English as an additional language: a close-to-practice view of teacher professional knowledge and professionalism

Abstract

English as an Additional Language (EAL) as a professional discipline is a significant component of public education, and a main educational response to the growing ethno-linguistic diversities in many English-speaking countries. In this article I will focus on the ways in which professional language teacher knowledge has changed over time, paying particular attention to the disciplinary content bases, and the likely influences of current research in language education and applied linguistics on our understanding of EAL pedagogy. The overall purpose is to provide a view on the likely ‘assemblage’ of professional knowledge and skills informing EAL practice in light of the continuously evolving professional sensibilities and disciplinary concerns, and its implications for the principal components underlying the development of teacher professionalism.

Keywords:

• English as additional/second language
• language teacher education
• teacher professionalism
• plurilingual mediation

English language teaching is sometimes referred to as a major business. There are two reasons for this. Firstly the spread of English as the medium of communication for international business, science and technology in the last fifty years or so has led to strong demands for English language teaching in both public and commercial educational institutions around the world. While precise data is different to establish, it is generally believed that there are about 1.5 billion English learners worldwide (https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-people-learn-english-globally-1210367). Secondly, large-scale migration of people from different parts of the world has created a high level of linguistic diversity in countries such as Australia, the UK and the USA. Linguistic diversity is now a hallmark of many English-dominant countries. For instance, the latest census reports that about 10% of the population in England are speakers of a language other than English as their main language, and over 22% of the population in London are in this category (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04); in Australia 21% of population speak a language other than English at home (https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/Media%20Release3). A similar picture obtains in other countries such as Canada and the USA. Linguistic diversity in society is reflected in school populations. Over 21% of the primary school population in England are classified as having an English as an Additional Language (EAL) background (Department for Education 2019). EAL is thus a major educational and professional concern.

For reasons of focus and scope I will orient my discussion to some of the fundamental shifts in the knowledge bases held to be important for teachers of EAL in the past 40 years or so—a period in which many of the basic assumptions about language and language learning have undergone profound changes. I will make some observations on the impact of some of the more recent shifts on the way we approach the professional knowledge base of additional language teachers, and their impact on the conceptualisation of professional repertoire—knowledge-based skilled labour to be deployed in practice (Eraut 1994), and on the notion of professionalism more generally. The term professionalism is used here in a constitutive sense referring to teachers’ conduct in their day-to-day work.

In first part of this discussion I will briefly look at the ways in which we have conceptualized professional knowledge and professionalism with reference to English language teaching. For reasons of scope and space, I will draw on salient points in two professionally prominent teacher education curriculum documents for discussion—the TESOL Pre-K-12 Standards (TESOL 2019) and the Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (DELTA, Cambridge Assessment 2017). In the next part I will look at some of the shifting intellectual perspectives on the approaches to language knowledge, Second Language Acquisition, multilingualism in communication and related issues, for instance, the complexified notion of plurilingual mediation in the expanded version of the Common European Framework for Language (Council of Europe 2001), and discuss how they have significantly shifted the nature of teacher professional knowledge and repertoire. After that, I will examine teacher professionalism with reference to teacher agency in an emerging disciplinary environment where there is little endorsement for using ready-made teaching recipes. In the final part I will discuss the relationship between the changing knowledge base for EAL and active professionalism, paying particular attention to ways of working with the shifting pedagogic and intellectual perspectives. The main purpose of this discussion is to explore the need for the promotion of an approach to English language teacher professionalism that can develop with the constantly shifting and expanding professional knowledge base, standards and expectations.

Terminologically I will use the super-ordinate term ‘additional language’ to refer to both ‘second language’ and ‘foreign language’, partly because it provides wider conceptual cover for the language teaching field as a whole, partly because it is gaining currency in professional teaching communities, signalling a shift in subject identity. The term EAL is becoming an inclusive term for English language teaching. That said, in some professional literature the terms ESL and EFL (particularly EFL) continue to signal the teaching of English in contexts where English is not widely used for societal communication, e.g. English in Japan. The different educational and teaching contexts are clearly important when considering curricular and pedagogic matters for specific teaching programmes (a key issue in this discussion). However, English language teaching as a field, irrespective of the diverse educational contexts involved, draws on a common pool of concepts and theories from relevant studies in, inter alia, applied linguistics, curriculum theory, educational psychology, grammar analysis, and language education research generally, as can be seen in the discussion on the two focal teacher education documents presently. For this reason, publications and bodies of work that carry ‘second language’ and ‘foreign language’ in their titles will be cited where appropriate. The term ‘Second Language Acquisition’ will be used as it continues to signpost an important research domain (although I see the gathering needs for terminological complexification, e.g. Cenoz and Gorter 2019). Given my professional background this discussion is largely, but not exclusively, informed by my experience of teaching and research experience in school and university settings in England. Many of the issues raised in this article are conceptually ‘basic’ to additional language teaching as a professional field, as such they will cut across contextual differences and will resonate with teacher education concerns in different world locations.

Professional knowledge, repertoire and professionalism

Generally speaking occupations that present themselves as professions are expected to have a specialist qualification, and by virtue of that qualification they are meant to be well placed to do their job as professionals. The overall quality of professionals, as judged by their conduct and performance, is often captured by the terms ‘professional repertoire’ and ‘professionalism’. In societies where there are highly developed institutions regulating and representing professional practices in fields such as engineering, law and medicine, there are education and training programmes and assessment regimes designed to provide the requisite knowledge and skills that undergird the claims of professional qualifications. The levels and kinds of knowledge and skills involved in professional practice in different fields vary in different jurisdictions and at different times. In formal education, teaching generally falls within this professionalization frame. For reasons of scope and space, this discussion will discuss on the shifting nature of the knowledge and skills that has been deemed to be important for teachers of English as an additional language since the advent of Communicative Language Teaching in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have chosen this time frame largely because we have seen some fundamental developments in the constituent research fields that inform teacher professional knowledge and skills, which have in turn shaped their conduct and practice, i.e. their professional repertoire and professionalism.

It is still widely held that the ways in which teachers teach are strongly influenced by their own experience of teaching as learners, and how they experienced their own formal education generally. As we are all influenced by our past experience in different areas of life, it seems reasonable to assume that background experience of being taught is probably a reference point for teachers as they engage with different aspects of their professional work. The process of becoming a professional, however, involves learning specialist knowledge and acquiring specialist skills for practice. Such knowledge and skills are described, often prescribed, in education and training programmes that lead to a professional qualification. Freeman and Johnson (1998:398) provide a succinct characterization of this professionalization process: ‘Teacher education is the formal label given to this learning process. It describes the sum of various interventions that are used to develop professional knowledge among practitioners. As such, teacher education undergirds the definition of how we as teacher educators create professionals in our field’.

Professional knowledge-based repertoire—agentive decision-making

Teaching English as an additional language is professionally diverse in terms of educational context (e.g. teaching English to minoritized school students in English speaking countries, teaching English to business executive in South Korea), levels and types of language knowledge and skills (e.g. IELTS/TOEFL for academic purposes, courses for young learners for communicative activities), and, as indicated in the above examples, age groups. Given that this is not intended as a survey of the myriad teacher education contents offered by public and private institutions, I will look at a select sample of relevant teacher education content specifications as a frame for the ensuing discussion, and to make the argument for the changing nature of professional repertoire and professionalism. For the present purpose I will look at some components of the Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programmes (TESOL 2019) and the syllabus specifications of the Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (DELTA 2019). These two curricular documents are chosen because they cover teaching at school and post-school levels respectively, and both have international reach. I will also cite some parts of the TESOL/NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education (2010) for a comparative perspective.

Standards for initial TESOL Pre-K-12 teacher preparation programmes

The TESOL Pre-K-12 Standards (2019) ‘are designed to be used by teacher education programs that prepare candidates for their first TESOL credential … an endorsement, or an add-on license’ (TESOL 2019:2). In other words, the Standards are curriculum content statements issued by a peak international professional organization (with an administrative centre in the USA). The Standards are meant to be applicable to both pre-service education and post-qualification professional development. There are five Standards: Knowledge about Language; ELLs [English Language Learners] in the Sociocultural Context; Planning and Implementing Instruction; Assessment and Evaluation; and Professionalism¹ and Leadership. Each of the Standards comprises a number of components. These Standards are also accompanied by implementational guidelines and criteria for candidate assessment. For the purpose of the present discussion I will foreground the relevant aspects of two of these Standards: Knowledge about Language, and Planning and Implementing Instruction.

Under Knowledge about Language there are four components, three deal with language learning, and grammar and structure directly:

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of English language structures in different discourse contexts to promote acquisition of reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills across content areas. Candidates serve as language models for ELLs.

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of second language acquisition theory and developmental process of language to set expectations for and facilitate language learning.

Candidates apply knowledge of English academic language functions, learning domains, content-specific language and discourse structures, and vocabulary to promote ELLs’ academic achievement across content areas. (Op.cit.:6)

Under Planning and Implementing Instruction there are five components, three of which implicate professional repertoire:

Candidates plan for culturally and linguistically relevant, supportive environments that promote ELLs’ learning. Candidates design scaffolded instruction of language and literacies to support standards and curricular objectives for ELLs’ in the content areas.

Candidates instruct ELLs using evidence-based, student-centered, developmentally appropriate interactive approaches.

Candidates adjust instructional decisions after critical reflection on individual ELLs’ learning outcomes in both language and content. (Op.cit.:9)

The above Standards statements are underpinned by a number of assumptions:

• knowledge about language is not autonomous in that there is no appeal to some sort of standard English as a stable and universal reference; use of language varies across subject content areas and therefore language teachers need to know subject related registers and discourse practices

• teaching-learning English is understood to be integrated with content learning; by extension language and literacy instruction has to work in tandem with standards and curricular objectives specified in different content subjects

• teaching methods and strategies are to be informed by theory and research.

It is also clear that these statements have been at a quite a high level of abstraction in that there is no mention of any specific theory for grammar (e.g. functional grammar, traditional grammar), learning (e.g. cognitive constructivism, direct transmission, sociocultural approach), teaching methods and approaches (e.g. communicative language teaching, grammar translation, reading-to-learn). Phrases such as ‘plan for culturally and linguistically relevant, supportive environments that promote ELLs’ learning’, ‘using evidence-based, student-centered, developmentally appropriate interactive approaches’ and ‘adjust instructional decisions after critical reflection’ strongly suggest that teachers are to draw on relevant professional knowledge to analyse their students’ needs and to make pedagogic decisions in specific teaching environments.

Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (DELTA)

The Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (DELTA) is an advanced professional education programme for teachers who already have an entry level teaching qualification and at least one year of practice. It is designed for English language teachers working in primary, secondary and adult sectors (Cambridge Assessment 2017). Generally speaking the DELTA is regarded as an appropriate teacher education programme (and qualification) for those who teach English in the private sector, i.e. fee-paying English language schools, and at post-16 institutions both within the UK and internationally. Some universities grant holders of DELTA credits for some modules at Masters programmes. There are three modules: Module 1—Understanding language, methodology and resources for teaching; Module 2—Developing professional practice; and Module 3—options to specialise in a particular aspect of professional practice or in English Language teaching management. I will focus on aspects of Modules 1 and 2 as they relate directly to teacher knowledge and practice.

The aims of Module 1 are as follows:

1. To develop candidates’ knowledge of historical and current theories of first and second language acquisition

2. To increase candidates’ critical awareness of approaches and methodologies and the principles underpinning these used in a range of ELT contexts

3. To extend candidates’ knowledge of language systems and skills in their contexts of use

4. To increase candidates’ knowledge of learners’ problems in developing language and skills proficiency

5. To enable candidates to critically evaluate teaching and reference materials and resources in a range of ELT contexts

6. To increase candidates’ knowledge of the role and methods of assessment (Cambridge Assessment English 2019:2).

DELTA teacher candidates are expected to be knowledgeable about both past and current concepts and ideas related to linguistic knowledge, language acquisition and teaching methodologies. For instance, candidates are expected to be acquainted with ‘[h]istorical and current hypotheses and theories of SLA (e.g. behaviourist, cognitive)’, and ‘[h]istorical and current approaches and methods including both mainstream (e.g. grammar-translation, direct method, audio-lingual method, situational language teaching, communicative and task-based learning approaches)…’ (Cambridge Assessment English 2019:2). The framing of these knowledge bases, however, moves them beyond the conventional ‘knowing that’ to ‘knowing how’ with a twist. Candidates are not expected to just apply the concepts, theories and methods in their practice; they are being asked to apply what they have learned judiciously—Aim 2 is designed to increase candidates’ critical awareness as to the uses of approaches and methodologies in different teaching contexts; Aim 3 talks about enhancing candidates’ linguistic knowledge in relation to context of use, signalling the need for differentiation; the elaboration of Aim 4 asks students to ‘relate methodological choices in language skills teaching to learners’ characteristics and context’ (op.cit.:3); Aim 5 refers to critical evaluation of teaching resources in context; the glossing of Aim 6 points to the expectation that candidates should be able to ‘critically evaluate widely used types of assessment’ (op.cit.:3). In other words, professional judgement is now rolled into the application of propositional knowledge.

Module 2 deals with teachers’ awareness and expertise in the principles and practice in English language teaching. There are ten aims:

1. ‘To develop candidates’ awareness of the effects of different contexts on the learning and teaching of English and factors affecting individuals’ learning in a range of ELT contexts

2. To develop candidates’ critical awareness of the different roles of teachers, and the principles underpinning these, as performed in a range of ELT contexts

3. To develop candidates’ expertise in the planning of inclusive lessons at different levels

4. To extend candidates’ effective use and critical evaluation of a range of appropriate approaches, methodologies and techniques to support learning in a range of contexts

5. To apply candidates’ knowledge of language and skills to lesson planning and teaching

6. To extend candidates’ use and critical evaluation of a wide range of appropriate materials and resources for teaching and their own professional development

7. To develop candidates’ ability to reflect critically on their own beliefs about teaching and learning, and to evaluate their practice in order to prepare and teach more successfully in future

8. To develop candidates’ ability to observe and reflect on teaching and provide constructive feedback to other teachers

9. To broaden candidates’ understanding of the standards of professional practice

10. To increase candidates’ expertise in spoken and written communication in their own professional roles’ (op.cit.:4, italics added).

The aims of this practice-focussed module are built on the knowledge bases covered in the first module. The invocation of professional judgement is evident (see the italicized parts of the text above). There are six explicit mentions of the need for teacher candidates to be aware of the possible effects of context on teaching, to engage in critical evaluation of the participant teachers’ own pedagogic decisions and actions, and to be reflective about their own professional beliefs and practice. In other words, teachers are not regarded as technicians whose job is to follow established procedures, or crafts-people who practise a range of recognised techniques in their production work with some individual flair or style. They are now expected to be empowered professionals who can make independent and informed decisions to promote learning. The call for English language teachers to be agentive professionals who can purposively and selectively act on their knowledge base to promote student learning is clear. An interesting question here is: Why are we seeing this promotion of the idea of the teacher as a decision-maker?

Perhaps a look at an earlier teacher education document dealing with English language teacher professional education would be helpful. The TESOL/NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education (TESOL 2010), itself an update on the 2000 edition, provides a useful point for comparison. These Standards were meant to be used as benchmarks for accreditation for teacher education programmes. The 2010 Standards cover five domains: Language; Culture; Planning, implementing, and managing instruction; Assessment and Professionalism. Each of these domains is accompanied by a set of performance indicators to adjudge student teachers’ progress and attainment. I will look at the domains of Language and Planning, implementing, and managing instruction for reasons of focus.

The domain of Language covers linguistic knowledge such as phonology and syntax, and SLA. The performance indicators spell out what is expected in some detail, e.g. ‘Demonstrates knowledge of the components of language and language as an integrative system’, ‘Apply knowledge of phonology … morphology … syntax … semantics … and pragmatics to help ELLs [English Language Learners] develop oral, reading, and writing skills…’ (TESOL 2010:29) and ‘Demonstrate understanding of current and historical theories and research in language acquisition as applied to ELLS’ (op.cit.:35).

The domain of Planning, implementing, and managing instruction is concerned with knowledge and use of evidence-based practices and strategies. The performance indicators elaborate on what is expected, e.g. ‘Plan standards-based ESL and content instruction’, ‘Create supportive, accepting classroom environments’ (op.cit.:45), and ‘Incorporate activities, tasks, and assignments that develop authentic uses of language as students learn academic vocabulary and content-area material’ (op.cit.:49).

In both of these domains, neither the glosses on the domains nor the performance indicators invoke the idea that teachers should agentively and selectively make use of their knowledge to promote learning in context. Indeed this is true of the other three domains. However, it is possible to pick up a note of the teacher being urged to exercise professional judgement in some of the statements describing student teachers’ performances that have met the Standards, e.g. in the domain of Language ‘Candidates incorporate a variety of instructional techniques to assist ELLs in developing literacy skills’ and ‘Candidates incorporate a variety of instructional techniques to help ELLs understand and use vocabulary appropriately in spoken and written language’ (op.cit.:30). There is also some intimation of this view seeping into the more general professional discourse else where in the document. In the introduction to this 2010 updated edition of the Standards first published in 2000, Genesee and Harper offer a state of the art discussion on English language teaching in school education. In passing they observe that ‘[r]esearch over the last two decades has shown that language must be understood in relation to the contexts in which it is used’ (op.cit.:10) and more significantly:

… ESOL² (and ideally all classroom) teachers charged with the education of ESOL students must understand language as a system of communication. They should understand the ways in which language varies as a function of social and academic contexts and purposes and know how to plan instruction that will permit their students to learn critical variations in language used in and outside school (Fillmore & Snow, 2002³). ESOL teacher candidates must also know how to select and use meaningful content as a basis for planning and providing ESOL instruction. Planning that incorporates the English language skills that ESOL students need for learning in specific academic domains is a way of addressing the specificity of functional language use, as well as of ensuring that the language skills taught to ESOL students are useful. (Op.cit.:13)

Taking these professional teacher education documents as a whole, it seems clear that research and professional experience have pointed to the growing realization that English Language teaching, just as in other areas of teaching, is not a simple matter of transferring knowledge to students through pre-specified methods. Language teaching involves imparting more or less stable bodies of knowledge in a variety of possible ways, and inculcating a student capacity to use the learned knowledge appropriately in diverse contexts. The teacher’s subject knowledge has to be rendered pedagogically relevant and productive by taking account of, inter alia, curricular content, learning environment and student needs in context. On this view teaching is about dealing with several moving parts. Recent research and developments in the academic and educational domains that inform teaching have accentuated this need for English Language teachers to make professional judgements contingently. From the point of view of understanding the need to accentuate the support for teachers to develop a capacity to make and enact professionally informed decisions, two recent discussions are particularly salient: Mediation as a language proficiency component, and the usage-based approach to language learning as part of the on-going debates in SLA.

Mediation in interactional language use

Since the advent of the notion of communicative competence some forty years ago (e.g. Brumfit and Johnson 1979; Canale and Swain 1980; Savignon 1983; Widdowson 1978), the teaching of English Language has been concerned with both linguistic features (e.g. vocabulary and grammar) and social conventions of use (e.g. appropriate expressions of politeness and formality), as evidenced by the contents in internationally marketed English Language textbooks and influential curriculum and assessment frameworks such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001). Although the very notion of communicative competence puts language in social use at the heart of English Language teaching, the main pedagogic concern has tended to be about the teaching of knowledge of appropriate use of language expressions in typified contexts (see Leung 2011 for a further discussion). There was relatively little direct discussion on what counted as effective language use in actual social interaction. That is, until the recent revision and extension of the CEFR through the Companion Volume (Council of Europe 2020⁴). The Companion Volume has made mediation—a speaker’s use of language to interact and facilitate communication with others—a prominent feature of language proficiency. Mediation can be carried out monolingually (including different varieties of the same language) or plurilingually.⁵ Mediation in the 2001 edition was mainly presented as an aspect of multilingualism in language use involving translation, but the 2020 iteration has given it much greater prominence and provides extensive detailed elaboration. Given the significant influence the CEFR has on language education policies, and curriculum and assessment frameworks around the world, the elaborated notion of mediation is likely to have a major impact on English language teaching. The enhanced attention to mediation can also be seen as a tacit recognition that English language teaching is immersed in a multilingual environment because the learners and many of the teachers are also speakers of other languages, and that the use of other languages has long been an under-acknowledged fact of classroom life in English language classrooms (see G. Hall and Cook 2012; Littlewood 2014).

Mediation is contingently and dynamically enacted because it is:

… a social and cultural process of creating conditions for communication and cooperation, facing and hopefully defusing any delicate situations and tensions that may arise. Particularly with regard to cross-lingual mediation, users should remember that this inevitably also involves social and cultural competence as well as plurilingual competence. (Council of Europe 2020:91)

And there is a pre-requisite in terms of language users’ personal disposition:

A person who engages in mediation activity needs to have a well-developed emotional intelligence, or an openness to develop it, in order to have sufficient empathy for the viewpoints and emotional states of other participants in the communicative situation. (Loc.cit.)

It seems clear that attached to the ‘well-developed emotional intelligence’ is a particular set of personal attributes that are favourably disposed towards co-operative exchanges and harmonious social relations. The CEFR characterises a plurilingual speaker as a person who does not keep their ‘languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which interrelate and interact. In different situations, a person can call flexibly upon different parts of this competence to achieve effective communication with a particular interlocutor’ (Council of Europe 2001:4). The invocation of emotional intelligence as a speaker attribute, together with the non-compartmentalisation of languages and cultures in language use, opens the way for language users to deploy their language resources contingently and fluidly, either as a matter of routine or as a choice.

The Companion Volume conceptualizes three types of mediation:

• Mediating a text covers a wide range of activities in speech and/or writing, including passing on information, explaining data presented in a graphic form, translating a text, and expressing a personal response to creative texts.

• Mediating concepts includes facilitating and managing collaborative interaction to construct meaning and ‘encouraging conceptual talk’ (Council of Europe 2020:90).

• Mediating communication involves [f]acilitating plurilingual space’, ‘[a]cting as intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)’ and ‘[f]acilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements’ (loc.cit.).

Each of these three groups of activities are accompanied by a set of proficiency scales.

Given the focus of this discussion, we will look at mediating communication with particular reference to ‘acting as intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)’ in more detail.

‘Acting as intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)’ covers situations where the plurilingual language user ‘… mediates across languages and cultures in an informal situation in the public, private, occupational or educational domain’ to make expressed meaning accessible for fellow participants⁶ (Council of Europe 2020:115).

The proficiency scale below sets out the performance descriptors in six levels—A1 being the lowest and C2 the highest (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Council of Europe (2020:116).

This mediation proficiency scale, designed to inform teaching and assessment, as all other scales within the CEFR, covers matters related to language and cultural knowledge, information contents and contexts of communication. The descriptors set out the expected language user-learner performances in six hierarchical reference levels.⁷ I will pay particular attention to the aspect of the performance descriptors that explicitly deal with language learners-users’ ability to exercise their own judgements to decide on what to mediate and how. And by extension, teachers working with any CEFR-informed teaching programme would need to develop the requisite knowledge and skills, indeed sensibility to incorporate this aspect of mediation into their teaching. Emotional intelligence, as understood by the CEFR, is at the heart of this aspect of language use.

An element of decision-making and choice on the part of the language user-learner can be seen at different levels of proficiency in more than one language. The following extracts point to the areas for mediator judgement (with key words italicised):

• A1 ‘Can communicate (in Language B) … very simple, predictable information (in Language A)…’

• A2+⁸ ‘Can communicate (in Language B) the overall sense of what is said (in Language A) in everyday situations, following basic cultural conventions and conveying the main sense of what is said…’

• B1 and B1+ ‘Can communicate (in Language B) the main sense of what is said (in Language A)…’

• B2 ‘… when necessary explaining the significance of important statements and viewpoints…’ and ‘… interpreting cultural cues appropriately and giving additional explanations when necessary…’

• B2+ ‘… drawing the attention of both sides to background information and sociocultural cues, and posing clarification and follow-up questions or statements as necessary.’

• C1 ‘… conveying significant information clearly…’

• C2 ‘… maintaining appropriate style and register, conveying finer shades of meaning and elaborating on sociocultural implications.’

It can be argued that the italicised words and phrases in the extracts above point to moments in interactive language use where the mediator is expected to exercise their judgement as to what would constitute appropriate content and speech style. This agentive and interpretive element is present at all levels of the proficiency scale. This aspect of language user-learner agency is not just a matter of ‘more or less’ and ‘better or worse’, it is an inherent component of mediation (for a more detailed discussion see Leung and Jenkins 2020).

But there is another aspect of this contingent and dynamic language use that has not been covered by this particular proficiency scale (indeed the CEFR as a whole). The way in which plurilingualism is framed within the proficiency scale suggests that the languages involved are linguistically bounded and kept separate in communication and particularly in mediation—on hearing something said in Language B, the mediator would render the expressed information in Language A to help those who do not have sufficient access to Language B to understand and to engage in the interaction. However, research in interaction involving multilingual people, particularly in the studies of code-switching (e.g. Auer 1999) and translanguaging (e.g. García and Li 2014; Li 2018), has shown that linguistic boundaries between named languages (such as English, French, Japanese and Spanish) are not necessarily observed in actual communication (also see Leung and Valdés 2019). So, an utterance such as ‘You can’t t’asseoir there!’ [You can’t sit there] with the French word ‘t’asseoir’ is not regarded as linguistically illegitimate and unacceptable. The fluidity of this kind of translanguaging is not easily captured by proficiency descriptors (for a further discussion, see Leung forthcoming; Leung and Jenkins 2020). In real time mediation, it would be very difficult to adjudge in advance what would be appropriate and needed ahead of the actual interactional exchange. Consider the following utterances in translingual Hong Kong Cantonese-English setting:

• A 佢 話 sorry

• /keuih waah/[he said]

• B He said 對唔住

• /deuim`hjyuh/[sorry]

• C 佢 話 對唔住[He said sorry]

A, B and C are propositionally equivalent. The appropriateness of these three possible utterances in mediated communication would depend on, inter alia, the conversation participants’ proficiencies in Cantonese and English and the key meaning to be conveyed. Let us suppose that the mediator is interested in supporting one of the participants whose English is perceived to be not very proficient. Utterance A would suggest that the mediator is interested in drawing attention to the fact someone has said ‘sorry’; ‘sorry’ being a long established English loan word in vernacular Cantonese. Utterances B would be a likely option if the mediator wishes to emphasise the fact that an apology has been offered. Utterance C would signal that the mediator thinks that the focal participant has not understood the apology or has missed it, or a mixture of both. This example shows that mediation, particularly where plurilingualism is involved, is highly sensitive to the perceived language repertoires of the participants through the eyes of the mediator in situ. This observation suggests that effective mediation cannot be based on pre-learned communication recipes and routines. Language user-learners, qua mediators, need to develop a language and communication capacity and sensibility that would enable them to think and act on their feet. And of course the mediator’s volition to act on their perceptions in the first place. By the same token, there can be no sure-fire teaching formula to induct learners since a great deal would depend on their on-the-spot ‘emotional intelligence’ driven decision-making. This raises an interesting question for teachers: What can teachers do with mediation?

Agentive language use: can it be taught?

Over the years we have seen a variety of teaching approaches and methods. Some prioritise linguistic content, e.g. grammar-translation, others are premised on methodology, e.g. the audio-lingual method, yet others are designed to take account of both linguistic content and real-life language use, e.g. the approaches under the broad banner of Communicative Language Teaching. Most, if not all, of these approaches and methods tend to build their rationale on a set of pedagogic principles. A basic assumption underlying their rationales is that teaching, however defined, can lead to learning. But if some aspects of language learning and language use cannot be taught directly, as we have seen in relation to mediation, then there is a need to give further thought to the way language learning and language development can be conceptualised. The work in the usage-based approach is helpful in this connection. The Douglas Fir Group (2016) offers a succinct view of the socio-cognitive processes that underly language development for both first and additional language development. Social activities (including teaching-learning activities) are accompanied by semiosis that involves the use of language.

… the semiotic resources that more mature communicators tool and retool to accomplish social actions are afforded for the infants, as novice communicators, to appropriate, recycle, and expand in contextually adaptive ways, as they co-construct meaning. Such contextually adaptive ways ideally serve language development, and positive outcomes can be expected given average conditions of health and social and emotional well-being. In sum, infants’ language learning is gated by both attention and sociality at the same time … these processes are equally relevant to infants learning their first language(s) and to youth or adults learning an additional language…. (The Douglas Fir Group 2016:28)

As teaching-learning is a quintessential social activity, the teacher is in a position to provide the tools (language knowledge) and opportunities (language practice) for learners to ‘appropriate, recycle, and expand in contextually adaptive ways’. This Vygotskyan-influenced view puts the learner into the frame of agentive involvement. Perhaps as an aside I should point out that this ontological view of human semiosis does not obliterate the impact of the different structural, semantic and pragmatic features of first and additional languages on acquisition.

J.K. Hall (2019) provides an expanded account of this perspective that connects with the issue of how learners get to learn (the use of) language that cannot be taught directly, and that involves their volition and choice. The three points below are germane to these concerns:

… as individuals participate in their social contexts, they draw on a range of emotional and motivational dispositions and domain-general cognitive capacities such as perception, association, and categorization. These dispositions and capacities guide individuals to focus attention on and detect patterns in the use of the resources, hypothesize about and test their understandings of the connections between the resources and their meanings….

… what individuals learn from regular engagement in their social experiences is not an abstract system of grammar. Rather, they are learning options for making meaning in their experiences. These options include words, routine expressions, collocations … and fixed and semi-fixed expressions. These options become stored in learners’ minds not as free-floating entities but as pragmatically driven means for organizing, construing, and experiencing their social worlds.

… these options do not remain static in the mind but are in a continual state of adaptation, changing as a consequence of factors ranging from individual attentional, motivational, and other dynamics, to competing pragmatic intentions, changing group affiliations, and society-wide forces…. (Op.cit.: 81)

On this view language learning is a situated embodied experience of sociality, and the process is enmeshed with choosing options of functional use (and usefulness) of available linguistic resources. Furthermore, if language learning is embedded in social participation, then there is no immanent pre-fixed end point, since we participate in social activities involving others in one way or another as long as we live in society. From a teaching point of view, this articulation of the usage-based language learning is commensurate with the assumptions underlying the CEFR’s mediation in terms of ‘emotional intelligence’ and ‘social and cultural process of creating conditions for communication’ (Council of Europe 2020:91). Seen in this light, the job of the language teacher is to generate mediation-rich opportunities in the teaching-learning activities and provide supportive guidance along the way. This would put teacher and user-learner agency at the heart of the teaching-learning process.

Expanding teacher knowledge and professionalism

The unmistakeable requirement by teacher education authorities for teachers to exercise their judgement in deciding on pedagogic practice, together with the expanded conceptualisation of language proficiency (as signalled by the amplification of mediation in the CEFR), can be seen as a clarion call for an expansion in the ways we construe teacher professionalism. If teachers are no longer expected to rely on the universal pedagogic applicability of any particular teaching methodology or model of language, then two things will follow. Firstly, language teachers’ professional knowledge base has to be expanded to support decision-making and choice, as has been made amply clear in the content specifications of the teacher education programmes mentioned earlier. Student-teachers and practising teachers will encounter this broadening of the professional knowledge base through the curricula of initial education and in-service professional development programmes. Secondly, both novice and practising teachers have to find ways to accommodate, and indeed to build on, the new-found disciplinary and intellectual space for an expanded professionalism. To achieve this, in addition to a willingness to work with a wider knowledge base and a more open repertoire, a more nuanced approach to teacher professionalism than that of unquestioning compliance is needed. I will explore two views of teacher professionalism that can support this developmental process.

Teacher professionalism can be seen in terms of sponsored professionalism and independent professionalism. Education and curriculum authorities, professional associations and even policy makers routinely pronounce on aspects of what teachers should know and do. They can also set standards of performance, sometimes enforced through formal, institutional and/or legal requirements. Taken together these content and standards statements have a major influence on employability and career pathways of individual teachers. The TESOL Standards and the DELTA curriculum specifications are examples of these authoritative statements pronounced by peak professional organisations. Teachers in other subject areas have similar professional ‘regimes’. Sometimes these professional regimes are regulated further by statutory means. For example, in England, all teachers working in publicly funded schools have to have an official qualified teacher status by participating in approved teacher education or professional training routes. All such institutionally promoted and publicly endorsed views are designed to define what teachers should know and do; these views form the basis of sponsored professionalism (Leung 2009, 2013). Needless to say sponsored professionalism is changeable over time, and it is possible that there are different sponsored professionalisms for the same discipline in different places, e.g. in England any teacher with qualified teacher status can be appointed to an EAL post, whereas in many education jurisdictions in other English speaking countries a specialist EAL qualification is required.

Sponsored professionalism provides a stable framework for professional practice at any one time. It delimits what teaching means and allows teachers to work with a degree of confidence that they are ‘doing the right thing’; it also provides the basis for the quality of their work to be evaluated by themselves and others (e.g. being able to demonstrate that they create opportunities for mediation in their teaching), which can be linked to career progression. All in all, it can be said that sponsored professionalism can inform and validate one’s teaching and provides a safe zone for professional conduct. Sponsored professionalism tends to enjoy a high level of visibility and authority in educational regimes where public accountability of teaching is prescribed and enforced by official sanctions. However, this view of professionalism leaves at two important questions out of account.

Firstly, professionals are expected to have an enquiring mind and to exercise judgement—a key attribute that marks them out from technicians and craft practitioners. All sponsored professionalisms in teaching represent particular points of view in terms of pedagogic orientations and curriculum contents. What if a teacher does not agree with the idea that emotional intelligence should figure in language teaching? What if a teacher considers explicit grammar instruction is the most effective approach, irrespective of context and learner dispositions? What if the change from one paradigm to another is seen as educationally irresponsible and morally unsound for some student-teachers and teachers. Afterall some may see the call for teachers to make their own decisions on teaching methods highly unsafe. There are any number of such issues in sponsored professionalism. Secondly, we know from experience that sponsored professionalism is itself subject to periodic revision and change, triggered by its (or perceived) inadequacies and/or different (externally imposed) policies in response to changing circumstances. Is there a role for the professional teacher in the process of change? Perhaps we can turn to the idea of independent professionalism at this point.

Independent professionalism can be characterised as a propensity and a disposition to examine the assumptions and the practices associated with sponsored professionalism with reference to disciplinary knowledge and one’s own social values and world views, and to take steps to bring about change in one’s own practice (and beyond) where appropriate and possible. If we as teachers wish to engage with sponsored professionalism from a critical and inquisitive perspective, then we need to engage in reflexive examination of our own beliefs, values and actions. This kind of critical, but not necessarily hostile, engagement with sponsored professionalism can take myriad reflexive routes. For instance, it may well be that a teacher’s initial questioning of the validity of the usage-based approach to language learning is partly related to their belief in the efficacy of presentation, practice and production (the PPP method); and, after reflexive examination, with the realisation that the language for mediation cannot be taught as pre-formulated expressions, the use-based approach can begin to make sense.

The point here is that with independent professionalism the teacher can agentively act on their own knowledge and volition. It empowers teachers to critically engage with sponsored professionalism in a potentially productive way. Such critical engagement with externally imposed professional regimes can lead to new understandings and/or workable accommodations. Where there is an impasse between the requirements of a handed-down sponsored professionalism and one’s own independent professionalism, the critical engagement will have shown the cause/s and/or the sources of the difficulties. This self-knowledge can be the basis of professional self-renewal, collective actions with like-minded fellow teachers, and career development through formal studies. Many a masters and doctoral thesis on English language teaching and teacher education have been motivated by such professional and intellectual ‘disputes’.

Concluding remarks

Most experienced teachers would readily agree that teaching theories or methods cannot be applied effectively without taking account of students’ dispositions and teaching environments in different circumstances. The relevance of this professional insight built on collective experience is easy to see for EAL teaching. The highly dynamic and fluid notion of plurilingual mediation, as part of a complexified approach to language proficiency, in the expanded CEFR both reflects and adds to a growing understanding that many aspects of situated language use cannot be adequately accounted for by static pre-specification. The dynamic socio-cognitive approach to usage-based language development grounded in embodied social participation calls for teacher initiatives in facilitating a conducive learning environment to meet diverse learner needs. The foregrounding of the primacy of critical teacher knowledge in context-informed decision-making in both the Pre-K-12 and DELTA documents can be seen as a call for an informed professionalism that includes active, agentive and independent teacher thinking and action. As we progressively acknowledge the protean nature of language knowledge, the dynamic and contingent ways in which language can be used in different social interactions, and the complexities of learning-teaching processes, we will need to further explore teacher agency and independent teacher professionalism in diverse educational environments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The ‘professionalism’ component of this Standard mainly deals with working relationships with colleagues. Student teachers are also asked to reflect on their own conduct for self-improvement and to collaborate with others.

2 The acronym ‘ESOL’ is not glossed in the document. In context it would be safe to assume that it refers to English speakers of other languages.

3 Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000, August 23). What teachers need to know about language, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444379

4 A preliminary version of the CEFR Companion Volume was first released in 2018. For accurate textual referencing, the 2020 edition is used here.

5 The CEFR distinguishes between multilingualism and plurilingualism: ‘… multilingualism … is the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in society … the plurilingual approach emphasizes the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural context s expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other people…’ (Council of Europe 2001:4).

6 The term ‘informal situations’ is used here to indicate that the kind of mediation involved here in ‘not concerned with the activities of professional interpreters’, e.g. professional interpretation in a court hearing (Council of Europe 2020:115).

7 The CEFR levels are meant to be illustrative of the knowledge and skills involved. They are intended to be used as reference points for local curriculum, teaching and assessment adaptation as appropriate.

8 The ‘+’ sign is attached to the descriptor that appears in the upper division whenever a level is illustrated by two descriptors, referred to as plus descriptor. The other (lower) descriptor is known as criterion descriptor.