Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

690060

research-article2017
REL0010.1177/0033688217690060RELC JournalTsang

Article

RELC Journal

EFL/ESL Teachers’ General


2017, Vol. 48(1) 99­–113
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Language Proficiency and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0033688217690060
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217690060
Learners’ Engagement journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

Art Tsang
The University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Abstract
In view of the considerable and growing number of non-native EFL/ESL teachers across the globe,
which has been reported to surpass that of native English teachers (NETs), much controversy
has been aroused globally, especially in the Asian context, over issues concerning the language
proficiency of these Non-Native English Teachers (NNETs). Further commotion was fueled
after the revelation of some of NNETs’ unsatisfactory linguistic competence and/or knowledge
in research and official language proficiency tests for teachers. This has led many to challenge
whether NNETs are qualified as EFL/ESL teachers. Equally contentious in the literature are the
formats, content, rationale, and difficulty of teacher language proficiency assessment. The focus
of the present study, however, steers to a slightly new direction supported by the philosophy of
greater practicality and usefulness for practitioners in ELT. This article reports on a qualitative
study that delves into the relationship between teachers’ general language proficiency (hereinafter
referred to as TGLP) and their teaching effectiveness operationalized by learners’ engagement.
Classroom observations (of both NETs and NNETs), post-observation interviews with teachers
and students, as well as interviews with highly proficient tertiary-level EFL students were
conducted. The preliminary findings reveal that teachers’ general linguistic competence plays
an important role in ELT classrooms but once a proficiency threshold is met, higher language
standards play a lesser role compared with other factors in contributing to teaching effectiveness.
This article ends with implications for stakeholders in ELT as well as practical suggestions for
further (quantitative) studies based on the present findings.

Keywords
English Language Teaching (ELT), non-native EFL/ESL Teachers, general language proficiency,
teaching effectiveness, students’ engagement

Corresponding author:
Art Tsang, 66 Leighton Rd, Causeway Bay, HPSHCC, Hong Kong.
Email: primeenglishart@gmail.com
100 RELC Journal 48(1)

Introduction
The Construct of Language Proficiency (LP)
A broad definition of language proficiency (LP) is understood by most people. However,
complication arises when one contemplates the precise meaning of LP and when placed
in the context of teachers at the chalkface. Elder and Kim (2014) state that due to the
diverse range of content, tasks, contexts, cultures, and classrooms in teaching and learn-
ing, the construct of TGLP is largely elusive. They add that given the range of different
factors in educational settings, it becomes even more complicated to stipulate the exact
types and level of LP teachers require. It is therefore unsurprising that teachers’ profi-
ciency is construed vastly differently in the literature. For instance, one extreme excludes
the concept of general proficiency: ‘teacher language proficiency, not as general English
proficiency but as a specialized subset of language skills required to prepare and teach
lessons’ (Freeman et al., 2015: 129). From another perspective, teachers’ proficiency
encompasses general proficiency as well as specific skills and knowledge including
‘subject-specific terminology’ and ‘the discourse competence required for effective
classroom delivery of the lesson content’ which are subject to factors such as culture,
age, ability, and students’ motivation (Elder, 2001: 2; Elder and Kim, 2014). At the other
end of the continuum, teachers’ LP is synonymous with general proficiency or ‘knowl-
edge of language’, which is separated yet closely connected to ‘knowledge about lan-
guage’1 (Andrews, 2003: 83). These different interpretations of teachers’ LP are one of
the primary reasons for the difficulty in conducting research in this area.

The Importance of Teachers Possessing a High Command of English


Added to the intricacies of the issues aside from the above is another debate of what high
LP entails. The distinction between NETs and NNETs has long been existent in language
pedagogy and the ELT sector (Medgyes, 2001). The notion of native-speakerism2 (refer
to Holliday, 2006) is inevitably conjured up when considering teachers’ linguistic com-
petence. For instance, some researchers equate teachers’ LP with native-like competence
(Elder and Kim, 2014).
Owing to the proliferation of the number of NNETs (Eslami and Fatahi, 2008) and
teachers who instruct in a language other than their L1 (Elder and Kim, 2014), attention has
been drawn to teachers’ LP (Elder and Kim, 2014). According to Richards et al., (2013), in
countries such as New Zealand, Scotland and Turkey, there is a demand for qualified for-
eign language teachers due to, for instance, earlier introduction of foreign languages in
school curricula. In ELT, the ever-expanding EFL/ESL learning in global education sys-
tems causes a surge in demand for English teachers and improving these teachers’ English
proficiency becomes one of the centres of attention (Freeman et al., 2015).
There have been abundant statements made regarding the significance of teachers
having high English proficiency (e.g. Butler, 2004; Elder and Kim, 2014; Nakata, 2010)
since teachers’ LP either positively or adversely influence their confidence, teaching
skills and content, students’ motivation and learning effectiveness (Butler, 2004).
Academics have explicitly or implicitly expressed concerns for some ELT professionals’
unsatisfactory linguistic standards (e.g. Butler, 2004; Freeman et al., 2015). High
Tsang 101

achievers demonstrate flexibility in the use of language pitched at the optimum level for
learners (Richards et al., 2013); low achievers may not be capable of discerning learners’
errors and may even produce incorrect language themselves (Farrell and Richards, 2007).
These concerns and ideologies of the importance of teachers’ possessing a high com-
mand of foreign languages are partly attributable to the emergence of language assess-
ment for teachers.

Language Proficiency Tests for Teachers


Despite the non-unanimity and different understandings of teachers’ LP, and a lack of
abundant evidence supporting the necessity of teachers having high LP, LP assessment
has been implemented in many countries such as Australia, Hong Kong, Brazil and
America (Burke, 2015; Elder and Kim, 2014). The formats are all very different but the
goals are similar – either for quality assurance where TGLP reaches a benchmark or not,
or for measurement of teachers’ knowledge and skills in certain areas of the language
(e.g. knowledge of language; knowledge about language). Notwithstanding the positive
intention of the authorities concerned in implementing these tests, the existence of these
tests seems to be of little avail especially for these three reasons: the construct of teach-
ers’ proficiency is still unclear, whether the tests are valid and reliable are subject to
challenges; and most important of all, hardly any rigorous studies demonstrating higher
proficiency equals better teaching have been conducted.

The Present Study


With the subjects of much debate revolving around the construct of teachers’ LP and
assessment issues, there is a dearth of studies which offer practical implications of TGLP
and, especially its relationship with teaching effectiveness. Rather than continuing the
seemingly endless debates, and with a view to bridging the gaps in the literature, I con-
ducted this exploratory study to examine the impact of TGLP on teaching and learning
effectiveness. Five motives for the present study together with operationalization of the
variables in the study are delineated below.
The present research was propelled by five rationales. Firstly, while there may be
value in arguing over certain theoretical issues such as the exact definitions of LP for
teachers, it is more conducive to teachers, schools, authorities and others concerned why
and how precisely their LP matters. Also, adding the other elements (e.g. pedagogical
competence; metalinguistic knowledge) on top of TGLP makes measurement of teach-
ers’ proficiency even more difficult nor can one, after adding these elements, attribute the
findings to the pure effects of general LP due to the many confounding variables (i.e. the
other elements). Even if other elements are to be investigated with TGLP, determining
the weightings given to each element is also challenging (Elder and Kim, 2014), if not
arbitrary. This is the very reason why this study aims to focus on the fundamental – gen-
eral LP and its effects on teaching effectiveness. Second, although there are a small
number of studies investigating teachers’ LP and their teaching (e.g. Butler, 2004;
Richards et al., 2013), the sole assessment of language abilities was teachers’ self-assess-
ment and self-reported data. Without any other measure for triangulation, the validity is
102 RELC Journal 48(1)

highly questionable due to, for instance, teachers’ desirability and subjectivity especially
when this is an assessment of ability, rather than, for instance, measurement of attitude.
It is understandably hard to determine how and what to measure when it comes to teach-
ers’ LP; nonetheless, the convincingness and accuracy of one’s reported data can be
severely challenged. Without a somewhat genuine reflection of teachers’ LP, all findings
obtained and conclusions drawn may not be of much value. The present study aims to
measure as accurately as possible teachers’ LP by triangulation and rough estimation.
Thirdly, a lot of relevant studies on teachers’ LP merely focus on teachers’ themselves
rather than the learners and learning effectiveness. It is indisputable that for learners, the
central goal in (English) language learning is to develop ‘a useable knowledge of English’
(Freeman et al., 2015: 129), and ‘an effective use of the target language’ (Medgyes,
2001: 431). The primary goal of language learning is not met even if a teacher is perfect
in all manners but not much learning is taking place. Learning effectiveness is as ambig-
uous as teaching effectiveness and LP for teachers. As this is an exploratory study, a
preliminary variable used here to assess learning was learners’ engagement in the class-
room, which can be regarded as the sine qua non towards learning effectiveness since
without engagement, it is not possible that learning is taking place. Given the many
issues that may arise when measuring ultimate learning effectiveness, and that engage-
ment is the first step in learning, learners’ engagement is chosen as the focus. Fourthly,
with the ongoing debate of NETs versus NNETs and issues about native-like proficiency
unaddressed, some EFL countries and cities such as Hong Kong and Japan still accord
much prestige to NETs (refer to the hiring policies and salary packages the NETs receive
in these countries). This study aims to further push back the frontiers in this regard by
examining native-like proficiency, NETs, NNETs, and learners’ engagement. Lastly,
despite the different formats and content of language tests for teachers, it will still be
useful to know if linguistic inferiority is tantamount to poorer professionalism, lower
self-esteem (e.g. Eslami and Fatahi, 2008) and being an unqualified foreign language
teacher. Driven by these five factors, this article reports on findings that shed light on
TGLP and learners’ engagement.

Methodology
Considering the exploratory nature of the research area, an interpretative research approach
was adopted for the present study in Hong Kong. Two instruments were employed – class-
room observations (n of Ts = 6, n of lessons = 12) and interviews (n of Ts = 6; n of Ss = 30).
Part of the data presented in this article were drawn from a large-scale study on evaluation
of the new senior secondary (NSS) English curriculum in Hong Kong.

Observations
A total of 12 lessons of secondary-level English, two by each teacher, a total of six teach-
ers, were observed. The lessons were audio-recorded and were transcribed. I was a non-
participant observer taking field notes of what was especially not audio-recordable such
as students’ responses, engagement, and classroom atmosphere. The duration for each
lesson was about 40 minutes. In this research context, teachers were informed
Tsang 103

beforehand that all the lessons to be observed should, if at all possible, include at least
two of the four macro language skills – reading, writing, listening and speaking – as
focuses. In addition, the amount of teacher talk in these observed lessons had to be sig-
nificant. The former enabled me to observe a wider range of teachers’ use of English for
different purposes and the latter was important for assessment of teachers’ English pro-
ficiency. Not much data could be gathered from a lesson observation in which students
were merely writing essays for this research study and hence the above were vital.
As discussed, operationalizing TGLP is important. Although it is virtually impossible
to measure the exact proficiency (if it ever exists and is stable), nor is it methodologically
rigorous to only ask teachers to rate themselves, attempts have been made to gather more
accurate representations of their language abilities. Three measurements – self evalua-
tion by the teacher, evaluation by students and English observable in the lessons – are
triangulated to provide a rough estimation of TGLP. It is noted that students’ ratings may
be challenged, but they provide worthwhile references. First, from the researcher’s expe-
rience and observation as both a then local student and a lecturer in Hong Kong, it is not
difficult for proficient students to comment on TGLP based on the many lessons with the
teachers. This is also a distinct advantage as this form of assessment is conducted in a
completely naturalistic environment (e.g. without an outsider or camcorders) in a longi-
tudinal manner. Second, generally, even if students are unable to judge whether a teach-
er’s English is good, the senior secondary students are mostly able to do this in a
comparative fashion – comparing this teacher with the many English teachers they met
before. The remarks made by the students in this study for the six teachers were also
generally in line with the other two measurements and therefore, they were useful refer-
ences. While students were asked to rate their teachers using crude adjectives such as
‘very good’ and ‘so-so’, for worldwide readership in this journal, teachers’ self-evalua-
tion was presented in IELTS scores, a globally well-known English test.3 The final meas-
urement was carried out by myself as an observer in the lessons – observable pedagogical
English proficiency (OPEP). As it was only possible to observe two lessons per teacher,
it may not be a true reflection of teachers’ proficiency but only a preliminary assessment
based on the two occasions, hence ‘observable’. It is also ‘pedagogical’ as the language
used by teachers in those lessons may not be identical to their usual language production
(e.g. they may choose vocabulary of less lexical complexity in classrooms), hence ‘peda-
gogical’. Four possible areas of OPEP were identified: grammatical accuracy, pronuncia-
tion accuracy,4 accuracy and naturalness with expressions, and fluency; the many other
areas were deemed to be inappropriate for such measurement. For instance, grammatical
and lexical variety may not be an accurate reflection since teachers may be adjusting
their language for more comprehensible input in classrooms. Despite these constraints,
the triangulation was on the whole successful with three measurements generally agree-
ing with each other. The six teachers can be roughly categorized into three groups:
higher, middle and lower proficiency relatively.

Interviews
There were two strands of interviews, namely post-observation interviews and inter-
views based on experiences. Post-observation interviews were carried out with each
104 RELC Journal 48(1)

Figure 1.  Three triangulated measurements of teachers’ estimated LP.

teacher and three students separately after the last observed lesson (i.e. the second les-
son) and each interview lasted around 15–20 minutes. The three students were of mixed
abilities and different genders. This heterogeneity yielded more diverse and less biased
views on the lessons and the teacher overall. Interviews were audio-recorded and tran-
scribed upon approval of the participants; notes were taken for the non-recorded inter-
views and checked at the end of the interviews by the participants.
Twelve tertiary-level students of high LP also participated in interviews based on their
experiences in learning English in secondary schools. Their sharing further illuminated
the relationship between TGLP and their learning effectiveness. The more proficient
students were recruited as participants as they were able to comment more on teachers’
different English levels and how these may affect their learning. The interviews were
recorded whenever possible and notes were taken during the interviews.

Results and Discussion


Teachers’ Estimated LP
Table 1.  Teachers’ Estimated LP.

Self- Evaluation Observable Pedagogical English Student Evaluation Category


(IELTS Scores) Proficiency (Comparatively)
(OPEP)
Teacher Band 9 G: Only natural slips Native Higher
A P: Completely American; error-free
E: Completely Natural
F: Only natural hesitations
Teacher Band 8.5 G: Making mistakes rarely Very Good Higher
B P: Native-like; error-free
E: Fairly natural
F: Only natural hesitations
Tsang 105

Table 1. (Continued)

Self- Evaluation Observable Pedagogical English Student Evaluation Category


(IELTS Scores) Proficiency (Comparatively)
(OPEP)
Teacher Band 9 G: Making mistakes rarely Quite good Middle
C P: Heavily influenced by L1; frequent
errors
E: Fair; unnatural/inaccurate at times
F: Only natural hesitations
Teacher Band 8–8.5 G: Making mistakes rarely Good Middle
D P: Somewhat influenced by L1; very
few errors
E: Fair; unnatural/inaccurate at times
F: Only natural hesitations
Teacher Band 7.5 G: Making mistakes quite frequently Good (?) Lower
E P: Influenced by L1/some errors
E: Unnatural/ inaccurate at times
F: Quite fluent
Teacher Band 7.5 G: Making mistakes quite frequently Good Lower
F P: Mostly clear/only slightly influenced
by L1/a few errors
E: Noticeably unnatural/inaccurate
F: Quite fluent

Key: G=Grammar; P=Pronunciation; E=Expressions; F=Fluency.

Brief Reports for the Six Teachers


A brief description of each teacher, the observed lessons, and relevant interview data are
provided below.

Teacher A (TA)
TA is an American, a NET, a native English speaker by all definitions and has the highest
estimated English proficiency among the six teachers. TA has been teaching in Hong
Kong for around six years. In the observed lessons, teacher-student interaction was lim-
ited to TA and a very few students only; most students were reticent and gave very short
answers such as ‘yes’ and ‘no’ or simply a nodding when TA asked them questions. There
was also a significant amount of teacher talk where TA shared his views and experiences
based on the reading texts in class. TA exhibited very high observable English profi-
ciency across all four areas.
In the post-observation interview, the students commented that TA is very knowledge-
able about (the) English (culture), which was also evident in one of the observed lessons
on reading where TA was able to provide a lot of input based on his background knowl-
edge. The low-achieving student, however, mentioned that he and other weaker learners
had great difficulty in comprehending TA’s speech.
106 RELC Journal 48(1)

… sometimes, we feel that he is just babbling and he rambles on and on. All we get is that he is
speaking English… It doesn’t matter. XX [a very proficient student] always answers his
questions. (Translated; Interviewee 2).

From this and the observations, two possible deductions can be made as to why the
majority were reticent in the observed lesson. First, there was at least one very proficient
student who was very responsive; therefore, the other students did not feel obliged to
answer TA’s questions. Second, the lower achievers had great difficulty in understanding
TA’s articulation. TA, from the observed lessons and the recordings, spoke as fast and
colloquially as a native English speaker would to their peers at times. It is therefore not
surprising the student made this remark; most students at this level in Hong Kong are not
able to comprehend colloquial, fast and native-like (i.e. non-Chinese accent, exhibiting
features of connected speech in English such as liaison, elision and weak forms) speech.5
The three students were unanimous that the observed lessons were not special in any way
as both TA and their behaviour and performance were more or less the same in all other
lessons. TA, however, was unaware of the fact that the weaker learners had difficulty in
following and shared during the interview that all the students were on task, engaged and
learning effectively in the lessons. TA noted the dominance of the stronger students in
class who always answered his questions but defended that he did attempt to make eve-
ryone in the class speak.

I did ask many questions but today, they were just not so active. Still, I think they were all pretty
much engaged. (TA).

Teacher B (TB)
All teachers except TA are from Hong Kong and native Cantonese speakers. TB received
his primary education at an international school where English was the main language
for communication with peers, and there were ample opportunities to interact with non-
Chinese speakers. TB attributes his high English proficiency to the years during his pri-
mary schooling. TB’s classes are distinctive from ordinary classrooms. In the lessons
observed, there were multifarious activities with no task lasting more than 15 minutes;
not only were students’ attention span sustained but also they were enthusiastic and
excited about the lessons.
Students invited for the post-observation interview concurred that TB’s and their per-
formance and behaviour were no different compared with the non-observed lessons. All
three students stated a high level of engagement was always present because of TB’s
teaching methods as well as the personality of TB:

There are always surprises and we never feel bored. Weak learners like me enjoy the lessons
too… As for our learning, we can learn something every lesson. There are many activities and
games and I can always learn some vocabulary, grammar and other things (Translated;
Interviewee 4).

The interviewees shared that they were sitting in groups in many lessons and hence
weaker learners like interviewee 4 would be assisted and motivated by other learners in
Tsang 107

the group through various group activities. When asked about TB’s English proficiency
on their learning, interviewee 6, whose English proficiency is above her peers, com-
mented that:

I think teachers’ English standards matter and TB’s English is very high. However, I have been
taught by a few NETs or native-like English teachers in my primary and junior secondary
schools and not all of them taught well. Despite their relatively high proficiency in English, the
worst one, I remember… that most of the students were not paying attention because the NET
was so boring and unclear with her teaching even though she was the panel [the interviewee
meant she was the panel head of the English team]. We all hated her lessons and honestly, I
didn’t know what I learnt ” (Translated; Interviewee 6).

The three interviewees added that TB is a good role model for them and they respect
English teachers with such a high standard of English proficiency. From the observa-
tion, the interview with the students and TB’s self evaluation, TB’s English profi-
ciency is unquestionably high. Nevertheless, the success of his lessons seems to lie
more in his innovative and effective pedagogical approaches in engaging most, if not
all, students in all the activities. Unlike other classrooms where some students ben-
efit more than others because of different proficiencies, students of varied abilities
seem to be learning in TB’s classes. One relevant area where TB’s high English
standard is contributing to the success is his slightly dramatic native-like intonation,
which is different from many local non-native English teachers. It was observable
from the lessons how TB used his voice to draw attention and create meaning for
students’ learning.

Teacher C (TC)
To my knowledge and in my experience, TC’s observed lessons were the epitome of
typical English classes in Hong Kong. The lessons were characterized by close adher-
ence to notes or textbooks, with a considerable amount of lecture and completing exer-
cises in textbooks or on worksheets, interspersed with occasional teacher-student
interaction such as teachers’ questioning and checking students’ understanding. Most
students were on task during the observed lessons. TC rated himself very highly in his
proficiency (Band 9 in IELTS) but that seems somewhat an over-estimation viewing
from the observed lessons and the interviewed students. Although there are no model
accents in this era of world Englishes, TC’s pronunciation was full of errors (e.g. mis-
pronouncing vowels and inaccurate assimilation) and his expressions were at times
rather unnatural (e.g. he said ‘listen if you can!’ three times when students were too
noisy when he meant ‘listen (up)!’). The students in the interview were also aware of
some of this and they were able to roughly compare TC’s proficiency with the many
English teachers they encountered before; TC was ranked ‘quite good’ by all three
students. When asked to comment on TC’s lessons based on his teaching and English
proficiency students reported:

Most lessons are boring and this one is the same… His English is fine but I really don’t like his
accent. Some of my classmates speak better English than him(Translated; Interviewee 8).
108 RELC Journal 48(1)

Interviewees 7 and 9 agreed instantly and interviewee 9 elaborated (Translated):


Yes! His accent is ugly. I think most of us dislike his English accent. At least, I’m not
When prompted further about his accent and other teachers’ accents, interviewee 8 stated
(Translated):

This is very basic. You teach that language so you speak it well. You don’t make a convincing
teacher if you can’t.

Teacher D (TD)
TD is the youngest of all the teachers and has only been teaching for around three years.
TD’s lessons were full of communicative activities such as group discussions and debates
and the atmosphere was lively on the whole, although not as exuberant as TB’s lessons.
TD’s English proficiency was high from all three measurements although not as high as
TA’s and TB’s.
The interviewees praised TD for his clarity in explanations and activities in class.
They also respected him for his fluent English and his academically elite background.

TD’s lessons are not just exercises and each student working individually. There are always
some interaction, hence less boring (Translated; Interviewee 9).

His English is fluent and he graduated from (a prestigious elite secondary school in Hong
Kong)! (Translated; Interviewee 10 stated with admiration).

Teacher E (TE)
TE is the panel head in the English division of a secondary school and has over 20 years
of ELT experience. TE rated himself to be ‘good enough to teach the students’. Indeed,
the English level of the students in TE’s school is very low. From the observed lessons,
TE’s English can be placed confidently within band 7 in IELTS – ‘The test taker has
operational command of the language, though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropri-
ate usage and misunderstandings in some situations’ (IELTS, 2016). The English profi-
ciency of the interviewees was below average in English standard compared with their
peers in Hong Kong and they were not assertive in their assessment of TE’s English. The
interviewees, however, all agreed that TE’s lessons are useful.

We can always learn some new vocab in his lessons. [And sentence structures (translated;
added by interviewee 15)].

Yeah. There are lots of notes to copy. He gives us a lot of tips on how to score well in exams,
hence not useless like other lessons (Translated; Interviewee 16).

All three interviewees liked TE’s examination-oriented teaching, which was also evident
in the observed lessons where TE mentioned repetitively the format of an examination
paper and strategies to tackle certain questions in exams. The majority of the time in the
observed lessons was teacher talk but the students were all listening attentively and
Tsang 109

taking notes. The interviewees stated that TE has a close rapport with the students and is
an interesting person. From the observed lessons, TE was humorous and made jocular
remarks regularly. Also, he was skillful in bridging the gap between unfamiliar discourse
to the learners’ world such as making commentaries while reading an otherwise monoto-
nous exemplary essay in class.

TE: Love is a bother, whether you have it or not. But when you have it, you have
unlimited courage to surmount the insurmountable [from the exemplary
essay]. Aha, Jonathan [pseudonym of a student] would say, when I have food,
I would have unlimited courage to do everything.
SS: [laughter]
TE: Also, take a look at Michael [pseudonym of another student]. He is brushing
(sic blushing). See he is very happy. He has a girlfriend now. His homework
has become so good.
SS: [louder laughter]

There was, however, one embarrassing moment in the observed lessons due to TE’s lack
of knowledge of rather simple expressions such as ‘in this day and age’ when a student
used this phrase.

S: In this day and age


T: In this?
S: this day and age
T: In this stage?
S: Day and age
T: Day?
S: D-A-Y and A-G-E
T: Day and age?
S: Yes
T: Day and age?
S: In this day and age
T: In this days and age, in this days and age, okay. [sounding rather uncertain]

Teacher F (TF)
TF’s temperament is rather different from the other teacher participants. TF is quiet,
timid, and has a soft and low voice. The last of which is especially problematic in class-
rooms as TF does not use microphones in class. The interviewees shared that TF’s voice
did show more variation in pitch and loudness already in the observed lessons compared
with the lessons not observed. Nonetheless, I still found TF’s voice too soft and low, and
the tone too flat during the observed lessons and in the recordings of these lessons. There
were discussions and group activities but the students were off-task (e.g. chatting and
giggling quietly) from time to time especially when the teacher was not monitoring them.
There was not a strong presence of TF in the classroom. When asked about this phenom-
enon, the two interviewees explained that TF is a good teacher and a kind person. They
110 RELC Journal 48(1)

felt apologetic for their misbehaviour but they just could not pay full attention. TF’s
overall English proficiency was passable with good and clear pronunciation. The stu-
dents concurred with this but they commented that they could not be fully engaged any-
how. One distinctive problem with TF is that TF frequently produced unnatural
expressions such as an overwhelming amount of ‘oh’ as responses to students’ utter-
ances, and ‘can I ask you to (e.g. form groups/turn to page X/put away your books)’ as
instructions.6 These may become inaccurate input for students especially when TF
repeatedly produced these already in the observed lessons alone.

Interviews with Tertiary-level Students


Many participants encountered teachers they deemed to have either very good English or
mediocre English. The following is a summary of the findings: The majority of students
agree that having high English proficiency is of paramount importance for teachers for
many reasons, most of which echo the notion of teachers as role models mentioned in the
literature; interestingly, at least half of the interviewees mentioned that they and other
students pay more attention in lessons if the teachers’ English is very good. The higher
level of engagement, according to the interviewees, is out of respect since these highly
proficient teachers are convincing enough to be excellent role models from which stu-
dents can learn English. Further questions during the interviews revealed that there were
differences in their engagement when having lessons with these highly proficient teach-
ers. The students were highly engaged in the lessons to begin with, but diversion emerged
to different endings after a period of time when the students knew the teachers well
enough. The interviewees commented that they would lose interest if the lessons were
too routine and tedious; teachers’ personality also plays a role – those that are more
enthusiastic, open-minded, interesting and charismatic attract students more.
In common with the findings from the lesson observations and post-observation inter-
views, one of the most remarkable discoveries is that less proficient teachers may not
necessarily be ineffective teachers, counter-intuitive as this may seem. When the inter-
viewees were asked to name two favourite teachers whose lessons they engaged and
learned the most in, almost half of these teachers were not the most proficient. The par-
ticipants elaborated that there were always special features in these teachers’ lessons that
enchanted them, hence their being able to stay on-task and learn. For example, one stu-
dent commented:

Indeed, the teacher’s pronunciation was quite Cantonese-like and his English was just so-so
compared with other English teachers. But he was a fun person and he often joked in class.
Some jokes were quite harsh but you know, boys loved to be teased. He was really friendly and
we were very close with him, inside and outside class, and so we were mostly engaged. Some
of us still go back and visit him from time to time now (Interviewee 24).

Apart from personality traits such as humour and amiability, others mentioned how in
reality, these less proficient teachers can equally demonstrate pedagogical success. For
instance, as demonstrated by TB and TD, the use of multifarious activities had created
more opportunities for interaction in classrooms.
Tsang 111

To summarize, the most unpleasant factors according to these interviewees are over-
whelming lecturing and adherence to the chalk-and-talk approach, mundane drillings
and exercises, and certain aspects of teachers’ personality such as being ‘boring’ (inter-
viewees 25, 27 and 28) and ‘mean’ (interviewees 19, 20, 23 and 27). About two-thirds of
the interviewees do not think being extremely proficient matters the most; in fact, they
would rather choose a teacher who is less proficient but who does not possess the three
aforementioned problems.

Conclusion
As revealed above, a direct relationship between high general LP and high teaching
effectiveness exemplified by students’ engagement does not necessarily exist nor do
NETs necessarily help students learn better than NNETs despite NETs’ generally better
cultural knowledge and higher general LP. As evident in the present study, there are other
clear factors that are more important than teachers’ English proficiency from learners’
perspectives. The reasons why learners’ engagement is of crucial significance has been
introduced and chosen as the focus of this research. Although different learners have dif-
ferent preferences and opinions, it can be generalized from this study that as far as learn-
ers’ engagement is concerned, factors that may well aid teachers in engaging learning
includes: Pleasant personality including kindness, humour and developing a close rap-
port with students, effective pedagogy, high English proficiency, and good pronunciation
and accent. The last two of this list, together with teachers’ educational background, have
also been shown to be areas that may gain the respect of the learners. In fact, these can
form the basis of further quantitative analyses such as exploring the correlations between
these factors and learners’ engagement or teaching effectiveness. The findings in this
study and further investigations are of great value for teachers, not least less proficient
teachers since there are clear areas they can pursue to become an equally professional
confident teacher. Clear evidence in this study has demonstrated that having a native-like
or a high proficiency does not equate to successful teaching. In fact, as revealed by the
weaker student in the post-observation interview for TA’s classes, teachers’ high profi-
ciency without sound pedagogical practice may, ironically, be an impediment to student
learning.
However, this does not mean that linguistic proficiency should be downplayed or
neglected. From different official statistics and my experience as both a then local student
and now a tertiary lecturer, teacher trainer and researcher in education, the linguistic com-
petence of teachers E and F should represent at least half of the English teachers in Hong
Kong. Perhaps unbeknown to the learners who cannot accurately judge these teachers’
proficiency, these teachers’ linguistic deficiency may, as evidenced in this study, provide
incorrect input for the students due to lack of vocabulary. These teachers should maintain
their strengths and hone their skills in teaching methods as well as continuously improv-
ing their English. TB and TD are on the whole successful teachers in engaging their learn-
ers in class. No distinct problems related to their linguistic proficiency were observed or
reported from the interviewees. Similarly, TA and TC exuded linguistic competence
(except TC’s pronunciation) but were less well received by the students. TA seemed to
lack teacher language awareness – in this case, the need to produce more comprehensible
112 RELC Journal 48(1)

input at times especially for weaker learners, whereas TC needs to revamp his teaching
methods to better motivate and engage the learners. A tentative yet significant conclusion
worth delving deeper in further studies can be drawn from these – once ESL/EFL teachers
reach a certain level of proficiency, factors other than proficiency may play a more impor-
tant role in determining learners’ level of engagement and overall teaching effectiveness
in FL classrooms. There may be a threshold over which teachers should pass. It can easily
be postulated that this threshold of proficiency must be considerably higher than that of
the specific learners taught by the teacher, yet it is extremely difficult to measure or even
calculate a universal threshold for all teachers (e.g. 4-5 bands in IETLS higher than the
learners one is teaching? Is there a band of minimum proficiency which teachers must
pass in order to teach effectively? Band 7, as shown in this study, seems not adequate
enough for senior secondary level in Hong Kong.). These are certainly research-worthy
and will be of substantial value to all stakeholders in foreign language learning especially
those responsible for teachers’ assessment.
Methodologically, this study has attempted to undertake beyond just teachers’ own
judgment of their proficiency by triangulation. As with all assessment, issues with limita-
tions, validity and reliability are commonplace; nevertheless, in measuring such abstract
construct, triangulation provides at least more accurate accounts of TGLP than the stud-
ies which rely on only one instrument, especially when the instrument is one’s evaluation
of one’s proficiency. It should be reiterated that rather than delving into arguments over
definitions of teachers’ LP, where an ultimate watertight one is unlikely to be produced,
more substantive and practical issues such as the exploration of TGLP and teaching
effectiveness should receive more priority in research. These are imperative especially
when teachers’ LP, which in 2015 became an entry in the Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics, where it is cited as ‘language proficiency testing for teachers’, is receiving
proliferating attention and there are a considerable number of questions still unanswered
and issues yet to be explored.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. Examples of ‘knowledge about language’ are metalinguistic knowledge and explicit knowl-
edge about how a language system functions. For more details, refer to Andrews (2003).
2. While everyone has a general understanding of the definition of a native speaker, according
to Medgyes (2001: 433), ‘native speakerhood is an intricate concept, which includes birth,
education, the environment in which the individual is exposed to English, the sequence in
which languages are learned, levels of proficiency, self-confidence, cultural affiliation, self-
identification, and political allegiance’.
3. The teacher participants familiar with or have taken IELTS were asked to provide an estima-
tion of the present band they should reach (refer to IELTS, 2016); those with no knowledge of
IELTS are teachers who are familiar with the open examinations in Hong Kong and were able
to rate themselves based on these examinations, the grades of which have been benchmarked
against IELTS scores officially (e.g. HKEAA, 2015).
Tsang 113

4. This is controversial but in many language tests across the globe, clarity and comprehensibil-
ity are key elements in assessing speaking, the function of which, to a large extent, is pronun-
ciation. Hence, pronunciation accuracy is included here as a reflection of teachers’ linguistic
proficiency.
5. Pitching at these target learners’ level, the recordings for students’ listening exercises, for
instance, are full of rather inauthentic, deliberately slowed-down and sometimes dramatic and
over-emphatic dialogues and speeches.
6. The former is most likely an influence of a lack of pragmatic competence and negative trans-
fer by L1 since in Cantonese it is common to use a character whose pronunciation is similar
to ‘oh’ in response to others’ utterances to show understanding; the latter is unduly polite and
unnatural.

References
Andrews S (2003) Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2
teacher. Language Awareness 12(2): 81–95.
Burke BM (2015) Language proficiency testing for teachers. In: Chapelle CA (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Butler YG (2004) What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain
to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly 38(2): 245–78.
Elder C (2001) Assessing the language proficiency of teachers: are there any border controls?
Language Testing 18(2): 149–70.
Elder C, Kim SHO (2014) Assessing teachers’ language proficiency. In: Kunnan AJ (ed.) The
Companion to Language Assessment, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Eslami ZR, Fatahi A (2008) Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instruc-
tional strategies: a study of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran. TESL-EJ 11(4): 1–19.
Farrell TSC, Richards JC (2007) Teachers’ language proficiency. In: Farrell TSC (ed.) Reflective
Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London, New York: Continuum, 55–66.
Freeman D, Katz A, Gomez PG, and Burns A (2015) English-for-teaching: rethinking teacher
proficiency in the classroom. ELT Journal 69(2): 129–30.
HKEAA (2015) IELTS. Available at: http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/recognition/benchmarking/
ce_al/ielts/
Holliday A (2006) Native-speakerism. ELT Journal 60(4): 385–87.
IELTS (2016) How IELTS is scored. Available at: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/how-ielts-
is-scored
Medgyes P (2001) When the teacher is a non-native speaker. Available at: http://teachingpronun-
ciation.pbworks.com/f/When+the+teacher+is+a+non-native+speaker.PDF
Nakata Y (2010) Improving the classroom language proficiency of non-native teachers of English:
what and how? RELC Journal 41(1): 76–90.
Richards H, Conway C, Roskvist A, and Harvey S (2013) Foreign language teachers’ language
proficiency and their language teaching practice. The Language Learning Journal 41(2):
231–46.
Téllez K, Mosqueda E (2015) Developing teachers’ knowledge and skills at the intersection of
English language learners and language assessment. Review of Research in Education 39(1):
87–121.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi