Language Teacher Classroom Management Competencies: Evaluation and Recommendations

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of Foreign Languages

BACHELOR'S THESIS

Language Teacher Classroom Management Competencies: Evaluation and Recommendations

Field of study: linguistics

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication

Maria Melezhnikova

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Theoretical Part. The comparison of the Cambridge English Teaching Framework with FGOS and Profstandart

1.1 Definition of key terms

1.2 Cambridge English Teaching Framework

1.3 FGOS (Federal Educational Standard

1.4 Teacher Profstandart

2. Empirical Part. Designing Instruments for Classroom Management Skills Evaluation

2.1 Methods

2.1.1 Methods for creating CM skills observation checklist

2.1.2 Methods for creating the test with case studies

2.2 Results

2.2.1 Results of practical implementation of CM skills observation checklist

2.2.2 Results of practical implementation of the test with case studies

2.3 Discussion

2.3.1 Discussion of the results of practical implementation of CM skills observation checklist

2.3.2 Discussion of the results of practical implementation of the test with case studies

Conclusion

References

Appendices

Introduction

Nowadays the popularity of English language teaching and learning is constantly growing. For this reason measuring language teacher qualifications is becoming an issue of paramount importance. Numerous educational organisations around the world have been developing various professional standards and frameworks of competencies to assess teachers' knowledge and skills. One of the most widespread frameworks is the Cambridge English Teaching Framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018) developed by Cambridge University. In Russia teacher professional competencies are described in such documents as Federal Educational Standard for higher education (FGOS) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2019) and Teacher Professional Standard (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013). However, few assessment tools have been designed based on these frameworks. Assessment instruments allow decision-makers (managers of educational organisations, accreditation bodies) to identify certain behaviours that indicate the presence of a competency in teachers' performance, therefore they are connecting theoretical models to teaching practice.

In this paper the focus will be made on comparing classroom management competencies in the Cambridge English Teaching Framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018), Federal Educational Standard for higher education (FGOS) for pedagogical (44.03.01) qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015), Federal Educational Standard for higher education (FGOS) for linguistics (45.03.02) qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) and Teacher Professional Standard (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) and designing tools for their evaluation.

The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that although classroom management competencies are presented in the above mentioned documents, there is no unified accessible way to measure the quality of them. There can be identified two main problems concerning the evaluation of classroom management competencies. cambridge professional standard english

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that various evaluation tools (mostly observation checklists) exist, however, they are developed by individual institutions to fulfil their own educational and assessment goals and can be applied only in the context of a certain institution. Moreover, sometimes classroom management competencies are mixed with competencies from another category or a focus is not made on classroom management competencies. As an example an observation checklist from the website of Craven Community College (Craven Community College, 2012) can be taken where various teacher competencies are presented. So, to assess classroom management competencies more precisely a separate list should be devised.

Secondly, there are special methods of evaluation classroom management competencies based on the Cambridge English Teaching Framework. They are implemented into international exams and courses for language teachers such as Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT), Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages (CELTA), In-service Certificate in English Language Teaching (ICELT) and Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (Delta). The problem is that the access to these evaluation instruments for wide use cannot be gained as they are considered to be private intellectual property of Cambridge Assessment (Cambridge Assessment, 2019). The descriptions of classroom management competencies required to complete the courses successfully can be found in the corresponding syllabi and handbooks for candidates (Cambridge English Assessment, 2019). However, the exact observation checklists are not available for general use.

Thus, the aim of this research is to design instruments which are based on theoretical background for evaluating classroom management competencies.

The object of the research: foreign language teacher competencies.

The subject of the research: evaluation of classroom management competencies.

Research objectives:

1. to define key terms

2. to compare classroom management competencies in FGOS and the Cambridge framework;

3. to compare classroom management competencies in Teacher Professional Standard and the Cambridge framework;

4. to make a checklist of classroom management skills for evaluation;

5. to devise a test with case studies for evaluating classroom management skills;

6. to test the effectiveness of the checklist;

7. to check the effectiveness of the test with case studies on two groups of students;

8. to suggest improvements for the checklist;

9. to suggest improvements and give recommendations for the test.

In this paper the following research methods are used:

1. analysis of frameworks and standards;

2. a questionnaire to collect background information about the participants;

3. classroom observation for testing the effectiveness of the checklist;

4. experiment for identifying how valid the test with case studies is.

The structure of the paper

This research paper contains an introduction, a theoretical part where FGOS for pedagogical qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015), FGOS for linguistics qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) and Teacher Professional Standard (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) are compared to the Cambridge English Teaching Framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018) to identify the basis for designing evaluation tools for classroom management competencies, an empirical part where the development of two evaluation instruments - an observation checklist and a test with case studies - are described and the results of their practical implementation are presented and discussed, a conclusion, references and three appendices.

1. Theoretical part

The comparison of the Cambridge English Teaching Framework with FGOS and Profstandart

In this part of the paper Russian state requirements for teacher competencies (Federal Educational Standard (further - FGOS) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014; Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015) and Teacher Professional Standard (further - Profstandart)) (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) will be compared with internationally recognised Cambridge English Teaching Framework (further - Cambridge framework) (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018) in order to analyse the differences and create a more complete picture of teacher competencies. The focus will be made on classroom management skills (further - CM skills) of a language teacher. The place of CM skills will be identified in each of these documents and it will be found out which one (or a combination of them) is more suitable to follow for designing a list of CM skills which could be used as an evaluation tool.

NB! All abbreviations from Russian documents will be transliterated.

In this part of the research the following purposes will be achieved:

1. to define key terms: classroom management, competence and competency

2. to analyse and compare teacher standards and frameworks related to classroom management competencies

3. to decide which framework or standard to follow (or to combine them) for designing CM evaluation instruments further.

1.1 Definition of key terms

According to TKT (teaching knowledge test - internationally recognised methodology test for English language teachers) Glossary 2015 the term “classroom management” is defined in the following way:

Classroom management (further - CM) is the things teachers do to organise the classroom, the learning and the learners, such as organising seating arrangements, organising different types of activities, and managing interaction patterns. (Cambridge English Language Assessment, 2015, p.7)

The concept of CM itself is not new and it is not applicable only to language learning. The problems of orginising the learning process have been concerning teachers since education appeared. However, in the form we understand CM today it started to develop in the 20^th century and is closely related to the development of psychology as many other pedagogical concepts.

The modern understanding of CM is based on three main theories in this sphere (Lynch, 2016). They are Skinner's Operant Conditioning (1960s), Glasser's Choice Theory (1998) and Kohn's Student Directed Learning Theory (2006).

Skinner's Operant Conditioning

B.F. Skinner made a huge contribution to the theory of learning. He claimed that learning takes place when a certain response to an event in person's environment is positively evaluated (in his terms, when a stimuli-response (S-R) pattern is rewarded by any means: praise, good marks, etc.). In such conditions it is very likely that the type of behavior will be repeated in the future. He also highlighted that the information should be presented in small portions. His theory played a significant role in the development of classroom management theory and the following assumptions were taken from it into CM (Skinner, 1953):

· new knowledge or skills should be introduced gradually, step-by-step, in small amounts;

· a learner must receive an immediate feedback after each step;

· positive results should be further reinforced with praise, bonuses, good marks, etc.;

· teaching material should be arranged according to the level of difficulty, starting from the easiest tasks and proceeding to the most difficult ones so that learners could feel a sense of achievement after each new step (Lynch, 2016).

Glasser's Choice Theory

Another theory that forms the basis of modern understanding of CM was developed by an American psychologist William Glasser (2001). He believed that five basic needs drive human behavior: survival, love and belonging, freedom, fun and power. He claimed that people can choose how they behave. It means that bad behavior in classroom is a result of inadequate satisfaction of students' needs. In light of this, according to Glasser (2001), firstly, a teacher should be a manager for students who guides their learning process and explains why they have to work hard and be obedient, how it will influence their future. He believed that a teacher can achieve this aim by building positive relationships with students and creating a productive learning environment. Secondly, in planning lessons a teacher should rely mostly on satisfying students' needs in order to make the leaning meaningful for them. In this case disruptive behavior will be minimised while learning will become more effective. The following principles can be extracted from his theory as guidance for schools and teachers (Glasser, 2001):

1. establishing positive relationships with students should be a priority because it inspires constructive environment whereas coercion can never result in quality;

2. teachers expect high-quality work from their students. If students fail to demonstrate this, teachers encourage students to repeat tasks until they achieve mastery in a certain area of knowledge or skills;

3. self-evaluation is encouraged because it allows students to take responsibility for their own leaning process and become more independent and autonomous.

Kohn's Student Directed Learning Theory

Alfie Kohn emphasises that competition and other external factors used as a source of motivation for learning have a detrimental effect on long-term education for a person (Kohn, 2000). He points out that teachers should rather rely on intrinsic motivation instead of extrinsic one. From his point of view curiosity and cooperation should be encouraged in the classroom and standardised learning should be minimalized because it cannot satisfy students' needs as all students are individuals and have different needs and different pace of acquiring new knowledge. He believes that when curiosity is encouraged there is no disruptive behavior and the system of rewards and punishments is not needed. He criticises the traditional system of education for putting too much value on achievement rather than learning itself. To implement his system teachers should design curricula with the topics which are more interesting for students so that students focus on gaining new knowledge which they need instead of competition and achievement.

Kohn identifies the following features of ideal student-centered classroom (Kohn, 2000):

1. there are various activities done in groups;

2. students' projects are presented to others;

3. student discuss and exchange ideas;

4. teacher guides students and monitors their work;

5. students are engaged in learning and are eager to ask questions;

6. different activities can be done at the same time in classroom.

To summarise everything mentioned above it can be noticed that although these three theories are different, they have numerous common traits. They all see building positive attitude to learning as an issue of paramount importance. They highlight the significance of personalised learning and satisfying individual students' needs for the development of a person. The Glasser's and Kohn's theories encourage teachers to promote intrinsic motivation in students as it makes learning more effective and enhances the quality of life in general.

This is the theoretical background of the main principles of today's CM theory. Next, the description of the ways in which these principles are realised in practice and the requirements for a teacher according to various standards will be provided, and the attempt will be made to identify what competencies a teacher needs to apply these principles into practice.

Here it is useful to define the terms “competence” and “competency”.

Competencies are those characteristics - knowledge, skills, mindsets, thought patterns, and the like - that, when used either singularly or in various combinations, result in successful performance. (Dubois, 1998).

Human competence - a worthy performance, which is a function of the ratio of valuable accomplishments to effective behavior, measuring specific, and objective milestones describing what people have to accomplish to consistently achieve or exceed the goals for their role, team, division, and whole organization. (Gilbert, 1996).

So, it is seen from the definitions that a competency is a certain skill or piece of knowledge whereas a competence is a set of such skills. The term “competence” is broader than “competency”. The definitions provided above came from the sphere of human resource (HR) management. In foreign language teaching a “competency” can be defined in the following way:

Competency - `the technical skills and professional capabilities that a teacher needs to bring to a position in order to fulfill its functions completely' (BALEAP, 2008).

In this paper the term “competency” will be used in the meaning “professional skill”. “Classroom management competencies” and “classroom management skills” will be used as synonyms here.

1.2 Cambridge English Teaching Framework

Various educational and governmental institutions throughout the world have been developing requirements and frameworks of competencies for teachers. The aim of such work is to ensure the quality of education by training new teachers in accordance with certain standards, by evaluating current teachers and by enabling professional development.

Cambridge English Teaching Framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018) has been developed by Cambridge University and received world-wide recognition. It contains level-by-level descriptors of each area of teacher professional competencies. Such competencies are organized into five main areas: “Learning and the learner”, “Teaching, Learning and Assessment”, “Language Ability”, “Language Knowledge and Awareness” and “Professional Development and Values”. The levels of teacher professionalism include: foundation, developing, proficient and expert. The framework is orginised as a table where each area of competency can be described at each of four levels.

Extended research has been done to design the framework and the data collected from materials of Cambridge teaching qualifications (CELTA, ICELT and Delta) have been used to describe levels and to identify competency areas.

The Framework has been created to help teachers to understand their place in continuous professional development and to set goals for further work (Cambridge English Language Assessment (b), 2018).

In this research the closer attention will be paid to the subcategory `Managing language learning' which is included into broader category `Teaching, Learning and Assessment'. Managing language learning in turn consists of four competency groups: `Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment', `Responding to learners', `Setting up and managing classroom activities' and `Providing feedback on learner language'.

The terms “competency main area”, “competency category” and “competency section” will be used as synonyms to denote such categories of competencies as `Teaching, learning and assessment' or `Learning and the learner'. Respectively, `Managing language learning' or `Using language-learning resources and materials' will be called `subareas', `subcategories', `subsections'. Further subdivision in the subareas (e.g. `Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment') will be referred to as `groups of competencies'. It will be done to avoid repetition of the terms, on the one hand, and to be consistent and not to mix `umbrella areas' with the more specific ones.

In a new version of the framework the above mentioned groups of competencies are described and explained in greater detail (Cambridge English Language Assessment (c), 2018). Below a brief overview about each competency is provided.

`Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment' includes the knowledge of the main features of learner-centered approach, the ability to motivate learners, to maintain discipline and focus on task, etc.

`Responding to learners' involves understanding of learner styles and differences, principles of teacher talk, nominating, elicitation, interaction patterns, the rules of use of mother tongue in foreign language classroom, etc.

`Setting up and managing classroom activities' means the ability of a teacher to give instructions, to time activities, to group learners and help them to communicate with each other, to monitor effectively during pair and group work, etc.

`Providing feedback on learner language' implies the ability to use different techniques for correcting written and spoken language: teacher-led correction, self-correction, peer correction, the use of correction code, etc.

The Framework provides detailed descriptors and is designed specifically for foreign language teachers that is why it will be taken as a basis for comparison with two Russian professional documents for teachers (not necessarily language teachers): FGOS (federal state educational standard) for undergraduate trainee teachers and professional standard for teachers.

1.3 FGOS (Federal Educational Standard)

The core document in Russian education system is FGOS - federal educational standard. FGOS is a set of requirements that exists for each level of education: pre-school, primary, secondary, high, and at higher education level: undergraduate and post graduate programmes. A special variation of FGOS has been developed for students with special needs (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2019).

The standard has been created in order to unify all educational programmes around the Russian Federation and to establish a continuous step-by-step education and smooth transition from level to level.

There are three types of requirements in each standard:

· for structure of the educational programmes;

· for conditions of its realisation;

· for the results of the educational process at each level.

In the current research FGOS of undergraduate level will be analysed because the focus of the study is to find out what CM competencies a novice teacher of English should possess. The standards for higher education are divided into fields of study and there is a separate document for each field of study. Since this paper concerns language teacher qualifications two standards will be taken for comparison: for pedagogical education (qualification number 44.03.01) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015) and linguistics (qualification number 45.03.02) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014).

The two documents have been chosen for the following reasons. The major qualification for teaching in Russia is the former one. However, in its description there is no division by school subject (Russian, Maths, English), there are only general requirements for teachers irrespective of the subject they teach. The linguistics qualification presents competencies a language specialist must possess including a language teacher (language teaching is one of the subdivision of the qualification). Thus, it is quite reasonable to subject to analysis both standards to see what competencies a teacher (in general) and a language specialist should have.

It is significant to mention that FGOS recognises three types of competencies which must be acquired by bachelor degree students by the end of their study.

1. General cultural competencies (OK) are general ability to orient oneself in the common system of values, to understand the principles of cultural relativism, to have intercultural and social communication skills, to have general study skills, to respect national values and to develop personally, etc.

2. General professional competencies (OPK) are common competencies for a whole set of professions in a field. For pedagogical and linguistics qualifications such competencies include: to be able to understand interdisciplinary connections between the subjects related to the main professional area, to have linguistic knowledge about the foreign language, to have social and discourse competencies, to be able to work with IT resources for linguistic and teaching purposes, to be able to estimate and do research in the field, to orient oneself in the labour market, to know basic laws in the professional field, to understand the importance of profession, to be able to teach taking learner differences into account, etc.

3. Specific professional competencies (PK) are competencies for the specific qualification (for example, only for pedagogical or only for linguistics).

As general cultural competencies are very broad only general professional (OPK) and specific professional (PK) competencies will be compared with the Cambridge framework in the areas that can to greater or lesser extent be attributed to classroom management in order to make a list of CM skills.

Pedagogical qualification (44.03.01)

General professional competencies (OPK)

Six basic general competencies are distinguished for pedagogical qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015):

1. understanding the importance of the profession (OPK-1);

2. the ability to teach in general taking learner differences into account (OPK-2);

3. being ready to provide psychological and pedagogical support (OPK-3);

4. fulfilling the official requirements in the sphere of education (OPK-4);

5. being able to communicate ethically (OPK-5);

6. being ready to create safe (for life and health of the learners) learning environment (OPK-6).

Comparing these competencies with CM competencies from the Cambridge framework it can be noticed that the competencies from FGOS are quite fundamental. However, the ability to teach taking learner differences into account and being ready to provide psychological and pedagogical support from FGOS (can be included into the group `Responding to learners' of the Cambridge framework. The rest can be described as the basis for all other CM competencies.

Specific professional competencies (PK)

The following specific professional competencies are presented in FGOS for pedagogical qualification:

1. the ability to teach according to state standards (PK-1);

2. the ability to use modern methods and techniques (PK-2);

3. the ability to participate in students' upbringing and personal development, (PK-3);

4. the ability to use educational opportunities to achieve personal, metasubject and subject results (PK-4);

5. the ability to help students to socialise and choose their future profession (PK-5);

6. the ability to communicate with other participants of the educational process (PK-6);

7. the ability to organise collaboration between students, encourage learner autonomy and develop their creative skills (PK-7).

In this part of FGOS CM skills can also be included indirectly in each competency, however, in competencies number two and seven they seem to be more transparent. Thus, `the ability to use modern teaching methods and techniques' correlates with groups of competencies `Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment' and `Setting up and managing classroom activities'. `The ability to organise collaboration between students…' is close to `Setting up activities…' of the Cambridge framework. The fifth competency from FGOS `the ability to help students to socialise…' can also be partially included either into `setting up activities…' or into `responding to learners' or into both of them because the former one involves helping learners to interact with each other and the latter one implies that a teacher should understand and be able to deal with learner differences.

To sum up, from FGOS for pedagogical qualification the following competencies can correlate with CM competencies from Cambridge classification.

General professional competencies (OPK):

· the ability to teach taking learner differences into account (OPK-2);

· being ready to provide psychological and pedagogical support (OPK-3).

Specific professional competencies (PK):

· the ability to use modern methods and techniques (PK-2);

· the ability to help students to socialise and choose their future career (PK-5);

· the ability to organise collaboration between students, encourage learner autonomy and develop their creative skills (PK-7).

Linguistics qualification (45.03.02) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014)

Now the requirements for linguistics qualification (teaching subdivision) will be analysed.

General professional competencies (OPK):

There are much more expected general professional competencies for linguistic qualification (twenty compared to six for pedagogical qualification). Most of them are quite broad and include such competencies as the ability to communicate in a variety of contexts, the knowledge of the foreign language, the ability to use IT resources for professional purposes, the ability to do research, etc. Here only relevant ones to CM competencies will be enumerated. The competency OPK-4 implying the ability to organise communication between representatives of different cultures can be included in CM because sometimes an English teacher may face a situation of teaching a multilingual class. It also corresponds with the area `Setting up activities…' from the Cambridge framework. Moreover, computer literacy competency (OPK-11) can be added here as a teacher sometimes has to organise work using electronic resources in class. However, this competency is not included in `Managing language learning' but is related to the subarea `Using language resources and materials' in the Cambridge framework. The competency OPK-19 can be called CM competency because the ability to work effectively with a group is implied here (in general).

It can be concluded that three competencies from general professional competencies (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) are related to CM competencies. They are:

· being able to behave and communicate according to the norms of a foreign culture and possessing the knowledge of typical communicative situations that can occur between the representatives of different cultures as well as the ability to use such knowledge (OPK-4);

· having computer literacy skills (OPK-11);

· the ability to organise groups to achieve common goals (OPK-19).

It can be noted that the aforementioned competencies are more general and less related to teaching compared to the same section of FGOS for pedagogical qualification (44.03.01) (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015).

Specific professional competencies (PK)

Next the specific professional competencies of linguists (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) will be subjected to analysis. For this qualification they are divided into five subareas. A closer look will be taken at the first one - teaching a foreign language. There are six specific professional competencies in this subarea:

1. the knowledge of theoretical basics of language teaching methodology and the development of intercultural competence (PK-1);

2. having language teaching skills, knowledge of language teaching and learning processes (PK-2);

3. the ability to use coursebooks and other teaching resources to create new resources on a particular topic (PK-3);

4. the ability to use knowledge of Russian and foreign language teaching methodology to solve problems in teaching practice (PK-4);

5. the ability to analyse the teaching and learning process and resources in terms of their effectiveness (PK-5);

6. the ability to manage the teaching and learning process effectively according to the specific requirements of the courses (PK-6).

From this list only the last competency can be related to CM competencies from the Cambridge framework and it is quite general. It cannot be identified to which section of the area `Managing language learning' the competency can be attributed.

Nonetheless, two of the above mentioned competencies `the ability to use coursebooks and other resources…' and `the ability to analyse the learning process and resources' can be included into the area `Using language-learning resources and materials' which is closely connected to classroom management and some methodologists (Harmer, 2007) consider using resources effectively as a CM competency.

So, from FGOS for linguistic qualification (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) the following competencies can correlate with CM competencies from the Cambridge framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018).

General professional competencies (OPK):

· the knowledge and the ability to use the norms of a foreign culture as well as being able to communicate according to the norms with the representatives of other cultures (OPK-4);

· being able to organise groups for achieving common goals (OPK-19).

Specific professional competencies (PK):

· the ability to manage teaching and learning process effectively (PK-6).

Several competencies from FGOS for linguistic qualification can be related to the subarea `Using language learning resources and materials' of the Cambridge framework.

General professional competencies (OPK):

· computer literacy skills (OPK-11).

Specific professional competencies (PK):

· ability to use coursebooks and other resources to create new teaching materials (PK-3);

· ability to analyse the teaching and learning process and resources in terms of their effectiveness (PK-5).

The table below summarises the results of the comparison of CM competencies in FGOS and the Cambridge framework.

Table 1. The comparison of CM competencies in FGOS and the Cambridge framework

Cambridge framework Competency area/subarea title	FGOS
Managing language learning: Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment	Pedagogical. Specific professional: the ability to use modern teaching methods and techniques
Managing language learning: Responding to learners	Pedagogical. General professional: the ability to teach taking learner differences into account Pedagogical. General professional: being ready to provide psychological and pedagogical support Pedagogical. Specific professional: the ability to help students to socialise and choose their future profession
Managing language learning: Setting up and managing classroom activities	Pedagogical. Specific professional: the ability to use modern teaching methods and techniques Pedagogical. Specific professional: the ability to organise collaboration between students, encourage learner autonomy and develop their creative skills Pedagogical. Specific professional: the ability to help students to socialise and choose their future profession Linguistics. General professional: the knowledge and the ability to use the norms of a foreign culture and being able to communicate according to the norms with the representatives of other cultures
Managing language learning: Providing feedback on learner language	-
Using language-learning resources and materials: Selecting, adapting, supplementing and using learning materials	Linguistics. Specific professional: the ability to use coursebooks and other resources to create new teaching materials Linguistics. Specific professional: the ability to analyse the teaching and learning process and resources in terms of their effectiveness
Using language-learning resources and materials: Using digital resources	Linguistics. General professional: computer literacy skills
	Linguistics. General professional: the ability to organize groups to achieve common goals - can be related to any competency. Linguistics. Specific professional: the ability to manage teaching and learning process effectively - can be related to any competency.

In conclusion it can be said that there is at least one competency from FGOS that can be classified into one of the groups of competencies in the subarea `Managing language learning' except for the group “Providing feedback on learner language” where there is no suitable competency in FGOS. In addition to this, two more groups (`Selecting, adapting, supplementing and using learning materials' and `Using digital resources') from the subarea `Using language-learning resources and materials' of the Cambridge framework have been added as they are connected to classroom management and sometimes (Harmer, 2007) are included into it.

1.4. Teacher Profstandart

Professional standard (Profstandart) (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) of a teacher is a document which reflects a set of requirements for education, level of professional competence and personal traits of a teacher or a candidate for being a teacher (MTSFER, 2018) .

There are certain aims for creating the standard (MTSFER, 2018):

· to create an accurate description of teacher competence which correlate with the objectives of the educational system;

· to develop certain criteria for recruiting teachers;

· to provide teachers with extensive information about qualification requirements;

· to develop ways and methods of teacher education, including further professional development;

· to create appropriate conditions for continuous professional development of teachers.

The structure of Profstandart

The document contains four main parts. In the first one the general information about the essence of the document is given. In the second part the summary of the professional functions is provided and it is organized as a table. In the third part the detailed description by categories (description of general functions; description of qualifications at each level of education) can be found. The term “functions” here can correlate with the term “competency area” applied for Cambridge framework. General professional functions include teaching, upbringing and development. Levels of education in Profstandart include pre-school, primary, secondary, high school. Specific characteristics of a subject teacher can be found in Profstandart. However, now only two subjects are described: the Russian language and Mathematics. The fourth part of the document contains the information about its authors.

Competencies for secondary (and high) school level

In the current research firstly the teaching functions at secondary (and high) school level will be compared with the Cambridge framework because this level is a core element of the education system. Then the comparison will be supplemented by descriptions of teacher functions at pre-school and primary school levels. After that, the relevant characteristics from `general' functions (teaching, upbringing, development) will be added.

In the description of teacher's skills at secondary school there are a number of skills that can refer to CM skills and can be compared and classified according to the Cambridge framework. Two of them - “to develop problem-based teaching, to show students a connection between theory and practice, to discuss with students up-to-date information about modern world” and “to be able to deal with conflicts effectively” can be related to `Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment' because the former one deals with encouraging learners and building their motivation and the latter one concerns creating a psychologically safe learning environment.

Other two skills correlate with the area “Responding to students”. They are “to analyse what are the most effective ways of teaching each individual learner” and “to be able to develop with other specialists an individual way of learning concerning learners' individual needs” that is similar to “understanding learner styles, differences and difficulties” from the Cambridge framework. To the same group the skill “to be able to communicate effectively with learners of different age groups and their parents” can be added.

The skill that can be relevant to the group “Setting up activities” is “to organize individual work of students including research” however, it is more general than what is implied by the framework because in the framework the focus is on a lesson whereas in the Profstandart the learning process in general is implied.

The fourth area of the framework is not covered in Profstandart at all because it is specifically about language and there is no special area in Profstandart about foreign language teaching yet. Nevertheless, there can be found several statements about assessment in general in Profstandart. So, the competency “to use modern ways of assessment including digital resources (electronic school diaries, etc)” can be related to “Providing feedback (on language)”.

Also, as mentioned above two competencies from the area “Using language-learning resources and materials” will be included in classroom management because sometimes they are described as CM competencies. In light of this, such competencies as “To know basic syllabi and coursebooks” and “To develop syllabi on the basis of sample state syllabi for schools” can be classified into the group “Selecting, adapting, supplementing and using learning materials” and “to use modern educational methods and techniques including IT and digital resources” and “to have basic computer literacy skills” can go to “Using digital resources”.

Competencies for pre- and primary school level

The competencies of a teacher at pre- and primary school level are quite similar. At earlier stages the focus is more on learner differences, identifying needs for different age groups, etc. At pre-school level one competency is directly connected with managing language learning - “to create a safe and positive learning environment” and refers to the first group.

General professional functions

General teacher functions (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) also have much in common with secondary level teacher competencies. Only several skills can be added here.

From teaching function we can add “Creating a positive learning environment in the educational organization” and “to motivate” to “Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment”, “to consider individual needs” into “Responding to learners” and “Develop students' digital skills” and “Computer literacy” to “Using resources”.

From the upbringing function we can put “to maintain discipline” and “to maintain a constructive learning environment” into “Creating and maintaining…”, “to take learner differences into account” into “Responding to learners” and “to manage groups for learning purposes” into “Setting up activities”.

From developmental function statements about learner differences can be taken.

The results of the comparison can be summarised in the following table.

Table 2. The comparison of CM competencies in Profstandart and the Cambridge framework

Cambridge framework (competency area/subarea title)	Profstandart
Managing language learning: Creating and maintaining a constructive learning environment	Creating a positive learning environment in the educational organization (teaching function) Motivate (teaching function) Maintain discipline (upbringing function) Maintain a constructive learning environment (upbringing function) To create a safe and positive learning environment (pre-school level) To develop problem based teaching, to show students a connection between theory and practice, to discuss with students up-to-date information about modern world (secondary school level) To be able to deal with conflicts effectively (secondary school level)
Managing language learning: Responding to learners	Individual needs (teaching function) Take learner differences into account (upbringing function) Learner differences (developmental function) -to analyse what are the most effective ways of teaching each individual learner (secondary school level) -to be able to develop with other specialists an individual way of learning concerning learners' individual needs (secondary school level) To be able to communicate effectively with learners of different age groups and their parents (secondary school level)
Managing language learning: Setting up and managing classroom activities	Manage groups for learning purposes (upbringing function) To organize individual work of students including research (secondary school level)
Managing language learning: Providing feedback on learner language	-
Using language-learning resources and materials: Selecting, adapting, supplementing and using learning materials	To know basic syllabi and coursebooks (secondary school level) To develop syllabi on the basis of sample state syllabi for schools (secondary school level)
Using language-learning resources and materials: Using digital resources	Develop students' digital skills (teaching function) Computer literacy (teaching function) To use modern educational methods including IT and digital resources (secondary school level) To have basic computer literacy skills (secondary school level)

From the table it can be seen that although the competencies are described much more precisely in Profstandart (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) than in FGOS (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014; Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015), they are still not so detailed as in the Cambridge framework, and there is no division by subject yet which makes the process of specifying more difficult. In the Cambridge framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018) more attention is paid to teacher competencies at one separate lesson whereas in FGOS and Profstandart competencies are described applying to the whole learning process in general without specific characteristics of everyday teacher functions. The framework and standards overlap, though not in each group of competencies (for example, for the group `providing feedback on learner language' there are no corresponding skills in the standards because they focus on general rather than language education).

Thus, classroom management competencies are present both in Russian and foreign frameworks, though there are not singled out into a separate category in FGOS and Profstandart what makes it difficult to use for designing evaluation tools.

Therefore, the Cambridge framework as well as practical handbooks for teachers (Harmer, 2007; Scrivener, 2011) will be taken as the basis for creating a checklist of classroom management skills and a test with case studies.

2. The Empirical Part

Designing Instruments for Classroom Management Skills Evaluation

It was assumed that for evaluating CM skills two tools could be appropriate: a CM skills observation checklist and a test with case studies.

“A checklist is a series of statements that describe the critical attributes of either some procedure or product” as it is defined in the article `Checklisting' (Geis, 1984, p.2). It is also added that checklists could be helpful for both the performer of a certain procedure and a person who uses it for evaluation of the performer (Geis, 1984).

It was decided to use a checklist for CM skills evaluation because they were already used to assess teaching skills. For example, in the study `Using the Quality of Literacy Implementation Checklist to Improve Preschool Literacy Instruction' (Beecher, Abbott, Petersen & Greenwood, 2017) the checklist was applied to assess the progress preschool teachers made in their instruction delivery.

“A teaching case (or case study) is a rich narrative in which individuals or groups must make a decision or solve a problem” (Velenchik, 2018). It is noted that a case study as a teaching method should not be mixed with a case study as a research method. In research methodology “a case study is the investigation of a single instance of a class of objects or entities in the context in which it occurs” (Nunan, 2010, p.79).

In this paper a case study is understood as a teaching case. It is used here as a part of a written test to assess trainee teachers' knowledge of classroom management. Case studies can be related to open-ended questions which focus on common classroom situations.

A test with multiple choice and open-ended questions (including cases) was tried as an evaluation tool because some research points out that such combination of task types is optimal for assessing teacher competence by means of tests as it is shown in the article `Standards for Teacher Tests' (Klein, 1998).

2.1 Methods

2.1.1 CM skills observation checklist

To design a CM checklist CM competencies from the Cambridge framework (Cambridge English Language Assessment (a), 2018), FGOS for pedagogical (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015) and linguistics qualifications (Ministerstvo obrazovaniya i nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2014) and Teacher Profstandart (Ministerstvo truda i sotsialnoy zatshity Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2013) have been compiled. In addition to this, more detailed descriptions of CM skills from handbooks for teachers (Scrivener, 2011; Harmer, 2007) were analysed and the groups of competencies from the frameworks and standards were split into smaller sets of skills to produce a comprehensive and concise checklist for classroom observation use.

The checklist contains six sets of competencies:

1. Activities

2. Grouping and seating

3. Authority

4. Critical moments

5. Tools and techniques

6. Correcting learners

Each of the aforementioned sets includes approximately four (from three to six) CM skills. This classification follows Scrivener's (2011, pp.54-55) classification of CM skills. However, the last area of his classification called `Working with people was excluded from the checklist because the quality of such skills is very difficult to assess during classroom observation and the evaluation would be very subjective. Instead, the set of skills connected to correcting learners was added here because as we saw in the previous chapter giving learners feedback on language is a part of subarea `Managing language learning' in the Cambridge framework. The set of correction techniques was taken from the handbooks `Learning teaching' (Scrivener, 2011, pp.285-290) and `The Practice of English Language Teaching' (Harmer, 2007, pp.142-147).