FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 37, N O .

37

How Foreign Language Teachers

in Georgia Evaluate their
Professional Preparation:
A Call for Action
Thomas C . Cooper
University of Georgia
In collaboration with:
Joan Kelly Hall, Anne Hawkins, Richard A. LaFleul: Brigitte Rossbachel;
Carmen Chaves TessqJoel C. Walz, Melissa Young

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to report on a collaborative project among members of
colleges of education, colleges of arts and sciences, and high schoolforeign language departments.
The project involved conducting an online survey of 341 current foreign language teachers in
Georgia in order to determine how these K-12 teachers perceived and evaluated the effectiveness
of their professional preparation. Close to 60%of the teachers in the sample were graduates of colleges and universities in Georgia. Most of the others had received their training from various other
colleges and universities in the United States, and 51 individuals reported that they had graduated from foreign institutions. The survey consisted of 42 questions asking teachers to evaluate their
preparation in language skills, knowledge of foreign language standards, planning for instruction,
methodology, using technology in instruction, meeting the needs of socially and economically
diverse students, classroom management skills, and professional growth. The survey results
strongly suggest that foreign language teacher development programs should include (1) more
Thomas C. Cooper (PhD, Florida State University) is Associate Professor of Foreign Language
Education at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Joan Kelly Hall (PhD, State University of New York, Albany) is Professor of Linguistics and
Applied Language and Education at Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania.
Anne Hawkins (MEd, University of Georgia) is a teacher of French and Latin at Grayson High
School, Loganville, Georgia.
Richard A. LuFleur (PhD, Duke University) is Franklin Professor of Classics at the University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Brigitte Rossbacher (PhD, University of Cali$wnia, Davis) is Associate Professor of German at
the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Carmen Chaves Tesser (PhD, Mississippi State University) is Professor of Romance Languages at
the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Joel C. Walz (PhD, Indiana University) is Professor of French at the University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Melissa Young (PhD, University of Georgia) is a teacher of Spanish at Brookwood High School,
Snellville, Georgia.

SIKING 2004

38

time spent in carefully supervised and monitored prestudentteaching field experiences; (2) more careful mentoring of
student teachers during the student-teaching internship; (3)
more time spent in language learning experiences in countries where the target language is spoken; (4) more emphasis on developing foreign language proficiency in the requisite university classes; and (5) more effort spent on teaching
effective classroom management.

Introduction
One distinct point of consensus has clearly emerged from
foreign language professionals discussions of teacher
development over the last few years: Teacher preparation
programs must be the result of collaborative approaches
designed to maximize the effects of any and all strategies
for improvement (ACTFL, 2002; Raymond, 2002; Schulz,
2000). As Schulz stated, alluding to a long-standing
argument on this matter:
Part of the problem is that teacher development programs are isolated in schools or colleges of education
and that the long-standing schism between education
and FL departments has resulted in mutual namecalling; the responsibility for teacher training must be
shared equally by the schools (administrators and
practicing teachers), the disciplinary departments
(specialists in literature, cultural studies, language,
linguistics, and applied linguistics), and colleges of
education. (p. 518)
The belief that teacher preparation can be improved
through collaborative efforts is also one of the guiding
principles of the Georgia Systemic Teacher Education
Program (GSTEP), a grant initiative funded by
the U. S. Department of Education and the Georgia
Department of Education involving three institutions
of higher learning in Georgia: Albany State University,
the University of Georgia, and Valdosta State University.
The purpose of the grant is to enhance and improve
all phases of teacher preparation by summoning the
collaboration of all entities and departments involved.
To work on this initiative in the area of foreign
languages, a committee was formed at the University of
Georgia that consisted of representatives from the
Departments of Language Education, Classics, Romance
Languages, and Germanic and Slavic Languages, as well as
from from the foreign language departments of Grayson
High School and Brookwood High School in metro
Atlanta.
The purpose of this article is to report on a
collaborative project of the FL GSTEP committee
that conducted an online survey of current foreign
language teachers in Georgia in order to determine
how these K-12 teachers perceived and evaluated
the effectiveness of their professional preparation.

Previous Literature
There is a precedent for evaluating teacher education programs with questionnaires that obtain data on various
aspects of the programs and elicit suggestions for program
improvement. Although most of the published evaluative
reports concentrate on teaching fields other than foreign
languages (Bensley & Pope, 1992; Israelite Q
Hammermeister, 1986; Joyner, 1991; Panyan, Hillman, &
Liggett, 1997; Parker & Spink, 1997), a study by Lange and
Sims (1990) dealt with foreign language teacher preparation. These researchers sent a questionnaire to 800
Minnesota foreign language teachers to ascertain their perceptions of the quality and usefulness of their preprofessional preparation in the areas of general or liberal arts
background, the foreign language major, general preservice
professional preparation, preparation to teach a second language, and student teaching. Although the questionnaire
return rate was 60%, only 95 questionnaires met predetermined criteria for the quantitative and qualitative methods
of analysis chosen.
The results of analysis of these 95 questionnaires, especially the teachers comments in the open-ended response
sections, are pertinent to foreign language teaching today
Regarding the foreign language major, for instance, teachers stated that (1) extended target culture living experiences should be mandatory, (2) there should be an
increased emphasis on listening and speaking skills, and
(3) in the foreign language courses literary analysis tends
to be over-emphasized (Lange Q Sims, p. 299). In their
comments about general preservice professional preparation, respondents emphasized that more attention should
be paid to matters of discipline, classroom management,
and practical psychology (p. 300). They also indicated
that courses in the history and philosophy of education
were not terribly useful, that theory courses were not very
relevant, and that introduction to education courses left
much to be desired (p. 300). Respondents thought that
student teaching was a positive and useful experience but
strongly recommended that it be longer than the typical 11week quarter and become more like an internship (p. 310).
The present study can be viewed as a follow-up and
expansion of the Lange and Sims study over a decade later,
since we surveyed a larger sample of teachers, whose average length of work experience was greater that the two to
four years of Lange and Sims subjects. From their unique
vantage point, teachers in the field can give us the type of
feedback from hands-on experience that ought to be taken
seriously as we work on refining and revising our teacher
education programs.

Method

survey
The survey consisted of 42 questions asking teachers to

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S . VOL. 37. N O . 1

evaluate their preparation in language skills, knowledge of

foreign language standards, planning for instruction,
methodology, using technology in instruction, meeting the
needs of socially and economically diverse students, classroom management skills, and professional growth (see
Appendix). The survey had three parts. The first section
(questions 1-1 1) elicited mainly demographic data. In the
second section (questions 11-23), the participants were
asked to rate on a 5-point scale the university classes
required for certification. In the third section (questions
27-37), the participants rated on a 5-point scale how well
their university coursework had helped them develop, in
general, the skills and competencies necessary for teaching.
These skills are aligned with many of the program standards for foreign language teacher preparation recently
developed by the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Finally, to
enable the participants to voice more fully their opinions
about their professional preparation, a series of openended questions was inserted after each one of the two sets
of response questions.

Procedures
The survey was conducted between March 6 and April 19,
2002. From a total of 1,611 foreign language teachers in
Georgia, advance letters inviting participation in the study
were sent to 1,005 teachers. The remaining 606 teachers
received an e-mail invitation to participate. A second wave
follow-up of all nonrespondents was conducted two weeks
after the initial attempt. From these two sources, 60
advance letters were undeliverable and 108 e-mail addresses were inaccurate. Thus, the actual size was reduced to
1,443, of which 437 teachers responded to the initial invitation. Of those responding initially, 208 (48%) were from
the e-mail invitation group, while 229 (52%) came from
the advance letter invitation group. The overall response
rate for the study was 30.2% (437/1,443); such a rate compares favorably to mail survey response rates using this
level of follow-up (Dillman, 2001). Of those individuals
responding to the survey, 23 visited the Web site and did
not answer any questions. Of the remaining 414 who did
begin the survey, 341 (82%) indicated that they were current K-12 public school teachers. These 341 teachers constitute the sample upon which this study was based.
However, in the reporting of the survey results below, the
number of responses for one item may not be the same as
those for another item. This is because the respondents
always had the choice not to answer a question. Thus, the
total number of respondents who answer specific questions
varies from item to item.

Survey Respondents
About 60% of the respondents in the sample were gradu-

39

ates of colleges and universities in Georgia. Most of the

other teachers had graduated from various other schools in
the United States, but 51 reported that they had graduated
from foreign institutions. Fifty-one (15%) of the respondents were male, and 290 (85%) were female. Their teaching experience can be summarized as follows: Fifty-three
(16%) had taught up to 3 years; 117 (36%) had taught for
4 to 10 years; 86 (26%) for 11 to 20 years; 60 (18%) for 21
to 30 years; and 13 (4%) had taught for 30 or more years.
With regard to the language taught: 92 (29%) respondents
were French teachers, 30 (9%) taught German, 29 (9%)
taught Latin, and 171 (53%) were Spanish teachers. Sixtynine respondents (21%) reported that they were native
speakers of the foreign languages they taught, while 259
(79%) said that they were nonnative speakers. Thirty-five
teachers (11%) taught in private schools; 296 (89%) taught
in public schools. One hundred and thirty (40%) said they
possessed bachelors degrees; 164 (50),masters degrees; 18
(5%), specialist degrees; and 17 (5%), doctorates. Two
hundred and ninety-one teachers (89%) reported that they
were certified; 35 (11%) were not. Among those who had
not been certified, 19 respondents (53%) reported that they
were working toward certification, and 17 (47%) were not.

Data Analysis
In the quantitative analysis phase, the dependent variable
was the teachers perception of their professional preparation: that is, with what degree of satisfaction, as measured
on a 5-point scale, did these teachers assess the effectiveness of their training to become foreign language teachers,
both in terms of the courses they completed during their
university study (see Appendix, questions 12-23) and in
terms of the teaching competencies they acquired during
their university coursework as a whole (see Appendix,
questions 27-37).
The independent variables consisted of (1) gender, (2)
years of teaching experience, (3) language taught, (4)
native speaker status of the teachers, (5) type of school
(i.e., private or public), and (6) highest degree earned. In
order to look at the influence of these background factors
in an integrated way likely to show the effects of the six
independent variables as well as any interactions, the study
employed a 6-way ANOVA design and a probability level of
.05 was selected.
In the qualitative analysis phase, the responses to the
open-ended questionditems were analyzed to identify
underlying themes and patterns. The GSTEP committee
members took part in this phase of the data analysis. To
assure interrater reliability, the committee met regularly to
discuss the results obtained and resolve any differences in
their interpretation. To assure objectivity further, another
evaluator, a foreign language teacher with 25 years of classroom experience, analyzed the aggregate of the responses
to the items as a whole. Separate coding and interpretations

SPRING 2004

40

of responses to items 24,25, and 26; and 38,39,40, and 41

(see Appendix) were compared to establish an interrater
reliability of 100% by discussing and resolving any
discrepancies in interpreting the teachers responses to
these items.

Results and Discussion

Quantitative Analysis
Table 1 shows how the respondents as a group evaluated
their professional preparation. Most of the scores for questions 12 to 23 and questions 27 to 37 fell in the range of

3.00 to 3.90 on the 5-point scale;3 the average satisfaction

score for all teachers was 3.58. Scores of 4.00 and above
indicated a high level of satisfaction relatively speaking,
while scores of 3.00 or below indicated that the teachers
were less satisfied with their respective learning experiences. For example, student teaching (question 17) was
rated with a mean score of 4.23; courses in foreign language
conversation and composition (question IS), 4.11; courses
in foreign language phonetics (question 20>,4.06; courses
in pre-twentieth century literature (question 21),4.09; and
foreign language cultural studies (question 23) a score of
4.00. In contrast, two items-classroom management tech-

SUMMARY OF TEACHERS EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION

Survey question

Mean

Standard Deviation

3.21
3.47
3.69
3.69
3.57
4.23
4.11
3.91
4.06
4.09
3.91
4.00

1.11
1.10
1.17
1.15
1.28
0.98
1.07
1.19
1.07
1.04
1.10
1.10

3.80
3.44
2.94
3.44
3.13
3.69
3.25
3.23
3.35
3.37
2.88

0.89
0.96
1.05
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.92
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.95

3.58

0.60

Evaluation of courses
12
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Educational foundations
Educational psychology
Methods (pre-kindergarten-8th grade)
Methods (high school)
Cross-cultural communication
Student teaching
FL conversation and comDosition
FL linguistics
FL phonetics
FL literature (pre-20th century)
FL literature (20th century and beyond)
FL cultural studies
Evaluation of FL teaching competencies

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Proficiency in the target language

Using the FL Standards
Classroom manaeement techniuues
Planning for instruction
Meeting the needs of diverse students
Knowledee of tareet culture(s)
Aligning instruction and assessment
Evaluating speaking skills
Evaluating other language skills
Understanding learning styles
Using technology in FL teaching
Average of all items

41

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 37, N O . I

niques (question 29) and using technology in foreign language teaching (question 37)-received scores below 3.00
(2.94 and 2.88, respectively), indicating that teachers felt
that they were not as well prepared in these areas as they
could have been.
Table 2 presents the means of the scores for questions
12 to 23 and 27 to 37 by comparison groups and gives
global satisfaction scores for the effects of the independent
variables. Global satisfaction scores consist of the average
of the separate satisfaction scores for questions 12 to 23
and questions 27 to 37. As such, they combine the rating
for the specific courses taken by each respondent in a
teacher education program with the rating for how well
the respondent thought he or she had acquired the competencies necessary for effective foreign language teaching.
Unless otherwise indicated, the differences between
the means shown in Table 2 are not statistically significant.
Regarding the variable of gender, for example, female
teachers rated their professional preparation higher than
male teachers (3.59 vs. 3.54). For the group of teachers

with up to three years of classroom experience, the average

global satisfaction score was 3.48, while for the group with
more than four years experience, the global satisfaction
score was 3.60 (i.e., teachers with more experience were
more positive about their preparation). The satisfaction
scores for the variable of the foreign language taught are
rank ordered as follows, from the highest to the lowest:
German, 3.71; French, 3.61; Spanish, 3.57; and Latin, 3.57.
There was a significant interaction, p < .04 (df= 3/239, F =
2.88), between the variables of years of teaching experience
and the language taught. Applylng the Scheffe approach to
comparing the factor of teaching experience across the four
foreign language groups resulted in no statistically significant results. Thus, while the statistically significant interaction involving years of experience and the foreign language taught suggests that the effect of teaching experience
is not the same across all language groups, there is not
enough evidence to allow us to pinpoint where such
differences might clearly exist.
Regarding the variable of native speaker status, native

GLOBAL SATISFACTION SCORES BY INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Variable

Global satisfaction scores

Gender (question 2)

Years of teaching
(question 3)*

Language taught
(question 4)

French
(n = 92)
3.61

Female
(n = 290)
3.59

(n = 51)

3 years or less
(n = 53)
3.48

4 years or more
(n = 276)
3.60

German
(n = 30)
3.71

Latin

Spanish

(n = 29)

(n = 171)

3.57

3.57

NS of L2

Native speaker status

(question 6)

(n = 69)
3.64

Trpe of school
(question 7)**

Male
3.54

NNS of L2
(n = 259)

3.57

Public
(n = 296)
3.60

(n = 35)

Private

Masters
(n = 164)
3.61

Specialist
(n = 18)
3.54

3.41

~~

Highest degree
(question 8 )

Bachelors
(n = 130)
3.52

*p < .04, interaction between years of teaching experience and language taught
**p < .02, public schools versus private schools

Doctorate
(n = 17)
3.75

42

speakers of the language were more satisfied than nonnative speakers (3.64 vs. 3.57). Teachers working in public
schools were more satisfied with their professional training
than those working in private schools (3.60 vs. 3.41), and
this difference was significant at the p c .02 level (df = 1/239,
F = 5.79). The averages for the degree variable are, from the
highest to the lowest: doctorate, 3.75; masters degree, 3.61;
specialist degree, 3.54; and bachelors degree, 3.52.

Summary of the Quantitative Data

A rank ordering of the means of the global satisfaction
scores for the highest group for each independent variable
is shown below:
(1) Highest earned degree:
Teachers holding doctorate
3.75
(2) Language taught: German teachers
3.71
(3) Native speaker status: Native speakers
3.64
(4) Type of school: Public school teachers
3.60
(5) Years of teaching:
Teachers with 4+ yrs. experience
3.60
(6) Gender: Female teachers
3.59

Why were some groups more satisfied with their professional preparation than others? Any conclusions based
on these results remains, of course, largely speculative,
both because the data are self-reported and because due to
the confidentiality of the survey, it was not possible to interview the respondents to determine why they answered as
they did.
The teachers most satisfied with their professional
development and training were those holding a doctorate
(3.75). This result is perhaps not surprising since these
individuals were most likely very motivated to have completed a course of study involving a considerable investment of time, energy, and financial resources.
The German teachers in the sample were second in
terms of satisfaction with their training (3.71), while the
scores of teachers of the other foreign languages were fairly close together: French teachers, 3.61; Latin teachers,
3.57; and Spanish teachers, 3.57. The significant interaction between the language taught and years of teaching
experience (p c .04, df= 3/239, F = 2.88) points to a lack of
consistent results across levels, which may be related to the
varylng satisfaction scores among the language groups.
The teachers who were native speakers of the foreign
language had higher satisfaction scores than the nonnative
speakers (3.64 vs. 3.57). These individuals may have constituted a special group. Teachers who were native speakers
of the target language and who completed their professional training in the United States may have been more enthusiastic and engaged students than their American counterparts and more motivated than others to succeed in education, because they had to overcome the difficulties of completing university training in a foreign country, the United
States. Thus, when they reflected on their professional

SPRING 2004

training in this country, they may have been more satisfied

with the courses they took and with the pedagogical skills
they acquired during their training.
It is interesting that teachers in public schools were
more satisfied with their training than those in private
schools (3.60 vs. 3.41), and the difference between these
two groups was significant (p < .02 level, df = 1/239, F =
5.79). One possible reason for this difference is that many
of the private school teachers were not certified because
certification is not necessarily a requirement for working in
a private school. Or it is possible that the normal course of
study for an individual wishing to become a teacher is more
geared toward the public school venue than toward private
schools and requires a greater professional commitment.
Concerning the variable of years of experience, it is
important to note that beginning teachers were definitely
less satisfied than their more experienced colleagues (3.48
vs. 3.60). It is common knowledge that beginning teachers
are faced with many challenges and may feel overwhelmed
and not adequately prepared for the task. Hence, when they
assess their preparation, they may be more critical than
teachers who have already overcome most of the difficulties
and vagaries that their newer colleagues are still facing.
More experienced teachers may, therefore, have a more positive attitude, if not a nostalgic one, toward their training
when they reflect on it.
In this sample, female teachers were slightly more satisfied with their professional training than their male counterparts (3.59 vs. 3.54), and the number of female teachers
was also much higher than the number of male teachers
(290:51). Perhaps there is a relationship between these two
findings. Teaching as a profession has traditionally been the
domain of women and, to this day, there are more female
teacher trainees than male teacher trainees. It would not be
too surprising to find out that-in spite of the great strides
in gender/minority/womens studies and the concomitant
sensitization to issues of the opposite sex-the few and isolated male teacher candidates, finding themselves in the
minority, do not experience the same sense of belonging
and affirmation as their female counterparts who constitute
the vast majority.

Satisfaction Scores and Teacher Knowledge

What do these satisfaction scores mean? Above all, we have
to keep in mind that they are subjective, for they issue from
self-reported data and were not obtained by a researcher
observing and assessing teacher performance in the classroom. Nevertheless, self-reported data are valuable in their
own right, because in the evaluation of the multifaceted
process of professional preparation and training, the
teacher as principal subject and principal agent needs to be
given a voice and a vote.
Summary of the Open-Ended Responses
This section summarizes the responses to items 24 (Please

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 37, N O . 1

comment on any other classes youve taken that have not

been mentioned), 25 (Please comment on what aspects
of your training helped you the most in your teaching),
and 26 (Please comment on what you would like to see
added to the requirements for teacher preparation). These
three items deal with how well required university classes
provided the teachers with the knowledge, skills, or training that they use most often in their instruction. Items 38
(Please list and grade any other classes not mentioned
above), 39 (Please comment on what aspects of your
teacher preparation were most beneficial to your present
teaching assignments), 40 (Please comment on what
aspects were least helpful), and 41 (In your opinion,
what should be added to the teacher training experience?)
are the second set of open-ended questions. They address
how well practicing teachers think they acquired the competencies and skills requisite for being effective and successful in the classroom. When the responses to the two
sets of open-ended questions, items 24 to 26 and 38 to 41,
are considered together, certain patterns emerge.
Among the classes and experiences that teachers considered not to be useful for their preparation were:
(1) General education courses, including educational
psychology, foundations of education, and history of
education. These were often discussed in a negative
light, because they dealt with too much theory and
not enough practice and, thus, said little to teachers
about how to succeed in the classroom;
(2) Courses in methodology, as well as courses in literature, phonetics, and linguistics. These were also singled out as not being helpful, because according to
many teachers, these courses too often stressed
knowledge they judged too theoretical to be applicable to public school student^;^
(3) General preparation in the use of the target
language. Several respondents noted that college and
university literature courses did not further the
acquisition of foreign language skills necessary for
communicative language teaching.
Among the classes and experiences that teachers
assessed as useful for their preparation were the
following:
(1) Student teaching. This was mentioned most often
as the most helpful component of teacher training
with only one respondent speaking of being discouraged by student teaching;
(2) Study abroad programs and experiences abroad
such as trips to the target language countries. These
opportunities were singled out unequivocally as being
beneficial for foreign language teacher development.
(3) Foreign language classes, mainly those emphasizing
grammal; culture, and the development of foreign
language conversational skills; storytelling; and
attendance at professional conferences and workshops.

43

Respondents also made recommendations concerning

classes, requirements, and experiences that should be
added to teacher development programs, such as:
(1) Future teachers need a longer training experience.
These comments referred to practical teaching experience and not coursework. Generally, respondents
felt a need for more time spent in front of K-12 students, beginning early in their academic careers and
perhaps ending with a full year in an authentic K-12
classroom setting. Future teachers need more handson activities and contact with experienced teachers
through extended observations, group planning periods, and mentoring. Teachers also commented on
preparation for the real work world that is replete
with nonacademic issues, such as dealing with paperwork, lesson plan writing, school meetings, and
extracurricular events.
(2) Future teachers need more training in classroom
management and discipline, including how to run a
classroom and keep records efficiently. Several teachers
mentioned needing help on how to meet and work
constructively with parents.
(3) Student teachers need more study abroad. Many
teachers, in fact, stated that the study abroad experience, ideally with included coursework, should be a
requirement in all teacher development programs. In
addition, teachers recommended that college programs include more language courses designed to
develop and enhance target language skills.

Pedagogical Implications and Conclusion

Many of the themes and concerns expressed by the survey
respondents have been underscored by other foreign language educators. Schulz (2000), for instance, pointed out
that there is professional consensus on the need for extended study abroad. She wrote:
The ability to use the target language fluently, competently, confidently, and with a high degree of accuracy is an essential qualification for FL teachers . . .
We must require (and financially support), as part of
pre-professional FL development, an extended term
of study abroad, aimed at developing an adequate
level of language and cultural competence. (p. 518)
The need for greater foreign language proficiency and
study abroad experience is also strongly echoed in the
Standardsfor Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century
(1999) and in the ACTFUNCATE Program Standardsfor the
Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (2002).
Raymond (2002) emphasized the need to provide
extended practice teaching that is highly connected to the
required university coursework in literature, linguistics,
and methods; both Schulz and Raymond called for greater
communication between the mentor teacher and
university faculty concerning the best practices for foreign

44

language teaching. Mentor teachers and university faculty

need to work collaboratively to provide field experience
settings in which preservice teachers can utilize and apply
what they have learned in their courses. Education theory
and methodology should not be removed from the practice
of teaching of real students in real classrooms.
In addition to stressing that the preparation of teachers
is the joint responsibility of departments of foreign languages and education, the ACTFLINCATE Program
Standards (2002) state that foreign language teacher development programs need to promote the development of foreign language proficiency as a primary goal, to include field
experiences prior to student teaching that incorporate
experiences in foreign language classrooms, and to offer
candidates opportunities to participate in study abroad programs and/or intensive immersion experiences in a target
language community The teachers in this survey also
maintained that these characteristics and components
should be included in optimal foreign language teacher
education programs.
The goal of this survey was to gain from teachers in the
field recommendations for improving the professional
development of future foreign language teachers. A call
for action, grounded in an empirical approach to creating
better teacher education programs is strongly suggested by
the survey data. Foreign language programs should
include:
(1) More time spent in carefully supervised and
monitored prestudent-teaching field experiences;
(2) Longer student teaching internships;
( 3 ) More time spent in language learning experiences
in countries where the target language is spoken;
(4) More emphasis on developing foreign language
proficiency in the requisite university classes; and
(5) More effort spent on teaching effective classroom
management.
The GSTEP committee that conducted this survey
plans to enact the suggestions listed above at the University
of Georgia, where about 20% of the respondents received
their professional preparation. For example, the prestudent-teaching field experiences will be expanded to include
partnerships with area elementary, middle, and high
schools so that senior-year students enrolled in foreign language elementary school and secondary school methods
courses in the fall semester can gain teaching experience
before the student teaching internship in the spring semester. The student teaching internship will be increased to 15
weeks (i.e., a full semester). Although there exist several
options for study abroad experiences, many students are
not prepared to incur the considerable financial expense.
Although there has not been a concerted effort to locate
and procure funds to establish study abroad scholarships
for prospective foreign language teachers, the effort will be

SPRING 2004

made now. With the publication of the ACTFWCATE

Program Standards, there are clear guidelines for aligning
foreign language courses with the proficiency goals. Finally,
methods courses will better help foreign language teacher
candidates develop classroom management skills so that
they can better establish an optimal classroom environment. One way to accomplish this goal is to have the candidates observe model classes in which the teacher has
been able to establish and maintain the desired order. These
initiatives will be a continuation of the collaborative work
already accomplished by the GSTEP ~ o m m i t t e e . ~
A larger question arises: Are good teachers born or
made? If one believes that the ability to teach is a gift like
musical or artistic talent, then one will maintain that those
individuals born with an intuitive understanding of the
teaching process are destined to become good teachers; any
kind of training will have no or little effect on their development as teachers. On the other hand, if one takes a more
scientific approach, it may be argued that individuals can
learn in a systematic, logical fashion to become effective
teachers by taking courses in pedagogy and subject areas
and by completing supervised internships. The answer to
the question probably lies somewhere in the middle
(although perhaps closer to the teaching is a science
side): that is, most individuals can learn through conscious
effort to become more effective teachers, even those who
are naturally gifted and do not seem to need any help.
This view is also what Schulz (2000) found in her survey of articles in The Modem LanguageJournal on foreign
language teacher development from 1916 to 1999. She
wrote: During the early 20th century, the belief was still
prevalent that teaching was an art and that teachers were
born rather than made (p. 495). Summarizing the major
changes that occurred in foreign language teacher
preparation and development in the last century, she
stated:
Teaching is no longer seen exclusively as an art, as it
was during the early parts of the century. Although
the creative element will always play an important
role in good teaching, we currently believe that there
are principles, processes, skills, behaviors, techniques, strategies, beliefs, and attitudes that impact
on teaching and learning and that can be empirically
studied and taught.(p. 516)
In the introduction to the ACTFUVCATE Program
Standards (20021, Schreier also underscored the belief that
the teaching process is perhaps more of a science than art
by writing:
A critical role of teacher education programs is to
make the complexity of teaching visible. This occurs
through well-crafted teacher preparation programs
that prepare candidates in subject matter and pedagogical content so that they are ready to assume the

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 37, NO. 1

ultimate challenge of practice teaching and the first

stages as beginning teachers. (p. 14)
Hearing how teachers in the field evaluated their professional preparation and their suggestions for improving
the foreign language teacher training process indeed supports the conviction that such improvement is possible and
can be achieved.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Dr. Joe Wisenbaker, Associate
Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of
Georgia, for his patience and expert assistance in the
quantitative analysis of the survey data.

Notes
1. The members of the FL GSTEP committee were: Dr. Thomas
Cooper and Dr. Joan Kelly Hall (the Department of Language
Education, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia), Ms.
Anne Hawkins (the Foreign Language Department, Grayson
High School, Loganville, GA), Dr. Richard LaFleur (the
Department of Classics, the University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia), Dr. Brigitte Rossbacher (the Department of
Germanic and Slavic Languages, the University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia), Dr. Carmen Tesser and Dr. Joel Walz (the
Department of Romance Languages, the University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia), and Dr. Melissa Young (the Foreign
Language Department, Brookwood High School, Snellville, GA).
2. The names of the 1,611 teachers were compiled from membership lists of professional associations such as the AATs, the
Classical League, and the Foreign Language Association of
Georgia. Other names of foreign language teachers were
obtained from county foreign language and language arts
supervisors in Georgia.
3. In the tables reporting the results, the 1-5 scale has been
reversed so that 5 represents the highest rating and 1 the lowest.
4. Teachers may think, first of all, of direct, overt application
of things learned in college classes, such as effective management techniques. They may not credit literature classes, for
example, with providing them with content and/or cultural
understanding that should be part of their teaching, or they
may not credit linguistics classes for helping them diagnose
pronunciation difficulties and teach students new vocabulary
through morphological recognition.
5. For example, the committee has also created a Web site (not
yet complete, however) that serves as a resource for foreign
language educators and students. This site contains teaching
resources, such as links to online worksheets, dictionaries
and classroom materials, and can be found at
http://www.gstepfl.uga.edu. The creation of a schools liaison
position designed to connect the College of Arts and Sciences
to the Department of Language Education in the College of
Education was another accomplishment of the committee.
This new position was written into departmental by-laws and
will consequently remain in effect past the life of the GSTEP

45

grant. Projects for the immediate future include aligning

foreign language education curriculum in the College of
Education and the College of Arts and Sciences with the new
ACTFLINCATE Standards for the Preparation of Foreign
Language Teachers and creating models for paired courses
between the Departments of Language Education, Classics,
Germanic and Slavic Languages, Romance Languages, and the
Foreign Language Departments of Grayson and Brookwood
High Schools. As a first step in determining which model(s)
would be most feasible to develop and implement, the foreign
language curriculum committee will compare course syllabi
from Language Education with course syllabi from the arts and
sciences departments by using the standards for foreign language learning and the ACTFUNCATE Standards as frames of
reference. Such a comparison can lead to the development of
various models of paired courses such as corequisite courses,
complementary courses, and frameworks or mechanisms to
enhance field experiences that can be incorporated into
existing courses.

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
(2002). ACTFUNCATE program standards for the preparation of
foreign language teachers. (2002). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
Bensley, L. B., Q Pope, A. (1992). A self-study instrument for
program review of graduate programs in health education.
Journal of Health Education, 23(6), 344-46.
Dillman, D. (2001). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored
design method. New York: Wiley.
Israelite, N. K., Q Hammermeister, E K. (1986). A survey of
teacher education preparation programs in education of the
hearing impaired. American Annals of the Deaf, 131(3), 232-37.
Joyner, Y G. (1991). Research into practice: The use of a student teaching study to develop and improve mathematics
methods courses for pre-service teachers. School Science and
Mathematics, 91(6), 236-39.
Lange, D. L., Q Sims, W R. (1990). Minnesota foreign language teachers perceptions of their pre-professional preparation. The Modem LanguageJoumal, 74(3), 297-310.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project
(1999). Standards for foreign language learning in the 21st
century. Yonkers, NY: Author.
Panyan, M. Y, Hillman, S. A,, Q Liggett, A. M. (1997). The role
of focus groups in evaluating and revising teacher education
programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20( l ) ,
37-46.
Parker, J., Q Spink, E. (1997). Becoming science teachers: An
evaluation of the initial stages of primary teacher training.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22( 11, 17-31.
Raymond, H. C. (2002). Learning to teach foreign languages:
A case study of six preservice teachers. NECTFL Review, 51,
16-25.
Schulz, R.A. (2000). Foreign language teacher development:
MLJ perspectives-1916-1999.
Modem Language Journal,
84(4), 494-522.

SPRING 2004

46

Appendix

Online Survey
Invitation to Participate in the Online Survey
Dear Foreign Language Educator:
The Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia, in conjunction with the Department of Teacher Education, invites
you to participate in an important state-wide project called GSTEP (Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program) to study and
recommend ways to improve foreign language teacher education in the state of Georgia.
You have been selected to participate in this study due to your association with foreign language education, and we value
your experience and knowledge as an educator. Please give us a clear picture of what is currently good about teacher training
programs in foreign languages as well as what can be improved in these programs. The survey should take only 10-15 minutes
of your time.
All data that you provide will be kept strictly confidential, to the extent possible using the Internet as a data collection
medium; only summary data will be reported at the conclusion of the study. To increase confidentiality of data, a unique ID
number is contained below. This ID number serves as a password to allow entry into the survey and to protect confidentiality.
At the conclusion of the study, all identifying information is deleted.

Online Survey of Professional Preparation

1. Before we begin, we need to ask if you currently teach in a public or private school in Georgia (kindergarten through 12th

grade).
1. Yes
2. N o
2.

Wed like to begin by asking you some demographic questions so that we can compare your answers with others across
the state.
What is your gender?
1. Male
2. Female
3. Choose not to answer

3.

How long have you been teaching?

Number of years as of 2002

4.

What language(s) do you teach?

1. French
2. German
3 . Latin
4. Spanish
5. Other
6. Choose not to answer

5.

What other languages do you teach?

years

6 . Are you a native speaker of the language you teach?

1. Yes
2. No
3 . Choose not to answer
7.

Do you teach at a
1. Private school
2. Public school
3 . Choose not to answer

This next section is about your educational background and teacher preparation.
8. What is the highest level of education youve attained?
1. Bachelors degree
2. Masters degree (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., etc)
3 . Specialist degree (Ed.S.)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 37. N O . 1

4.
5.
9.

47

Doctorate (Ed.D., Ph.D.)

Choose not to answer

Have you received your certification?

1. Yes
2. N o
3. Choose not to answer

10. Please indicate your area of certification.

11. Are you working toward certification?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Choose not to answer
Considering your present teaching experience, we are interested in knowing which required university classes provided you
with the knowledge, skills, and/or training that you use most often. For the following courses, please indicate whether you
(1) got a lot out of the course, (2) got what you needed, (3) what you got was okay, but nothing great, (4) you got
something, but not much from it, or (5) you got nothing.
12. Educational foundations
1. Got a lot
2. Got what I needed
3. What I got was okay, but nothing great
4. I got something, but not much from it
5 . I got nothing from it
6. Choose not to answer
(These response choices also followed questions 13-23)
13. Educational psychology

14. Methodology (pre-kindergarten-8th grade)

15. Methodology (high school)
16. Cross-cultural communication
17. Student teaching
18. FL conversation and composition
19. FL linguistics
20. FL phonetics
21. FL literature (pre-20th century)
22. FL literature (20th century and beyond)

23. FL cultural studies

24. Please comment about any other classes youve taken that have not been mentioned.
25. Please comment on what aspects of your training helped you the most in your teaching.
26. Please comment on what you would like to see added to the requirements for teacher preparation.
Now that you are a teacher with some experience and are aware of the many skills necessary for teaching, grade your university
coursework in giving you these skills. For the following questions, please indicate whether you think they were (1) Excellent,
couldnt be better, (2) Very good, (3) Okay, (4) Definitely lacking, ( 5 ) Not useful, waste of time.

SPRING 2004

48

27. Proficiency in the target language

1. Excellent, couldnt be better
2. Verygood
3. Okay
4. Definitely lacking
5. Not useful, waste of time
6. Choose not to answer
(These response categories also follow questions 28-37.)
28. Using the FL standards
29. Classroom management techniques
30. Planning for instruction
31. Meeting the needs of diverse students
32. Knowledge of target culture
33. Aligning instruction and assessment
34. Evaluating speaking skills
35. Evaluating other language skills
36. Understanding learning styles
37. Using technology in FL teaching
38. Please list and grade any other classes not mentioned above.
39. Please comment on what aspects of your teacher preparation were most beneficial to your present teaching assignments
(e.g. items from the above lists, study abroad, service learning, etc).
40. Please comment on what aspects were least helpful.
41. In your opinion, what should be added to the teacher training experience?
42. In your university experience, was the balance between target language content classes and pedagogy classes appropriate
according to your needs?
1. Yes
2. No
3 . Choose not to answer
Thats all of the questions. Thank you very much for your assistance.