INSTITUTO ACADÉMICO DE IDIOMAS REVISTA KRONOS

UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DEL ECUADOR 4(1), febrero-julio 2023, pp. 20-30

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29166/kronos.v4i1.4237

CC BY-NC 4.0 —Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional

Diego Cajas | Universidad Nacional de Educación unae (Ecuador)

Sara Cherres Fajardo | Universidad Nacional de Educación unae (Ecuador)

Veronica Chicaiza | Universidad Técnica de Ambato (Ecuador)

abstract

In order to improve the pre-service formation in Ecuador, the government created an education standardized cur-

riculum to be used for all Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) oering education undergraduate programs. Unfortunately,

when designing this curriculum, curriculum developers did not consider the particularities of all dierent pre-service pro-

grams existing in the country, for instance, English language teaching and focused more on primary education. This lack of

consideration for dierent education undergraduate programs resulted in diculties in adopting the standardized curriculum

in other specializations. This research presents the dierent variations existing among the English language teaching curricula

which resulted from the attempts to adopt the standardized curriculum in English language teaching pre-service formation; as

well as the challenges and diculties that curriculum developers faced during this process. Using a mixed-methods research

methodology, results showed that curriculum variations revolve around the total number of practicum hours, low percentage

of the use of English as a means of instruction, scarce common academic subjects despite the existence of common profession-

al competencies, and dierences in the total number of instruction hours.

key words Curriculum, Curriculum design, English teacher preparation, elt, professional competences of teachers.

fecha de recepción 15/11/2022 fecha de aprobación 23/01/2023

¿Cómo estamos preparando a los futuros profesores de inglés?: Un estudio de las

variaciones curriculares entre carreras que preparan profesores de inglés

resumen

Para mejorar la formación de los profesores en el Ecuador, el gobierno diseñó el currículo genérico de carreras de

educación para que sea usado por todas las universidades que ofrecen carreras de educación. Desafortunadamente, cuando se

diseñó este currículo, las personas a cargo no consideraron las particularidades de todas las carreras en educación existentes

en el país, por ejemplo, la carrera de Pedagogía de los Idiomas Nacionales y Extranjeros, y se centraron más en la carrera de

Educación Básica. Esta falta de visión relacionada con las diferentes carreras generó dicultades en la adopción del currículo

genérico. Este estudio presenta las diferentes variaciones existentes entre los currículos de la carrera de Pedagogía de los Id-

iomas Nacionales y Extranjeros en diferentes universidades, los efectos que esto causó en la formación de profesores de in-

glés, y las dicultades y retos que tuvieron las personas encargadas del desarrollo del currículo durante este proceso. Usando

una metodología de investigación mixta, los resultados muestran que las variaciones curriculares giran alrededor el número

total de horas de práctica preprofesional, un bajo porcentaje del uso del idioma inglés como medio de instrucción, pocas asig-

naturas comunes entre universidades a pesar de la existencia de competencias profesionales, más o menos estandarizadas, y

diferencias en el total de la malla curricular.

palabras clave Currículo, diseño curricular, preparación de docentes de inglés, elt, competencias profesionales del profesor..

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the

curricular variations among selected efl undergraduate programs

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

Cajas et al.

INTRODUCTION

THE SITUATION OF ENGLISH TEACHING IN ECUADOR

In 2008 the ministry of Education created a project called “Project for Improving En-

glish”. The objective of this project was to improve English Language Teaching (elt) in the

country and comprised four main components. One, the creation a new English as a For-

eign Language (

efl

) curriculum for primary and secondary education. Two, the use of the

Common European Framework language indicators as the learning outcomes for primary

and secondary years. In correspondence with this, the government also stated that students

leaving secondary education need to have a B1 level of English. Three, free distribution

of efl textbooks among primary and secondary public-school students. And four, the req-

uisite of a B2 level of English for all in-service teachers (fortalecimiento del inglés, nd).

In 2016 via a Ministerial Order, “Acuerdo Nro.

mineduc

-2016-00020-

”, the

Ministry of Education stated that English as a foreign language (efl) must be taught in the

primary and secondary public education systems. For primary education efl has to be taught

from 3 to 5 hours per week and for secondary education 5 hours, except for the last year of

secondary education where 3 hours were allotted (Ministerio de Educación, 2016). Through

this Ministerial Order the government manifested its interest in improving the quality of elt

in the public education sector. Regrettably, public policymakers did not consider the future

problems that would result during the implementation of this policy, for instance, a shortage

of English teachers as well as the current in-service teachers’ qualications.

According to Directors in some schools, the shortage of English teachers resulted in

demanding teachers from other subjects for example, ict teachers or administrative sta

such as secretaries to teach efl in their respective schools. Regarding the in-service En-

glish teachers’ qualications, there were two main problems: rst, a low level of English

prociency and second, a limited knowledge of elt methodology.

In respect of the English prociency level among in-service efl teachers, a representative

from the Ministry of Education stated that in 2014 only 10% of these teachers had a B2

level of English; and added that this percentage has improved in recent years due to language

training courses oered by the Ministry of Education (“Suciencia en inglés”, 2018). In the

same vein, the Deputy Secretary of Professional Development, an oce which is part of the

Ministry of Education, highlighted that 34% of in-service teachers had a B2 level of English

in the year 2018 and urged universities to form English teachers with the appropriate com-

petencies to eectively teach this language in public schools. She also stated that, although

there were 9,737 English teachers in the public education system at that time, there was still

a need of 4,273 teachers to meet public demand (“Solo 34% de maestros con suciencia

para el inglés”, 2018). To date, the government has not made public the exact number of

efl

teachers needed to cover the students’ demand. Yet, it can be assumed that the number

of efl teachers needed may remain the same or higher than in 2018 since the government

has not ocially hired permanent teachers for the public sector.

Regarding the B2 level of English prociency requirement for in-service efl teachers,

it is important to mention that this level needs to be validated via an international test, for

example: toefl or First Certicate of English. Yet, attaining this level of English seems to

be dicult among pre and in-service teachers.

There is no doubt that there has been an improvement of the level of English pro-

ciency among in-service English teachers in the last years. Unfortunately, the overall level

is still problematic, as mentioned before, only 34% of the current in-service teachers have

a B2 level of English. This hinders the teacher’s class performance since it may be dicult

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the curricular variations among selected e undergraduate programs

for them to properly carry out instructional class activities where they have to model the

language to their students.

Language prociency among the majority of recent graduates seeking a permanent

efl

teaching position in public schools is also problematic, as the results of the English tests

administered to these group of teachers showed. In order to have a permanent position in

the public education sector, teachers need to participate in a hiring process called “Quiero

Ser Maestro” (“I Want to be a Teacher”). This process is comprised of a psychometric test,

an English test (candidates need to demonstrate a B2 level) and a demo class. Candidates

who successfully pass all these tests will be oered a permanent position by the Ministry

of Education. In the case of efl, out of 2336 candidates who initially participated in this

process in 2017, only 117 teachers passed the English test. In other words, only 5% of the

candidates demonstrated a B2 level of English (Información Ecuador.com, n. d.).

In 2010, the Ecuadorian government stated that the Ecuadorian education was not

a quality education and legally addressed this problem via the Higher Education Law

declaring all education undergraduate programs to be in the national interest. In accor-

dance with this declaration, Article 104 of the Higher Education Law stated that the basic

curriculum contents and the criteria for the duration of the pre-professional practicum of

undergraduate programs in the national interest will be established by the Board of Higher

Education (loes, 2010).

Following the legal demands and in accordance with Article 104, the Board of Higher

Education, together with some heis, developed a national standardized curriculum for edu-

cation undergraduate programs. The development of this curriculum and the implications

for English teachers’ formation in Ecuador is described below.

THE ECUADORIAN STANDARDIZED CURRICULUM FOR EDUCATION

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

In order to understand the reasons that propelled the creation of the Standardized Curric-

ulum for Education Undergraduate Programs, it is important to refer to the changes that

the Ecuadorian higher education system has experienced in the last decade. In 2010, fol-

lowing a rigorous process of evaluation and accreditation of

hei

s which took place in 2008,

the National Assembly (formerly known as National Congress) enacted a new Higher Ed-

ucation Law. This law aimed to improve the Ecuadorian higher education system via spe-

cic legal demands, for example: the inclusion of further academic qualications for the

teaching personnel in heis, such as a Master’s or a Ph. D. title, a demand to improve teach-

ing and research in

hei

s, and a more eective connection between the

hei

s and the com-

munity though community outreach projects, among others.

With the aim of improving teaching and the quality of the undergraduate programs

in the tertiary education sector in Ecuador, heis were required to modify their curricula.

To meet this requirement,

hei

s started working individually or with other

hei

, for instance,

universities oering engineering undergraduate programs grouped with other heis oering

the same programs. Although there was support and advice from the Higher Education

Board (Consejo de Educación Superior-ces) throughout this process, heis’ curriculum

developers had the prerogative to decide on the type of curriculum modications they

would make in their programs. This, however, was not the case of heis oering education

undergraduate programs where ces took the lead in the design of a new standardized

curriculum together with 33 heis’ representatives.

The standardized curriculum for education, according to ces (2015), was an innovative

curriculum proposal, based on the following characteristics: a) pertinence to the teachers’

formation, b) curriculum exibility, c) the practice of action research as the main mechanism

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

Cajas et al.

to structure the curriculum, d) a primary focus on students via an academic and personal

tutoring system, e) emphasis on research and f) the use of innovative teaching methodologies

as well as ict integration in education. Furthermore, this curriculum comprises 41 academic

subjects to be taught in 9 semesters. According to the creators of this curriculum, one of

the most evident innovations was the duration of the pre-service teaching practicum which

amounted to 1800 hours progressively distributed along the 9 semesters.

Although the design and the principles of this standardized curriculum may have been

helpful and innovative for primary education undergraduate programs, it posed serious

problems for other specializations, for instance, teaching English as a foreign language.

Conversely, to the government idea of curriculum standardization for pre-service forma-

tion, the existing literature in the area of

elt

curriculum development provides dierent

models to facilitate the design of a curriculum that can help the formation of eective

English teachers.

However, what is shared by dierent authors is that there is not a specic curriculum

developing model considered to be perfect for elt. Finney (2002, p. 77) emphasizes that

“there is a need […] for much more discussion and research before it can be said that there

is a coherent model of

elt

curriculum planning and development”. Thus, the importance

of avoiding adhering to a single model for curriculum development. Instead, curriculum

planners need take advantage of the dierent models in order to facilitate the development

of students’ professional competencies.

In the case of English teaching pre-service formation, the curriculum needs to respond

to the current situation of English teaching in the country as well as the reality that future

teachers will face once they nish university and insert in the national education sector.

The need of developing an Innovative Curriculum for English Teaching Under-

graduate Programs

In the country, there are 60

hei

s. This includes public, private and co-funded insti-

tutions (Co-funded

hei

s are institutions partially funded by the government and students’

fees). Out of this number, 17 heis oer English language teaching undergraduate pro-

grams, 15 on a face-to-face mode and 2 online. This number represents the 28% of Ecua-

dorian universities. Moreover, this percentage also shows the students’ interest in English

language teaching pre-service formation.

A high student interest in pursuing an English teaching degree poses a huge respon-

sibility for heis; especially under the current in-service situation in the country where En-

glish prociency and elt methodology is problematic. In order to address these problems,

curriculum planners in

hei

s need to innovate their pre-service curriculum. Innovation,

however, is not always an easy task, according to Humphries and Burns (2015, p 293),

innovation “often ends in failure due to educational policies that are incompatible with the

realities of the teaching context, insucient levels of professional support, and inadequate

teaching materials”. For this reason, curriculum innovation cannot be seen as an isolated

process; it is rather a cooperative act in which national education authorities,

hei author-

ities, teachers and students need to be involved. Policies, on the other hand, have a prime

role since they need to pave the way for facilitating innovation and avoiding prescriptions.

To facilitate innovation, according to Humphries and Burns (2015, p 239-240),

there are three aspects that need to be considered, for instance “Teachers’ expectations”

which relates to teachers’ beliefs and practice, “External constraints” such as “government

policies, mandated materials, teacher performance evaluations… stakeholders” and “Internal

constraints” like “working conditions and the institutional culture”. Out of these three

aspects important consideration needs to be paid to teachers since an eective curriculum

implementation and innovation lies in their hands. Hence, the need to incorporate their

voices in “curriculum development” (Rahman, Pandian and Kaur, 2018, p. 121).

In order to eect change in English language teaching pre-service formation, curric-

ulum innovation cannot be seen as a series of general steps that need to be mechanically

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the curricular variations among selected e undergraduate programs

followed and without proper reection. First, it needs to respond to the hei’s ethos and

second “be underpinned by a clear educational philosophy” (McKimm and Jones 2017,

2015, p 520). These two aspects become the heart of the pre-service formation curriculum

since they form the values and attitudes of future English teachers.

In addition, McKimm and Jones (2017) present 12 tips for curriculum development

and considering the national conditions; the following suggestions can be considered for

creating a pertinent pre-service curriculum: 1. “Analyze the internal environment and cul-

ture”, 2. “Develop a strategy for change involving key stakeholders”, 3. “Choose the right

combination of approaches to change”, 4. “Plan for transition and loss of competence” and

5. “Don’t underestimate the complexity”.

In relation to the formation of English teachers, Kuhlman and Knežević (2014, p. 7)

suggest the use of standards; and based on the work of other authors, they mention 3 types,

for instance, a) “Content standards” which comprises “linguistics, language acquisition and

development, and culture”. b) “Pedagogical standards”, which refers to the development of

students’ English teaching competency and “assessment”, and c) “Performance standards”

which help check whether the previous standards have been met or not. The use of these

standards can be helpful for curriculum planners to check the extent of completion of En-

glish prociency acquisition and teaching competency. However, standards need to remain

general to avoid prescriptions.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology used for this study was a mixed-methods design. The core of this meth-

od is “the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches” with an aim of provid-

ing “a more complex understanding of a research problem” (Creswell, 2014, p. 4). Thus,

in order to identify the challenges that language planners experienced during the process

of developing their curricula for the English teaching undergraduate programs, this study

employed a quantitative part which was followed by a qualitative part. In the quantitative

part, there was an analysis of the existing English language teaching curriculum of the par-

ticipating

hei

s aiming to provide an overview of the current status of these undergraduate

programs in the country. In the qualitative part, interviews were conducted to 4 Directors

belonging to the participating universities. This with the aim to explore further the results

obtained from the quantitative part. For the quantitative data analysis, descriptive statis-

tics were used and for the qualitative data, a thematic analysis.

The research question that this study aimed to answer was: what are the challenges that

heis’ curriculum planners experienced in adapting the national standardized curriculum for

education undergraduate programs in developing their English language teaching curriculum?

PARTICIPANTS

An invitation to participate in this study was sent to 15 dierent Directors of English lan-

guage teaching pre-service programs. Directors from the two

hei

s that oer online En-

glish Teaching undergraduate programs were not invited. This because due to their online

nature, these undergraduate programs use a dierent curriculum and content organiza-

tion. After sending the invitations, 8 Directors accepted to participate in this research and

provided their curricula for this study; and 4 program Directors were later interviewed.

The criteria for selecting the 4 Directors for the interview were: a) have actively

participated in the development of the current curriculum and b) have been a program

Director under the new curriculum for at least 2 years.

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

Cajas et al.

In order to maintain the condentiality and anonymity of the participants, the name of the

heis and Directors will not be mentioned. Hereafter, heis will simply be identied as hei1,

hei2, hei3, hei4, hei5, hei6, hei7 and hei8, and program Directors from these heis as Directors.

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

In Ecuador,

ces is the government oce in charge of legally authorize the opening of any

new programs oered by public and private

hei

s, as well as allowing any existing curric-

ulum modications. In this sense,

hei

s seeking to oer new undergraduate programs to

students need to send a curriculum proposal to ces for revision and ocial approval. In

this oce, there are dierent specialists whose task is to oversee whether proposals meet

the minimum requirements needed for the legal approval and subsequent ocial autho-

rization. heis cannot oer any undergraduate program which has not been ocially au-

thorized by ces. The same process applies for intended modication to existing curricula.

Once heis send their curriculum proposal to ces, one specialist is assigned for over-

seeing the whole process until its nal approval. The main roles of the

ces

specialist are

rst, to check the proposal’s technical aspects; for instance, minimum number of hours,

institutional infrastructure, teachers’ qualications, etc. Second, the ces specialist must

send the proposal to an academic specialist to review its academic content. The academic

specialist is usually a university professor who works for an hei in the same undergrad-

uate program and has enough experience and knowledge to validate it. If the academic

specialists deem pertinent, they will suggest corrections to the curriculum proposals. These

changes, in turn, need to be addressed by

hei

s in order to continue with the approval of the

curriculum proposals. Third, the ces specialist must make a report recommending ocial

approval of the undergraduate program, once all technical and academic changes have

been made. This report may not be the same for all heis since the specialists are dierent

and have dierent views.

The initial intention of the Board of Higher Education (

ces

) which was to standardize

the pre-service formation through the insertion of a new curriculum, seemed not to be

very eective for English language teaching undergraduate programs. Hence, by following

its structure and demands, curriculum planners faced certain challenges, namely: a) devel-

opment of English language prociency, b) diculties in combining the standardized cur-

riculum content and subjects pertinent to the elt pre-service formation and c) adapting the

prescribed structure of the teaching practicum to the English language teaching curriculum.

A) DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

The development of language prociency among pre- and in-service

efl

teachers is a need

that heis have to address, particularly when only 34% of current in-service efl teachers

and only 5% of applicants to the public education system have a B2 level (“Solo 34% de

maestros con suciencia para el inglés”, 2018, Información Ecuador.com, n. d.). Regret-

tably, by promoting the standardization of a common curriculum, this particular aspect

of language prociency development has been dicult to address and resulted in serious

challenges to heis’ curriculum planners. Who, because of the ocial demand to adhere to

the standardized curriculum, had to juggle between reinforcing their students’ English lan-

guage prociency and including the subjects mandated in the standardized curriculum. A

Director referred to this challenge in the following terms:

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the curricular variations among selected e undergraduate programs

The standardized curriculum focuses only on general education and does not provide a guide for

English language teaching programs. Preparing English teachers is dierent; they need to learn the

language and the standardized curriculum does not consider this aspect.

Out of the 8 participating

hei

s, 7 had established a B2 level in English as their overall En-

glish language prociency goal for their pre-service students and one university a C1 lev-

el. The selection of a B2 level in almost all heis is aligned to the language requirements

for efl teachers established by the Ministry of Education. Though, there is an apparent

common language competency goal, heis have a diverse organization of language input in

their curricula, mostly in terms of number of instruction hours. This is shown on table

1 (see Table 1).

Table 1 shows the variation in the number of instruction hours for developing English

language prociency among pre-service efl teachers. The hei that has the highest number

of English language input hours (hei 1) is the institution whose aim is to form efl teachers

with a C1 level, whereas in the other heis the maximum number of hours is 1,720 and

the minimum (720). It is necessary to emphasize that with this marked dierence in the

number of English language input hours; it will be dicult for

hei

s achieve the goal of

having graduates with a B2 level of English.

This language input dierences may also lead to the students’ acquisition of diverse

language prociency levels which, in turn, may inuence student’s selections of heis. Re-

sulting in having high demand for a few heis and, opposite to this, a low demand for the

majority of

heis oering English language teaching undergraduate programs.

Directors of English teaching undergraduate programs are conscious that their students

need to have at least a B2 level of English and fear that their existing curricula may not be

able to facilitate the acquisition of this level. Unfortunately, due to the normative orientation

of the standardized curriculum, most of them feel powerless to improve pre-service students’

language prociency by introducing innovation in their curricula and have ended up reduc-

ing to the minimum the English language input to their students in order to cope with the

government’s demands. A director referred to this in the following terms:

According to the Ministry of Education, when students nish their secondary school, they need to

have a B2 level of English. We all know that it is not the case. Some students nish with an A2 level

and, in some cases, they even have an A1 level. These are the type of students who come to the uni-

versity pursuing a career in English language teaching. Regrettably, we cannot deviate much from the

standardized curriculum requirements and increase the number of English prociency teaching hours

to improve language prociency among our students.

B) DIFFICULTIES IN COMBINING THE STANDARDIZED CURRICULUM CONTENT AND SUB-

JECTS PERTINENT TO THE

elt PRE-SERVICE FORMATION

In 2015, ces presented the standardized curriculum as an innovative proposal comprised

of 41 academic subjects characterized, according to its creators, by: a) pertinence to the

teacher’s formation, b) exibility, c) the practice of action research as the main mechanism

to structure the pre-service formation, d) a primary focus on students via an academic

and personal tutoring system, e) emphasis on action research and f) the use of innovative

teaching methodologies as well as ict integration. This whole curriculum was conceptual-

ized to be taught in 9 semesters.

This structure, however, complicated matters for English language teaching curricu-

lum planners since the standardized curriculum targeted primary education and did not

include any subject which could promote English prociency development nor elt in

general. A director referred to this in the following terms:

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

Cajas et al.

The standardized curriculum had a predetermined set of subjects which are mandatory to include in

our curriculum and due to the low entry English language prociency level among our students, it is

dicult to use English as the means of instruction for these predetermined subjects. Thus, we decided

to teach these subjects in Spanish and reduce the subjects related to English prociency.

The above excerpt shows that curriculum planners found themselves in a dilemma where

they had two options; 1) change the subjects included in the standardized curriculum by

those which are more pertinent to English Language Teaching or English Language pro-

ciency and 2) use English as the means of instruction for the predetermined subjects from

the standardized curriculum in order to develop academic content and students’ English

prociency at the same time. Majority of heis opted for the rst option which resulted in

having a dierent number and type of subjects in their curricula limiting English language

input as presented below on table 2 (see Table 2).

Table 2 shows that despite the ocial requirement of having 41 academic subjects

for pre-service formation, curriculum planners have not strictly followed it and, instead,

they have included additional subjects. Generally, the additional subjects are those related

to linguistics and

elt. By adhering to this practice, the percentage of the use of English as

a means of instruction among heis presents a vast discrepancy; for instance, pre-service efl

teachers in hei 1 receive their pedagogical formation almost completely in English (93.6%)

whereas in hei 5 the use of English is very limited (17%).

What it is important to emphasize is that the 7 participating heis have stated that

their students will graduate with a B2 level of English. This, however, seems dicult to

achieve since not all of these heis have the same language input. hei 1, on the other hand,

has an appropriate connection with the amount of English input and the overall language

prociency level (C1).

C) ADAPTING THE PRESCRIBED STRUCTURE OF THE TEACHING PRACTICUM TO THE EN-

GLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING CURRICULUM

Teaching practicum in elt pre-service formation has become, according to the partici-

pants, the most problematic aspect in developing the curriculum of the English language

teaching undergraduate programs due to the high number of hours mandated by ces. The

standardized curriculum states that pre-service students need to complete a total of 1,800

Table 1. Number of hours for developing English language prociency

HEIs Number of instruction hours to develop English language prociency

HEI 1 2304

HEI 2 960

HEI 3 1440

HEI 4 1720

HEI 5 1160

HEI 6 1600

HEI 7

1600

HEI 8

720

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the curricular variations among selected e undergraduate programs

hours of teaching practicum in local schools. This requirement, however, was not strictly

followed by all

heis (see Table 3).

Table 3 shows that there is a marked dierence in the total number of hours as-

signed to teaching practicum among

heis. Three heis strictly comply with the requirement

of having 1,800 hours for teaching practicum whereas the rest of the

heis have assigned

between 344 to 1,640 hours to this aspect.

One of the reasons for this variation in the number of teaching practicum hours, accord-

ing to a Director, is that Article 89 of the Academic Regimen Regulation (a legal docu-

ment that helps heis operationalize the higher education law) states that the number of

hours allocated to teaching practicum for undergraduate programs is 400 hours in gener-

al. It does not clearly state that education undergraduate programs need to have a dier-

ent teaching practicum arrangement. Thus, some curriculum planners followed what was

required by the standardized curriculum and others, what was stated in the law. In other

words, curriculum planes assigned a number of practicum hours that they considered was

appropriate for their students’ formation. A Director illustrated it as follows:

In order to select the number of hours for practicum, we based our decision on the higher educa-

tion law. We did not follow the standardized curriculum because it has too many hours for teaching

practicum. When we submitted our proposal to ces for approval, the people in charge of checking our

curriculum design never questioned this type of organization.

As it was explained in the beginning of this analysis, ces assigns a specialist for the process

of ocial approval of undergraduate programs. This type of organization has resulted in

idiosyncratic curriculum changes and, therefore, curriculum variations among the dierent

English language teaching undergraduate programs, as it is the case of teaching practicum.

When heis put into practice their curricula, they faced a serious problem in facilitating

the teaching practicum of their pre-service students due to the lack of in-service efl teachers

in the public education system. A director described this problem in the following excerpt,

One of the biggest problems we have is that there are not enough

efl

teachers in the schools where

our students do their teaching practicum. In some schools there is only one teacher with a university

degree in English teaching. For example, in one school where our students go, there is only one

efl

teacher with a university degree in this area; the other two are the school secretaries. Our students

have to complete 1,800 hours but if there are no efl teachers in the schools who can guide and sup-

port them, what can our students learn from someone who does not have the academic preparation

to teach English?

Table 2. Number of academic subjects and percentage of the use of English as means of instruction per HEI

HEIs Number of academic subjects % of the use of English as the means of instruction*

HEI 1 47 93.6

HEI 2 59 37.3

HEI 3 52 57.7

HEI 4 42 66.7

HEI 5 53 17

HEI 6 50 66

HEI 7 53 52.8

HEI 8 52 78.8

* % of the use of English as the means of instruction also includes academic subjects related to English prociency acquisition.

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

Cajas et al.

The lack of qualied

efl

teachers is a problem that all

hei

s face, yet it becomes more in-

tense for heis with 1,800 teaching practicum hours. In these institutions, students start their

practicum in the rst semester and the number of hours increase as they advance in their

formation. The worry that directors have revolves around the amount of time that their

students have to spend in schools with non-qualied

efl

teachers who may not add much

to their professional formation. A director expressed her concerns in the following lines:

Personally, I believe that 1,800 hours is too much for a pre-professional practicum.

Our students complain because they say that they are not learning anything from the

schoolteacher. She is an ict teacher and she can barely speak English. I am not criticizing

the teacher: she is also forced by the school director to teach English. But our students

cannot spend long hours in school without learning anything. I feel powerless because I

cannot do anything to change this situation.

CONCLUSION

This research focused on the variations that English language teaching undergraduate pro-

grams have and the challenges that

hei

’s curriculum planners faced in designing their cur-

ricula. Results showed that despite the existence of a standardized curriculum for education

undergraduate programs, pre-service English language formation in the country is varied

in terms of academic subjects, language prociency development, English language input

and the pre-professional practicum.

What is common in almost all heis oering elt undergraduate programs is the exit

prole established for their graduates. Almost all heis stated that their graduates will have

a B2 level of English and a strong knowledge of teaching methodology. However, given

the current characteristics of their curricula, achieving this prole seems to be elusive for

the majority of these

heis.

Despite the government’s intention to improve pre-service formation via a standard-

ized curriculum, its structure has caused the opposite eect in English language teaching

undergraduate programs. Where, in an attempt to adapt the educational standardized

curriculum to

elt

pre-service formation, curriculum planners ended up designing dier-

ent types of curricula, leaving apart the essential aspects that characterize efl teachers’

formation; for instance, a proper level of English language prociency and a strong knowl-

edge of

elt

methodology. Thus, attempts to standardize pre-service formation through an

ocial curriculum need to be prevented since it limits curriculum innovation, academic

Table 3. Number of hours assigned for pre-professional practicum per HEI

HEIs Number of hours for assigned for preprofesional practicum

HEI 1 1,800

HEI 2 1,200

HEI 3 1,800

HEI 4 1,640

HEI 5 344

HEI 6 840

HEI 7 840

HEI 8 1,800

REVISTA KRONOS 3(2), agosto-enero 2023 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859

How are we preparing future English teachers?: A study of the curricular variations among selected e undergraduate programs

development and the inclusion of the particularities that characterize each of the dierent

education undergraduate programs.

REFERENCES

Consejo de Educación Superior. (2017). Reglamento de Régimen Académico. Retrieved

from http://www.ces.gob.ec/doc/Reglamentos/2017/Abril/reglamento%20de%20

regimen%20academico%20codicacion.pdf in October 2019.

Consejo de Educación Superior. (2015). Propuesta del Currículo Genérico de las Carreras

de Educación. Retrieved from: http://www.ces.gob.ec/index.php?option=com_phocad-

ownload&view=category&id=285&Itemid=604 in October 2019.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: International student edition. Sage publications

Finney, D. (2002). The elt curriculum: A exible model for a changing world. Methodology

in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 69-79.

Fortalecimiento del Inglés. (n. d.). Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/objetivos-2/

in October 2019.

Información Ecuador.com (n. d). Retrieved from https://informacionecuador.com/resul-

tados-de-la-prueba-habilitantes-de-ingles-qsm5-mineduc/ in October 2019.

Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). ‘In reality it’s almost impossible’:

clt

-oriented curric-

ulum change. elt journal, 69(3), 239-248.

Kuhlman, N., & Knežević, B. (2014). The tesol guidelines for developing efl professional

teaching standards. tesol Press.

Ley Orgánica de Educación (

loes) (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.educacionsupe-

rior.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/03/LEY_ORGANICA_DE_EDU-

CACION_SUPERIOR_LOES.pdf in October 2019.

McKimm, J., & Jones, P. K. (2017). Twelve tips for applying change models to curriculum

design, development and delivery. Medical teacher, 40(5), 520-526.

Ministerio de Educación. (2016). Acuerdo

mineduc-me-2016-00020-A. Quito.

Rahman, M. M., Pandian, A., & Kaur, M. (2018). Factors aecting teachers’ implementa-

tion of communicative language teaching curriculum in secondary schools in Bangla-

desh. The Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1104-1126

Solo 34% de maestros con suciencia para el inglés. (2018, January 23rd). La Hora.

Retrieved from: https://www.lahora.com.ec/quito/noticia/1102130417/solo-34_-de-mae-

stros-con-suciencia-para-el-ingles,%20%20on%20October%202019 in October 2019.

Suciencia en inglés, básica para seguir con los estudios. (2018, December 26th). El

Comercio. Retrieved from: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/suciencia-in-

gles-basica-seguir-estudios.html in October 2019.