Abstract
The impact of the non-native speaker’s (NNS) language proficiency on their personal teaching performance has often been an issue in TESOL teacher education programmes. To explore this issue a study was conducted to investigate the link between language teachers’ language proficiency and their teaching effectiveness. Classes taught by eight NNS teachers teaching the same or similar content were observed. Teaching effectiveness and teacher language proficiency were measured both through self-ratings and by independent raters. Teachers were compared in terms of such criteria as the quantity and quality of input provided, the amount and accuracy of metalanguage used, the extent and quality of feedback offered as well as classroom management skills. The results suggest that while language proficiency contributes to teaching effectiveness, other aspects of teaching are unrelated to a teacher’s command of their second language (L2).
Background
Language teachers play many different roles in the classroom including: guide, facilitator, organizer, motivator and manager of classroom behaviour. However most language methods also attribute much of the learner’s success in language learning to the nature and quality of the language input and feedback provided by the teacher (Andrews, 2001). It is therefore often assumed that the language proficiency level of a NNS English teacher will influence the kind of language input learners receive and thus have a positive impact on learning. This article reports on a study of Iranian teachers of English, all of whom would be regarded as NNS teachers of English. Teachers in this category, which is said to constitute the majority of the world’s teachers of English, have varying levels of language proficiency. More linguistically proficient teachers are generally assumed to provide better corrective feedback, to be better able to use English to manage the class, and to be open to changes to the programme and syllabus (Tsui, 2003). Richards et al. (2013) argue that the proficiency level of the teacher affects how well the teacher can provide meaningful explanations and richer language input as well as enable them to better attend to learners’ questions on language and culture. Similarly, Berry (1990) argues that proficiency plays a major role in determining the teacher’s provision of appropriate language input. The importance of teacher language proficiency has also been recognized by the European Profile for Language Teacher Education (Kelly et al., 2004: 68 cited in Pawlak, 2011: 22): ‘The greater the language competence of a teacher, the more creative and confident their teaching will be’. However, Jack C. Richards cautions that language proficiency is only one factor affecting teaching ability and that native speaker teachers are not automatically better teachers than their non-native counterparts simply because they have a higher command of the language: ‘the mere fact that a teacher speaks English well is no indication that he or she is an excellent English teacher’ (Richards, 2015: 113). However, there is limited systematic research on the relationship between teacher language proficiency and teaching/learning effectiveness despite the widespread assumption that ‘an excellent command of the target language is indeed one of the most important characteristics of foreign language teachers’ (Shin, 2008: 59) and that ‘a linguistically aware teacher not only understands how language works, but understands the student’s struggle with language and is sensitive to errors and other interlanguage features’ (Wright, 2002: 115).
It is generally agreed that more linguistically proficient language teachers will:
provide a greater amount of language input in lessons
respond to students’ questions on different aspects of language more effectively
make more use of the target language to manage classroom tasks
provide more effective corrective feedback
offer more supportive learning conditions for learners than teachers with limited language proficiency
Despite these positive contributions, the specific link between a second/foreign language teacher’s competence in teaching language and its impact on classroom teaching has received little attention in the research literature. The present project was hence motivated by the need for more systematic studies of the role of language teacher language proficiency in teaching English in order to clarify claims that ‘language proficiency … represent[s] the bedrock of … professional confidence’ (Murdoch, 1994: 254). As Eslami and Fatahi rightly observed, ‘Although language proficiency is often listed as an area of interest in many papers … there are few articles that explore the question in detail’ (2008: 2). This motivated the study reported here that sought to explore the possible link between NNS teachers’ language proficiency and their teaching effectiveness. The latter was operationally defined in terms of language-dependent classroom practices such as the quantity and quality of input, feedback, and classroom management. The resultant questions appear below. These largely draw on relevant literature related to the role of language proficiency in teaching (e.g. Farrell and Richards, 2007; Richards et al., 2013). For instance, Richards et al. (2013) propose that a teacher with deep subject knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge has the ability to offer more accurate explanations of language meaning and use which in turn can contribute to more meaningful learning. The present study was hence an attempt to explore the following question:
Are there any differences in the classroom practices of more and less proficient NNS teachers in delivering the same lesson?
To answer this question, the following sub-questions were asked.
Do more proficient teachers provide more input, and do this more accurately?
Do more proficient teachers provide more metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary explanations), and do this more accurately?
Do more proficient teachers provide more opportunities for student talk?
Do more proficient teachers provide more feedback on student errors, and do this more accurately?
To what extent do more proficient teachers closely follow the syllabus?
To what extent do more proficient teachers follow the teacher’s guide?
Do more proficient teachers have better management skills?
Do more proficient teachers deliver a more effective lesson?
The term proficiency used above refers to the teachers’ overall communicative ability in English. As explained in the Procedure section below, this construct was measured both through self-ratings and independent external judgements.
Review of Literature
Different models have been proposed to account for the knowledge base of language teachers. Common to all these models is a component of knowledge-about or competence in the target language – although variously labelled. Andrews (1999; Andrews, 2001; Andrews, 2003) focusses on teacher language awareness (TLA) which he includes as a component of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), that links a teacher’s subject knowledge (or language competence) to his/her communicative language ability (language proficiency in use). In simple terms this contrasts knowing about, with knowing how, i.e. declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Schulman (1987) coined the term PCK to link two types of knowledge: that of content and pedagogy, and by which he meant ‘that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding’ (1987: 8). Richards (2015) distinguishes between content knowledge and practical knowledge: ‘Content knowledge refers to what teachers need to know about what they can teach’ (2015: 114) while practical knowledge is to do with teaching skills and refers to the ‘knowledge that provides a basis for language teaching’ such as curriculum development, assessment, etc. (2015: 115).
In a study of the impact of language proficiency on classroom practice, Richards et al. (2013) observed seven New Zealand high school foreign language teachers, who taught languages such as Chinese, French, German, Japanese and Spanish but who were not native-speakers of their teaching language. The study compared the performances of the language teachers using a framework proposed by Farrell and Richards (2007): ‘exploitation of target language resources; provision of appropriate language models; provision of corrective feedback; use of TL to manage the class; provision of accurate explanations; provision of rich language input; and ability to improvise’ (2007: 237). Their findings revealed that more proficient teachers operated in all seven aspects of teaching, but those with limited proficiency reflected practice in only the first four aspects of teaching, were unable to provide rich input and did not attend to learners’ questions related to culture. One limitation of the study however, was that teachers teaching different foreign languages (and totally different content) were compared, therefore it is unclear whether the findings are applicable to teachers delivering lessons in the same foreign language and teaching the same content. In addition, self-ratings were used to describe the teachers’ language proficiency. The present study compared language teachers:
who taught the same language (EFL) and delivered the same or similar content, and
whose proficiency was rater-tested, in addition to self-rated (as explained below).
Freeman et al. (2015) propose a reconceptualization of teacher language proficiency in the form of an English Language Teaching (ELT) classroom language construct called ‘English-for-Teaching’. They argue the construct is an example of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) that focuses on what language teachers need to know in a specific context (i.e. the language classroom). An important feature of this redefined English-for-Teaching proficiency is that the criterion for the teacher’s language use is comprehensibility rather than a native speaker standard. A similar ESP-driven proposal to English language teacher language proficiency, called ‘English for the profession’, ‘English for teachers of EFL’ (Seşek, 2007: 413) and ‘teacher English’ (Seşek, 2007: 422) was proposed by Seşek to portray EFL teacher linguistic expertise. Based on the target needs analysis of EFL teachers in Slovenia and using the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as a model for describing their language needs, Seşek found the language needs of teachers differed from one level to another and from one context to another.
The projects reported above were all primarily conducted in a public education system. The present study however, was carried out in private institutes where classes are smaller and where teachers have greater choice over what and how to teach, the assumption being that in these contexts teachers would be more likely to have opportunities to use English freely and creatively in their teaching. In public schools teachers typically use a translation-based method and there is often little use of spoken English required by the teacher.
Method
Context and Data Collection
The study was conducted in Iran, where there is a huge interest in learning English as a foreign language (Sadeghi and Richards, 2015). The plan was to include as many language institutes from Urmia (the capital city of West Azerbaijan Province, with its 100+ language schools [Sadeghi and Ghaderi, 2018]) as possible. The language institutes were required to offer courses at the same level (intermediate or advanced levels) and to use the same content taught by different teachers (preferably a mix of high and lower proficiency teachers). In September 2016, we observed three classes as a pilot study at Language Centre A (with a population of nearly 2,500 students). The classes we observed were at Level 8 on the Institute’s programme (lower intermediate). Our goal was to observe whether there was sufficient teacher-talk (student-teacher interactions, teacher/student-talk and teacher feedback) to provide sufficient data for the study. This was not the case. In addition, since some teachers had been informed about what we were investigating their teaching was more for the observer than a typical teacher performance. As one student was heard to comment: ‘Teacher, why are you more energetic and teaching differently today?’ When more suitable classes had been identified for observation, the supervisors consulted each teacher just five minutes before the observation to ensure that they were willing to take part in the study. However, the teachers reacted differently to the researchers’ presence in their classes, with some feeling uncomfortable for the first few minutes, others were excited, indifferent or annoyed.
As a follow-up in order to compare teachers with different proficiency delivering the same lesson, we contacted several institutes and liaised with their management to plan the same course which would be delivered by one lower-proficient and one higher-proficient teacher. However, we were unsuccessful in this negotiation as some institutes were not willing to cooperate; others did not have courses offered at the level we desired (Level 10); and/or did not use the same materials as those used in our base institute (A) where the major coursebook used was the Summit series.
We based our main study on the course offered at Level 10 (Summit 1: 112–14) at Institute A, where four classes were especially arranged to accommodate our request. The unit title was ‘Your free time’ and the unit goals were: Explaining the benefits of leisure activities, Describing hobbies and other interests; and Comparing one’s use of leisure time. The activities used in the lesson included:
Conversation snapshot (rhythm and intonation practice)
Word skills (using collocations for leisure activities, and modifying with adverbs)
Draw conclusions (reading short excerpts and recommending a leisure activity)
Frame your ideas (discussing leisure activities with a partner)
Grammar snapshot (reading blog posts and noticing noun modifiers)
Grammar (learning order of noun modifiers)
These classes were taught by different teachers (different from those we observed during pilot). We were also able to arrange participation with one more institute (B) that used the same materials and offered two classes at the same level (called Level 12 here). As a result we observed six teachers who used the same material for teaching with slight variations. We observed two other classes at a similar level at Language Centre C, but this pair of classes followed a different coursebook (Passages 1: 57–59). The unit title was ‘Telling the news’ and the activities included:
Review of previous units (pair work and listening)
Storytelling (pair work and group work)
Listening (taking notes)
Grammar focus (adverbs used with the past and past perfect)
Discussion (pair work)
There were no explicitly stated unit goals. Table 1 represents the characteristics of the teachers and classes we observed in the main study. Teachers’ real names as well as centre-identifying codes are not used here for ethical reasons.
Characteristics of the Teachers.
Procedure
Although we had arranged with the management and institute supervisors to observe the classes, the teachers’ permission was also sought prior to each observation. A few minutes before the teachers entered the class, the on-site researcher and the supervisor asked for permission to observe and record the class. Once permission was given the lesson observation proceeded and an audio recording was made. The observer also kept notes on some of the activities that could not be recorded. At the end of the observations, the teachers were acknowledged for their cooperation and an arrangement was made for a follow-up interview.
The purpose of the interviews was to gauge the teachers’ language proficiency as well as to elicit background information and feedback regarding the classes we observed. The interviews were conducted in English at the observing researcher’s office at a convenient time for the teachers. Two of the researchers shared the interview load and conducted interviews together with individual teachers. Interviews ranged from 15 to 20 minutes. The content of the interviews was based on questions such as: ‘Why did you choose to become a teacher?’ and ‘What do you do to motivate demotivated students in your class?’ After the interview, which was recorded, the researchers agreed on a few criteria (both general and those based on the CEFR) to rate the proficiency level of the teachers, and them independently. The average rating between these raters was regarded as the measure of teacher language proficiency. Using the CEFR, we followed criteria for spoken interaction and spoken production as indicators of proficiency since speaking proficiency seemed to be the most important aspect of a teacher’s competency: ‘it is common sense that the speaking skill is the ”make-or-break requirement” for a language teacher (Britten, 1985)’ (cited in Seşek, 2007: 419). As part of the interview, teachers were also asked to self-rate their language proficiency on a scale of 0–100 as well as the CEFR levels. Teachers were also asked to rate different aspects of their teaching and their overall teaching success (on a scale of 0–100) as shown in results section.
Findings
Most previous studies on teacher language proficiency have used self-ratings for measuring a teacher’s language competence. Since teachers may either underestimate or overestimate their actual proficiency, we used interviews as a means of measuring teacher language proficiency. Table 2 indicates self-rated and researcher-measured levels of speaking proficiency for the participating teachers. The data indicated that except for one teacher who underestimated her proficiency, almost all others overestimated their language proficiency. This suggests that self-ratings may not provide accurate information on teachers’ actual language competence.
Teachers’ Perceived and Measured Language Proficiency.
A similar comparison was also made between teachers’ perceived classroom practices (teaching effectiveness from the perspective of the participating teachers) and those we actually observed in action (measured teaching effectiveness). Teacher preparation before the lesson could only be self-rated as this could not be measured by researchers directly; and the quantity of material covered was checked only through researcher-rating. As for self-rating, teachers were asked to evaluate the extent to which they actually employed any of the components of teaching effectiveness identified in the above sub-questions (such as the amount of feedback) by giving each item a score from 0 to 100. Researchers rated the same practices/items based on the observation data (observation notes as well as classroom transcripts). Tables 3 and 4 show teachers’ self-rated and researcher-measured classroom practices, respectively.
Teachers’ Perceived Classroom Practices.
Key:
Accuracy (grammar, pronunciation, etc.) of input
Amount of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Accuracy of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Opportunity for student talk
Amount of feedback on student errors
Accuracy of feedback provided
Following the syllabus
Following the teacher guide
Amount of preparation before the class
Success in managing the class
Overall teaching effectiveness
Teachers’ Measured Classroom Practices.
Key:
Quantity of material covered
Accuracy (grammar, pronunciation, etc.) of input
Amount of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Accuracy of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Opportunity for student talk (pair/group activities)
Amount of feedback on student errors
Accuracy of feedback provided
Following the syllabus
Following the teacher guide
Success in managing the class.11. Overall teaching effectiveness
Note: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partially; p = page; pp = pages.
Table 3 revealed that almost all teachers rated themselves as highly successful in all aspects of their teaching, and this similarly suggests why self-rated measures may not be reliable. Table 4 indicated that, compared to self-ratings, overall teacher effectiveness (column 11), as measured by external raters, is considerably lower for most teachers, but slightly higher in the case of two teachers (E and G, who seem to have underestimated their overall teaching effectiveness). Teachers B and D, whose overall teaching effectiveness was evaluated by researchers to be the lowest, self-rated themselves as very successful teachers and scored 90+ for all other classroom practices, with teacher D rating himself perfect in five areas of teaching. Teacher E who did not use much metalanguage explanations, did not manage the class well, and did not follow the teacher guide (based on researcher evaluation) ranked himself as a very effective teacher.
The central focus of this study was on whether more proficient teachers are more effective teachers in terms of the criteria such as the accuracy of input, the amount and accuracy of metalanguage explanations, etc. To answer this question, we mapped Table 4 against the data in Table 2. Based on researcher-measured proficiency, teachers were ranked as E, A, H, F, C, G, B, and D from the highest to the lowest proficiency. To make the interpretation of Table 4 easier, the table is reproduced as Table 5, where rows are re-arranged based on a decreasing order for teacher language proficiency.
Teachers’ Measured Classroom Practices (Re-arranged based on Teacher Proficiency Ranks).
Key:
Quantity of material covered
Accuracy (grammar, pronunciation, etc.) of input
Amount of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Accuracy of metalanguage (grammar and vocabulary) explanations
Opportunity for student talk (pair/group activities)
Amount of feedback on student errors
Accuracy of feedback provided
Following the syllabus
Following the teacher guide
Success in managing the class
Overall teaching effectiveness
Note: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partially; p = page; pp = pages.
Table 5 suggests that as far as the amount of material covered is concerned, there is a weak link between teacher language proficiency and the quantity covered; this is in fact determined by institutional syllabi. However, the least proficient teacher despite being 15 minutes late, covered the greatest amount of material probably because he was unable to provide further input or use pair/group activities, and therefore rushed to finish the assigned syllabus. However, teacher B, another low-proficient teacher who was expected to cover three pages based on the syllabus of the institute, could only cover two pages. One mid-proficiency teacher (F) covered the least (only one page) as he tried to be over-active, having prepared much more additional material (he told the researchers in the interview session that he was aware that his class would be observed).
As for the accuracy of input, metalanguage explanations, and feedback, figures in Table 5 suggested that more proficient teachers generally used more accurate input and metalanguage, except for teacher F whose level of accuracy was lower than (and sometimes equal to) two teachers less proficient than him. Also, the second most proficient teacher provided less accurate metalanguage than the third and fifth most proficient teachers. When it comes to the amount of metalanguage explanations and feedback (which can also be regarded as an estimate of the amount of input provided), there is a slightly different picture. The most proficient teacher provided the most metalanguage, followed by teacher G (who ranked sixth in proficiency). Teacher F (fourth in proficiency) provided as little metalanguage as the lowest proficient teacher (D), with the other teachers experiencing a decrease in the amount of metalanguage provided as their proficiency decreased. A similar distorted pattern can be seen for the amount of feedback. The highest feedback was offered by the most proficient teacher (E) and teacher C (with fifth proficiency rank) and the least feedback was provided by the least proficient teachers (D, followed by B). These latter teachers never used pair and group activities while all the others provided various opportunities for student-student and/or student-teacher interactions.
Most of the teachers followed the syllabus, with only slight differences between them, with teacher F substantially diverting from it. As noted above, this teacher had prepared himself well and used many extra-syllabus activities. Hence was only able to cover one page of the syllabus. The most proficient teacher followed the syllabus closely and covered all sections in the Students Book, while the least proficient teacher ignored a few sections (those requiring discussion, etc.), with almost all others dropping a section or two. Most teachers ignored the teacher guides with only teacher E (the most proficient) showing signs of consistently following it, and he teacher G (sixth in proficiency) having consulted it before the class. The second and third most proficient teachers (A and H) and the least proficient teacher (D) showed little signs of adhering to activities proposed in teacher guides. Teacher A (second in proficiency) was the top teacher in terms of class management, followed by the most proficient teacher (E). However, the classroom management of the third most proficient teacher was at the same level as the least proficient teacher, whose management was rated better than teacher F (fourth in proficiency).
Putting all these together, when we look at overall teaching success, it turns out that the two most effective teachers were the two most proficient teachers and the two least effective teachers were the two least proficient teachers. This offers support for the proposition that teacher language proficiency contributes to effective delivery of the lesson. However, teachers C and G (whose language proficiencies were rated lower than teachers H and F) achieved higher overall effectiveness scores, implying that although language proficiency may contribute to successful teaching, there are obviously other issues involved that are not related to language proficiency. These include the amount of teacher preparation, teacher interest and motivation, teacher individual differences, the interest level of the students, language level of the learners, and the support of the management system, to name a few. Based on these observations, we conclude that there are differences in aspects of classroom practices between teachers with different levels of language proficiency, with more proficient teachers generally providing a greater amount of input (in terms of metalanguage explanations and feedback), as well as better quality input (in terms of the accuracy of feedback, explanations and teacher talk). However, other aspects of teaching such as classroom management, adherence to the prescribed syllabus and teacher guide seem unrelated to the teacher’s level of language proficiency.
Discussion
This small-scale case study sought to explore the impact of L2 teacher language proficiency on how a non-native English teacher teaches a lesson. To investigate this, we observed the performances of six English teachers teaching the same language course to different students as well as two other teachers who taught at a similar level, using materials from a different source. The findings reported above generally highlight the importance of teacher proficiency in delivering an effective language lesson, as has been suggested in other studies (Andrews, 2003; Richards et al., 2013). However, due to the limited number of teachers involved in the study the results are suggestive only and we cannot make claims of generalizability based on these observations. An important point to bear in mind is that although teacher language proficiency may have played a part in the way teaching was conducted, we cannot determine the exact role it played in the aspects of teaching we examined. Other factors to consider are: the teaching materials, the context, the learners’ proficiency level, interest and motivation to learn, willingness to communicate, age and gender, personality and so forth. Contextual factors such as the existence of teacher guides (and whether teachers actually use these) as well as external resources and classroom facilities (such as the availability of appropriate audio visual materials in the classroom) also influence the extent to which the teacher can realize their potential during a lesson. In addition the type of classroom practice the teacher adopted was also dependent on the lesson objectives, which may require the use of some activities but not others. For example, depending on the aim of a particular lesson, a teacher may (or may not) need to use a certain activity such as pair or group work. If the aim of a lesson is such that it does not require pair work or student-teacher interaction, such criteria obviously cannot be used to measure teaching effectiveness, since the type and amount of input, feedback, metalanguage etc will depend on course aims and the content to be taught. In this study in six out of eight classes, the lesson had exactly the same aims and content and the teachers had the option to use the same tasks or activities to cover those aims, hence their practices can legitimately be compared. In other words, they each had the opportunity to use pair work, provide metalanguage explanations, etc. However, comparison with the two teachers who taught different content may be questionable since the types of classroom activities used by these different groups could well have been affected by lesson objectives and content. There is therefore no simple connection between teaching effectiveness and a teacher’s linguistic competence.
For this reason it is useful to distinguish between a teacher’s actual language proficiency and the realization of this competence in practice. A teacher may indeed be highly proficient but the context of the lesson may prevent him/her from translating competence into performance, while a less proficient teacher may perform well if other conditions are favourable. In other words, if teacher language proficiency does have a role to play in teaching, the exact nature of its role is not easy to determine independently from its interactions with other teacher and non-teacher related variables. Understanding these interrelationships is a priority for further research.
More studies are needed where direct comparisons can be made between high and low proficient teachers delivering the same language lesson. Such studies may enable solid claims to be made for a link between teacher language proficiency and teaching success. The study described here made use of teachers in a naturalistic setting engaged in the normal process of teaching. However, due to the large number of variables that could have influenced the outcome, a controlled experimental research design would be a useful way of further exploring the issues raised here. With a properly controlled study, teachers with different proficiency levels could be given a task to teach in a controlled setting. The aim would be to see to what extent language proficiency influenced the way they implemented the task. In our study, we were unable to identify low and high proficient teachers prior to the study so as to assign them as teachers of the same-level classes. Indeed, managers of the institutes we worked with were not happy with this proposal since they had their own systems of assigning teachers to low-level or high-level classes. The common practice in most language institutes in Iran is that when teachers are recruited, no matter what their language proficiency is, they have to begin teaching at lower proficiency level classes before they are promoted to teaching at higher proficiency classes. This means that the managers of institutes indirectly believe in a different type of proficiency (that is ‘teaching proficiency’ rather than language proficiency) as a measure of teaching competence.
Another limitation of this study was the limited number of observation sessions involved (we observed only one session of each teacher’s teaching practice). A more extended observation period would have been preferable since initially the observer’s presence in the classroom can affect the performance of both the teacher and the students. Another important issue is the influence of teacher language proficiency on student learning. Further research is needed to investigate whether teachers’ higher language proficiency leads to better overall learning outcomes and learners’ higher language proficiency. Indeed, teaching effectiveness not measured in terms of learning effectiveness may not be a valid indicator of teaching-learning success.
Conclusion
The impact of teacher language proficiency on both teaching and learning is an issue of growing importance in English language teaching worldwide. While language ability has been recognized as an important dimension of teaching competence, since teacher ability is multidimensional, as this study has demonstrated it is difficult to identity the precise role language proficiency plays in a teacher’s classroom performance. Pawlak (2011: 23) suggests that teachers with a limited command of the language, in addition to having low self-esteem, low self-, learner-, and management-satisfaction, and feelings of burn-out, may display a proclivity to fall back upon the shared mother tongue, experience considerable difficulty in providing good teaching models or supplying sufficiently rich language learning input, and find it problematic to monitor their own speech and writing for accuracy as well as to offer appropriate feedback on their learners’ errors.
However, despite this negative view of the low-proficiency language teacher, it is also the case that such a teacher may compensate for limited proficiency through a high level of motivation and determination, creative use of teaching resources, making greater use of technology and the media and by helping learners make use of opportunities available for out- of- class learning. Consequently, we have often observed outstanding lessons delivered by teachers with limitations to their English proficiency levels. Since provision for language development and improvement is an important part of teacher education programmes for many non-native English teachers, having a clearer idea of the relationship between teacher proficiency and teacher performance can help provide a focus for such support. Studies of the kind reported here can thus make a useful contribution to our understanding of the interaction between teacher proficiency and teacher performance.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments helped us to improve the article. We are also thankful to the management, teachers and students of the language schools who provided us with the opportunity to observe their classes.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.