8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

1/11

162

Incorporating a languageimprovement component inteacher training programmesRichard CullenMost training programmes for teachers of English as a foreign language atboth in-service and pre-service levels offer a fairly traditional blend of ELTskills training on the one hand and language awareness e.g. grammarandphonology on the other. Although there is no doubt that these twocomponents should form an important part of any ELT trainingprogramme the fact remains that for a substantial number of non-nativeEnglish teachers especially those in primary and secondary schools theoverwhelming desire is to improve their command of the language itself.With the propagation and increasing acceptance around the world of theprinciples of communicative language teaching there is arguably morepressure on teachers than in the past to be fluent in English so that they canuse it naturally and spontaneous/yin the classroom. Yet training courses inELT rarely take into account the language demands which the com-municative approach makes on teachers. This paper discusses a model foran in-service training course in which language improvement is the centralelement. In this model the experience of language learning provides theinput for the other components of the programme: skills training andlanguage awareness.

Introduction Teacher training courses in English as a foreign language around theworld, at both pre-service and in-service levels, usually consist of a fairlypredictable set of component parts. Firstly, with few exceptions, there willbe a methodology/pedagogical skills component, in which differentmethods and techniques for teaching English are explored, and thevarious classroom skills the trainee needs to teach successfully arediscussed and practised. This component is of course sometimes dividedinto a number of sub-components, such as methodology usually thetheoretical part), micro-teaching, and practice teaching, but for thepurpose of this paper they will be treated as one component, since theybasically share the same objective, that is to develop the traineesclassroom skills for teaching EFL. Secondly, there will invariably be whatwe might term a linguistics component, a primarily theoreticalcomponent, which would include one or more of the following topics:theories of language and language learning, the place of English in societyand the school curriculum, and awareness of the language itself. This lastaspect often includes a study of the English grammatical andphonological systems, with the emphasis on increasing the traineesunderstanding of how the language operates, rather than their mastery inELT Journal Volume 48/2 April 1994 Oxford University Press 1994

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

2/11

the use of it. Thirdly, there is often a literature component, particularly onpre-service courses, where the trainees may be required to studyclassical or indigenous English literature, both to increase theirknowledge and appreciation of the texts themselves and to help themteach some of these texts to their more advanced examination classes.Finally, there may or may not be a language improvement componentaimed at improving the general language proficiency of the trainees. Thiscomponent may be specifically linked to the kind of language the teacherswill need to use in the classroom, e.g. for giving instructions, elicitingideas and suggestions from the students, a kind of ESP for Englishteachers, following descriptions of such language, as suggested, forexample by Willis 1981) and Hughes 1981). On the other hand, thecomponent may take the form of a more general course in English, aimedas closely as possible at the general level of the particular group oftrainees. How to incorporate a language improvement component into ateacher training programme is the subject of this paper.

Language It is probably true to say that in most parts of the world the main emphasisimprovement in in English language teacher training, especially on in-service courses, isteacher training on methodology, and that the teachers proficiency in the language itself is

courses: some largely taken for granted. There are of course exceptions: in China, forproblems example, Hundleby and Breet 1988) and Berry 1990) report on asituation where teacher training is seen principally as a process of raising

the language level of the trainees, to the virtual exclusion of methodology,a situation which, on courses apparently designed to improve teacherspractical skills, would itself appear inappropriate, and would doubtlesslead to problems of a different nature. Alternatively, languageimprovement may become confused with the subject matter of thelinguistics component, with the emphasis on increasing knowledge andawareness about the systems of the language, rather than an ability to usethis knowledge in real communication. This is often the result of a numberof unavoidable constraining factors, such as the limited time available forthe course, or the large number of participants attending it. It is less time-consuming, for example, to describe the usage of the main structureswhich the trainees will need to teach in their classes, than to devise andconduct activities which give extended practice in using them. This is notto deny the value of language awareness activities, particularly ifconducted in such a way as to enable the teachers to discover theunderlying rules of language use for themselves. Such activities help todeepen teachers understanding of how the language works, and may alsocontribute indirectly to their proficiency in using the language itself.However, they should not be confused with activities designed to do thisdirectly. The fact is that few teacher training courses have either the timeor the resources to provide a sufficiently intensive language improvementcourse which stands a reasonable chance of achieving its purpose, that isto improve the trainees communicative command of the language, ratherthan their knowledge about it. Yet it is probably also a fact-albeitundocumented-that in most parts of the world where exposure toEnglish is limited, and where English is not the medium of instruction butLanguage improvement in teacher training 163

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

3/11

a compulsory foreign language on the school curriculum, the mainconcern of English teachers in primary and secondary schools is preciselythis: the need to improve their own command of the language so that theycan use it more fluently, and above all, more confidently, in the classroom.An in-service teacher training course which fails to take this into accountis arguably failing to meet the needs or respond to the wishes of theteachers themselves.

Teachers wishes Berry 1990) reports on a questionnaire he conducted with two groups ofand needs secondary school English teachers in Poland, asking them to rank thecomponents of methodology, theory a term he used to refer to theories oflanguage learning and teaching), and language improvement, according

to what they thought they needed most. The first group were participantson an in-service programme that Berry was running, whereas the secondrepresented a cross-section of teachers in various secondary schools. Forboth groups, language-improvement was ranked as the most important, aclear favourite with the second group, and a close winner overmethodology with the first group. Theory came in a poor third with bothgroups. The result is perhaps not surprising: as Berry himself points out,there is very limited contact with native speakers and their culture formost the only regular possibility consists of listening to English languageradio stations), opportunities for travel are few, and so the English theymost frequently hear is that of their pupils. He added, though, that thisloss of proficiency is quite possibly more a problem of perception than offact, and that it is their confidence rather than their proficiency that needsbolstering.If this is the case in Poland, it is likely to be the case in many othercountries where similar conditions exist. It would almost certainly be true,for example, in Egypt and Bangladesh, both countries in which I havebeen working over the past seven years in the field of in-service teachertraining at secondary school level. Both countries share the followingfeatures:1 English is taught as the compulsory foreign language on the secondaryschool curriculum, and in Bangladesh it is also taught right throughprimary level. It is not, however, used as the medium of instruction at

either level in the education system.2 In both countries, a substantial proportion of the English teachersemployed at secondary level have had no special training to teachEnglish, having specialized in other subjects at their training collegesor faculties of education. Their previous experience of formalcoursework in English often dates from the time that they were atsecondary school themselves, and their command of the language,especially of the spoken language, is frequently very shaky.

3 As in Poland, teachers contact with the language is very limited,especially outside the main towns, where it is likely to be virtually non-existent.

1644 The English curriculum places great emphasis on the use of English, asRichard Cullen

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

4/11

opposed to the mother tongue, in the English classroom a policy whichis reinforced by the school principals and more especially the schoolinspectors, who are likely to assess English teachers on their ability touse English in their classes.

5 Both countries have recently introduced new communicativetextbooks at secondary level, which have arguably placed morepressure on teachers than in the past to use English easily and fluently inthe classroom. Teachers following a communicative approach areexpected not merely to initiate set responses from their students as wasoften the case with earlier audio-lingual, structure-based materials) butrather to initiate a wide range of unpredictable contributions fromstudents and to respond naturally and spontaneously to them. This inturn requires teachers to continually adjust their) speech to anappropriate level of difficulty from class to class and student tostudent) and to solve unpredictable communication problems frommoment to moment Mitchell 1988). In the words of Marton 1988),the communicative strategy requires teachers to be prepared for anylinguistic emergency. They are also expected to handle authentic orsemi-authentic reading texts, often posing cultural as well as linguisticdifficulties, and are not likely to be reassured by the blandpronouncements they hear on training courses that it is not necessaryto understand every word. This may be appropriate for the students,but not for most self-respecting teachers. In short, communicativematerials and methodology demand of the teacher a higher level ofproficiency in English than in the past, and the confidence to use it overan extended period in the classroom. Yet how many pre-service orin-service training programmes take this into account?

Strategies for A poor or rusty command of English undermines the teachers confidenceaddressing in the classroom, affects his or her self-esteem and professional status,

language needs in and makes it difficult for him or her to follow even fairly straightforwardteacher training teaching procedures such as asking questions on a text cf. Doff 1987), let

programmes alone fulfil the pedagogical requirements of new, more communicativecurricula. Low levels in English among the teaching force are thus not justa concern among the teachers themselves but should also be a concern ofthose involved in planning both pre-service and in-service teachertraining programmes. Faced with this problem, there are a number ofgeneral approaches the course planner might adopt. I shall consider fourpossible approaches:

Tackle the problem Ignore the problem, or rather try to tackle it indirectly. This approach aimsindirectly to improve the trainees English by ensuring that the other components of

the programme, e.g. methodology, are conducted in the medium ofEnglish, with plenty of opportunities for the trainees to discuss issues inEnglish, read widely around the subject matter, and to practise micro-teaching units from the textbook. It is true that over time such a policyshould lead to a general rise in the level of English of the participants.However, many programmes, especially in-service ones, do not have theLanguage improvement in teacher training 16.5

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

5/11

Include a languagecomponent

Link methodologyand languageimprovement

Make languageimprovement

central

166

time, resources, or opportunities for the kind of exposure to English whichsuch an approach would require to be effective. Furthermore, in the lightof the foregoing discussion, it would appear that something more direct isrequired, and wanted by the teachers themselves.

Include some kind of language improvement component alongside theother parts of the course. Many teacher training courses, as in the exampleof China already referred to, attempt to do this, but it may be questionablewhether the aims of all components are satisfactorily achieved as a result.Once again there is usually a problem of time. It is difficult to introduce aseparate major component such as language improvement into a trainingcourse without sacrificing other parts of it, in particular, the methodology/pedagogical skills component. This would be particularly true of in-service courses where time and resources are usually more at a premium.There is also the danger, mentioned above, that pressure of time willchange the character of the language improvement component-emphasizing the presentation of a given list of language items on thesyllabus, rather than development of language skills.Make methodology the content of a language improvement programme.For example, one could use reading and listening passages about variousmethodology topics, and, where appropriate, devise loops in which thecontent is conveyed through the process which is being described: adictation about the principles and procedures for giving dictations wouldbe an example of this see Woodward 1991 for this and other examples).This approach clearly goes some way towards overcoming the problem oftime, since it seeks to combine language improvement and methodologyand make it one component. However, the restriction of the subject matterof the course to one major topic i.e. methodology) would seem to limitboth its usefulness and its appeal to teachers as a course in generallanguage improvement.Make language improvement the central element of the course, and planthe other components around it. In this approach, the content of themethodology and language awareness components would be derivedfrom the language course which the trainees would undergo. Thelanguage course would thus be the central element, and provide the inputfor the other components, in particular methodology/pedagogical skills.The trainees would first have direct experience of a particular teachingapproach, or technique, as genuine language learners, before discussingthe approach or technique as teachers. To some extent, this may seemsimilar to Berrys proposal Berry 1990) for a language improvementcourse, which, in addition to its primary role, will have the secondaryeffect of providing a model of teaching behaviour. However, it should bestressed that the aim is not so much to provide a model as an example fordiscussion. The model is open to discussion and analysis and may berejected, and almost certainly modified by the trainees as a result of thisprocess.Richard Cullen

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

6/11

Few training courses in my experience adopt this approach, and it may notbe appropriate on many pre-service courses due to the requirements of thesyllabus and the final examinations. However, it may well provide ananswer to the in-service training needs of teachers in many parts of theworld, where what is required is both improvement of the teacherscommand of the language and upgrading of their professional skills asteachers. Such an approach potentially offers both, and moreover, seeks todeal with issues of methodology in a way that is likely to be quite differentto the teachers previous experience at pre-service level, i.e. throughactual experience followed by a process of analysis and reflection. It istime now to consider how this approach might work in practice.

Incorporating a In Bangladesh I was involved with a team of college lecturers in thelanguage planning and teaching of a language improvement component for English

improvement teachers following a one-year post-graduate diploma course at thecourse in a Teacher Training College in Dhaka. The students were a mixture of pre-

teacher training service and in-service trainees, primarily the latter, most of whom hadprogramme: an completed two or three years service after graduation. The need for a

example language improvement course was plain, yet there was no room on thetimetable for such a programme without cutting into other areas of thediploma syllabus. Consequently, we decided to run an optional course forthe students in free periods for four hours a week two free afternoons)over a period of three months. It was stressed that the course was optionaland would not count towards the students assessment on the wholecourse. The attendance - 80 per cent of the total number of those takingEnglish - was encouraging, and testified to the teachers own frequentlyexpressed feelings that language improvement was a top priority for them.The course we devised was based on their results on a proficiency test wehad previously set, which showed their average ability to be at thestandard expected of Grade 8 students, i.e. an intermediate level mid-waythrough the secondary school cycle. Consequently, we devised a generalintermediate/upper intermediate course in English designed to last forty-eight contact hours, and based loosely on selected units of a standard,reasonably communicative coursebook with which the trainees wereunfamiliar), supplemented by reading texts from a variety of sources,often of local interest. By the end of the course, it was clear that many ofthe trainees seemed to be as interested in the methodology to which thecourse exposed them as in the language content of the course itself. Thisinterest suggested that there was potential for exploiting the course forpurposes beyond the primary goal of language improvement, and that ifwe were to run the course again for future groups of trainees, it would beworthwhile to consider how to try to achieve these ulterior purposes.Unfortunately, it proved impossible the following year to run the courseagain due to a variety of reasons beyond our control, and consequently,any plans to try and link this language component with work onmethodology/pedagogical skills never bore fruit. This paper thereforeattempts to put forward a number of ideas for consideration rather thanreport on an attempt to put forward ideas into practice.Language improvement in teacher training 167

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

7/11

The generalapproach

Figure 1

Recalling thelesson: sources of

data

68 Richard Cullen

Figure 1 shows the basic approach envisaged on an in-service coursewhich aims to link language improvement with other components, and inparticular, with methodology. The starting point the Input stage) isalways the language lesson, which will be part of a language course whichhas been specifically designed to meet the needs of the group of teachers

INPUTLanguage lessonTrainees experiencelesson as students

PROCESSING OUTPUTTrainees analyse and evaluate Trainees:lesson data drawn from: -write own lesson-teachers notes/lesson plans-learning materials _ plans-devise own-trainees notes/diaries activities-audio tapes/transcripts of -micro-teachlessons-observers notes

in question. This lesson - usually selected parts of it - constitutes the datafor the second Processing stage, during which the lesson is subjected toa process of description, analysis, and evaluation. Finally, there may ormay not be an output or transfer stage, in which the trainees plan waysof transferring an idea e.g. a teaching strategy or classroom technique) totheir own teaching situation. The trainees thus go through a process ofexperiencing a language lesson as learners, recalling what happenedusually with the aid of various types of lesson data, to be discussed

below), analysing the data in some structured way, evaluating it forexample in terms of the lessons effectiveness), and finally reflecting on itwith reference to their own teaching practices and teaching situations, aprocess which may or may not lead to integration of certain strategies andtechniques into the individual trainees own teaching repertoires. Thisprocess would of course be repeated again and again throughout thecourse. How much time would be spent on each part of the process, i.e. theallocation of time to the language course itself as opposed to themethodological analysis, will be discussed later.Central to this process is the need to describe the lesson, or the specificparts of the lesson which the trainees wish to focus on, as accurately andobjectively as possible. If the data is unreliable, in other words, if thetrainees cannot agree on what happened, the subsequent analysis andevaluation of the lesson will be largely academic. Figure 1 outlines somepossible sources of data on the lesson, which could be useful for analysisand discussion. These include:Teachers notes/lesson plans: Although not a record in themselves ofwhat actually happened, they show what the teacher intended to happen,and are thus useful for a discussion of the rationale for what the teacherhad planned. They can also help to jog the trainees memories of what theteacher did or did not do in the lesson. This would also be true of thelearning materials used in the lesson, e.g. copies of dialogues, readingtexts and tasks, writing exercises, etc., which could be used for a similaranalysis, focusing, for example, on the purpose of a particular exercise, or

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

8/11

a particular question, how meaningful or meaningless it was, andwhether it was effective as a learning exercise for the trainees.Trainees lesson notes/diaries: Data can also be supplied by the traineesthemselves in the form of notes on the lesson either written immediatelyafterwards, or as a daily diary, in which each trainee records any aspects ofthe days lesson which he or she found particularly interesting, helpful forlearning, or just confusing. These notes could then be shared anddiscussed with the whole group in the first session of each days work.The discussion would focus on why they found a particular procedureinteresting, helpful, or confusing, what the rationale for using it was, andwhat alternative procedures might have been followed.Audio tapes/transcripts of lessons: Another, more objective source of datawould be taped recordings of the lesson itself, preferably backed up bytranscripts of the selected parts which the trainer or trainees wished tolook at. Such data could obviously not be used until the day after thelesson in order to allow time for the transcripts to be prepared. However,the information from the transcripts would be potentially very fruitful,leading to an analysis and exploration of a variety of crucial areas inteaching, such as the extent and quality of classroom interaction and thekind of teacher talk used, both to promote such interaction and generallyto direct operations in the classroom. An analysis of teacher talk wouldalso bring the trainees back to the area of language again, this time withthe emphasis on classroom language - the language used for givinginstructions, for example, or for asking questions to elicit ideas orinformation from the class.Two further advantages of using transcripts ought to be mentioned here.Firstly, it does not have to be the trainer who makes them. Once thetrainees are familiar with them, each day a different trainee could be askedto take home the audio cassette and to make a transcript of a short part ofthe lesson about five minutes) in which he or she or the class) wasinterested. This in itself is a valuable learning exercise for any teacher,requiring as it does a detailed and thorough exploration of what ishappening in a given segment of a lesson. Secondly, transcripts remainreasonably anonymous: students names need not be recorded or can bechanged) on a transcript, and so the trainees are not exposed to theircolleagues in the event of their making errors or being unable to answerthe teachers question. The only person exposed is the trainer who taughtthe lesson. Video tapes of the lessons taught would not be suitable sourcesof data because they cannot offer anonymity. Video might also have theeffect of intruding on the lesson itself and possibly inhibiting theperformance of both teacher the trainer) and the students the trainees),all of whom would be aware that their efforts would be played back, wartsand all, to be scrutinized and analysed after the lesson.Observers notes: Another source of data on the lesson would be notesmade by an observer, who might, for example, be one of the other trainersinvolved in teaching the course. Independent notes of this kind madeduring the lesson would normally be more reliable than notes based on theLanguage improvement in teacher training 169

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

9/11

recollections of the students and the teacher after the lesson had finished,and they would be particularly useful for showing points of departurebetween what the teacher had planned and what actually transpired in thelesson. The observer, assuming he or she was one of the course tutors,would then also be in a position to conduct the follow-up session.

Using the data: an Not all these different sources would be used with each lesson taught -outline of a rather a selection, depending on what aspect of methodology/pedagogical

training session skills the trainer or the trainees wished to focus. Below I have suggestedan outline of a training session in which three of these sources of datatrainees notes, teachers notes, and an audio tape of the lesson) are

utilized. The session would probably last about one hour, and couldfollow any lesson that has been taught.Step 1: Following a procedure suggested by Ramani 1987: 5) thetrainees begin by noting down immediately after the lesson which partsthey considered most satisfactory and why, and which parts theyconsidered least satisfactory and why - the object being to elicit from thetrainees their real and subjective responses to the lesson, as learners.While they are doing this, the trainer does the same thing, from his or herpoint of view, as the teacher - a quick, personal evaluation of how thelesson went, and what extra work might be needed.Step 2: The trainees discuss their impressions in small groups, and thenreport back, each group presenting its conclusions on the mostsatisfactory and least satisfactory parts. After their presentations, thetrainer presents his or her own impressions of the lesson and comparesthese with the trainees comments.Step 3: The trainees are shown an incomplete outline of the lesson basedon the trainers lesson notes, and showing only the main stages of thelesson. In their groups they try to complete the outline based on theirrecollections of the lesson, and assisted by the notes they made in Step 1and the discussion in Step 2.Step 4: Different groups report back and a complete outline is built up onthe board. The rationale for each stage and the sequence of stages isdiscussed with the whole class. The main purpose here would be to look atprinciples of lesson planning, and to discuss briefly the rationale behindvarious commonly-used techniques and exercises, which would bespecified in the lesson outline e.g. the reason for setting pre-questions ona reading text, or the purpose of a particular gap-filling exercise used inthe lesson). The trainees own impressions of the lesson could also bematched against this outline - to establish whether there was a particularstage of the lesson which seemed to work better or worse than otherstages, and if so, why.Step 5: The trainer or trainees choose a particular stage of the lesson tolook at in more detail, for example, the warm-up stage, in which a readingor listening text is presented. The trainees could be asked to expand theoriginal notes to include, for example, the questions the teacher might askthe students at this stage, the actual instructions which might be given for

170 Richard Cullen

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

10/11

a particular activity specified in the plan, and any words or phrases writtenon the board. After the trainees have noted down their own ideas whichwill be partly based on their recollection of the lesson) the audio tape ofthis part of the lesson could be played to compare their own suggestedclassroom language with that actually used by the teacher. This in turnwould lead to a more detailed examination of the procedures used, forexample, questioning procedures such as how the teacher nominatesindividual students to answer questions, the wait time allowed betweenasking the question and nominating a student, how the teacher reacts tostudents responses and follows up on them, etc.Step 6: The trainees and trainer consider together the effectiveness ofthis particular stage of the lesson in the light of their original impressionsrecorded in Step 1, and any subsequent re-assessment which might haveresulted from the deeper analysis suggested in Step 5. As a result of thisdiscussion, the trainees or the trainer might suggest alternative procedureswhich the teacher might have used.Step 7: Finally, the trainees consider the applicability to their ownclasses of the procedures they have been focusing on. Are they similar towhat they already do? Is there anything new which they have not triedbefore? Was it effective for them as learners? Would it work in their ownclasses? If not, why not? etc. This is the stage at which the trainees arerequired to reflect on their experience as language learners in the light oftheir experience as language teachers, and of their knowledge of their ownclassrooms and students. To facilitate the process of transfer into theirown situations, it is important that the classroom conditions in which thelanguage improvement course takes place replicate as closely as possiblethe classroom conditions in which most of the trainees work themselves.By the same token, technological aids which are not available to teachersin their schools should be avoided on the course.The steps described above constitute one of many ways to proceed with thetask of describing, analysing, and evaluating the data provided by alanguage lesson which a group of trainees have been taught. It could eitherbe done as one session immediately following the lesson itself, or dividedinto two sessions, with the second session beginning at Step 5 on thefollowing day. This would have the advantage of giving time for a transcriptto be made of the particular part of the lesson being discussed. The transcriptcould then replace or supplement) the audio tape used in Step 5.

Follow up: some The Processing stage described above could of course be followed by anconsiderations output or transfer stage see Figure I), during which the trainees might be

asked to prepare a warm-up activity for a reading passage in their textbooks.This would arguably be a logical follow-up activity. However, one shouldguard against over-extending the methodology work so that it takes overfrom the language course. The primary aim of the programme is to improvethe teachers command of English so that they can perform with greaterconfidence in the classroom. An over-emphasis on the methodologyemployed will use up valuable time and interrupt the momentum of thelanguage course. The purpose of the methodology analysis is essentially oneLanguage improvement in teacher training 171

articles welcome

8/12/2019 Unit5-ELTJ-1994-48-2 (Cullen)

11/11

of consciousness-raising: to deepen the trainees understanding of theprinciples and processes involved in language teaching as a result of thelearning experience), in the hope that this increased understanding willinform their own practice as teachers. For this reason, a balance of two hoursof language work to one hour of methodological analysis and reflectionwould probably be what I would aim for.

Conclusion In this paper, I have attempted to describe a way of addressing the issue oflanguage improvement on in-service teacher training programmes inparts of the world where there is a clear need and a desire for it. Theprogramme I have suggested attempts to combine language improvementand methodology by using the learning experience which the traineeshave undergone during the language lesson as the content for follow-upwork on methodology. In my view the approach has a number of facetswhich would recommend it to many groups of trainees working in thekind of situation I described earlier. Firstly, the focus of the programme isprimarily on language improvement. As such, it aims to respond to manyteachers actual wishes and to meet their most pressing needs. Secondly,the methodology component is practice-driven rather than theory-driven, arising as it does out of the trainees direct experience of themethodology as learners. It will thus be rooted more firmly in reality thanthe more theory-based methodology which many of the trainees wouldpreviously have studied on their pre-service courses. Finally, the processof describing, analysing, and evaluating the events which took place in thelessons is a way of training the teachers on the course to observe andreflect on their own and their colleagues teaching when they are back intheir schools, thus contributing to their continued professional develop-ment after the course.Receved February 1993

Note Teaching. New York: Prentice Hall.This paper was originally presented at the IATEFL Mitchell R. 1988. Communicative LanguageSilver Jubilee Conference held at Lille, France, 23-26 Teaching in Practice. London: CILT.October 1992. Ramani E. 1987. Theorizing from the classroom.ELT Journal 41/1: 3 11.ReferencesBerry R. 1990. The role of language improvementin in-service teacher training programmes: killingtwo birds with one stone. System 18/1: 97-105.Doff A. 1987. Training materials as an instrument ofmethodological change in R. Bowers ed.)Language Teacher Education: An IntegratedProgramme for ELT Teacher Training. ELTDocuments 125: 67-71. Basingstoke: Macmillanfor Modern English Publications.Hughes G. S. 1981. A Handbook o ClassroomEnglish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hundleby S. and F. Breet. 1988. Using

methodology notebooks on in-service teachertraining courses. ELT Journal 42/1: 34-6.Marton W. 1988. Methods in English Language172 Richard Cullen

Willis J. 1981. Teaching English through English.Harlow: Longman.Woodward T. 1991. Modes and Metaphors inLanguage Teacher Training: Loop Input and OtherStrategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The AuthorRichard Cullen has worked for the past fifteen yearsin the field of teacher/trainer training and curriculumdevelopment in Nepal, Greece, the UK, Egypt, andBangladesh. Since March 1992 he has been workingas a teacher trainer at the Centre for Tutor Training inDar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, as part of the ODA/Government of Tanzanias English LanguageTeaching Support Project. He has an MA in AppliedLinguistics from the University of Reading.