- guardian.co.uk, Friday September 22 2006 23.55 BST
Thousands of people enrol on initial teacher training programmes each year, most hoping that their courses will be a gateway to a successful career. Yet relatively little is known about the experiences of teachers once they enter the ELT profession. Although there exists an idealised notion of what should happen - plenty of support, mentoring and mental space to aid development - the reality is that the experiences of new teachers will be as diverse as the contexts in which they teach, and many of those experiences will fall short the ideals.
Eight "graduates" of initial training programmes allowed me to interview them at various points through their first year of teaching, looking at how their teaching changed and what things affected their development most. Six of the eight were working in Britain.
The first observation to make is that without exception the newly qualified teachers found adapting to their new profession extremely hard. This is not surprising, but it has a potentially limiting effect on development - or at least on conscious development.
All the teachers reported working hard on preparing lessons, but only one felt that she had the space to draw back and consider less immediate developmental issues. One participant commented: "It's hard to develop as a teacher when you spend all your time teaching."
All the teachers reported that they took time to review lessons after teaching them and felt that their initial training prepared them well for a cycle of planning, teaching, reflecting and further planning. When asked about the criteria used for assessing the success of lessons during this reflection phase, all the respondents used interpersonal criteria (based on perceived rapport and enjoyment) and the amount of speaking in English that was done. When asked what they had changed about their teaching in the light of these reflections, a dominant theme was the choice of material. All but one of the teachers reported that they found it difficult to find the "right" material and a lot of time was given to seeking it out.
All the respondents followed similar criteria to assess potential material. The first criterion was: "Is it fun?"; the second was: "Is it too similar to something I've recently done?"; and the third: "Does it fit in with the theme of the lesson?" Failure to meet the first or second criteria led to rejection of the material, but failure to meet the third did not always lead to rejection, with teachers prepared to include a change of topic if they felt the material would work well. Few of the teachers appeared to consider adapting material significantly to fit the needs of their learners or even their own criteria.
Most of the teachers reported that they talked about teaching and found this useful. There was evidence (based on frequency and duration of conversations) that new teachers felt more comfortable talking to other newly qualified teachers, but they rarely sought guidance from those whom they considered "senior" to themselves. The talk tended to focus on a specific lesson, either just taught or imminent.
It would seem plausible that these discussions based on the day-to-day reality of teaching and reflections on individual lessons may shape longer-term development.
When asked how they felt their teaching had changed since their courses, all reported that the general methodology they used remained the same. There was little evidence of experimentation with new techniques, but this is not surprising, as it could be assumed that new teachers would find security in the familiar and would want to establish teaching routines before going on to experiment.
All respondents commented that their views on planning had changed. During their courses they tended to worry about such things as the precise wording of aims and extremely detailed timings. In some cases they included things that they felt would please the observer. In the "real world", respondents felt they could be more flexible in their approach. They planned in less detail and were less rigid in following their plans, often happy to allow activities to continue if they felt they were "going well". Aims were nearly always described in a "procedural" form, such as "do a discussion", with little attention paid to linguistic aims.
All the teachers reported feeling well-served by their initial training, but is there room for improvement? It seems that new teachers spend huge amounts of time looking for material, so more help with assessing the potential of material might help.
When not being observed, teachers tend to be more flexible in diverting from their lesson plans. Some training courses place too great an emphasis on elaborate and rigid plans, and novice teachers might benefit more from being helped to work from looser frameworks. If they are trained to make more "in-flight" decisions, these can then be analysed after the lesson, which would fit in with the reality of the post-training experience.
Lastly, it would seem that new teachers do not recognise that they receive much support from senior colleagues. The teachers who reported the greatest confidence levels were those who had the most contact with similarly inexperienced peers. New teachers place great value on these contacts and seem to derive genuine benefit from them.
· Peter Watkins is a senior lecturer in EFL at the University of Portsmouth, England, peter.watkins@port.ac.uk
