英语论文网

ocultural turnis happening in the eastern and western contexts in question and to provide practicalsuggestions for the two SLTE programmes as well as the broader field of SLTE.

5.2 Implications

As reported in the previous chapter, the Chinese teacher educators appeared to viewlanguage more as discourse, while their British counterparts seemed to be moreaware of the values in language. This indicates that a broader socioculturalperspective of language might be needed for the Chinese teacher educators.However, this need might not only be applicable to the MA ELT programme inChina, but also to the MSc TESOL programme in the U.K. Although the studysuggests that the British teacher educators might have more concerns for thesociocultural turn and the impact of globalisation in SLTE, they would also need tokeep up with the development of knowledge base of language teaching and topractice what they believed in the master’s programme. Despite that some Britishteacher educators saw the broader perspectives, the programme didn’t providealternative views of language in the courses. Though the UK programme did includesome elements of ELF that touched on sociolinguistics, it was still largely relatedwith linguistics. There was a lack of course content with regard to how languagewas used in social contexts.Thus, both programmes would need to include a broader perspective of language associal practice situated in historical and institutional contexts in the courses. To bemore specific, the teacher educators from both countries might need to change theirview of language as pre-determined systematic rules in linguistics and appropriateuses in different situations in sociolinguistics to “situated” meanings in specificcontexts used by different sociocultural groups (Gee, 1999). In other words,meaning is much more than decoding the grammar, but actively constructed in thesocial interactions in a certain context (Johnson, 2009a).Moreover, this indicates that the knowledge base of language teaching might alsoinclude the teachers’ “overall sensitivity to language” in the broader field of SLTE(Wright, 2002: 115). This is to say, English teachers should not only be aware thatmeaning is closely related with contexts and sociocultural groups, but also be able toanalyse how language works in specific sociocultural contexts and to fully use theirknowledge about language to create opportunities for their learners to develop theability to use English in different contexts with different sociocultural groups. Theteacher educators would need to be more aware of the impact of SLTE programmeson the learners of the student teachers, as argued by the advocates of social justiceteacher education (Hawkins, 2011).Furthermore, as illustrated in the findings chapter, although the teacher educatorsfrom both countries in this study agreed that PPK could be counted as part of theknowledge base of language teaching, the Chinese teacher educators seemed to viewindividual teachers’ PPK as the personal modification of theories put forward byscholars in certain teaching contexts. This might be largely due to the institutionalconstraints and educational culture in China, which indicates that the teachereducators in China might need not only to change their views on PPK, but also toempower their student teachers to challenge the mandated policies and unfairhierarchies (Johnson, 2006). To be more specific, the teacher educators in Chinacould pr本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。