Introduction
English language teaching holds a crucial role in Mexico´s educational environment, with over 14 million students and half a million teachers engaged in its instruction across public and private institutions (Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, 2022; British Council, 2015). Despite this scale, existing research has predominantly focused on pre-service teacher training, leaving a critical gap in understanding the professional competencies required for in-service language educators. While studies such as Sebire (2017) and Ramírez Romero et al. (2012)have examined undergraduate teacher preparation, there remains a lack of agreement on the essential knowledge and skills that practicing teachers need to deliver effective teaching in real-world classroom settings.
This paper addresses this gap by systematically analyzing expert perspectives on the core competencies for in-service English language teachers. The study reviews perspectives from 15 English language teaching (ELT) experts, including academics, researchers and teacher trainers from México and abroad. The research identifies critical areas for professional development. Through a rigorously designed Likert-scale questionnaire and statistical validation, the findings highlight five key domains: academic research, teacher training, didactics, educational technology and intervention projects. These results not only contribute to academic discussions about teacher expertise but also provide actionable insights for refining graduate programs and in-service training initiatives.
By establishing an evidence-based framework grounded in expert agreement, this study aims to enhance teaching quality in Mexico´s ELT sector and offer transferable insights for similar educational context globally.
Review of the Literature
Goodwin Seadler et al. (2015) examined students', professors', graduates', and employers' views on four Mexican universities' training programs and how well they fit society's demands. They highlight the varied perspectives held by stakeholders about English teacher training, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough and pragmatic curriculum that improves both linguistic competence and instructional abilities. The text emphasizes the significance of ongoing professional growth, the integration of technology, and the ability to work effectively in many cultural contexts. The results support the need for enhanced collaboration between institutions and the implementation of rigorous assessment methods to achieve successful training outcomes and bridge the gap between the desired training objectives and the actual skill levels of graduates.
Ramírez et al. (2019) reported in a documentary research study in Mexico on the first training of potential English teachers in public secondary schools and its primary successes and obstacles. Although the topic of language teacher training has been investigated, the available literature does not specifically address the subject of language teachers’ ‘knowledge base’. Thus, more research is needed on the professional development possibilities for English language teachers and how these opportunities can help build and use a knowledge base framework.
The reason for studying a knowledge base framework for English language teachers is to meet the need for a well-organized and all-encompassing way to teach teachers and help them improve their skills. Teachers of English as a foreign language need to know a wide range of things, including the subject matter, how to teach, and the students and their environment. A knowledge base framework can provide an organized way to synthesize this wide range of knowledge. This helps teachers understand how different parts of their knowledge interact and how they can use this knowledge in their teaching. Also, a knowledge base framework can help teachers determine where their knowledge is lacking, which can help them get the professional growth they need in specific areas. Overall, a study about a knowledge base framework for English language teachers can tell us a lot about how teachers can build and improve their knowledge base, making them better teachers and help their students do better in school (Richards, 2011).
This is relevant because a knowledge base framework could assist language instructors in building the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective teaching practice. It can aid in identifying, organizing, and applying various categories of knowledge required of language teachers, such as content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and contextual knowledge. When language instructors have a strong knowledge base, they can better design effective learning experiences for their students, thereby enhancing student learning outcomes. They can utilize their knowledge and abilities to select appropriate teaching strategies, create engaging activities, and provide meaningful feedback that aids in the development of language proficiency in students (Richards, 2010).
According to Graves (2009) teacher education and professional development programs are guided by knowledge base frameworks, which serve as a map. They can provide guidance for designing courses, seminars, and other professional development activities that will facilitate teachers' ongoing learning and development. In addition to enhancing learning and development, knowledge base frameworks can also serve as a foundation for language instruction research. They provide a framework for analyzing and interpreting research findings.
The context of English teaching in Mexico
English is the main foreign language taught within the Mexican educational system (Davies, 2008, 2009), with more than 14 million students, 513,000 teachers, and 100,000 schools related to English language teaching and learning (British Council, 2015) and nineteen master´s programs related to English language teaching (Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, 2022) in the country. Banks (2017) and the British Council (2015) evaluated the challenges faced by English language teachers in Mexico. Their research highlighted several key issues: (1) limited school resources, which hinder high-quality instruction; (2) overcrowded classrooms, reducing opportunities for individualized student attention; (3) a lack of ongoing professional development, leaving teachers unable to adopt current teaching methods; and (4) low student English proficiency, which complicates the teaching of advanced concepts. Both studies also noted contextual opportunities, though these were secondary to the systemic barriers.
With the increasing globalization of the world, there is a growing need for English language teaching in Mexico. This indicates that there are greater employment prospects for English language teachers. Several Mexican schools are investing in technology to enhance English language instruction, which provides teachers with new chances to integrate digital tools and resources into their classes. There are numerous professional associations and networking groups in Mexico for English language teachers, which allow collaboration and the exchange of best practices (Soto Reyes, 2023). Teachers often engage with students from varied cultural backgrounds, which can give both teachers and students significant learning opportunities (Christiansen & Silva, 2016). Teachers with advanced degrees and experience may also have the opportunity to work in other countries, which can be a rewarding professional and personal experience.
Language teachers’ knowledge base framework
Teaching frameworks for English language educators consist of various essential elements that are crucial for successful instruction. One of the main elements is specialized knowledge in a certain subject, which encompasses fluency in the language, comprehension of civilization and culture, and skill in language analysis (Richards & Nunan, 1990). Day (1993) and Lafayette (1993) highlight the significance of both language skills and subject topic knowledge in this context. In addition, a deep understanding of pedagogical knowledge is essential, as it encompasses the comprehension and use of teaching procedures and strategies that are especially designed for language learning. The concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was initially proposed by Shulman (1986), continues to be a fundamental aspect of instructional frameworks (Day, 1993).
Another crucial element is contextual knowledge, which necessitates teachers to understand their students and the environment, encompassing cultural and social settings. Freeman and Johnson (1998) and Moradkhani et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of this knowledge in successful teaching. The significance of ongoing professional development and reflective practices in adapting and enhancing teaching approaches is highlighted as a crucial element (Schleppegrell, 2020). Moreover, the incorporation of technological and innovative abilities has gained more relevance, indicating the increasing significance of technology in education (Jesse, 2018). Ultimately, a comprehensive understanding of educational objectives, curriculum, media, technology, linguistics, sociolinguistics, and other related disciplines is crucial for effective teaching frameworks (Day, 1993; Richards, 1998).
The progression of teaching frameworks throughout history has been characterized by notable advancements affected by evolving educational philosophies and societal demands. Originally, the emphasis was on pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), which emphasized the significance of specialized teaching techniques for particular disciplines. This paradigm established the basis for numerous teacher training programs. As frameworks developed, there was a transition towards including a more comprehensive knowledge base that encompassed subject-specific expertise, pedagogical knowledge, and contextual comprehension. Johnson and Golombek (2011) proposed a comprehensive framework that highlighted the significance of combining these components to improve teaching methodology.
The incorporation of reflective practices emerged as a significant progress, with a growing emphasis on the imperative for educators to consistently assess and enhance their approaches. Schleppegrell (2020) emphasizes the importance of reflective and ongoing professional development in contemporary teaching paradigms. Furthermore, there was an increased emphasis on the significance of contextual knowledge, highlighting the necessity for teachers to comprehend the socio-cultural situations in which their students learn. Freeman and Johnson (1998) played a crucial role in drawing attention to this particular element.
The incorporation of technological proficiency has become a crucial advancement in recent years, mirroring the growing significance of technology in the field of education. Contemporary frameworks frequently incorporate technical expertise and the capacity to foster innovation in educational methods (Jesse, 2018). The comprehensive frameworks developed by researchers such as Moradkhani et al. (2013) and Jesse cover a broad spectrum of knowledge, including subject matter expertise, leadership, and professional skills. This demonstrates the complex and diverse requirements of effective teaching in the present day. This evolution emphasizes the fluid and continuously growing nature of teaching frameworks, adjusting to cater to the varied requirements of educators and learners.
Table 1: Summary of authors and their contributions to the English teachers’ knowledge base framework
These frameworks integrate content knowledge, pedagogical abilities, and support knowledge, with a specific emphasis on language competency, linguistic analysis, and cultural comprehension. They highlight the significance of teacher-learner interactions, pedagogical processes, and social context. Furthermore, they provide a comprehensive overview of communication abilities, subject matter expertise, teaching theories, practical skills, and contextual knowledge. The importance of having a wide range of language skills, effective teaching methods, efficient classroom management, and being socially aware is emphasized, highlighting the various abilities needed for successful language education.
The current frameworks have provided significant assistance and direction in comprehending and reaching consensus on the necessary skills and knowledge that a language teacher should possess. Undoubtedly, they make a valuable contribution to the field of language instruction. Since these proposals originate from scholars outside of Mexico, it would be advantageous to thoroughly examine, embrace, and modify them to suit the specific circumstances of Mexico.
The Study
The research problem
Establishing a knowledge base framework for English language teachers that contributes to the current body of literature and promotes the growth of the English language teaching field in Mexico is of the utmost importance. The framework may also serve as a guide for the establishment of language teacher education programs. For this reason, it is crucial to perform a quantitative study to investigate, define, and gain a deeper understanding of the various disciplines of knowledge that comprise the framework in order to comprehend the sorts of knowledge and abilities that comprise it.
Research question
The study explored language teachers' knowledge and skills frameworks. This produced the research question that led this investigation.
What types of knowledge and skills do experts in English Language Teaching believe in-service language teachers should possess?
The answers to this question will contribute to the knowledge base regarding what the most important teachers’ knowledge skills in-service teachers should possess to deliver effective teaching.
Methodology
The research approach chosen to conduct this study was quantitative, given that its aim was to better comprehend the subject of the study through a standardized instrument such as a questionnaire to collect data using a descriptive design to describe the framework's integrated fields of knowledge (Kaderavek et al., 2015).
Experts, academics, researchers, book writers, professors, and independent consultants from Mexico and abroad were consulted for their expertise, awareness, skills, experience, or research studies. All participating higher education institutions and Mexican researchers are members of the Academic Network in Foreign Languages. The sampling was purposeful and non-random (López-Roldán & Fachelli, 2015). According to Krueger et al. (2012), expert opinion can be explored informally when the opinions are chosen tacitly given that they are unstructured and undocumented; and, formally, as in the case of this study, when uncertain situations are analyzed using data provided by experts, which provides exceptional data.
The main goal of the survey was to obtain the most reliable agreement with regards to participants’ opinion regarding language teachers’ optimal knowledge base, given that group opinion is more legitimate than individual judgment (Keeney et al., 2011). The survey explored a range of scenarios, drawing on insights of both Mexican and international specialists regarding the challenges encountered by educational organizations. An online questionnaire (See the Appendix) with 15 closed-ended items on a Likert scale was used to collect data. There were four possible responses, ranging from 0 (unimportant) to 3 (very important). The study was completed by 15 specialists who all work as teacher trainers in second language education.
All participants held advanced degrees and had extensive experience as teacher trainers or researchers in teaching English to speakers of other languages, ELT, or related fields. To ensure a broad perspective, participants represented a range of contexts, including Mexican universities and international institutions. They were required to have a record of scholarly publications, curriculum development, or leadership roles in SLTE, demonstrating their influence on the knowledge base framework.
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of participants
The research was conducted with explicit written consent of the participants. Before answering the online survey, an email was sent asking if they agreed to participate in the study. We explained the research objective, the purpose of the survey, why they were invited to participate, and the characteristics of the online questionnaire. Participants’ involvement was on a voluntary basis, and it was made clear that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The activities the participants were expected to take part in, a consultation, did not present any risk.
The opinions of the experts concerning the most and the least important fields of knowledge and the most outstanding skills were measured through frequency and average. Aiming to identify whether the group of experts similarly ranked the areas of knowledge, the correlation between their importance ratings was calculated. The calculated correlation coefficient is Pearson's since all the variables are measured on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3 (from not important to very important).
Berlanga-Silvente and Rubio-Hurtado (2012) assert that the Wilcoxon test is a non-parametric test used to assess the hypothesis of equality between two medians in paired samples with a small sample size (fewer than 30 participants) or non-normal distribution. Similarly, the Friedman test is employed when there are three or more medians to compare. In addition, to determine if the ratings issued by the experts had a similar variance, a Friedman test was administered considering a 95% confidence level with the following null hypothesis (Ho)=. The variability is the same among all the areas (p-value>0.05) and alternative hypothesis (H1)=. At least one of the areas has a different variability (p-value<0.05). However, the Friedman test only allowed us to identify if all the ratings were the same, and, if at least one was different, but it did not provide us with statistical evidence to identify which of them is the one that showed differences. To achieve this, a Wilcoxon test was carried out with the same level of confidence (95%) and testing the null hypothesis (Ho) that there is no significant difference between the median of the pair of areas tested (p.value>0.05) and the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the medians of the analyzed areas are different (p value<0.05).
Results
Fields of knowledge
The scores of the experts were tabulated to determine the level of global importance of each area of knowledge. Each expert was asked to give a score of 0 to 3, with 0 meaning not at all important and 3 meaning very important. As this is a ranking, the total number of points is used instead of the average. Given the small sample size, using the mean is not the best approach for its description since it is very susceptible in its variability. Instead, the median should be used to describe it when identifying the mean value of the data distribution and being the basis for boxplot plots. As Gravetter and Wallnau (2017) put it, "the median [...] is not easily affected by extreme scores." (p. 86)
These scores were added; under this last criterion the maximum possible result is 57 and the minimum is 0. Figure 1 below illustrates the sum of the points for each area of knowledge.
Figure 1: The most and the least important fields of knowledge according to the experts
The above figure illustrates the results of the questionnaire, which, ranked according to the top five are: research (53), teacher training (50), didactics (49), educational technology (49) and educational intervention projects (48). The least important areas are translation (19), and interpretation (20).
Considering the median that is equal to 44 points, the rest of the areas can be grouped into two. The first one consists of educational models of language teaching (45), teaching foreign languages to people with special educational needs (45) and educational assessment (44) are part of the best-valued group; whilst the second consists of the remaining areas: language acquisition (42), applied linguistics (41), educational program management (36), educational entrepreneurship (29) and Spanish for foreigners (26) are part of the group considered to be of least important areas. Figure 2 illustrates the dispersion of the rating given by the experts regarding each area.
Figure 2: Dispersion of expert opinions.
According to our findings, if we study the dispersion of the opinions regarding the importance of the areas of knowledge, shown in Figure 2, it is possible to observe that areas such as teacher training and didactics are grouped as very important together with academic research, given that it only has one rating as important, whilst the rest of the experts rated it with the highest possible score.
Intending to identify whether the group of experts similarly ranks the areas of knowledge, the correlation between their importance ratings was calculated with a confidence level of 95% and with the following hypotheses: null hypothesis (Ho)=There is no significant relationship (p-value>0.05) and alternative hypothesis (H1)=Yes there is a significant relationship (p-value < 0.05). The calculated correlation coefficient is Pearson's since all the variables are measured on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3 (from not important to very important). In this sense, and for the purposes of this study, the suggestions of Cohen (1988) will be assumed to be among the most well-known and respected in the scientific community; however, it is important to note that these references should only be used as temporary aids when reflecting on the significance of the findings. Interpretation of the magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient according to Cohen's suggestions. Table 3 offers this classification. It is assumed in this Table that the relationship is between X and Y, but it applies to any pair of variables. The absolute value of the coefficient is stated, so that the magnitude is independent of the sign.
Table 3: Interpretation of Pearson's r correlation coefficient.
Table 4: Significant correlation of the areas of knowledge.
Table 4 summarizes the pairs of knowledge fields with a strong significant relationship. All the correlations are direct and positive, indicating that higher rankings in one area consistently align with higher rankings in the other. These correlations reveal how participants grouped related knowledge areas in their responses. For example, the strongest correlation (*r*= .764) shows that 58% of the variation in rankings for educational models of language teaching can be explained by variation in the language acquisition rankings. This suggests a particularly close relationship between these two domains in participants´ perception.
The output in Table 4 shows that the range of effect sizes for all correlations reported is r=.518 (Educational Program Management and Educational Models of Language Teaching) to r=.764 (Language Acquisition and Educational Models of Language Teaching).
In this way, it can be noted if the experts opted for the categories according to groups of areas by putting them together at the time of ranking. The areas which the experts considered essential were language acquisition, educational models of language teaching, applied linguistics and educational program management. This group of experts therefore assumed that professionals in the area must be experts in designing or administering educational programs linked to applied linguistics and educational models of language acquisition. Another group was formed by didactics, educational intervention projects and educational entrepreneurship. This other group of experts assumed that it was necessary to be an expert in didactics to be able to develop intervention projects and educational undertakings.
Two pairs were identified between interpretation and Spanish for foreigners, as well as educational assessment and educational technology to complement these groups. These last relations are obvious given that whoever considers interpretation appropriate will tend to emphasize Spanish teaching. Likewise, educational assessment requires digital skills to be effectively conducted in the new post COVID 19 scenarios.
Figure 3 below shows the most significant correlations between the areas of knowledge, and it is possible to visualize the different groups that are formed. This makes it possible to identify the areas of professional training that experts consider most relevant for the professional training of language teachers.
Figure 3: Areas of knowledge.
Specialists consider four categories of knowledge areas to be crucial. The first consists of educational program management, applied linguistics, language acquisition, and educational models of language instruction, forming a core of training in the administration of applied linguistics-focused educational programs. A second category includes educational program management, didactics, and educational entrepreneurship, all focused on developing educational and classroom management skills. The third group consists of interpretation, Spanish for foreigners, and translation, which, while not often found together, are all related to communication between persons who speak different languages. Finally, there are only two domains in the fourth block: educational technology and educational evaluation, which might be referred to as virtual teaching environments.
To confirm the difference in the ranking between pairs in the areas of knowledge, the Friedman test of comparison of means was carried out for non-parametric data. Table 5 below summarizes the results.
Table 5: Comparison of means
The Friedman test allows us to identify differences in the variances of the areas ranks. The result of the ranges is shown in Table 6 below and demonstrates that academic research, teacher training, didactics, educational technology and educational intervention projects were the groups of best ranked areas, whilst educational entrepreneurship, Spanish for foreigners, interpretation and translation are the worst rated. The difference between the ratings is significant with a p-value of 0.000.
Table 6: Friedman test statistics
The Friedman test only allows us to identify if all the ratings are the same and if at least one is different, but it does not provide us with statistical evidence to identify which of them shows differences. To do this, tests must be carried out between pairs of knowledge areas to distinguish the one that differs from the rest, either by having a very high- or low-grade average.
To achieve the above, the Wilcoxon Test was administered. According to Ramírez Ríos and Polack Peña (2020), this test is used when the following conditions are met: the sample is small (fewer than 30 elements), two paired samples are to be compared, the independent variable is dichotomous (in this case the categories correspond to the pair of knowledge areas) and the dependent variable is measured on an ordinal scale.
This test is used to verify the null hypothesis of equality between two medians of paired samples, that is, to determine if the group of experts qualifies significantly differently some of the knowledge pairs being compared. This test was performed with all the pairs of knowledge areas, but in this study only those corresponding to a p-value less than 0.05 were exposed, since a confidence level of 95% was used.
The translation area was different when compared with 13 from the other 14 areas of knowledge. When reviewing its rating was found to be one of the lowest, confirming that this area was not considered relevant by the group of experts. Close to this level were Spanish for foreigners, educational program management, interpretation, and educational entrepreneurship, which were different in 11 areas, since the score of the referred areas was lower.
Regarding the areas that the experts best rated, these included academic research, teacher training, didactics, educational technology, and educational intervention projects. In the Wilcoxon test academic research was different in nine areas, teacher training in six, didactics in five, educational technology in six, and educational intervention projects in four.
This test confirmed that the areas which received the lowest scores were significantly different from most of the other areas whilst the best qualified areas were significantly different from the central group.
Discussion
If the results of this study are compared to the knowledge base listed in Table 1 above, this research adds to the knowledge published by Day (1993), Freeman and Johnson (1998), Lafayette (1993), Moradkhani et al. (2013), Richards (1998), and Jesse (2018). This study concludes that the five most essential categories of information contributing to in-service language instructors' teacher learning knowledge base are: 1. Academic research, 2. Teacher training, 3. Didactics, 4. Educational technology, and 5. Educational intervention projects. Teacher preparation and didactics are placed in the same category as academic research, which is also deemed equally valuable.
This study's findings not only contribute to the body of knowledge a language instructor should possess, but also highlight the professional abilities that the experts deemed most important and which they believed should be developed with the highest priority. In this regard, the research suggests that language teaching professionals should develop a profile that enables them to optimally utilize the technologies applied in the teaching-learning process, generate conditions and class sessions with the greatest possible didactics, and are able to conduct research.
The results of Pearson's correlation coefficient are enlightening since these sets of knowledge areas are essential for language teachers to perform their jobs effectively. For instance, according to the experts, a language instructor should be able to design or implement educational programs based on applied linguistics and pedagogical models for language learning. The experts also agreed that one must be a didactics specialist in order to develop intervention programs and educational endeavors.
In addition to providing the group of knowledge fields with the highest rankings, the study revealed the knowledge areas with the lowest ratings, namely educational entrepreneurship, Spanish for foreigners, interpretation, and translation. Translation had the lowest score, showing that, according to this panel of experts, this topic is irrelevant for in-service instructors.
The findings of this study yielded insights that could help develop an English language teaching knowledge base framework especially relevant in the Mexican context. In previous research conducted by Sebire (2017) about the preparation of undergraduate language teachers in Mexican higher education institutions, the various degree programs in language teaching and their relationship to teaching practice are explored. The significance of the practicum in language teacher training is emphasized. Although in some cases it is determined that undergraduate students who will become future language teachers should develop critical reflective skills regarding their practice and professional development, none of the presented documents discuss what a future language teacher's knowledge base should be.
Ramírez et al. (2019) criticize the results of initial teacher training received in teacher training colleges (in Spanish: Escuelas Normal Superior) by future English teachers in public secondary and middle schools, as well as the most significant accomplishments and difficulties encountered by educators. This study reveals some aspects of English teacher training in colleges of education and focuses on those areas of language teacher training that require improvement. However, the study does not shed light on the areas of expertise a language instructor attending teacher education training institutes must possess.
Sadler et al. (2015) offer the perspectives of students, instructors, graduates, and employers of four Mexican institutions regarding the effectiveness of their training programs and the degree to which this training matches the actual demands of society. These studies provide a sometimes general, other times extensive review of the areas of knowledge that undergraduate students who will become future language teachers should possess. Yet, they provide little precise information addressing major or highly relevant aspects of second language teacher education. In contrast, the study we offer is clear and precise, as it identifies the five primary areas and skills that an in-service language teacher must possess through rigorous statistical analysis and several statistical tests.
A knowledge base framework could offer a structure for identifying the essential knowledge and skills for effective language instruction. This can be used in multiple ways to inform language teacher training programs and classroom instruction. For instance, a knowledge base framework can assist curriculum developers in identifying the crucial subject fields that must be addressed in language teacher preparation courses to ensure that the next generation of teachers receives an appropriate education. In addition, it can assist training programs for teachers in designing courses that combine the crucial information and abilities required for successful language education. Also, a knowledge base framework can guide the design of professional development programs for in-service instructors. It may involve conferences, seminars, and online training modules that concentrate on improving understanding and abilities in particular disciplines. Finally, it can assist instructors in evaluating what they know and can do and identifying areas for improvement. Additionally, it might offer a framework for preparing lessons and teacher education that concentrates on areas of teaching language skills.
The findings of the study may have several implications for EFL/ESL research and teaching. For example, the research can provide a firm foundation for EFL/ESL research by identifying the essential concepts and skills to be studied. Researchers can use the framework to guarantee that their research efforts are based on an in-depth comprehension of the topic. Also, a knowledge base framework can be applied to direct the establishment of teacher education courses that are founded on an in-depth comprehension of the crucial ideas and skills of EFL/ESL instruction. The following may ensure that teachers have enough knowledge for successfully teaching a language. Another implication of a knowledge base framework is that it might be implemented to direct the creation of EFL/ESL courses founded on a thorough understanding of the topic in question. This can help confirm learners have access to the essential ideas and abilities they must acquire for them to achieve proficiency in a language. Finally, a knowledge base framework can be employed to promote successful teaching in the classroom by supplying teachers with an in-depth awareness of the crucial ideas as well as abilities to be taught. This can aid in providing students with comprehensive and effective language education.
Limitations of the study
The number of participants represents one of the constraints of the study. The limited scope of the research was a result of its emphasis on expert opinion, as it reduced the likelihood that additional experts on the topic, such as in-service teachers, could contribute to solving the problem. Undergraduates, especially seniors, could also have contributed to the study's advancement.
Another drawback is the sample size, as there should have been more participants. With the existing sample data, it is challenging to identify significant relationships, as statistical tests often require a larger sample size to assure a population distribution that is representative of the groups to which conclusions would be generalized or transferred. Another limitation of the study is the sampling method. Employing a random sampling approach could enhance the potential for more generalizable knowledge. Random sampling would ensure that every individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected, reducing selection bias and increasing the representativeness of the sample. This, in tun, would allow for findings that are more applicable to the broader population, thereby strengthening the study’s external validity.
Conclusions
Given that English is the primary foreign language taught in the Mexican educational system, it is crucial to construct a knowledge base framework for English language teachers that will add to the current body of literature and the growth of Mexico's English language teaching profession. Thus, this study aimed to emphasize and reveal the beliefs of a group of ELT researchers from Mexico and other countries regarding the knowledge and abilities that language teachers in service should possess.
The data acquired through an online survey consultation was statistically examined using a variety of tests, yielding highly trustworthy results to determine the essential knowledge skill foundation experts believe in-service teachers must possess to provide effective instruction. This paper's findings may serve as a guide for the development of language teacher education programs. After reviewing the current literature on studies conducted in Mexico, we have determined that no other known studies examine data with the same level of rigor as this one. Hence, we believe that this paper has the potential to become a leading source of information, and reference for the knowledge and abilities that English language teachers in Mexico should possess.
References
Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, (2022). Instituciones de educación superior. ANUIES.
Banks, L. (2017). English teachers in Mexico: Initial preparation and the realities of practice [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of California, San Diego. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/q237hs26m
Berlanga-Silvente, V., & Rubio-Hurtado, M. J. (2012). Classificació de proves no paramètriques: Com aplicar-les en SPSS [Classification of nonparametric tests: How to apply them in SPSS]. REIRE: Revista d'Innovació i Recerca en Educació, 5(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2012.5.2528
British Council, (2015, May). English in Mexico: An examination of policy, perceptions and influencing factors. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/English%20in%20Mexico.pdf
Christiansen, M. S., & Silva, D. (2016). Teaching culture in EFL classrooms in México: Current practices and pedagogical recommendations. MEXTESOL Journal, 40(2), 1–13. https://mextesol.penamiller.com/static/index8f04.php?page=journal&id_article=1416
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davies, P. (2008). ELT in Mexican higher education should be mainly ESP, not EGP. MEXTESOL Journal, 32(1), 80–89. http://www.mextesol.net/journal/public/files/4ef39a52b408374b2a829c0a46a96214.pdf
Davies, P. (2009). Strategic management of ELT in public educational systems: Trying to reduce failure, increase success. TESL-EJ, 13(3). http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej51/a2.pdf
Day, R. R. (1993). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher education. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 11(2).
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114
Goodwin Seadler, D., Narváez Trejo, O. M., Macrola Rojo, C., & Núñez Mercado, P. (2015). Percepciones interinstitucionales sobre la formación de profesores de inglés [Inter-institutional perceptions on the training of English teachers]. Universidad Veracruzana. https://www.uv.mx/bdh/files/2016/01/percepciones-interinstitucionales-sobre-la-formación-de-profesores-de-inglés.-Con-ISBN-final.pdf
Graves, K. (2009). The curriculum of second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 115–124). Cambridge University Press.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2017). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (10th ed.). Cengage.
Jesse, N. (2018). The knowledge base of language teacher education in Kenya. IOSR Journal of Mathematics, 14(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9790/5728-1402010109
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). The transformative power of narrative in second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 486-509. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.256797
Kaderavek, J. N., North, T., Rotshtein, R., Dao, H., Liber, N., Milewski, G., Molitor, S. C. & Czerniak, C. M. (2015). SCIIENCE: The creation and pilot implementation of an NGSS-based instrument to evaluate early childhood science teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.003
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Wiley-Blackwell.
Krueger, T., Page, T., Hubacek, K., Smith, L., & Hiscock, K. (2012). The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 36, 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.011
Lafayette, R. C. (1993). Subject matter content: What every foreign language teacher needs to know. In G. Gunterman (Ed.), Developing language teachers for a changing world (pp. 124-158). National Textbook.
López-Roldán, P., & Fachelli, S. (2015). Metodología de la investigación social cuantitativa [Quantitative social research methodology]. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Moradkhani, S., Akbari, R., Samar, R. G., & Kiany, G. R. (2013). English language teacher educators' pedagogical knowledge base: The macro and micro categories. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.7
Ramírez Ríos, A., & Polack Peña, A. M. (2020). Estadística inferencial: Elección de una prueba estadística no paramétrica en investigación científica [Inferential statistics: Choice of a nonparametric statistical test in scientific research]. Horizonte de la Ciencia, 10(19). https://doi.org/10.26490/uncp.horizonteciencia.2020.19.597
Ramírez Romero, J. L., Pamplón Irigoyen, E. N., & Cota Grijalva, S. (2012). Problemática de la enseñanza del inglés en las primarias públicas de México: Una primera lectura cualitativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.35362/rie6021321
Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and performance in language teaching. RELC Journal, 41(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210372953
Richards, J. C. (2011). Exploring teacher competence in language teaching. The Language Teacher, 35(4), 3-7.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2020). The knowledge base for language teaching: What is the English to be taught as content? Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777519
Sebire, R. H. E. (2017). La práctica docente en México: De estudiante a docente [Teaching practice in Mexico: From student to teacher]. Universidad de Colima.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Soto Reyes, G. (2023). English language teaching in public elementary schools in Mexico: Expectations vs reality [Unpublished master's thesis], Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.
