Following thirteen months behind my only sibling’s academic footsteps was hard. From elementary school on, she was a glowing student; absorbing, digesting, and understanding information seemingly by osmosis. She maintained straight A’s throughout her academic career and earned a college scholarship. I, on the other hand, struggled to maintain a C average and ran away from home at the age of fifteen.

Let’s take a moment and rewind…

I thought I was stupid. Compared to my sister, it certainly appeared that way. However, it wasn’t until many years later I discovered that I learn differently from how I was being taught.

There are three recognized learning styles:

• Auditory learners grasp things by hearing—the worst type of test for them involves reading passages and writing answers. They’re best at writing responses to lectures they’ve heard, and are also good at oral exams.
• Visual learners comprehend through seeing—the worst test type for them includes having to listen and respond. They’re best at diagramming, reading maps, essays (if they’ve studied using an outline), and showing a process.
• Tactile (kinesthetic) learners understand through experiencing/doing—the worst test type for them usually has lengthy tests and essays. They’re best at short definitions, fill in the blanks, and multiple choice.

When I was in school, the general teaching population were auditory teachers. A heavily tactile learner—with a smidgen of visual thrown in for good measure—I was missing the boat!

Fast forward…

Not having done any planning before running away, I didn’t know that if you leave high school before you graduate, you can’t test for a GED—General Education Diploma—until two years after your graduating class.

Biding my time, I went to work for a large, everything-under-one-roof store. Over the next few years I worked my way up to managing the women’s wear department, then added men’s wear, and topped it off with housewares and furniture.

I gained valuable life experience during that window of time. Part of this seat-of-the-pants wisdom was learning to say, “I don’t understand. Can you please explain that differently?” And that’s when I noticed that no matter how many times someone “told” me, it wasn’t until they “showed” me that I got it! When shown, I not only met, but exceeded what was expected of me.

I left high school as a sophomore in 1973. For four long years I waited and prepared to take the GED examination. On a hot day in late June of 1977, with the cut-grass tang of summer in the air, I slipped into a front row seat at the testing center; one of about twenty other people enveloped in the sterile classroom setting.

The all-day test was given in seven parts: Language Arts (writing), Language Arts (reading), Social Studies, Science, Math (calculator allowed), Math (calculator not allowed), and United States Constitution.

Hours later—head held high with a face-splitting grin—I left the facility with every confidence that I’d aced the test. Six weeks later I received my GED certificate, and that was just the beginning. Over time I earned my associate degree, then bachelor’s, followed by a master’s degree. Finally, two weeks before my fiftieth birthday, I sat and defended my Ph.D. thesis.

Hard-wired for buoyancy and tenacious as a terrier, when I set my mind on something I go after it with tremendous resolve. It took a while, but I eventually went from GED to Ph.D. And while I’m Ph.inisheD with brick-and-mortar academia, I’ll never be done learning.

What are the basic traits that a teacher should have to be able to help students attain necessary language skills and cultural knowledge in an L2? As language educators, we receive this question all the time. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not an easy one because research involving curriculum analyses, both in the United States and in Europe, has revealed a significant amount of variation in the number of domains and competencies covered in L2 teacher education programs (Richards, 2008). While some programs have predominantly focused on language and L2 acquisition research and theory, others have taken a more linguistics and methods-orientated direction. In general, though, most experts in the field would agree on a number of fundamental competencies.

Competent L2 teachers know who their learners are (1), what language is (2), how it is learned (3), and how it should be taught (4). Furthermore, they have a solid background about the foundations of L2 curriculum (5), the selection and development of instructional materials (6), and the design of a learning environment (7) that is sensitive to socio-cultural differences (8). They also know how to use the L2 as a tool for L2 learners to gain access to academic content knowledge (9). While they are also able to situate the whole language learning and teaching experience within broader learning theories (10), and competently assess and evaluate L2 development and proficiency (11), they are well aware of their professional roles and responsibilities as advocates for successful L2 education in its entirety at all levels, including institutional, national, and international. Indeed, these competencies have been categorized under the five domains of (I) Language Learning, (II) Learners, (III) Instruction, (IV) Assessment and Evaluation, and (V) Professionalism and Advocacy. Before any further ado, let’s take a look at what each competency entails.

Domain I: Language learning

This domain includes background knowledge and skills in (1) linguistics, (2) general learning theories, and (3) first and second language acquisition theories. First, L2 teachers need to be highly proficient in the language that they teach. Competent L2 teachers understand the nature of language and basic concepts of language systems such as phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, semantics, discourse, and pragmatics. They are also familiar with socio-linguistic, psycho-linguistic, and neuro-linguistic factors in L2 learning. Furthermore, they know the functions and register of the L2, including the conventions of written and spoken language, and the pedagogical implications of differences between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984). In addition, they understand the interrelatedness of receptive (listening, reading), productive (speaking, writing), and complementary (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) language skills.

Second, competent L2 teachers are familiar with the basic theories and concepts about first (L1) and L2 acquisition, including the language universals (Chomsky, 1965), and the role L1 plays in L2 development. While they understand differences between the processes of L1 and L2 acquisition, they have a solid background in second language acquisition (SLA) theories. For example, they know how to use different ways to maximize the comprehensible input (Krashen, 1987) opportunities for their students through authentic tasks and activities. More importantly, they know that the greatest bulk of an L2 is acquired through self-exposure and social interactions, not learned in strictly structured and inauthentic classroom settings. Finally, competent L2 teachers are able to situate SLA theories within the broader learning theories. For instance, they understand behaviorist (memorization) versus cognitivist (information processing) versus socio-constructivist (socio-cultural factors) views (Pavlenko – Lantolf, 2000) about L2 learning and development.

Domain II: Learners

Current SLA research has revealed that socio-psychological factors affect success in learning an L2. This domain covers teacher knowledge about (1) differences among language learners and (2) their levels of socio-cultural awareness. Individual differences, such as motivation, attitudes, anxiety, identity, learning styles, pedagogical beliefs, socialization patterns, and learning and communicative strategies affect success in learning an L2. For example, many scholars have found that high motivation has a positive effect on L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2005) while learners with high levels of anxiety do not seem be successful language learners (Horwitz, 2008). In fact, researchers have found that learners who strongly identify with the L2 community attain a more native-like accent than those who strongly identify with their native-speaking communities Dörnyei – Ushioda, 2009). Competent L2 teachers know about the role these factors might play in L2 attainment and plan the learning experience for their students accordingly.

Other learner-related factors concern the socio-cultural differences. L2 learners come from different families and geographical regions with different socio-economic and educational backgrounds, demonstrating a significant amount of cultural diversity. Culturally responsive L2 teachers understand the role of diversity – namely cultural products, perspectives, and practices – in L2 attainment. They know not only how to construct culturally-sensitive learning experiences to facilitate the most effective learning, but also what strategies to apply to create among students an awareness of and respect for cultural diversity. Indeed, culturally competent teachers effectively apply skills for communicating and collaborating effectively with the parents/guardians, the community members, and local resources to enhance their students’ learning. For example, such teachers not only genuinely value cultural diversity and incorporate it into the curriculum, but also organize extra-curricular activities in appreciation of diversity as an added value for advancement.

Domain III: Instruction

Under this domain, we have instructional competencies including (1) foundations of curriculum, (2) methods of language teaching, (3) learning environment, (4) instructional materials, and (5) language and content area integration. First, competent L2 teachers know the history and policy foundations of L2 education and use this knowledge to plan and implement effective L2 programs (Richards, 2001). They are able to select the most effective types of programs that are appropriate for the needs of a particular learner profile in a particular setting. For example, while most scholars agree that bilingual and immersion programs are the most effective, the most common English as a second language (ESL) programs in the U.S. are the pull-out ones, also known as the least effective programs that are primarily based on the development of BICS skills while neglecting the teaching of CALP via content-based curricula.

Second, competent L2 teachers are also able to choose and implement the most appropriate and current methods of language teaching. Such teachers know that we have come a long way since the grammar translation and audio-lingual method (Richards – Rodgers, 2001), however, we no longer adhere to one particular method because we live in the beyond-methods’ era (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Nonetheless, this does not imply a senseless, eclectic approach; rather it entails being flexible within a consistent theoretical and pedagogical framework often referred to as “principled eclecticism” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Third, as the current ecological L2 learning theories would suggest (Brown, 2006), just as only a balanced amount of sun, water and care, in a nurturing environment, can lead to the healthy growth of a flower, instructional methods can lead to success in L2 learning only if the learning environment is meticulously designed.

Last but not least, an important part of what constitutes a nurturing environment is the availability of effective instructional resources. Competent L2 teachers are not only well-informed about the strengths and weakness of commercial and authentic materials but also possess the necessary skills to select, adapt, or develop their own materials based on the specific needs and goals of their students. Indeed, competent L2 teachers use the instructional materials that integrate the language and content area goals, supporting L2 learners’ BICS, CALP, and academic achievement (Cummins, 1984). For example, most English-medium universities overseas have English preparatory programs to prepare students to be able to receive, say, engineering or economics content in English; however, instead of conducting a needs analysis and basing their EFL instruction on the content of these majors, most of these programs select generic commercial materials that often times include linguistic input predominantly about shopping, holidays, food, and friendship.

Domain IV: Assessment and evaluation

This domain covers knowledge and skills about the assessment and evaluation of L2 learners’ language development. It includes background in L2 testing skills related to the placement, diagnostic, achievement, and proficiency of L2 learners. Competent L2 teachers know the commonly used national and international standard assessment tools, such as TOEFL. Such teachers also know the basic concepts and practices related to test design, development, and interpretation. In addition to understanding the validity and reliability of testing methods and tools, they understand potential relationships among the national standards, instruction, and L2 testing. More importantly, in their classrooms, they effectively apply knowledge of formal/informal, direct/indirect, and dynamic and authentic assessment. Most importantly, however, competent teachers are familiar with the construct of the “backwash effect” – the effect testing might have on student learning (Hughes, 2003). Successful learning will not take place if teaching and testing goals and/or methods are incongruent. For example, if writing skills are tested by multiple choice tests, students will invest their time and effort in developing their skills to respond to such questions, not in working on actual writing skills that they will need in real-life tasks.

Domain V: Professionalism and Advocacy

As part of the last domain, L2 teachers are required to possess certain professional qualifications and individual characteristics to be able to support L2 learners’ linguistic, cultural, and academic development. This domain lies at the heart of the profession. Competent L2 teachers demonstrate knowledge of the history of L2 teaching, keep up-to-date with new trends and current educational research, and follow domestic and international issues related to language planning and policy, as well as other advances in L2 education. Moreover, considering language learners spend only a limited amount of time with language teachers, it is very important that L2 teachers collaborate with the mainstream teachers and build partnerships with outside resources and parents to support the linguistic, cultural, and content areas of development. Also noteworthy is that such teachers claim responsibility for L2 learners and are able to apply effective strategies to advocate educational and social equity for their students, both at the institutional and broader community levels (Crawford, 2004). For instance, such teachers serve as a resource to promote a school environment that values cultural and linguistic diversity, and they advocate for equitable access to resources for language learners by becoming members of organizations (e. g.: TESOL) that support L2 learning and teaching.

Furthermore, in order for teachers to apply these professional competencies in actual classroom practices, they need to posses certain individual characteristics and dispositions that complement their professional qualifications. Unlike learning other subjects, language learning requires a great deal of patience and perseverance. Hence, L2 teachers need to be caring, compassionate, understanding, self-sacrificing, and patient. They need to establish a good rapport and empathy with their students, offering them timely motivational support. Only by doing so can they understand their students’ socio-psychological well-being and invest additional personal time and effort in students’ learning.

Last but not least, L2 teachers need to remain positive and enthusiastic about their students’ progress, because the process of L2 development is a bumpy road with lots of ups and downs. To help their students, teachers need to be able to identify their students’ struggles correctly and provide them with developmentally appropriate support. In addition, they need to be fair and treat all of their students equally. In doing so, they need to know their students very well and think outside the box, supplying innovative in-class and self-study strategies. Finally, in order for L2 teachers to be able to competently demonstrate these personal traits, they need to have effective communication skills. While such teachers are very good and empathetic listeners, they also need to be able to communicate their thoughts and feelings effectively, and with mutual respect and appreciation, to support their students’ learning.

Saban Cepik is Assistant Professor/Department Chair, ELT, Zirve University.

References

• Brown, D. H. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Edition). New York: Pearson ESL.
• Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
• Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom. (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Dörnyei, Z. – Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Horwitz, E.K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn – Bacon, Inc.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krashen, S.D. (1987). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thompson-Heinle.
• Pavlenko, A., – Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 1545-177). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal, 39: 158-177.
• Richards, J., – Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The increasing use of e-learning methods and virtual university environments have focused researchers attention on the Socratic method: Playing students with questions and then demanding that they discover, organize, and structure their own responses to the problems posed in an attempt to overcome the constraints of traditional methods.(1) Socrates also believed that students could be successful only if they accepted responsibility and took the initiative.

The Web’s 1992 advent represents a watershed in the development of online education. Its user-friendly nature made the Internet accessible to the general public, and its powerful graphic capabilities expanded the range of disciplines that could be offered online by enabling virtual labs, studios, animations, and so on.(2) Currently, e-learning allows people to learn anywhere and usually at any time, as long as the computer being used is configured properly. With its available text, video, audio, animation, and virtual environments, its self-paced, hands-on nature has the potential to offer a more enriching level of training than students might experience in a crowded classroom.

E-learning methods

Contemporary e-learning methods contain elements of the Socratic model. Students select, organize, and structure the information in order to accomplish selected tasks. They see the functional value of what they are learning while they are learning, and benefit from working directly with the content.

The virtual university (VU) concept enables the application of e-learning methods in a wide range of fields. VU is a customized Web-based learning environment that delivers online education and seeks to support active, collaborative learning and cross-disciplinary knowledge-building.(3) Knowledge-building is the intentional process of solving problems progressively and developing and acquiring expertise.(4)

In a traditional instruction system, only the instructor is the active learner, for teaching someone else is a powerful way to learn. By selecting, organizing, and structuring the information for a group of students, instructors benefit by working with and mastering the content for themselves.(5) Students are only passive consumers of the content.

E-learning, a revised and updated form of discovery learning, is a student-centered learning approach based on knowledge-building. In this active learning environment, students encounter experiences that enable them to construct personal knowledge through problem-solving and experimentation.(6) These knowledge-building principles work particularly well in an e-learning setting, because e-learning provides memorable events. It is more likely that these events will come to mind as learners are challenged by on-the-job or real-life problems.

Intuitively, e-learning falls into four categories, as follows:

-Knowledge databases: These databases, the most basic forms of e-learning, offer indexed explanations, guidance, and step-by-step instructions for performing specific tasks.

-Online support: This comes in the form of forums, chat rooms, online bulletin boards, e-mail, or live instant-messaging support. It is slightly more interactive than knowledge databases.

-Asynchronous training (time independent): Such self-paced learning may include access to instructors through online bulletin boards and discussion groups, as well as e-mail.

-Synchronous training (time dependent): This consists of real-time training with a live instructor facilitating the training. Everyone logs in at a set time and can communicate directly with the instructor and with each other.

The VU must attain a high level of quality if it is to succeed in meeting local needs and competing internationally. Today, any VU is, by default, global. Hence, issues of quality are a key competitive advantage. The keys to successful e-learning are as follows:

-Vary content type: Images, sounds, and text work together to build memory in several areas of the brain and result in better retention. Mix images with words, or sounds (e.g., voices or music) with images.

-Create attention-grabbing interaction: Games, quizzes, and even required manipulation of something on the screen creates more interest, which in turn builds better retention by using multiple types of media.

-Provide immediate feedback: E-learning courses can build in immediate feedback to correct misunderstood material.

-Encourage interaction with other e-learners and an e-instructor: Chat rooms, discussion boards, instant messaging, and e-mail all offer effective interaction for e-learners, and do a good job of replacing classroom discussion.(7) Building an online community significantly influences the success of online programs.

E-learning benefits

E-learning has definite benefits over traditional classroom training. (8) While the most obvious are the flexibility and the cost savings from not having to travel or spend excess time away from work, there are also others that might not be so obvious. For example:

-Less expensive to produce: E-learning is virtually free after reaching the break-even point.

-Self-paced: Most e-learning programs can be taken when needed. Going through it at one’s own pace helps avoid missing information if, for example, the student has to leave the class or does not understand exactly what the teacher is saying. This is one reason why e-learning is so effective.

-Faster paced: This individualized approach allows learners to skip material they already know and understand and move on to new material.

-Consistent message: E-learning eliminates problems associated with different instructors teaching slightly different material on the same subject.

-Availability at any location and time: E-learners can work training sessions into their schedules, now that they are freed from traveling to and sitting in classrooms.

-Interactivity: This can assume the form of simply clicking on appropriate responses to questions, clicking to animate an object or start a process, or dragging and dropping items to practice a skill. Training-related interactive games are a very effective way of improving learning.

-Updated easily and quickly: This is especially easy, since all one has to do is upload the updated materials to a server.

-Increased retention and a stronger grasp of the material: Many elements, such as video, audio, quizzes, and interaction, are combined in e-learning to reinforce the message. Being motivated to learn is half the battle. Knowing that the course contains some fun elements like video, audio, animation, and gaming scenarios increases interest and curiosity. This, too, leads to better retention and faster learning.

-Easily managed: This is especially true in the case of large student groups.

Conclusion

Learning is both a social and an intensely personal activity. E-learning can enhance both elements, for unlike tell-and-test learning, e-learning builds a cognitive network of understanding. Electronic media-supported discovery learning provides a safe, private, and non-embarrassing environment for learning about hazardous systems, conditions, and operations. Such an environment encourages simulated experimentation and underscores the importance of proper procedures in the real world.

Footnotes

1. Michael Allen, How To Make Learning Active and Student-centered, e-Learning Magazine (Jan. 2002).
2. Linda Harasim, The Future of E(Learning) (keynote address at University of Warwick [UK], CAL 2001 Conference).
3. M. Bakardjieva and Linda Harasim. Collaborative Meaning-making in Computer Conferences: A Socio-cultural Perspective, in Proceedings from the Ed-Media Ed-Telecom conference in Freiburg, Germany (Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1998).
4. Linda Harasim, What Are We Learning about Teaching and Learning Online-and so what? : Lessons from the Virtual-U Field Trial, (keynote speech presented at the Third Annual TeleLearning Conference, Vancouver, Canada, November 1998).
5. A. Feenberg, Distance Learning: Promise or Threat (1999). Online at:www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/TELE3.HTM.
6. Milton Campos and Linda Harasim, Virtual-U: Results and Challenges of Unique Field Trials: Technical Report (2001).
7. Milton Campos, Conditional Reasoning: A Key to Assessing Computer-based Knowledge-building Communication Processes, Journal of Universal Computer Science 4, no. 4 (1998): 404-28.
8. A. Breuleux, T. Laferrière, and R. Bracewell, Networked Learning Communities in Teacher Education, (1998). Online at: www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/HTML1998/ts_breu.htm.