EFL/ESL Teachers’ General Language Proficiency and Learners’ Engagement

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 learning, 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’ proficiency 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 ‘knowledge of language’, which is separated yet closely connected to ‘knowledge about language’ 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-speakerism ² (refer to Holliday, 2006) is inevitably conjured up when considering teachers’ linguistic competence. 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 foreign 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 systems 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 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 command of foreign languages are partly attributable to the emergence of language assessment 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 teachers’ 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.

Observations

A total of 12 lessons of secondary-level English, two by each teacher, a total of six teachers, 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 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 significant. 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 proficiency. 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 evaluation 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 experience 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 longitudinal manner. Second, generally, even if students are unable to judge whether a teacher’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 references. 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-evaluation was presented in IELTS scores, a globally well-known English test. ³ The final measurement 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 ‘pedagogical’. Four possible areas of OPEP were identified: grammatical accuracy, pronunciation 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 agreeing 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 interviews based on experiences. Post-observation interviews were carried out with each teacher and three students separately after the last observed lesson (i.e. the second lesson) 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 transcribed upon approval of the participants; notes were taken for the non-recorded interviews and checked at the end of the interviews by the participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Three triangulated measurements of teachers’ estimated LP.

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.

Teachers’ Estimated LP

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Teachers’ Estimated LP.

	Self- Evaluation(IELTS Scores)	Observable Pedagogical English Proficiency(OPEP)	Student Evaluation(Comparatively)	Category
Teacher A	Band 9	G: Only natural slips P: Completely American; error-free E: Completely Natural F: Only natural hesitations	Native	Higher
Teacher B	Band 8.5	G: Making mistakes rarely P: Native-like; error-free E: Fairly natural F: Only natural hesitations	Very Good	Higher
Teacher C	Band 9	G: Making mistakes rarely P: Heavily influenced by L1; frequent errors E: Fair; unnatural/inaccurate at times F: Only natural hesitations	Quite good	Middle
Teacher D	Band 8–8.5	G: Making mistakes rarely P: Somewhat influenced by L1; very few errors E: Fair; unnatural/inaccurate at times F: Only natural hesitations	Good	Middle
Teacher E	Band 7.5	G: Making mistakes quite frequently P: Influenced by L1/some errors E: Unnatural/ inaccurate at times F: Quite fluent	Good (?)	Lower
Teacher F	Band 7.5	G: Making mistakes quite frequently P: Mostly clear/only slightly influenced by L1/a few errors E: Noticeably unnatural/inaccurate F: Quite fluent	Good	Lower

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 limited 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 proficiency across all four areas.

In the post-observation interview, the students commented that TA is very knowledgeable 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 knowledge. The low-achieving student, however, mentioned that he and other weaker learners had great difficulty in comprehending TA’s speech.

… 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 everyone 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 primary 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 performance 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 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, commented 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 observation, the interview with the students and TB’s self evaluation, TB’s English proficiency 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 benefit 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 adherence to notes or textbooks, with a considerable amount of lecture and completing exercises 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. mispronouncing 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).

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, inappropriate usage and misunderstandings in some situations’ (IELTS, 2016). The English proficiency 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 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 monotonous exemplary essay in class.

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.

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 classrooms 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 phenomenon, the two interviewees explained that TF is a good teacher and a kind person. They 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 students concurred with this but they commented that they could not be fully engaged anyhow. One distinctive problem with TF is that TF frequently produced unnatural expressions such as an overwhelming amount of ‘oh’ as responses to students’ utterances, 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 students can learn English. Further questions during the interviews revealed that there were differences in their engagement when having lessons with these highly proficient teachers. 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 interviews, 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 interviewees 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 participants 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 student 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.

To summarize, the most unpleasant factors according to these interviewees are overwhelming lecturing and adherence to the chalk-and-talk approach, mundane drillings and exercises, and certain aspects of teachers’ personality such as being ‘boring’ (interviewees 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.