Teacher language is one of the primary sources of language input for learners of foreign languages. It ought to be studied especially for the following reasons:
1. It is underexplored
Despite its critical role, the linguistic characteristics of English used by language teachers remain relatively unexplored, with detailed studies and data on this variety being scarce. Current corpus research on teacher language is limited and often focuses only on classroom interactions. Examples include the Korean EFL Teacher Corpus and The International Teaching Assistants corpus (see https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpora-around-the-world.html). These corpora offer valuable insights but primarily capture classroom talk, which does not fully represent the broader scope of teacher language.
2. We need a different variety from just classroom language
Empirical data on authentic, spontaneous teacher language use is needed so that we can gain a thorough understanding of teacher language proficiency and its impact on students’ language acquisition and instructional quality.
3. ETC as an essential tool in teacher training
The ETC project aims to engage L2 teacher-trainees in practical corpus compilation, offering them valuable experience and fostering a deeper understanding of TLP.
4. Teacher language proficiency (TLP) has many different effects
Whilst we do not subscribe to the idea that high language proficiency is a sole prerequisite for good teaching, existing research summarized in the following paragraphs (see also references used here below) list many effects of both high and low TLP.
Existing research notices many different reasons for the importance of teachers’ L2 oral proficiency. Effective language instruction and student learning are closely linked to TLP, as proficient teachers provide better language models and more accurate input. Teachers with high TLP exhibit greater confidence in their teaching abilities, which enhances their overall teaching skills and effectiveness in the classroom. High TLP enables teachers to provide accurate language models, maintain fluent use of the target language, and give correct feedback on learner language. Teachers with high TLP can engage in improvisational teaching, which allows them to address topics of interest, adjust speech levels, and solve communication problems dynamically. They can also provide varied and abundant input, guiding students in interaction, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning. High TLP positively impacts student motivation and learning effectiveness, contributing to a more engaging and effective learning environment. Teacher’s L2 competence shapes their identities and influences their teaching practices, methodology, and lesson content.
On the other hand, low levels of TLP can have detrimental effects on teaching quality and learning outcomes. Teachers with low TLP often resort to using their first language (L1) instead of the target language, which can limit students’ exposure to the target language. Low TLP is associated with a lack of confidence in conducting classes in the target language, particularly among pre-service student teachers. This lack of confidence can hinder their ability to manage classroom interactions and effectively deliver lessons. Teachers with low TLP may struggle with essential classroom procedures such as giving instructions, asking questions, explaining meanings, and responding to student queries. Limited language knowledge and discourse skills restrict the choice of classroom activities and lesson planning flexibility, reducing the richness of language input provided to students. Low TLP can lead to greater dependence on teaching materials and less capability for spontaneous, meaningful communication with learners. Such teachers might avoid interactive and discovery-learning grammar activities due to the unpredictable linguistic demands these activities place on their proficiency. Insufficient proficiency is considered a major obstacle for non-native teachers, affecting their employment prospects, teaching effectiveness, and professional development.
References
Chambless, K. S. 2012. ‘Teachers’ Oral Proficiency in the Target Language: Research on Its Role in Language Teaching and Learning’, Foreign Language Annals 45 (s1).
Choi, E., & Lee, J. 2016. ‘Investigating the relationship of target language proficiency and self-efficacy among nonnative EFL teachers’, System 58, pp 49-63.
Faez, F., & Karas, M. 2017. ‘Connecting Language Proficiency to (Self-Reported) Teaching Ability: A Review and Analysis of Research’, RELC Journal 48 (1), pp 135-151.
Faez, F., Karas, M., & Uchihara, T. 2021. ‘Connecting language proficiency to teaching ability: A meta-analysis’, Language Teaching Research, 25 (5), pp 754-777.
Freeman, D. 2017. ‘The Case for Teachers’ Classroom English Proficiency’, RELC Journal 48 (1), pp 31-52.
Freeman, D., Katz, A., Garcia Gomez, P., & Burns, A. 2015. ‘English-for-Teaching: Rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom’, ELT Journal 69 (2), pp 129-139.
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S. & Granger, S. 2010. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Gu, L., & Papageorgiou, S. 2016. ‘Exploring the Relationships Among Teacher Confidence, Learning, and Test Performance Within the English‐for‐Teaching Course’, ETS Research Report Series 2016 (2), pp 1-12.
Kwon, Y.-E., & Lee, E.-J. 2014. ‘Lexical Bundles in the Korean EFL Teacher Talk Corpus: A Comparison Between Non-native and Native English Teachers’, The Journal of Asia TEFL 11 (3), pp 73-103.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. 2005. ‘What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher?’ in E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, pp. 217-41. New York, NY: Springer.
Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41 (3), 315–348.
Richards, J. C. 2010. ‘Competence and Performance in Language Teaching’, RELC Journal 41 (2), pp 101-122.
Richards, J. C. 2017. ‘Teaching English through English: Proficiency, Pedagogy and Performance’, RELC Journal 48 (1), pp 7-30.
Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K. 2014. ‘EXMARaLDA’ in J. Durand, U. Gut, & G. Kristoffersen (eds.) The Oxford Handbook on Corpus Phonology, pp. 402–419. Oxford University Press.
Selvi, A. F. 2014. ‘Myths and Misconceptions About Nonnative English Speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) Movement’, TESOL Journal 5(3), pp 573-611.
Thi Hong Nhung, P. 2018. ‘General English Proficiency or English for Teaching? The Preferences of In-service Teachers’, RELC Journal49 (3), pp 339-352.
Todd, R. W., & Pojanapunya, P. 2009. ‘Implicit attitudes towards native and non-native speaker teachers’, System 37 (1), pp 23-33.
Tsang, A. 2017. ‘EFL/ESL Teachers’ General Language Proficiency and Learners’ Engagement’, RELC Journal 48 (1), pp 99-113.
Turnbull, M. 2001. ‘There is a Role for the L1 in Second and Foreign Language Teaching, But…’, The Canadian Modern Language Review 57(4), pp 531-540.
Van Canh, L., & Renandya, W. A. 2017. ‘Teachers’ English Proficiency and Classroom Language Use: A Conversation Analysis Study’, RELC Journal 48(1), pp 67-81.
Wyatt, M. 2021. ‘Research Into Second Language Learners’ and Teachers’ Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: Making the Connections’ TESOL Quarterly 55(1), pp 296-307.
