Incorporating a language improvement component in teacher training programmes Richard Cullen

Most training programmes for teachers of English as a foreign language, at both in-service and pre-service levels, offer a fairly traditional blend of ELT skills training on the one hand, and language awareness, e.g. grammarand phonology, on the other. Although there is no doubt that these two components should form an important part of any ELT training programme, the fact remains that for a substantial number of non-native English teachers, especially those in primary and secondary schools, the overwhelming desire is to improve their command of the language itself. With the propagation and increasing acceptance around the world of the principles of communicative language teaching, there is arguably more pressure on teachers than in the past to be fluent in English so that they can use it naturally and spontaneous/yin the classroom. Yet training courses in ELT rarely take into account the language demands which the communicative approach makes on teachers. This paper discusses a model for an in-service training course in which language improvement is the central element. In this model, the experience of language learning provides the input for the other components of the programme: skills training and language awareness.

Introduction

Teacher training courses in English as a foreign language around the world, at both pre-service and in-service levels, usually consist of a fairly predictable set of component parts. Firstly, with few exceptions, there will be a methodology/pedagogical skills component, in which different methods and techniques for teaching English are explored, and the various classroom skills the trainee needs to teach successfully are discussed and practised. This component is of course sometimes divided into a number of sub-components, such as methodology (usually the theoretical part), micro-teaching, and practice teaching, but for the purpose of this paper they will be treated as one component, since they basically share the same objective, that is to develop the trainees classroom skills for teaching EFL. Secondly, there will invariably be what we might term a linguistics component, a primarily theoretical component, which would include one or more of the following topics: theories of language and language learning, the place of English in society and the school curriculum, and awareness of the language itself. This last aspect often includes a study of the English grammatical and phonological systems, with the emphasis on increasing the trainees understanding of how the language operates, rather than their mastery in
ELT Journal Volume 48/2 April 1994 Oxford University Press 1994

162

articles

welcome

the use of it. Thirdly, there is often a literature component, particularly on pre-service courses, where the trainees may be required to study classical or indigenous English literature, both to increase their knowledge and appreciation of the texts themselves and to help them teach some of these texts to their more advanced examination classes. Finally, there may or may not be a language improvement component aimed at improving the general language proficiency of the trainees. This component may be specifically linked to the kind of language the teachers will need to use in the classroom, e.g. for giving instructions, eliciting ideas and suggestions from the students, a kind of ESP for English teachers, following descriptions of such language, as suggested, for example by Willis (1981) and Hughes (1981). On the other hand, the component may take the form of a more general course in English, aimed as closely as possible at the general level of the particular group of trainees. How to incorporate a language improvement component into a teacher training programme is the subject of this paper.
Language improvement in teacher training courses: some problems

It is probably true to say that in most parts of the world the main emphasis in English language teacher training, especially on in-service courses, is on methodology, and that the teachers proficiency in the language itself is largely taken for granted. There are of course exceptions: in China, for example, Hundleby and Breet (1988) and Berry (1990) report on a situation 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 teachers practical skills, would itself appear inappropriate, and would doubtless lead to problems of a different nature. Alternatively, language improvement may become confused with the subject matter of the linguistics component, with the emphasis on increasing knowledge and awareness about the systems of the language, rather than an ability to use this knowledge in real communication. This is often the result of a number of unavoidable constraining factors, such as the limited time available for the course, or the large number of participants attending it. It is less timeconsuming, for example, to describe the usage of the main structures which the trainees will need to teach in their classes, than to devise and conduct activities which give extended practice in using them. This is not to deny the value of language awareness activities, particularly if conducted in such a way as to enable the teachers to discover the underlying rules of language use for themselves. Such activities help to deepen teachers understanding of how the language works, and may also contribute indirectly to their proficiency in using the language itself. However, they should not be confused with activities designed to do this directly. The fact is that few teacher training courses have either the time or the resources to provide a sufficiently intensive language improvement course which stands a reasonable chance of achieving its purpose, that is to improve the trainees communicative command of the language, rather than their knowledge about it. Yet it is probably also a fact-albeit undocumented-that in most parts of the world where exposure to English is limited, and where English is not the medium of instruction but
Language improvement in teacher training

163

articles

welcome

a compulsory foreign language on the school curriculum, the main concern of English teachers in primary and secondary schools is precisely this: the need to improve their own command of the language so that they can use it more fluently, and above all, more confidently, in the classroom. An in-service teacher training course which fails to take this into account is arguably failing to meet the needs or respond to the wishes of the teachers themselves. Teachers wishes Berry (1990) reports on a questionnaire he conducted with two groups of secondary school English teachers in Poland, asking them to rank the components of methodology, theory (a term he used to refer to theories of language learning and teaching), and language improvement, according to what they thought they needed most. The first group were participants on an in-service programme that Berry was running, whereas the second represented a cross-section of teachers in various secondary schools. For both groups, language-improvement was ranked as the most important, a clear favourite with the second group, and a close winner over methodology with the first group. Theory came in a poor third with both groups. The result is perhaps not surprising: as Berry himself points out, there is very limited contact with native speakers and their culture (for most the only regular possibility consists of listening to English language radio stations), opportunities for travel are few, and so the English they most frequently hear is that of their pupils. He added, though, that this loss of proficiency is quite possibly more a problem of perception than of fact, and that it is their confidence rather than their proficiency that needs bolstering. If this is the case in Poland, it is likely to be the case in many other countries where similar conditions exist. It would almost certainly be true, for example, in Egypt and Bangladesh, both countries in which I have been working over the past seven years in the field of in-service teacher training at secondary school level. Both countries share the following features: 1 English is taught as the compulsory foreign language on the secondary school curriculum, and in Bangladesh it is also taught right through primary 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 teachers employed at secondary level have had no special training to teach English, having specialized in other subjects at their training colleges or faculties of education. Their previous experience of formal coursework in English often dates from the time that they were at secondary 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 nonexistent. 4 The English curriculum places great emphasis on the use of English, as
164
Richard Cullen

and needs

articles

welcome

opposed to the mother tongue, in the English classroom a policy which is reinforced by the school principals and more especially the school inspectors, who are likely to assess English teachers on their ability to use English in their classes. 5 Both countries have recently introduced new communicative textbooks at secondary level, which have arguably placed more pressure on teachers than in the past to use English easily and fluently in the classroom. Teachers following a communicative approach are expected not merely to initiate set responses from their students (as was often the case with earlier audio-lingual, structure-based materials) but rather to initiate a wide range of unpredictable contributions from students and to respond naturally and spontaneously to them. This in turn requires teachers to continually adjust (their) speech to an appropriate level of difficulty (from class to class and student to student) and to solve unpredictable communication problems from moment to moment (Mitchell 1988). In the words of Marton (1988), the communicative strategy requires teachers to be prepared for any linguistic emergency. They are also expected to handle authentic or semi-authentic reading texts, often posing cultural as well as linguistic difficulties, and are not likely to be reassured by the bland pronouncements they hear on training courses that it is not necessary to understand every word. This may be appropriate for the students, but not for most self-respecting teachers. In short, communicative materials and methodology demand of the teacher a higher level of proficiency in English than in the past, and the confidence to use it over an extended period in the classroom. Yet how many pre-service or in-service training programmes take this into account?
Strategies for addressing language needs in teacher training programmes

A poor or rusty command of English undermines the teachers confidence in the classroom, affects his or her self-esteem and professional status, and makes it difficult for him or her to follow even fairly straightforward teaching procedures such as asking questions on a text (cf. Doff 1987), let alone fulfil the pedagogical requirements of new, more communicative curricula. Low levels in English among the teaching force are thus not just a concern among the teachers themselves but should also be a concern of those involved in planning both pre-service and in-service teacher training programmes. Faced with this problem, there are a number of general approaches the course planner might adopt. I shall consider four possible approaches: Ignore the problem, or rather try to tackle it indirectly. This approach aims to improve the trainees English by ensuring that the other components of the programme, e.g. methodology, are conducted in the medium of English, with plenty of opportunities for the trainees to discuss issues in English, read widely around the subject matter, and to practise microteaching units from the textbook. It is true that over time such a policy should lead to a general rise in the level of English of the participants. However, many programmes, especially in-service ones, do not have the
Language improvement in teacher training

Tackle the problem

indirectly

16.5

articles

welcome

time, resources, or opportunities for the kind of exposure to English which such an approach would require to be effective. Furthermore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, it would appear that something more direct is required, and wanted by the teachers themselves.
Include a language component

Include some kind of language improvement component alongside the other parts of the course. Many teacher training courses, as in the example of China already referred to, attempt to do this, but it may be questionable whether 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 a separate major component such as language improvement into a training course without sacrificing other parts of it, in particular, the methodology/ pedagogical skills component. This would be particularly true of inservice courses where time and resources are usually more at a premium. There is also the danger, mentioned above, that pressure of time will change the character of the language improvement componentemphasizing the presentation of a given list of language items on the syllabus, 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 various methodology topics, and, where appropriate, devise loops in which the content is conveyed through the process which is being described: a dictation about the principles and procedures for giving dictations would be an example of this (see Woodward 1991 for this and other examples). This approach clearly goes some way towards overcoming the problem of time, since it seeks to combine language improvement and methodology and make it one component. However, the restriction of the subject matter of the course to one major topic (i.e. methodology) would seem to limit both its usefulness and its appeal to teachers as a course in general language improvement. Make language improvement the central element of the course, and plan the other components around it. In this approach, the content of the methodology and language awareness components would be derived from the language course which the trainees would undergo. The language course would thus be the central element, and provide the input for the other components, in particular methodology/pedagogical skills. The trainees would first have direct experience of a particular teaching approach, or technique, as genuine language learners, before discussing the approach or technique as teachers. To some extent, this may seem similar to Berrys proposal (Berry 1990) for a language improvement course, which, in addition to its primary role, will have the secondary effect of providing a model of teaching behaviour. However, it should be stressed that the aim is not so much to provide a model as an example for discussion. The model is open to discussion and analysis and may be rejected, and almost certainly modified by the trainees as a result of this process.
Richard Cullen

Link methodology and language improvement

Make language improvement central

166

articles

welcome

Few training courses in my experience adopt this approach, and it may not be appropriate on many pre-service courses due to the requirements of the syllabus and the final examinations. However, it may well provide an answer to the in-service training needs of teachers in many parts of the world, where what is required is both improvement of the teachers command of the language and upgrading of their professional skills as teachers. Such an approach potentially offers both, and moreover, seeks to deal with issues of methodology in a way that is likely to be quite different to the teachers previous experience at pre-service level, i.e. through actual experience followed by a process of analysis and reflection. It is time now to consider how this approach might work in practice.

Incorporating a language improvement course in a teacher training programme: an example

In Bangladesh I was involved with a team of college lecturers in the planning and teaching of a language improvement component for English teachers following a one-year post-graduate diploma course at the Teacher Training College in Dhaka. The students were a mixture of preservice and in-service trainees, primarily the latter, most of whom had completed two or three years service after graduation. The need for a language improvement course was plain, yet there was no room on the timetable for such a programme without cutting into other areas of the diploma syllabus. Consequently, we decided to run an optional course for the 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 optional and would not count towards the students assessment on the whole course. The attendance - 80 per cent of the total number of those taking English - was encouraging, and testified to the teachers own frequently expressed feelings that language improvement was a top priority for them. The course we devised was based on their results on a proficiency test we had previously set, which showed their average ability to be at the standard expected of Grade 8 students, i.e. an intermediate level mid-way through the secondary school cycle. Consequently, we devised a general intermediate/upper intermediate course in English designed to last fortyeight contact hours, and based loosely on selected units of a standard, reasonably communicative coursebook (with which the trainees were unfamiliar), supplemented by reading texts from a variety of sources, often of local interest. By the end of the course, it was clear that many of the trainees seemed to be as interested in the methodology to which the course exposed them as in the language content of the course itself. This interest suggested that there was potential for exploiting the course for purposes beyond the primary goal of language improvement, and that if we were to run the course again for future groups of trainees, it would be worthwhile to consider how to try to achieve these ulterior purposes. Unfortunately, it proved impossible the following year to run the course again due to a variety of reasons beyond our control, and consequently, any plans to try and link this language component with work on methodology/pedagogical skills never bore fruit. This paper therefore attempts to put forward a number of ideas for consideration rather than report on an attempt to put forward ideas into practice.
Language improvement in teacher training

167

articles

welcome

The general approach

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

Figure

INPUT Language lesson

Trainees experience lesson as students

PROCESSING
Trainees analyse and evaluate lesson data, drawn from: -teachers notes/lesson -learning materials -trainees notes/diaries -audio tapes/transcripts lessons -observers notes plans _

OUTPUT
Trainees: -write own lesson plans -devise own activities -micro-teach

of

in question. This lesson - usually selected parts of it - constitutes the data for the second Processing stage, during which the lesson is subjected to a process of description, analysis, and evaluation. Finally, there may or may not be an output or transfer stage, in which the trainees plan ways of transferring an idea (e.g. a teaching strategy or classroom technique) to their own teaching situation. The trainees thus go through a process of experiencing a language lesson as learners, recalling what happened (usually with the aid of various types of lesson data, to be discussed below), analysing the data in some structured way, evaluating it (for example in terms of the lessons effectiveness), and finally reflecting on it with reference to their own teaching practices and teaching situations, a process which may or may not lead to integration of certain strategies and techniques into the individual trainees own teaching repertoires. This process would of course be repeated again and again throughout the course. How much time would be spent on each part of the process, i.e. the allocation of time to the language course itself as opposed to the methodological analysis, will be discussed later.
Recalling the lesson: sources of data

Central to this process is the need to describe the lesson, or the specific parts of the lesson which the trainees wish to focus on, as accurately and objectively as possible. If the data is unreliable, in other words, if the trainees cannot agree on what happened, the subsequent analysis and evaluation of the lesson will be largely academic. Figure 1 outlines some possible sources of data on the lesson, which could be useful for analysis and discussion. These include:
Teachers notes/lesson plans: Although not a record in themselves of what actually happened, they show what the teacher intended to happen, and are thus useful for a discussion of the rationale for what the teacher had planned. They can also help to jog the trainees memories of what the teacher did or did not do in the lesson. This would also be true of the learning materials used in the lesson, e.g. copies of dialogues, reading texts and tasks, writing exercises, etc., which could be used for a similar analysis, focusing, for example, on the purpose of a particular exercise, or

168

Richard

Cullen

articles

welcome

a particular question, how meaningful or meaningless it was, and whether it was effective as a learning exercise for the trainees.
lesson notes/diaries: Data can also be supplied by the trainees themselves in the form of notes on the lesson either written immediately afterwards, or as a daily diary, in which each trainee records any aspects of the days lesson which he or she found particularly interesting, helpful for learning, or just confusing. These notes could then be shared and discussed with the whole group in the first session of each days work. The discussion would focus on why they found a particular procedure interesting, helpful, or confusing, what the rationale for using it was, and what alternative procedures might have been followed. tapes/transcripts of lessons: Another, more objective source of data would be taped recordings of the lesson itself, preferably backed up by transcripts of the selected parts which the trainer or trainees wished to look at. Such data could obviously not be used until the day after the lesson 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 in teaching, such as the extent and quality of classroom interaction and the kind of teacher talk used, both to promote such interaction and generally to direct operations in the classroom. An analysis of teacher talk would also bring the trainees back to the area of language again, this time with the emphasis on classroom language - the language used for giving instructions, for example, or for asking questions to elicit ideas or information from the class. Audio Trainees

Two further advantages of using transcripts ought to be mentioned here. Firstly, it does not have to be the trainer who makes them. Once the trainees are familiar with them, each day a different trainee could be asked to take home the audio cassette and to make a transcript of a short part of the lesson (about five minutes) in which he or she (or the class) was interested. This in itself is a valuable learning exercise for any teacher, requiring as it does a detailed and thorough exploration of what is happening in a given segment of a lesson. Secondly, transcripts remain reasonably anonymous: students names need not be recorded (or can be changed) on a transcript, and so the trainees are not exposed to their colleagues in the event of their making errors or being unable to answer the teachers question. The only person exposed is the trainer who taught the lesson. Video tapes of the lessons taught would not be suitable sources of data because they cannot offer anonymity. Video might also have the effect of intruding on the lesson itself and possibly inhibiting the performance of both teacher (the trainer) and the students (the trainees), all of whom would be aware that their efforts would be played back, warts and all, to be scrutinized and analysed after the lesson.
Observers notes: Another source of data on the lesson would be notes made by an observer, who might, for example, be one of the other trainers involved in teaching the course. Independent notes of this kind made during the lesson would normally be more reliable than notes based on the Language improvement in teacher training

169

articles

welcome

recollections of the students and the teacher after the lesson had finished, and they would be particularly useful for showing points of departure between what the teacher had planned and what actually transpired in the lesson. 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 outline of a training session

Not all these different sources would be used with each lesson taught rather a selection, depending on what aspect of methodology/pedagogical skills the trainer or the trainees wished to focus. Below I have suggested an outline of a training session in which three of these sources of data (trainees notes, teachers notes, and an audio tape of the lesson) are utilized. The session would probably last about one hour, and could follow any lesson that has been taught. Step 1: Following a procedure suggested by Ramani (1987: 5) the trainees begin by noting down immediately after the lesson which parts they considered most satisfactory and why, and which parts they considered least satisfactory and why - the object being to elicit from the trainees their real and subjective responses to the lesson, as learners. While they are doing this, the trainer does the same thing, from his or her point of view, as the teacher - a quick, personal evaluation of how the lesson went, and what extra work might be needed. Step 2: The trainees discuss their impressions in small groups, and then report back, each group presenting its conclusions on the most satisfactory and least satisfactory parts. After their presentations, the trainer presents his or her own impressions of the lesson and compares these with the trainees comments. Step 3: The trainees are shown an incomplete outline of the lesson based on the trainers lesson notes, and showing only the main stages of the lesson. In their groups they try to complete the outline based on their recollections of the lesson, and assisted by the notes they made in Step 1 and the discussion in Step 2. Step 4: Different groups report back and a complete outline is built up on the board. The rationale for each stage and the sequence of stages is discussed with the whole class. The main purpose here would be to look at principles of lesson planning, and to discuss briefly the rationale behind various commonly-used techniques and exercises, which would be specified in the lesson outline (e.g. the reason for setting pre-questions on a reading text, or the purpose of a particular gap-filling exercise used in the lesson). The trainees own impressions of the lesson could also be matched against this outline - to establish whether there was a particular stage of the lesson which seemed to work better or worse than other stages, and if so, why. Step 5: The trainer or trainees choose a particular stage of the lesson to look at in more detail, for example, the warm-up stage, in which a reading or listening text is presented. The trainees could be asked to expand the original notes to include, for example, the questions the teacher might ask the students at this stage, the actual instructions which might be given for

170

Richard

Cullen

articles

welcome

a particular activity specified in the plan, and any words or phrases written on the board. After the trainees have noted down their own ideas (which will be partly based on their recollection of the lesson) the audio tape of this part of the lesson could be played to compare their own suggested classroom language with that actually used by the teacher. This in turn would lead to a more detailed examination of the procedures used, for example, questioning procedures such as how the teacher nominates individual students to answer questions, the wait time allowed between asking the question and nominating a student, how the teacher reacts to students responses and follows up on them, etc. Step 6: The trainees and trainer consider together the effectiveness of this particular stage of the lesson in the light of their original impressions recorded in Step 1, and any subsequent re-assessment which might have resulted from the deeper analysis suggested in Step 5. As a result of this discussion, the trainees or the trainer might suggest alternative procedures which the teacher might have used. Step 7: Finally, the trainees consider the applicability to their own classes of the procedures they have been focusing on. Are they similar to what they already do? Is there anything new which they have not tried before? Was it effective for them as learners? Would it work in their own classes? If not, why not? etc. This is the stage at which the trainees are required to reflect on their experience as language learners in the light of their experience as language teachers, and of their knowledge of their own classrooms and students. To facilitate the process of transfer into their own situations, it is important that the classroom conditions in which the language improvement course takes place replicate as closely as possible the classroom conditions in which most of the trainees work themselves. By the same token, technological aids which are not available to teachers in their schools should be avoided on the course. The steps described above constitute one of many ways to proceed with the task of describing, analysing, and evaluating the data provided by a language lesson which a group of trainees have been taught. It could either be done as one session immediately following the lesson itself, or divided into two sessions, with the second session beginning at Step 5 on the following day. This would have the advantage of giving time for a transcript to be made of the particular part of the lesson being discussed. The transcript could then replace (or supplement) the audio tape used in Step 5.
Follow-up: some considerations

The Processing stage described above could of course be followed by an 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 should guard against over-extending the methodology work so that it takes over from the language course. The primary aim of the programme is to improve the teachers command of English so that they can perform with greater confidence in the classroom. An over-emphasis on the methodology employed will use up valuable time and interrupt the momentum of the language course. The purpose of the methodology analysis is essentially one
Language improvement in teacher training

171

articles

welcome

of consciousness-raising: to deepen the trainees understanding of the principles and processes involved in language teaching (as a result of the learning experience), in the hope that this increased understanding will inform their own practice as teachers. For this reason, a balance of two hours of language work to one hour of methodological analysis and reflection would probably be what I would aim for.
Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to describe a way of addressing the issue of language improvement on in-service teacher training programmes in parts of the world where there is a clear need and a desire for it. The programme I have suggested attempts to combine language improvement and methodology by using the learning experience which the trainees have undergone during the language lesson as the content for follow-up work on methodology. In my view the approach has a number of facets which would recommend it to many groups of trainees working in the kind of situation I described earlier. Firstly, the focus of the programme is primarily on language improvement. As such, it aims to respond to many teachers actual wishes and to meet their most pressing needs. Secondly, the methodology component is practice-driven rather than theorydriven, arising as it does out of the trainees direct experience of the methodology as learners. It will thus be rooted more firmly in reality than the more theory-based methodology which many of the trainees would previously have studied on their pre-service courses. Finally, the process of describing, analysing, and evaluating the events which took place in the lessons is a way of training the teachers on the course to observe and reflect on their own and their colleagues teaching when they are back in their schools, thus contributing to their continued professional development after the course.
Received February 1993 Teaching. New York: Prentice Hall. 1988. Communicative in Practice. London: CILT. 3-11.

Note

This paper was originally presented at the IATEFL Silver Jubilee Conference held at Lille, France, 23-26 October 1992.
References

Mitchell,
Teaching

R.

Language

Ramani, E. 1987. Theorizing from the classroom.

ELT Journal 41/1:

Berry, R. 1990. The role of language improvement in in-service teacher training programmes: killing two birds with one stone. System 18/1: 97-105. Doff, A. 1987. Training materials as an instrument of methodological change in R. Bowers (ed.)
Language Programme Teacher Education: for ELT Teacher An Integrated Training. ELT

Willis, J. 1981. Teaching English through English. Harlow: Longman. Woodward, T. 1991. Models and Metaphors in
Language Teacher Training: Loop Input and Other Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Author

Documents 125: 67-71. Basingstoke: Macmillan for Modern English Publications. Hughes, G. S. 1981. A Handbook of Classroom English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1988. Using Hundleby, S. and F. Breet. methodology notebooks on in-service teacher training courses. ELT Journal 42/1: 34-6. Marton, W. 1988. Methods in English Language 172
Richard Cullen

Richard Cullen has worked for the past fifteen years in the field of teacher/trainer training and curriculum development in Nepal, Greece, the UK, Egypt, and Bangladesh. Since March 1992 he has been working as a teacher trainer at the Centre for Tutor Training in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, as part of the ODA/ Government of Tanzanias English Language Teaching Support Project. He has an MA in Applied Linguistics from the University of Reading.

articles

welcome