The developmental stages of teachers is a long-standing interest for second language acquisition (SLA) researchers. The related literature is interspersed with a variety of theories addressing pre- and in-service teachers (Fuller & Bown, 1975). Drawing on a 2017 model I (Khoshnevisan) proposed concerning the developmental stages for preservice teachers, in this article I delineate the model, reiterate its strength, and finally extend the model to international teaching assistants (ITAs). To achieve that, I explain how I—as an ITA—experienced the same stages while teaching English to international students. This introspection is my academic journey while completing my PhD. I hope that the insight gained from this article can usher the academic path of future ITAs.

This article sets out to detail the developmental stages of teachers in the pertinent literature. In my 2017 article, I assert that there are multiple theories with respect to the developmental stages of teachers. I note that pre- and in-service teacher dichotomy aside, the proposed theories fail to efficiently and effectively give a comprehensive account of the developmental stages of teachers. To date, the proposed models have predominantly and inherently been hierarchical and linear. Expressed another way, these models suggest that the stages evolve developmentally and in a linear way. In this way, the reoccurrence of the stage is unlikely.

Conversely, I posit that the developmental stages of preservice teachers are nonlinear and multilayer (Khoshnevisan, 2017). In other words, a teacher may undergo different stages at different times. However, he or she can activate a layer to cater to his or her needs as the need arises. I further postulate that the model encompasses five distinctly different stages. As such, in the first stage (hesitations and doubts),

preservice teachers step into the process with uncertainty because of their lack of prior experience. Every assignment is a challenge during this stage. Arguably, this stage starts from the beginning of their enrollment in the course and may or may not continue toward the end of the process. (Khoshnevisan, 2017, para. 5)

Taking the first field experience, the second stage (recognition) begins. Attending a session in a physical classroom triggers the recognition stage. Consequently, preservice teachers learn new techniques in action (Stage 3). In other words, while preservice teachers unearth novel didactic strategies,

they smoothly move into the next level. All through this stage, preservice teachers enrich their repository of techniques to employ them in their future teaching profession. The novelty of techniques may appear perplexing at first. However, later on, preservice teachers learn to absorb new techniques in action rather than solely learning them from books. (Khoshnevisan, 2017, para. 7)

The next stage (Stage 4) is the first encounter of preservice teachers with learners. This is the first opportunity to shoulder the full responsibility to teach a classroom with English language learners. Last, building trust and confidence is the ultimate stage (Stage 5). This stage implies that

teachers have successfully constructed their teacher identity. They may not be a master as Fuller and Bown (1975) hold and it is not to say that they will not face hardships in their career. However, they are confident in their profession and they accept hardships while moving toward mastery and competency. (Khoshnevisan, 2017, para 9)

A Pragmatic Account

Every year, hundreds of students matriculate at INTO University of South Florida (USF) to realize their dreams and fulfill their ambitions of pursuing a degree at USF. The students come from a variety of nations, such as Saudi Arabia, China,  Brazil and Iran. When it comes to teaching the English language, I already had more than 10 years of experience in both EFL and ESL contexts. However, facing challenges was inevitable. A moment of quiet introspection on my experience indicates that my 2017 model of developmental stages of preservice teachers applies to ITAs, too. 

I started my profession as an ITA at INTO USF in 2017. As a nonnative-English-speaking teacher (NNEST), I encountered multiple issues. Accordingly, I started my teaching profession with hesitations and doubts. Admittedly, I expected to be confident from the outset because of my experience, but I was feeling deep doubts. I started my new occupation in complete hesitation as I was not sure of both the administrative and pedagogical mandates. Every school has its own internal mandates that educators need to fulfill, and INTO USF was no exception. Notwithstanding the broad variety of the international students at INTO USF, you need to know the culture of your new environment, and I felt confused at the beginning of my career.

As the semester started, I began unlocking the pedagogical and instructional strategies I had accumulated over the years in my repertoire. The repository of my instructional strategies coupled with my formal and informal chats with my colleagues (native-English-speaking teachers and NNESTs alike) paved the way for me to both identify and recognize best practices. In this sense—for one thing—I found the facilitative role of my colleagues and supervisor crucial to my professional development. Another significant point to ponder was the role of professional development days when educators come together to delineate best practices with the same population—international students who are studying at INTO USF—and the same material. As such, professional development days familiarized me with the modus operandi of being successful. These sessions saved me time and energy in finding the recipe for success. With the assistance of colleagues and professional development days, each ITA has a supervisor who is willing to help. I was certain that there was a professional supervisor out there to help me, and I was lucky to have a competent supervisor who was a graduate of the same major I am studying. In this sense, I felt less stressed and more confident. For me, this was the beginning of a confidence-building period in my career. In this respect, the confidence-building process was quickened.

I already had a certain number of instructional strategies to offer, but constant exposure to experienced colleagues, attending professional development sessions, and formal and informal sessions with my supervisor facilitated the process, allowing me to acquire more strategies. ITAs are inherently different from preservice teachers in that the repertoire of instructional strategies of preservice teachers is rather empty. Yet again, it appears that we—preservice teachers and I—both underwent the same process in that we learned new techniques in action. As such, I experienced a dramatic change in my teaching methods. Accordingly, my teaching strategies matured as the semester advanced.

I was building an unprecedented confidence as an ITA as time passed. I was taking full control of the situation, and I was seeking opportunities to put my instructional strategies into practice. I am doing my PhD in technology in education and second language acquisition, and I am thrilled to incorporate the cutting-edge technologies into my teaching practices. Every session was a new experience and opportunity because I could practice new teaching techniques. In contrast, preservice teachers do not have the luxury of teaching courses and are in need of teaching for several hours so that they can showcase what they learned.

I was building trust and confidence by the end of the first semester. The result of evaluation forms together with informal chats with my students implied that the native-English-speaking teacher/NNEST dichotomy is problematized, but my students had trust in me and they did not discriminate against me as an NNEST. My teaching experience shows that students predominantly discriminate against NNESTs, this is certainly not the only reality ITAs face. It is nonetheless worth mentioning that I was confident with my instructional strategies in this phase.

According to past models of the developmental stages of teachers in the pertinent literature (Fuller & Bown,1975; Khoshnevisan, 2017), this process was considered linear and developmental. However, my experience—consistent with my earlier model of developmental stages of preservice teachers (Khoshnevisan, 2017)—indicates that the developmental stages of ITAs aligns with said model. My experience, in retrospect, corroborates the model as it was nonlinear and multilayer. For instance, as the second semester started I did not feel as confident as I was by the end of the first semester. A new course together with novel expectations made me hesitant of my once-established capabilities. All through the second semester, I had to navigate through different stages at different times, depending on my needs. As an illustration, cross-cultural differences were thorny issues in terms of international students. For example, when it came to an issue that might be face threatening, I was perplexed and uncertain of how to tackle the issue. In times of confusion and uncertainty, there seems to be reoccurrence of different stages. In this sense, the stages are nonlinear.

Conclusion

This article shed light on the existing theories regarding the developmental stages of teachers. To report an ITA experience and to juxtapose it with the model of preservice teachers, I was inclined to indulge in retrospection. This article covered a period of self-doubt and self-examination so that the applicability of the model to ITAs became evident. In addition, the role of supervisors in the academic journey of ITAs is integral. It is therefore imperative that supervisors and/or colleagues help ITAs move beyond and above one single stage so navigating across the stages is facilitated and hastened. Similarly, the wax and wane of different stages coupled with the reoccurrence of different stages at different times confirm the nonlinear nature of the model. In short, the stages of teacher development are cyclical and multilayered.

References

Fuller, F., & Brown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Khoshnevisan, B. (2017, September). Developmental stages of preservice teachers: A critical analysis. TEIS News. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolteis/issues/2017-09-25/2.html

Babak Khoshnevisan is a PhD candidate in the Technology in Education and Second Language Acquisition (TESLA) Program at the University of South Florida. He is an instructor at INTO USF. His research interests include teacher education, computer-assisted language learning, identity, and idiomaticity.