacher devel opmnt programi n second l anguage educati on I n Ri chards andNunanLarsen-Freeman,D1983 . Trai ni ngteachers or educati nga teacher : I n J . Al at i s,HH. St ern,&Strevens (Eds), GeorgetownRoundTabl e onLan-guages and Li ngui sti cs 1983 . Wsh ngton, DCGeorgetownUni versi tyPress . 264-274.Nunan, DI npress ( a) . Acti onresearchi n the l anguagecl assroom I nRi chardsandNunan

. I npress (b) . Understandi ngLanguage Cl assroom: a Gui def orTeacher Ini ti atedActi on I npress . NewYork Prenti ce Ha l I nter -nati ona .Penni ngton,M1989 . Facul tydevel opmnt for l anguageprogram . I nRK. J ohnson(edi tor) . TheSecondLanguage Curri cul umCambri dge Cambri dgeUni versi tyPress . 91-110 .Porter, P, L Gol dstei n , J . Leathermanand S. Conrad Anongoi ngdia og l earni ng l ogs for teacher- tra ni ng I nRi chards andNunanR chards, J . C 1987 . Thedi l emmaof teacher educati on i nTESOL TESOLQuarterl y, 21, 2, 209-226.

7/27/2019 training-v-development Beyond Training

12/12

. I npress . Theteacher as sel f -observer : sel f -moni tori ngi n teacherdevel opmnt . I n J . C .R chards, TheLanguageTeachngMatri x NewYork : Cambri dgeUni versi ty Press .andDNunan (edi tors) . I n Press . SecondLanguageTeacher Educa-t i o n . NewYork : Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press .

Roderi ck, J . 1986 . Dal oguewi ti ng context for ref l ecti ngon sel f asteacher and researcher . J ournal of curri cul umandsupervi si on 1, 4,305-315Wight, T I npress . Understandi ngcl assroomol e rel ati onshps . InR chards andNunanZeichner,K1982 . Ref l ecti ve teach ngand f i el d-basedexperi ence i n teachereducati on Interchange, 12, 4 . 1-22Zeichner,KndDLi ston. 1987 . Teach ngstudent teachers to ref l ect . HarvardEducati onal Review 57, 1, 23-48