Professionalising Language Teaching and Language Education in Ghana

Professionalising Language Teaching and Language Education in Ghana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Professionalising Language Teaching and Language Education in Ghana Gladys Nyarko Ansah, Nana Ama Agyeman, Paul Kwame Butakor, Sewoenam Chachu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper reports findings of a nationwide survey that investigated the professional backgrounds of language teachers in Ghana. Even though language teaching/learning is entrenched in the school curriculum from the early years of school, the production of positive language learning outcomes in Ghana’s basic education system has been a challenge for many years. Every year, WAEC 1 ’s chief examiner’s report links students’ poor performance in national examinations to lack of language competence, e.g., inability to understand instructional rubrics. While earlier researchers attribute the problem to factors including inadequacies in language-in-education policy (Ansah 2014) and lack of TLMs (Ampiah 2008), findings from this study suggests that the use of non-professional language teachers in teaching approved language subjects 2 in basic schools is a potential major factor in producing poor performance in education in general and language education in particular in Ghana - while 50.4% had qualification in the language(s) they taught, 0% of lower primary (KG-P3) teachers (who lay the foundation of language education in the country) had qualification in language studies. The paper, therefore, concludes that there is a relationship between the use of professional/non-professional language teachers and education in general, and language education in particular (in Ghana). Language education Language teaching Ghana Teacher professionalism 1. Introduction Language teaching is embedded in Ghana’s basic education curriculum from early years through policy. On the one hand, the current (2007) language-in-education policy stipulates that within the first five years of primary education (KG-P3), a Ghanaian language (L1) that is dominant in a given geographical area should be used as the medium of instruction while English is taught as a subject. However, English becomes the medium of instruction from primary 4 onwards while the L1 becomes a taught subject from P4. On the other hand, the 2018 National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework (MoE 2018 ) which seeks to transform teaching and learning in the country also stipulates thus: Language is the key to success in education and life. Getting this right is the most critical issue for our children’s future and for education in Ghana…. Language and education are two inseparable concepts because education is disseminated via language, therefore, the teachers we train should be very competent in both the L1 and L2 so that they can teach children to speak and read these languages and also use the languages to teach other subjects (p 23). This notwithstanding, the production of language education in Ghana appears not to be very successful yielding poor performance, language competence and literacy. For instance, according to a WAEC report published on (Graphiconline.com 2019 ; Ghanaweb.com 2018), English performance in WASSCE declined from 52% in 2017 to 46% in 2018 and slightly picked up to 48.96% in 2019. Indeed, every year, the West African Examinations Council’s chief examiner’s near apologetic report that follows the release of BECE and WASSCE 3 results point to lack of competence in the (English) language, e.g., lack of understanding of questions and rubrics of instructions, poor spelling and expression, as the students’ weaknesses that led to the poor performance in the examinations in general and English in particular. The logical question to ask then is ‘why does language teaching in Ghana appear to yield poor performance when language teaching is so entrenched in the school curriculum from an early age?’ Researchers in the field have attempted to answer this question from different perspectives. While some have attributed the situation to the disparities between language-in-education policy and sociolinguistic realities (Ansah 2014 ), others have linked it to the lack of TLMs (Ampiah 2008 ), lack of professionalism among language teachers (Oppong-Sekyere et al. 2013 ), lack of language proficiency among teachers (Owu-Ewie et al. 2015), as well as implementation challenges in language-in-education policy (Anyidoho 2018 ). Our position on this question is that allowing non-professional language teachers to teach language courses may be a key reason why language teaching/learning yields poor performance in Ghana’s educational system. In the past few years, pre-admission interviews of applicants (from across Ghana) seeking to enroll in post graduate sandwich studies in English at the University of Ghana have revealed that majority of the applicants have had no official/professional training in one or both of the languages they teach even though they have taught the language(s) for years at the basic or secondary school levels. Following this observation, a nationwide research was undertaken in both private and public basic schools across the country’s ten regions (as part of a bigger study) to investigate the spread of the situation among language teachers in Ghana. While earlier studies remain important, they are narrow in scope (focused on individual districts) and provide a localized picture of the situation. This study, therefore, expands previous studies with the aim of not only exposing the depth of the problem described above but also to point out the importance of professionalizing language teaching in order to ensure effective teaching and learning in our school system. 2. Multilingualism, Language Policy and Language Education in Ghana Multilingualism is a common phenomenon in the world but it is particularly prevalent in African countries which tend to be populated by ethnolinguistically very diverse communities, translating to many indigenous languages. For instance, Ghana’s 30 million population speak about 73 indigenous languages (Eberhard et al. 2022 ). The rich linguistic diversity notwithstanding, many African countries tend to adopt one European language or another (typically, a colonial legacy), e.g. English, French, and other non-indigenous languages perceived by governments or groups as important for religious, commercial or regional integration purposes, (e.g., Hausa, Arabic, Kiswahili) as official and national/regional languages respectively. For example, in Ghana, in addition to the 73 indigenous, there are 8 non-indigenous, including English, Hausa and Arabic that are used widely. Whereas Arabic is perceived and used as an important language for religious purposes, Hausa is the language of integration among migrants (usually from West Africa) and English, a colonial legacy is used as the official language in the country. Linguistic diversity has implications for any country, particularly in education. Governments in multilingual spaces have tried to regulate/manage linguistic diversity in education through policy. Language-in-education policies were introduced by various bodies to manage linguistic diversity in education in Ghana long before independence (Agbedor 1994 ; Owu-Ewie 2006 ). Nevertheless, language-in-education policies have fluctuated over the years - successive governments have tried to resolve intrinsic conflicts in existing policies by setting up special committees, e.g., The Dzob Committee of 1967, The Anamuah-Mensah Committee of 2002 (Republic of Ghana 2002 ) to review these policies or by formulating new policies all together (see Ansah 2014 ; Owu-Ewie 2006 ). The current working language-in-education policy (MOE, 2007), stipulates that within the first five years of primary education (KG-P3), a Ghanaian language (L1) that is dominant in a given geographical area should be used as the medium of instruction while English is taught as a subject. However, English becomes the medium of instruction from Primary 4 onwards while the L1 becomes a taught subject from P4. The policy also makes provision for French to be taught as a compulsory subject at the Junior High School provided that there are enough trained teachers (The Annamuah-Mensah report). It is interesting to note that while the study of L1 is compulsory and examinable up to junior high school but not senior high school, English is compulsory and examinable both at the junior high and senior high schools. To a large extent, managing multilingualism in Ghana’s education has not been successful. In other words, Ghana’s language-in-education policies have not achieved the expected results for multiple reasons (see Agbedor 1994 ; Owu-Ewie 2006 ; Oppong-Sekyere et al. 2013 ; Ansah 2014 ; Anyidoho 2018 ). 3. Producing Language Competencies in the School System Educational Production Function (EPF), also known as input-output analysis or cost-quality studies basically examines how educational production inputs or school resources (e.g., money, men, materials, management, time) influence students’ performance or school/learning outcomes in quantitative terms (Coleman1968; Hanushek 2008 ). Production function has been defined by (Harris 2010 ) as all the combinations of inputs that produce any given set of school outputs, e.g. test scores. In other words, production function seeks to understand or establish how maximum feasible output can be obtained from a given set of inputs. Many studies that have examined the relationship among different inputs and different educational outputs in many different contexts (Henderson et al. 2017 ). For example, (Sa’ad and Usman 2014) have identified the following as inputs/determinants of poor performance in the educational production of English language competence in Nigeria: dominance of mother tongue use in and out of school; lack of adequate qualified English language teachers; inappropriate pedagogical strategies; lack of TLMs and other facilities, e.g. language labs. Similarly, (Rasheed et al. 2016 ) has linked English performance in Pakistan to the opportunity and actual regular use of English in and out of school environment. In Ghana, performance in education system has been linked to several factors including the training, remuneration and effectiveness of teachers in general (Osei 2006 ), and the (in)availability of better textbooks and other TLMs in schools (Ampiah 2008 ). While these studies are important, they do not address the problems associated with the production of language education specifically. Again, while there appears to be a plethora of studies that specifically investigated language problems in education in Ghana, majority of such studies have tended to concentrate on language-in-education policies (Agbedor 1994 ; Owu-Ewie 2006 ; Ansah 2014 ; Quarcoo 2014 ; Dako and Quarcoo 2017 ). For example, Ansah ( 2014 ) has linked the poor performance in (language) education to the inherent inadequacies in language-in-education policies while Anyidoho ( 2018 ) has linked it to challenges in the implementation of language-in-education policies. A review of the literature reveals only a handful of studies which link the problem of language production in the country to language teacher professionalism. In this regard, (Owu-Ewie et al. 2015) have examined English proficiency levels among English teachers in the Central Region while (Oppong-Sekyere et al. 2013 ) have also explored English language teaching and professionalism in the Assin- North Municipality, also in the Central Region of Ghana. Findings from these studies revealed that English teachers in the Central Region, and by extension, Ghana, were ill-equipped to teaching English Language. In the case of (Oppong-Sekyere et al, 2013 ) for example, about 75% of the sampled population of teachers had no specialisation in English. This, the researchers argued, made it difficult for teachers to understand and teach English as a subject which reflect in poor methods and strategies of teaching, which in turn affect the performance of students. Similarly, (Klu and Ansre 2018 ) have identified low levels of teacher professionalism, lack of teacher capacity and inadequate trained language teachers in the school system as some of the emerging issues on the problems associated with the successful implementation of language-in-education policies, and by extension, the production of positive outcomes in language education in Ghana. While these studies are important, they present only localized pictures of the situation. The current study presents a national picture of this problem. Language teaching is professionalised in many educational systems across the world. In many contexts, there is a conscious effort, usually through policy, to ensure that language is taught in the school system only by people who have been trained to teach respective languages. This is particularly so in contexts where the school language or official language is taught as a second or foreign language. Indeed, many Asian countries have professionalized [foreign] language teaching, putting specially designed programmes in place to improve proficiency in the language of language teachers (Wang and Lin 2013 ). For instance, the Hong Kong government has established a Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR) since 1996, which advises government on language education issues including the use of the language fund. According to (SCOLAR 2020 ), the main aims of the committee are: (i) to enable the people of Hong Kong to become biliterate in written Chinese and English, and (ii) to become trilingual in Cantonese, Putonghua and English. Since its establishment, the committee has designed and implemented research development projects on language learning, conducted language projects to enrich the language learning environment in Hong Kong, completed a review on language education policies and proposed an action plan to raise language standards in the country, and strengthened professional development in Chinese language (including Putonghua) and English teachers by providing school-based support and grant schemes. For instance, in 2000, the Hong Kong government introduced a directive that required all teachers of English and Putonghua who had not done a first degree and a post graduate Diploma in Education in the languages they taught to write and pass a language proficiency attainment test (LPAT) in the very languages they taught. This test measured the teachers’ competency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking and classroom language assessment. According to the directive, teachers who failed the test were either to be redeployed to teach other subjects or be dismissed. Then in 2003, Hong Kong’s SCOLAR recommended that schools should only employ language teachers who majored in the language they teach, and who are professionally trained only to teach the language subjects in their school system (SCOLAR 2020 ). In a study that investigated the policies and practices that govern the recruitment of English Teachers in East Asian countries including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, (Jeon and Lee 2006 ) reported that in China, one of the regulations governing the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (SAFEA) states that, ‘an ordinary foreign teacher of language shall have earned a bachelor or higher degree and professional training in language teaching as well as some amount of language teaching experience’. However, a native speaker of English may be employed to teach English with a minimum of a U.S high school diploma or its equivalent. In the absence of these required qualifications, some provinces, e.g., Liaoning Province, consider international experience, teaching experience, study level attained and specific skills and certificates in fields other than (English) language teaching if the teacher is a native English speaker preferably from the British Isles, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States or [other] European countries. Again, (Jeon and Lee 2006 ) report that in Taiwan, a person is required to have a Bachelor’s degree in any discipline or an Associate’s degree with a TEFL/TESOL 4 Certificate to teach English. However, non-native elementary and kindergarten-level teachers are not required to have previous teaching experience or ESL certification to teach English. In Japan, a teacher of English must have gained at least a Bachelor’s degree in any discipline but a TEFL qualification is not required even though helpful. In a British Council-led survey on the qualifications and training/career development of primary English teachers in 64 countries around the globe (representative of Kachru’s 1990 circle of English speakers around the world), (Rixon 2013 ) reports that 38% of primary school teachers reported that they held a bachelor’s degree in English, and 25% had a Master’s Degree in the subject while 21% reported that they had no specialised qualification to teach English. Nevertheless, 85% of respondents reported that they had undertaken some sort of in-service/continuing professional training course. Interestingly, most of these teachers said the courses had been organized by either their Ministry of Education (54%) or their local teachers associations (2%). The rest qualified through their own initiative. With regard to the acceptable teaching qualifications for the ESL/EFL countries, (Rixon 2013 ) reports a great variation in practices around the world. However, there was also evidence to suggest “an attempt to harmonize” primary English teacher qualification issues in primary schools. Rixon again reports that in France, starting from 2006, while all teacher training graduates are qualified to teach a foreign language, in-service training is provided for other teachers who are required to pass the ‘habilitation’ which is constituted by ‘provisoire’ (which tests language competence and methodology) and ‘definitive’ , an in-class observation by the inspectorate division of education. Rixon further reports that in Taiwan, new teachers are required to meet one of the following two criteria to be an English teacher in state schools: one, a teacher must possess a university degree with English major (not education major), and two, they must have passed either a local or an international exam of English at B1 level. However, teachers who are already teaching English are not required to achieve the above, though they are still encouraged to do so (Rixon 2013 :20). Thus, there is evidence in research to suggest that countries with multiple education system produce good performance in language learning, regulate language teaching by policy or other relevant instruments, available information from the Ministry of Education (MoE) nor the Ghana Education Service (GES) suggests that there is no policy per se that regulates who teaches a language subject in the school system, nor is there a mandatory requirement by the GES/MoE for language teachers to obtain continuing professional training in language teaching even though English is the official language and by policy, the main medium of instruction in education in Ghana and is taught and learned largely as a second language. In this paper, we take the position that the use of non-professionally trained language teachers in teaching language subjects in Ghana’s school system is a potential major factor that influences language teaching/learning outcomes in the country. 4. Methods The data for this paper were culled from a body of data that were collected between March 2018 and July 2018 for a larger study which investigated language policy, teacher professionalism and language education in Ghana. While the main data were collected using mixed methods - questionnaires, interviews and observation, only the questionnaires’ data are analyzed in this paper. The data were collected from 80 basic schools (40 public and 40 private) from 20 administrative districts (10 urban, 10 rural) in the then 10 5 administrative regions across the country - two districts (rural and urban) in each region, four (4) schools (2 public, 2 private) in each district were selected for the data collection. Table 1 shows the Regions and Districts from which the data for the study were collected. Table 1 Regions and Districts of Data Collection Region District Ashanti Kumasi Metro, Kwabre District Bono Ahafo Sunyani Municipal, Tano North District Central Cape Coast Municipal, Asikuma-Odobeng-Brakwa District Eastern New Juaben Municipal, Kwaebibirem District Greater Accra Accra Metro, Kpone-Katamanso District Northern Sanalurgu Municipal, Bunkpurugu-Yunyo District Upper East Bolgatanga Municipal, Bulsa North District Upper West Wa Municipal, Nadowli District Volta Ho Municipal, Jasikan District Western Sekondi-Takoradi Municipal, Ahanta West District In each school, language teachers across the various levels of the basic school system, i.e. KG, Lower Primary, Upper Primary and JHS, filled semi-structured questionnaires that contained both open-ended and polar questions (see appendix). The data were analyzed quantitatively, using basic descriptive statistics. The study was given ethical clearance by the University of Ghana Ethics Committee as well as the Director for Ghana Education Service. Participants were explicitly informed about their rights, confidentiality and anonymity. 5. Findings and Discussion 5.1 Demographic characteristics of respondents This section presents analysis of the demographic information on all 248 language-teacher respondents from across the country. For the purpose of this study, the old regional demarcations prior to the creation of new regions in 2019 were used. There was a fairly equal representation of males and females although the males formed a majority by about 5 percentage points. Respondents between the ages of 21 to 30 years formed the group with the highest representation with the average age estimated to be about 35 years. Given that people are completing secondary education by 16 years and teacher education was three years in the country at the time, this is not surprising. Regarding their linguistic repertoires, about 48% of the respondents said they were multilingual in several local languages and English while 52% reported as being bilingual in one Ghanaian language and English. Altogether, 95.6% of the sample reported as speaking a Ghanaian language as L1 and English as L2, while 2.8% reported as speaking English as L1 and a Ghanaian language as L2, with 1.6% speaking French as L1 and English or Ghanaian language as L2. Again, given the recent phenomenon, particularly in urban Ghana, where English has become a home language among some Ghanaians (Afrifa et al. 2019), this situation is not surprising. In addition, while sampled teachers reported as belonging to varied ethnolinguistic background, majority of them, about 45% of the total sample belonged to the Akan group - consisting of speakers of Asante Twi, Fante and Akuapem Twi. This was followed distantly by Ewe which formed about 15% of the total sample. Other languages that featured include Ga/Adangme), English and French. The category of languages labelled as others included several languages such as Guan, Nzema, Larteh etc. which were minimally represented in the sample. Languages classified under Northern Ghana Languages were made up of languages spoken in the northern part of Ghana, predominantly Dagbani, Hausa and Dagaare. Again, these figures are consistent with the ethnic composition of the country as shown in the country’s population census (Ghana Statistical Services 2012). In all, 48.8% of the teachers taught English, 24.5% taught Ghanaian language while 23.4% taught French. It is interesting to note that there are overlaps in these figures - some teachers taught more than one language. It is also interesting to note that some languages that are not prescribed in the language-in-education policy, e.g., Chinese were taught in some schools. The demographic distribution in the data makes the study representative with reference to gender and age categorizations. Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of language-teacher respondents. Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Language Teachers Variable Frequency Percentage Gender Female 117 47.2% Male 131 52.8% Age groups 20 years and less 7 2.8% 21-30 years 85 34.3% 31-40 years 63 25.4% 41-50 years 44 17.7% Above 50 years 30 12.1% Non response 19 7.7% L1 English 7 2.8% Ewe 38 15.3% French 4 1.6% Ga 16 6.5% Akan 113 45.6% Northern languages 35 14.1% Others 35 14.1% Number of local languages spoken 1 131 52.8% 2 67 27.0% 3 28 11.3% 4 or more 13 5.2% Non response 9 3.6% 5.2 Language Teachers ’ Academic Qualification In discussing the use of non-professional language teachers as a potential negative input in the production of (language) education and literacy outcomes in Ghana, we asked questions about the educational/professional qualification backgrounds of language teachers in our nationwide survey of both private and public basic schools in Ghana. This section presents findings from the survey regarding the academic/professional qualifications of sampled language teachers. It is important to reiterate that all respondents were teachers who taught at least one language course in their respective educational institutions. About 69% taught a single language subject while just about 7% taught two languages, usually English and French or English and a Ghanaian language. However, there were teachers who combined teaching a language with non-language subjects. For example, there were teachers who taught English and Social Studies, English language and Mathematics or Akan and Social studies. All the respondents had at least a basic level education. However, similar to the findings from the British Council survey, sampled language teachers had varying educational qualifications. Whereas 60.9% of all the language teachers reported to have a bachelor’s degree, 4.8% had a master’s degree, 21.% had a diploma (post-secondary) and 13.3% had certificates from Senior and Junior Secondary school. Interestingly, all the participants with basic and secondary school certificates were from private schools. Table 3 summarizes the educational/academic qualifications of the respondents. Table 3: Teachers ’ Academic Qualification Highest level of education Variable Frequency Percentage Bachelor’s Degree 151 60.9% Diploma 49 19.8% HND 3 1.2% Junior High School 1 0.4% Master’s Degree 12 4.8% Senior High School 32 12.9% 5.3 Language Teachers ’ area of Specialisation In this section, we present findings on language teachers’ area of academic/professional specialization. By area of specialization, we refer to the major course of study during their educational training especially at the tertiary level. For effective teaching and learning, one would expect that teachers would have some mastery in the subject area of the subject they teach. When teachers in our study were asked to indicate their areas of specialisation, only 50.4% indicated a language subject or language-related discipline as their area of specialisation. The rest had either no specializations at all (no tertiary education) or had specialization in other areas such as political science, accounting, history. These other areas of specializations have been categorized as non-language. Again, even though more than 90% of the teachers reported as teaching language only (1 or 2 languages), about 7% taught multiple subjects - a language plus other non-language subjects. The teachers who taught multiple subjects are class teachers at the lower primary (KG-P3) level who teach all subjects including the languages prescribed in the language-in-education policy. It is interesting to note that these teachers, with no professional qualification in language, are the ones that lay the foundation of language education (KG-P3) in our education system. Table 4 summarizes teachers’ area of specialization and subject(s). Table 4: Area of Specialization and Subject taught Variable Frequency Percentage Area of Specialisation Language 125 50.4% Non language 84 33.9% Non response 39 15.7% Subjects taught Language only 172 69.4% One language and a non-language course 42 16.9% Two languages 17 6.9% Multiple subjects 16 6.5% Non response 1 0.4% Again, we wanted to find out which sub-group of language teachers tended to/not to have specializations in language. Consequently, we ran a cross-tabulation between the categories ‘subject taught’ and area of specialisation. The cross-tabulation results showed that over 90% of teachers who taught two languages, and 65% of teachers who taught a single language had specializations in a language related area. However, while only about 53% of teachers who taught one language plus a non-language subject had specialization in a non-language area, 100% of teachers who taught multiple subjects (class teachers at the lower primary levels KG-P3) had no specialization in language. This situation where teachers with no specialization in language studies or language education are made to lay the foundation of language teaching/learning in the school system has potential serious implications for language education and language performance in our educational system. Table 5 presents cross tabulation results for subject taught and area of specialization. Table 5: Cross Tabulation of Subject taught against Area of Specialization Area of Specialisation Subject Taught Language Non language Total Single language only 65.5% 34.5% 100% One language and a non-language course 47.4% 52.6% 100% Two languages 93.3% 6.7% 100% Multiple subjects 0.0% 100.0% 100% Finally, we wanted to know the regional distribution of this problem of language teacher and study area mismatch. Again, we ran cross tabulation test between teachers’ area of specialization and administrative region of teachers. Table 6 presents the findings of the cross tabulation. Table 6: Cross Tabulation of Region against Language Specialization Region Specialised in language Specialised in other courses Western 9.1% 90.9% Central 70.0% 30.0% Greater Accra 60.4% 39.6% Volta 77.3% 22.7% Eastern 66.7% 33.3% Ashanti 52.6% 47.4% Brong Ahafo 56.3% 43.8% Northern 60.0% 40.0% Upper East 68.8% 31.3% Upper West 45.5% 54.5% From this table, it is clear that while there was no region where all language teachers had specialization in a language discipline, it emerged that more than 50% of the language teachers in every region, except Western and Upper West regions had specializations in a language discipline. Teachers in the Volta and the Central regions had language more than 70 percent of teachers specializing in language related courses. Whereas only 45.5% of sampled language teachers in the Upper West region had specialization in a language discipline, less than 10% of sampled language teachers in the Western region had specialization in a language discipline. This finding clearly points to a lack of policy or any clear consistent regulations on language teaching in the school system. This finding also raises certain moral issues such as equity/fairness and equal opportunity in our educational system. Given that all students write the same examination and are graded with the same (not differentiated) grading schemes at the end of schooling, and in the light of premium placed on (English) language competence in our education (MoE 2007, Teacher Education Curriculum Framework 2018), students in regions such as the Western and Upper West are disadvantaged before they sit the examinations. 5.4 Continuing Professional Training in Language Continuing professional training, also known as continuing professional development (CPD) has been defined by (Bell and Gilbert 2005, quoted in Ucan 2016:36) as a continuing process in which teachers always seek new ways and methods to improve the learning of their students”. (Day and Sachs 2004) also define CPD as including all the activities in which teachers engage during the course of a carrier which are designed to enhance their work. Again, (Padwad and Dixit 2011) define CPD as “a planned, continuous and lifelong process whereby teachers try to develop their personal and professional qualities and to improve their knowledge, skills and practice, leading to their empowerment, the improvement of their agency and the development of their organism and the pupils”. Finally, (Stein 1999:263) has defined CPD (what he calls teacher professional development) as the use of multiple professional development strategies to build teacher capacity to understand not only subject matter (content knowledge) but also pedagogy and student thinking. In other words, CPD is believed to empower individual teachers and educational organizations to improve curriculum, instruction and student assessment as well as facilitate students’ growth and development. Indeed, CPD is believed to be central to improving the value of schooling and learning outcomes (Fullan, 2001; Ucan, 2016). This is because since teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge do not develop automatically with growing professional experience, CPD provides teachers the opportunity to increase their knowledge, improve their practice in order to foster student learning and achievement gains (Borko and Koellner 2010). Guided by these assumed importances of CPD in school outcomes, we asked our teacher participants to indicate whether or not they had had any CPDs and what sort of training they received if any. Only 36.7% of the sampled language teachers said they had had any CPD. Interestingly, 60.4% of this number had simply obtained additional school certifications, usually, higher education not necessarily in language. Very few of the teachers (17.6%) had received a CPD in the languages they taught. Table 7 thus summarizes teachers’ responses to the question of whether or not they had had any CPD. Table 7: Professional Training Statistics Variable Frequency Percentage Additional professional qualification obtained No 130 52.4% Yes 91 36.7% Non response 27 10.9% Form / source of additional training** Workshops (Government, Donor, School funded) 20 22.0% In service training with certification 12 13.2% Refresher courses 4 4.4% School certification (Bachelors, Master’s degree etc.) 55 60.4% ** Percentages were computed from the 91 respondents who reported as having had some form of CPD Again, we wanted to know whether there was any relationship between teachers’ area of specialization and CPD attainment. The cross tabulation in Table 8 therefore presents the summary results which indicated a fairly equal representation across the various teacher categories. Chi square tests of independence indicated no substantial relationships between area of specialisation and CPD attainment (χ 2 = 0.02; p=0.9). Table 8: Cross Tabulation of Qualification Status against Area of Specialization Area of Specialisation Qualification status No CPD obtained CPD obtained Total Language 66 (57.9%) 48 (42.1%) 114 Non language 46 (58.2) 33 (41.8%) 79 Total 112 81 193 Finally, we ran a cross tabulation test to establish a potential relationship between subject taught and the chance of obtaining a CPD. Table 9 presents the result of this cross tabulation. The result indicates that majority of sampled teachers who had had CPD taught two language subjects with no additional subject. On the average about 69% of teachers who teach language subjects only have had some form of CPD while 56% of teachers who teach other subjects in addition to language subjects on the average have had no CPD. It is important to note that although these differences exist on the face value of the data, results of chi square tests of independence showed no substantial relationship between subject taught and teacher CPD (χ 2 = 3.53; p=0.316). Table 9: Cross Tabulation of Subject taught against Qualification Status Qualification status Subject taught No CPD CPD obtained Language only 92 (59%) 63 (41%) One language and a non-language course 19 (50%) 19 (50%) Two languages 11 (79%) 3 (21%) Multiple subjects 8 (62%) 5 (38%) 6. Conclusion This paper has reported findings from a nationwide survey of the professional backgrounds of language (Ghanaian Language (L1), English and French) teachers in basic schools in Ghana. It began under the assumption that the findings from some localized studies that suggest that language competence in the school system is jeopardized by lack of language teacher competence could be widespread. The current study therefore sampled data from 80 basic schools across 20 districts in all administrative regions of Ghana. Using semi-structured questionnaires, the study asked questions about language teacher academic qualification, area of specialization and continuing professional development CPD. Major findings include the following: Language teachers in Ghana’s school system are largely bi/multilingual. Majority of language teachers speak a Ghanaian language as L1 and English/French as L2. However, a few of them speak French or English as L1 and Ghanaian Language as L2 Majority of language teachers hold a post-secondary education certificate, e.g. Diploma, Bachelor, and Master’s degree - those without post-secondary certificates were found in private schools. About 50% of language teachers with higher education have no specialization in language studies. All KG-P3 teachers sampled had no specialization in language studies. Majority of sampled language teachers (52%) have had no continuing professional development since they became teachers. There is variation in these issues across the different regions. There is variation in language teacher distribution across schools and regions - Whereas some schools had language teachers for each class, other schools had just one language teacher for the whole school. These findings raise a number of concerns that need addressing by the Ministry of Education and Ghana Education Service if language education were to see improvement. On the one hand, the variations in language teacher distribution, language teacher qualification, and language teacher CPD suggest a lack of clear consistent and uniform policy that regulates language teaching in the school system. This suggests a lack of policy to regulate language teaching in our schools. On the other hand, the consistent use of teachers with no specialization in language studies at the lower primary level across schools whether it is by policy or practice point to a lack of proper understanding of what is required in producing language competence in our school system. This is because, to place teachers who do not have the requisite content knowledge and pedagogical skills in language teaching, especially where second language learning is involved at the foundation level is to jeopardize the whole enterprise of language teaching/learning. Language teachers in later stages of education may spend the time correcting fundamental errors created by a weak foundation in language learning instead of building on what should have been. In either case, the situation undermines the whole purpose of making language competence a bedrock in Ghana’s education system as is stated in the (National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework 2018: 23). What is required to fix this problem is a concerted effort by both the Ministry of Education and GES to provide policy guidelines on who qualifies to teach a language subject, and to provide effective monitoring to ensure implementation respectively. As has been shown in the literature, language teaching is professionalized by policy in many countries around the world, particularly, where multiple languages are used in education, like ours. If we are to achieve effective language teaching and learning, and indeed, improvement in general education, only teachers with the requisite content knowledge and pedagogical skills should be allowed to teach language subjects in our school system We, therefore, recommend that KG-P3 teachers be made to specialize in language studies. Even though the 2018 teacher education curriculum includes language and literacy studies, if things are left to run their natural course, more damage may be caused by the time students of the new curriculum graduate and get posted. In addition, the practice where language teachers go for years without any CPD is not helpful in sustaining the production of language competence in the school system. To achieve effective language teaching/learning, language teachers must be interested in what they do and interesting to their students. This is possible only if teachers are not recycling obsolete information. Continuing professional development programmes, e.g. workshops, refresher courses etc. provide opportunity for teachers to update and upgrade their knowledge in their subject areas. In Ghana, CPD appears to be associated with educational reforms (Coffie 2019 ). For instance, T-TEL (Transforming Teacher Education and Learning) has been involved in providing CPD for teachers for a few years now. Nevertheless, T-TEL focuses mainly on pre-service training - T-TEL aims to ‘develop beginning teachers who will demonstrate interactive, student-focused instructional methods, gender-sensitive and student-centred instructional strategies, and who know and can apply the school curriculum and assessment’. Consequently, T-TEL supports CPD at the level of the colleges of education - for trainers of trainee teachers. For teachers outside this category, CPD appears to be optional, encouraged only for teacher promotion purposes and not for effective teaching. As is the best practice in other countries, we recommend more frequent and compulsory professional development and capacity building programmes for language teachers - language teachers must have a specified number of continuing professional training in the languages they teach every year. We could actually adopt the Hong-Kong approach where language teachers have to demonstrate competence in the languages they teach from time to time. Finally, we recommend that language teachers be encouraged to belong to and participate in the activities of language professional bodies, e,g, the Linguistics Association of Ghana. These recommendations are made under the conviction that using non-professional language teachers to teach language subjects in our school system is a potential negative production input in producing language education/language competencies, e.g. literacy, in the country. Declarations Ethical Approval The research included surveys and interviews that involved adults (language teachers) each of who filled a consent form to participate. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities in accordance with the Human and Animal Research Ethics unit of the Research and Innovation Directorate, University of Ghana. Accordance Statement All data collection methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the Ethics Committee for the Humanities, University of Ghana. Informed Consent All participants were adults (over 18 years). Each participant consented to participate in the research by filling a consent form in accordance with the University of Ghana Ethics Committee for the Humanities Guidelines. Consent to Publish Not applicable Funding This research was funded by the University of Ghana’s Office of Research and Innovation Development (ORID) with project reference number: UGRF/10/ILG-017/2016–2017 Author Contribution G.N.A was the Principal investigator/lead researcher and contributed to the conceptualisation, data processing, drafting and editing of the manuscript.N.A.A. was a member of the research team and contributed to the conceptualisation, drafting and editing of the manuscript.P.K.B was a member of the team and contributed to the conceptualisation, data processing and drafting of the manuscript.S.C was a member of the research team and contributed to the conceptualisation, drafting and editing of the manuscript. Data Availability The authors collected primary linguistic data through surveys, audio recorded interviews and field notes. The data was submitted to the School of Languages repository and may be available upon request. References Afrifa, G. A, Anderson J.A.,, & Ansah, G.N. (2019). The choice of English as a home language in urban Ghana. Current Issues in Language Planning , 20(4), 418-434. Agbedor, P K. (1994). Language Planning for National Development: The Case of Ghana (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Canada: University of Victoria, British Columbia. Ampiah, J. G. (2008). An investigation of provision of quality basic education in Ghana: A case study of selected schools in the Central Region. Journal of International Cooperation in Education , 11(3), 19-37. Ansah, G. N. (2014). Re-examining the fluctuations in language in-education policies in post-independence Ghana. Multilingual Education , 4(1), 12. Anyidoho, L. A. (2018). Shifting Sands: Language Policies in Education in Ghana And Implementation Challenges. Ghana Journal of Linguistics , 7(2), 225-243. Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (2005). Teacher development: a model from science education . Taylor & Francis e- Library. Borko, H., Jacobs, J. & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. International Encyclopedia of Education , 7(2), 548-556. Coffie, I. S. (2019). Transforming teacher education and learning in Ghana: The impact of continuous professional development on physics teaching at the colleges of education. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation , 6(6), 201-206. Coleman, J. S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity. Integrated Education , 6(5), 19-28. Dako, K., & Quarcoo, M.A. (2017). Attitudes towards English in Ghana. Legon Journal of the Humanities , 28(1), 20-30. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers 3(32). Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G.F. & Fennig, C.D. (eds.). 2022. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Twenty-fifth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change . Routledge. Ghana Web (2018). WASSCE: Students performance in English, Maths, Science drop. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/WASSCE-Students-perfor mance-in-English-Maths-Science-drop-729155. Retrieved on 14th August 2019. Graphiconline.com (2019). https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/waec-release-2019- wassce-results-over-74-000-fail-english-language.html . Retrieved on 16th August 2019. Harris, D. N (2010). Education Production Function: Concepts. In Peterson, P. L., Baker, E. & McGaw, b. (ed). International Encyclopedia of Education . Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Hanushek, E. A. (2008). Education production functions. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics , 2, 749-52. Henderson, D. J. Simar, L.& Wang, L. (2017). The three Is of public schools: irrelevant inputs, insufficient resources and inefficiency. Applied Economics 49 (12): 1164-1184. Kachru, Braj. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes , 9(1), 3-20. Klu, E. K., & Ansre, M.A. (2018). An overview of the language-in-education policy in Ghana: Emerging issues. The Social Sciences , 13(3), 596-601. Jeon, M. & Lee, J. (2006). Hiring native-speaking English teachers in East Asian countries. English Today 22.(4): 53-58. Ministry of Education, Science and Sports. (2007). Teaching syllabuses for English language (Primary1 – 4) . (accessed on 4th October, 2019). [http://www.ges.gov.gh/PRIMARYSYLLABUS/ENGLISH%20PRIMARY%201–3.pdf]. MoE (2018). The National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework . Ghana: The Ministry of Education. Oppong-Sekyere, D.. ,Oppong-Sekyere, F. & Akpalu, M.M. (2013). Some factors influencing the academic performance of junior high school pupils in English language: The case of Assin North Municipality. International Journal of English and Literature, 4(5), 226-235. Osei, G.M. (2006). Teachers in Ghana: Issues of training, remuneration and effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Development 26 (1), 38-51. Owu-Ewie, C. (2006). The language policy of education in Ghana: A critical look at the English-only language policy of education. In Selected proceedings of the 35th annual conference on African linguistics (pp. 76-85). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Owu-Ewie, C., Eshun, E.S. (2015). The use of English as medium of instruction at the upper basic level (primary four to junior high school) in Ghana: From theory to practice. Journal of Education and Practice . 6(3). Padwad, A, & Dixit, K. (2011). Continuing professional development: An annotated bibliography, New Delhi: British Council, India. Quarcoo, M. A. (2014). Language policy and language of education in Ghana: A reality or an allusion? Wisconsin Journal , 4(49-59). Rasheed, M.I., Humayon, A.A, Awan. U. (2016). Factors affecting teachers’ motivation: An HRM challenge for public sector higher educational institutions of Pakistan (HEIs). International Journal of Educational Management . Republic of Ghana (2002). Meeting the challenges of education in the twenty-first century: Report of the president ’ s committee on review of education reforms in Ghana . (Anamuah- Mensah Committee). Accra: Ministry of Education. Rixon, S. (2013). British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide . British Council. Sa’ad, T. U,,&Usman. R. (2014). The causes of poor performance in English language among senior secondary school students in Dutse Metropolis of Jigawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Research & Method in Education 4(5): 41-47. SCOLAR, (2020). https://scolarhk.edb.hkedcity.net/en/about-scolar-introduction . Stein, M. K. Smith, M.S. & Silver, E. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard educational review 69(3): 237-270. Uçan, S. (2016). The role of continuous professional development of teachers in educational change: A literature review. Harran Maarif Dergisi , 1(1), 36-43. Wang, Li-Yi & Lin, T-B (2013). The Representation of Professionalism in Native English-speaking Teachers Recruitment Policies: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. English Teaching: Practice and Critique , 12(3), 5-22. Footnotes West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) is the examining body of basic and secondary education across West Africa, including Ghana. The teaching of English, French and selected Ghanaian languages is mandated by the country’s language-in-education policy. (BECE) Basic Education Certificate Examination; (WASSCE) West African Secondary School Certificate Examination Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL); Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). The administrative regions in Ghana were officially 10 at the time the data for this study were collected (March 2018-July 2018). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 12 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 10 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 01 Mar, 2026 Editor invited by journal 09 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 02 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 28 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8651022","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":600251724,"identity":"a71ee145-5703-46fe-8cca-d304a2f05739","order_by":0,"name":"Gladys Nyarko Ansah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gladys","middleName":"Nyarko","lastName":"Ansah","suffix":""},{"id":600251725,"identity":"1dedc5a5-1ad9-4a45-9fa6-bb5b2b3e1096","order_by":1,"name":"Nana Ama Agyeman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nana","middleName":"Ama","lastName":"Agyeman","suffix":""},{"id":600251726,"identity":"7e79b332-5516-4716-8f48-9c79c6f723d9","order_by":2,"name":"Paul Kwame Butakor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paul","middleName":"Kwame","lastName":"Butakor","suffix":""},{"id":600251727,"identity":"724f60a0-070c-41de-91ff-8694cb53cd1e","order_by":3,"name":"Sewoenam Chachu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sewoenam","middleName":"","lastName":"Chachu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-20 16:11:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104414463,"identity":"7d723ea9-9f78-459e-bff4-1630c0eb79d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 13:07:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1167530,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651022/v1/de2d4303-db22-4bad-8c79-dee7bde34847.pdf"},{"id":104408102,"identity":"1ff81c47-9efa-44cb-86fb-a4f2544ef750","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:41:41","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18308,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651022/v1/acd7a4d0fef5c3ce66911a0c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Professionalising Language Teaching and Language Education in Ghana","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLanguage teaching is embedded in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s basic education curriculum from early years through policy. On the one hand, the current (2007) language-in-education policy stipulates that within the first five years of primary education (KG-P3), a Ghanaian language (L1) that is dominant in a given geographical area should be used as the medium of instruction while English is taught as a subject. However, English becomes the medium of instruction from primary 4 onwards while the L1 becomes a taught subject from P4. On the other hand, the 2018 National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework (MoE \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) which seeks to transform teaching and learning in the country also stipulates thus:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage is the key to success in education and life. Getting this right is the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003emost critical issue for our children\u0026rsquo;s future and for education in Ghana\u0026hellip;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage and education are two inseparable concepts because education is\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003edisseminated via language, therefore, the teachers we train should be very competent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ein both the L1 and L2 so that they can teach children to speak and read these languages\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eand also use the languages to teach other subjects (p 23).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis notwithstanding, the production of language education in Ghana appears not to be very successful yielding poor performance, language competence and literacy. For instance, according to a WAEC report published on (Graphiconline.com \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ghanaweb.com 2018), English performance in WASSCE declined from 52% in 2017 to 46% in 2018 and slightly picked up to 48.96% in 2019. Indeed, every year, the West African Examinations Council\u0026rsquo;s chief examiner\u0026rsquo;s near apologetic report that follows the release of BECE and WASSCE\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e results point to lack of competence in the (English) language, e.g., lack of understanding of questions and rubrics of instructions, poor spelling and expression, as the students\u0026rsquo; weaknesses that led to the poor performance in the examinations in general and English in particular.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe logical question to ask then is \u0026lsquo;why does language teaching in Ghana appear to yield poor performance when language teaching is so entrenched in the school curriculum from an early age?\u0026rsquo; Researchers in the field have attempted to answer this question from different perspectives. While some have attributed the situation to the disparities between language-in-education policy and sociolinguistic realities (Ansah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), others have linked it to the lack of TLMs (Ampiah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), lack of professionalism among language teachers (Oppong-Sekyere et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), lack of language proficiency among teachers (Owu-Ewie et al. 2015), as well as implementation challenges in language-in-education policy (Anyidoho \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Our position on this question is that allowing non-professional language teachers to teach language courses may be a key reason why language teaching/learning yields poor performance in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s educational system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the past few years, pre-admission interviews of applicants (from across Ghana) seeking to enroll in post graduate sandwich studies in English at the University of Ghana have revealed that majority of the applicants have had no official/professional training in one or both of the languages they teach even though they have taught the language(s) for years at the basic or secondary school levels. Following this observation, a nationwide research was undertaken in both private and public basic schools across the country\u0026rsquo;s ten regions (as part of a bigger study) to investigate the spread of the situation among language teachers in Ghana. While earlier studies remain important, they are narrow in scope (focused on individual districts) and provide a localized picture of the situation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study, therefore, expands previous studies with the aim of not only exposing the depth of the problem described above but also to point out the importance of professionalizing language teaching in order to ensure effective teaching and learning in our school system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Multilingualism, Language Policy and Language Education in Ghana","content":"\u003cp\u003eMultilingualism is a common phenomenon in the world but it is particularly prevalent in African countries which tend to be populated by ethnolinguistically very diverse communities, translating to many indigenous languages. For instance, Ghana\u0026rsquo;s 30\u0026nbsp;million population speak about 73 indigenous languages (Eberhard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The rich linguistic diversity notwithstanding, many African countries tend to adopt one European language or another (typically, a colonial legacy), e.g. English, French, and other non-indigenous languages perceived by governments or groups as important for religious, commercial or regional integration purposes, (e.g., Hausa, Arabic, Kiswahili) as official and national/regional languages respectively. For example, in Ghana, in addition to the 73 indigenous, there are 8 non-indigenous, including English, Hausa and Arabic that are used widely. Whereas Arabic is perceived and used as an important language for religious purposes, Hausa is the language of integration among migrants (usually from West Africa) and English, a colonial legacy is used as the official language in the country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinguistic diversity has implications for any country, particularly in education. Governments in multilingual spaces have tried to regulate/manage linguistic diversity in education through policy. Language-in-education policies were introduced by various bodies to manage linguistic diversity in education in Ghana long before independence (Agbedor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Owu-Ewie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, language-in-education policies have fluctuated over the years - successive governments have tried to resolve intrinsic conflicts in existing policies by setting up special committees, e.g., The Dzob Committee of 1967, The Anamuah-Mensah Committee of 2002 (Republic of Ghana \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) to review these policies or by formulating new policies all together (see Ansah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Owu-Ewie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current working language-in-education policy (MOE, 2007), stipulates that within the first five years of primary education (KG-P3), a Ghanaian language (L1) that is dominant in a given geographical area should be used as the medium of instruction while English is taught as a subject. However, English becomes the medium of instruction from Primary 4 onwards while the L1 becomes a taught subject from P4. The policy also makes provision for French to be taught as a compulsory subject at the Junior High School provided that there are enough trained teachers (The Annamuah-Mensah report). It is interesting to note that while the study of L1 is compulsory and examinable up to junior high school but not senior high school, English is compulsory and examinable both at the junior high and senior high schools. To a large extent, managing multilingualism in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s education has not been successful. In other words, Ghana\u0026rsquo;s language-in-education policies have not achieved the expected results for multiple reasons (see Agbedor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Owu-Ewie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Oppong-Sekyere et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Ansah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Anyidoho \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Producing Language Competencies in the School System","content":"\u003cp\u003eEducational Production Function (EPF), also known as input-output analysis or cost-quality studies basically examines how educational production inputs or school resources (e.g., money, men, materials, management, time) influence students\u0026rsquo; performance or school/learning outcomes in quantitative terms (Coleman1968; Hanushek \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Production function has been defined by (Harris \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) as all the combinations of inputs that produce any given set of school outputs, e.g. test scores. In other words, production function seeks to understand or establish how maximum feasible output can be obtained from a given set of inputs. Many studies that have examined the relationship among different inputs and different educational outputs in many different contexts (Henderson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For example, (Sa\u0026rsquo;ad and Usman 2014) have identified the following as inputs/determinants of poor performance in the educational production of English language competence in Nigeria: dominance of mother tongue use in and out of school; lack of adequate qualified English language teachers; inappropriate pedagogical strategies; lack of TLMs and other facilities, e.g. language labs. Similarly, (Rasheed et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) has linked English performance in Pakistan to the opportunity and actual regular use of English in and out of school environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ghana, performance in education system has been linked to several factors including the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003etraining, remuneration and effectiveness of teachers in general (Osei \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), and the (in)availability of better textbooks and other TLMs in schools (Ampiah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). While these studies are important, they do not address the problems associated with the production of language education specifically. Again, while there appears to be a plethora of studies that specifically investigated language problems in education in Ghana, majority of such studies have tended to concentrate on language-in-education policies (Agbedor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Owu-Ewie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Ansah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Quarcoo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Dako and Quarcoo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Ansah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) has linked the poor performance in (language) education to the inherent inadequacies in language-in-education policies while Anyidoho (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) has linked it to challenges in the implementation of language-in-education policies. A review of the literature reveals only a handful of studies which link the problem of language production in the country to language teacher professionalism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, (Owu-Ewie et al. 2015) have examined English proficiency levels among English teachers in the Central Region while (Oppong-Sekyere et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) have also explored English language teaching and professionalism in the Assin- North Municipality, also in the Central Region of Ghana. Findings from these studies revealed that English teachers in the Central Region, and by extension, Ghana, were ill-equipped to teaching English Language. In the case of (Oppong-Sekyere et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) for example, about 75% of the sampled population of teachers had no specialisation in English. This, the researchers argued, made it difficult for teachers to understand and teach English as a subject which reflect in poor methods and strategies of teaching, which in turn affect the performance of students. Similarly, (Klu and Ansre \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) have identified low levels of teacher professionalism, lack of teacher capacity and inadequate trained language teachers in the school system as some of the emerging issues on the problems associated with the successful implementation of language-in-education policies, and by extension, the production of positive outcomes in language education in Ghana. While these studies are important, they present only localized pictures of the situation. The current study presents a national picture of this problem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage teaching is professionalised in many educational systems across the world. In many contexts, there is a conscious effort, usually through policy, to ensure that language is taught in the school system only by people who have been trained to teach respective languages. This is particularly so in contexts where the school language or official language is taught as a second or foreign language. Indeed, many Asian countries have professionalized [foreign] language teaching, putting specially designed programmes in place to improve proficiency in the language of language teachers (Wang and Lin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, the Hong Kong government has established a Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR) since 1996, which advises government on language education issues including the use of the language fund. According to (SCOLAR \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the main aims of the committee are: (i) to enable the people of Hong Kong to become biliterate in written Chinese and English, and (ii) to become trilingual in Cantonese, Putonghua and English. Since its establishment, the committee has designed and implemented research development projects on language learning, conducted language projects to enrich the language learning environment in Hong Kong, completed a review on language education policies and proposed an action plan to raise language standards in the country, and strengthened professional development in Chinese language (including Putonghua) and English teachers by providing school-based support and grant schemes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor instance, in 2000, the Hong Kong government introduced a directive that required all teachers of English and Putonghua who had not done a first degree and a post graduate Diploma in Education in the languages they taught to write and pass a language proficiency attainment test (LPAT) in the very languages they taught. This test measured the teachers\u0026rsquo; competency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking and classroom language assessment. According to the directive, teachers who failed the test were either to be redeployed to teach other subjects or be dismissed. Then in 2003, Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s SCOLAR recommended that schools should only employ language teachers who majored in the language they teach, and who are professionally trained only to teach the language subjects in their school system (SCOLAR \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a study that investigated the policies and practices that govern the recruitment of English Teachers in East Asian countries including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, (Jeon and Lee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) reported that in China, one of the regulations governing the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (SAFEA) states that, \u0026lsquo;an ordinary foreign teacher of language shall have earned a bachelor or higher degree and professional training in language teaching as well as some amount of language teaching experience\u0026rsquo;. However, a native speaker of English may be employed to teach English with a minimum of a U.S high school diploma or its equivalent. In the absence of these required qualifications, some provinces, e.g., Liaoning Province, consider international experience, teaching experience, study level attained and specific skills and certificates in fields other than (English) language teaching if the teacher is a native English speaker preferably from the British Isles, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States or [other] European countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain, (Jeon and Lee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) report that in Taiwan, a person is required to have a Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree in any discipline or an Associate\u0026rsquo;s degree with a TEFL/TESOL\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e Certificate to teach English. However, non-native elementary and kindergarten-level teachers are not required to have previous teaching experience or ESL certification to teach English. In Japan, a teacher of English must have gained at least a Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree in any discipline but a TEFL qualification is not required even though helpful.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a British Council-led survey on the qualifications and training/career development of primary English teachers in 64 countries around the globe (representative of Kachru\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e circle of English speakers around the world), (Rixon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) reports that 38% of primary school teachers reported that they held a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree in English, and 25% had a Master\u0026rsquo;s Degree in the subject while 21% reported that they had no specialised qualification to teach English. Nevertheless, 85% of respondents reported that they had undertaken some sort of in-service/continuing professional training course. Interestingly, most of these teachers said the courses had been organized by either their Ministry of Education (54%) or their local teachers associations (2%). The rest qualified through their own initiative. With regard to the acceptable teaching qualifications for the ESL/EFL countries, (Rixon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) reports a great variation in practices around the world. However, there was also evidence to suggest \u0026ldquo;an attempt to harmonize\u0026rdquo; primary English teacher qualification issues in primary schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRixon again reports that in France, starting from 2006, while all teacher training graduates are qualified to teach a foreign language, in-service training is provided for other teachers who are required to pass the \u0026lsquo;habilitation\u0026rsquo; which is constituted by \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;provisoire\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (which tests language competence and methodology) and \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;definitive\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e, an in-class observation by the inspectorate division of education. Rixon further reports that in Taiwan, new teachers are required to meet one of the following two criteria to be an English teacher in state schools: one, a teacher must possess a university degree with English major (not education major), and two, they must have passed either a local or an international exam of English at B1 level. However, teachers who are already teaching English are not required to achieve the above, though they are still encouraged to do so (Rixon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e:20).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, there is evidence in research to suggest that countries with multiple education system produce good performance in language learning, regulate language teaching by policy or other relevant instruments, available information from the Ministry of Education (MoE) nor the Ghana Education Service (GES) suggests that there is no policy per se that regulates who teaches a language subject in the school system, nor is there a mandatory requirement by the GES/MoE for language teachers to obtain continuing professional training in language teaching even though English is the official language and by policy, the main medium of instruction in education in Ghana and is taught and learned largely as a second language. In this paper, we take the position that the use of non-professionally trained language teachers in teaching language subjects in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s school system is a potential major factor that influences language teaching/learning outcomes in the country.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe data for this paper were culled from a body of data that were collected between March 2018 and July 2018 for a larger study which investigated language policy, teacher professionalism and language education in Ghana. While the main data were collected using mixed methods - questionnaires, interviews and observation, only the questionnaires\u0026rsquo; data are analyzed in this paper. The data were collected from 80 basic schools (40 public and 40 private) from 20 administrative districts (10 urban, 10 rural) in the then 10\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e administrative regions across the country - two districts (rural and urban) in each region, four (4) schools (2 public, 2 private) in each district were selected for the data collection. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the Regions and Districts from which the data for the study were collected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegions and Districts of Data Collection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegion\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDistrict\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAshanti\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKumasi Metro, Kwabre District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBono Ahafo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSunyani Municipal, Tano North District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCape Coast Municipal, Asikuma-Odobeng-Brakwa District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEastern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNew Juaben Municipal, Kwaebibirem District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreater Accra\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccra Metro, Kpone-Katamanso District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorthern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSanalurgu Municipal, Bunkpurugu-Yunyo District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpper East\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBolgatanga Municipal, Bulsa North District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpper West\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWa Municipal, Nadowli District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVolta\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHo Municipal, Jasikan District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWestern\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSekondi-Takoradi Municipal, Ahanta West District\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn each school, language teachers across the various levels of the basic school system, i.e. KG, Lower Primary, Upper Primary and JHS, filled semi-structured questionnaires that contained both open-ended and polar questions (see appendix). The data were analyzed quantitatively, using basic descriptive statistics. The study was given ethical clearance by the University of Ghana Ethics Committee as well as the Director for Ghana Education Service. Participants were explicitly informed about their rights, confidentiality and anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Findings and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic characteristics of respondents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section presents analysis of the demographic information on all 248 language-teacher respondents from across the country. For the purpose of this study, the old regional demarcations prior to the creation of new regions in 2019 were used. There was a fairly equal representation of males and females although the males formed a majority by about 5 percentage points. Respondents between the ages of 21 to 30 years formed the group with the highest representation with the average age estimated to be about 35 years. Given that people are completing secondary education by 16 years and teacher education was three years in the country at the time, this is not surprising.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding their linguistic repertoires, about 48% of the respondents said they were multilingual in several local languages and English while 52% reported as being bilingual in one Ghanaian language and English. Altogether, 95.6% of the sample reported as speaking a Ghanaian language as L1 and English as L2, while 2.8% reported as speaking English as L1 and a Ghanaian language as L2, with 1.6% speaking French as L1 and English or Ghanaian language as L2. Again, given the recent phenomenon, particularly in urban Ghana, where English has become a home language among some Ghanaians (Afrifa et al. 2019), this situation is not surprising.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, while sampled teachers reported as belonging to varied ethnolinguistic background, majority of them, about 45% of the total sample belonged to the Akan group - consisting of speakers of Asante Twi, Fante and Akuapem Twi. This was followed distantly by Ewe which formed about 15% of the total sample. Other languages that featured include Ga/Adangme), English and French. The category of languages labelled as \u003cem\u003eothers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eincluded several languages such as Guan, Nzema, Larteh etc. which were minimally represented in the sample. Languages classified under \u003cem\u003eNorthern Ghana Languages\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewere made up of languages spoken in the northern part of Ghana, predominantly Dagbani, Hausa and Dagaare. Again, these figures are consistent with the ethnic composition of the country as shown in the country\u0026rsquo;s population census (Ghana Statistical Services 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn all, 48.8% of the teachers taught English, 24.5% taught Ghanaian language while 23.4% taught French. It is interesting to note that there are overlaps in these figures - some teachers taught more than one language. It is also interesting to note that some languages that are not prescribed in the language-in-education policy, e.g., Chinese were taught in some schools. The demographic distribution in the data makes the study representative with reference to gender and age categorizations. Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of language-teacher respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Demographic Characteristics of Language Teachers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"641\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePercentage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e117\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e47.2%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e131\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e52.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAge groups \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e20 years and less\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e21-30 years\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e34.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e31-40 years\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e25.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e41-50 years\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e17.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbove 50 years\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e12.1%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon response\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eL1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnglish\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEwe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e15.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrench\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGa\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAkan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e45.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorthern languages\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e14.1%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOthers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e14.1%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNumber of local languages spoken\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e131\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e52.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e27.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e11.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4 or more\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.2%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon response\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.2 Language Teachers\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcademic Qualification\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn discussing the use of non-professional language teachers as a potential negative input in the production of (language) education and literacy outcomes in Ghana, we asked questions about the educational/professional qualification backgrounds of language teachers in our nationwide survey of both private and public basic schools in Ghana. This section presents findings from the survey regarding the academic/professional qualifications of sampled language teachers. It is important to reiterate that all respondents were teachers who taught at least one language course in their respective educational institutions. About 69% taught a single language subject while just about 7% taught two languages, usually English and French or English and a Ghanaian language. However, there were teachers who combined teaching a language with non-language subjects. For example, there were teachers who taught English and Social Studies, English language and Mathematics or Akan and Social studies. All the respondents had at least a basic level education. However, similar to the findings from the British Council survey, sampled language teachers had varying educational qualifications. Whereas 60.9% of all the language teachers reported to have a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree, 4.8% had a master\u0026rsquo;s degree, 21.% had a diploma (post-secondary) and 13.3% had certificates from Senior and Junior Secondary school. Interestingly, all the participants with basic and secondary school certificates were from private schools. Table 3 summarizes the educational/academic qualifications of the respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Teachers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcademic Qualification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHighest level of education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePercentage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e151\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e60.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiploma\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e19.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHND\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1.2%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJunior High School\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSenior High School\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e12.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage Teachers\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003earea of Specialisation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIn this section, we present findings on language teachers\u0026rsquo; area of academic/professional specialization. By area of specialization, we refer to the major course of study during their educational training especially at the tertiary level. For effective teaching and learning, one would expect that teachers would have some mastery in the subject area of the subject they teach. When teachers in our study were asked to indicate their areas of specialisation, only 50.4% indicated a language subject or language-related discipline as their area of specialisation. The rest had either no specializations at all (no tertiary education) or had specialization in other areas such as political science, accounting, history. These other areas of specializations have been categorized as non-language. Again, even though more than 90% of the teachers reported as teaching language only (1 or 2 languages), about 7% taught multiple subjects - a language plus other non-language subjects. The teachers who taught multiple subjects are class teachers at the lower primary (KG-P3) level who teach all subjects including the languages prescribed in the language-in-education policy. It is interesting to note that these teachers, with no professional qualification in language, are the ones that lay the foundation of language education (KG-P3) in our education system. Table 4 summarizes teachers\u0026rsquo; area of specialization and subject(s).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4: Area of Specialization and Subject taught\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"559\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePercentage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eArea of Specialisation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e125\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e50.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon language\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e33.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon response\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e15.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubjects taught\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage only\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e172\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e69.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOne language and a non-language course\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e16.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTwo languages\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple subjects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon response\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Again, we wanted to find out which sub-group of language teachers tended to/not to have specializations in language. Consequently, we ran a cross-tabulation between the categories \u0026lsquo;subject taught\u0026rsquo; and area of specialisation. The cross-tabulation results showed that over 90% of teachers who taught two languages, and 65% of teachers who taught a single language had specializations in a language related area. However, while only about 53% of teachers who taught one language plus a non-language subject had specialization in a non-language area, 100% of teachers who taught multiple subjects (class teachers at the lower primary levels KG-P3) had no specialization in language. This situation where teachers with no specialization in language studies or language education are made to lay the foundation of language teaching/learning in the school system has potential serious implications for language education and language performance in our educational system. Table 5 presents cross tabulation results for subject taught and area of specialization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: Cross Tabulation of Subject taught against Area of Specialization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"602\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 290px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eArea of Specialisation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubject Taught\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon language\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSingle language only\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e65.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e34.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e100%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOne language and a non-language course\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e47.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e52.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e100%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTwo languages\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e93.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e100%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple subjects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e100.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e100%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, we wanted to know the regional distribution of this problem of language teacher and study area mismatch. Again, we ran cross tabulation test between teachers\u0026rsquo; area of specialization and administrative region of teachers. Table 6 presents the findings of the cross tabulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Cross Tabulation of Region against Language Specialization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"522\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegion \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpecialised in language\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpecialised in other courses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWestern\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e9.1%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e90.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCentral\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e70.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e30.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreater Accra\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e60.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e39.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVolta\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e77.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e22.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEastern\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e66.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e33.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAshanti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e52.6%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e47.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrong Ahafo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e56.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e43.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorthern\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e60.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e40.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUpper East\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e68.8%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e31.3%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUpper West\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e45.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e54.5%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this table, it is clear that while there was no region where all language teachers had specialization in a language discipline, it emerged that more than 50% of the language teachers in every region, except Western and Upper West regions had specializations in a language discipline. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers in the Volta and the Central regions had language more than 70 percent of teachers specializing in language related courses. Whereas only 45.5% of sampled language teachers in the Upper West region had specialization in a language discipline, less than 10% of sampled language teachers in the Western region had specialization in a language discipline. This finding clearly points to a lack of policy or any clear consistent regulations on language teaching in the school system. This finding also raises certain moral issues such as equity/fairness and equal opportunity in our educational system. Given that all students write the same examination and are graded with the same (not differentiated) grading schemes at the end of schooling, and in the light of premium placed on (English) language competence in our education (MoE 2007, Teacher Education Curriculum Framework 2018), students in regions such as the Western and Upper West are disadvantaged before they sit the examinations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eContinuing\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eProfessional Training in Language\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContinuing professional training, also known as continuing professional development (CPD) has been defined by (Bell and Gilbert 2005, quoted in Ucan 2016:36) as a continuing process in which teachers always seek new ways and methods to improve the learning of their students\u0026rdquo;. (Day and Sachs 2004) also define CPD as including all the activities in which teachers engage during the course of a carrier which are designed to enhance their work. Again, (Padwad and Dixit 2011) define CPD as \u0026ldquo;a planned, continuous and lifelong process whereby teachers try to develop their personal and professional qualities and to improve their knowledge, skills and practice, leading to their empowerment, the improvement of their agency and the development of their organism and the pupils\u0026rdquo;. Finally, (Stein 1999:263) has defined CPD (what he calls teacher professional development) as the use of multiple professional development strategies to build teacher capacity to understand not only subject matter (content knowledge) but also pedagogy and student thinking.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn other words, CPD is believed to empower individual teachers and educational organizations to improve curriculum, instruction and student assessment as well as facilitate students\u0026rsquo; growth and development. Indeed, CPD is believed to be central to improving the value of schooling and learning outcomes (Fullan, 2001; Ucan, 2016). This is because since teachers\u0026rsquo; content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge do not develop automatically with growing professional experience, CPD provides teachers the opportunity to increase their knowledge, improve their practice in order to foster student learning and achievement gains (Borko and Koellner 2010). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuided by these assumed importances of CPD in school outcomes, we asked our teacher participants to indicate whether or not they had had any CPDs and what sort of training they received if any. Only 36.7% of the sampled language teachers said they had had any CPD. \u0026nbsp;Interestingly, 60.4% of this number had simply obtained additional school certifications, usually, higher education not necessarily in language. Very few of the teachers (17.6%) had received a CPD in the languages they taught. Table 7 thus summarizes teachers\u0026rsquo; responses to the question of whether or not they had had any CPD.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7: Professional Training Statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePercentage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional professional qualification obtained\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e130\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e52.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e36.7%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon response\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e10.9%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 642px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eForm / source of additional training**\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkshops (Government, Donor, School funded)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e22.0%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn service training with certification\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e13.2%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRefresher courses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 418px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchool certification (Bachelors, Master\u0026rsquo;s degree etc.)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e60.4%\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e** Percentages were computed from the 91 respondents who reported as having had some form of CPD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, we wanted to know whether there was any relationship between teachers\u0026rsquo; area of specialization and CPD attainment. The cross tabulation in Table 8 therefore presents the summary results which indicated a fairly equal representation across the various teacher categories. Chi square tests of independence indicated no substantial relationships between area of specialisation and CPD attainment (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.02; p=0.9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8: Cross Tabulation of Qualification Status against Area of Specialization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"550\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eArea of Specialisation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualification status\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo CPD obtained\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCPD obtained\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e66 (57.9%) \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e48 (42.1%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e114\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon language\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e46 (58.2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e33 (41.8%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Total\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e112\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e193\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, we ran a cross tabulation test to establish a potential relationship between subject taught and the chance of obtaining a CPD. Table 9 presents the result of this cross tabulation. The result indicates that majority of sampled teachers who had had CPD taught two language subjects with no additional subject. On the average about 69% of teachers who teach language subjects only have had some form of CPD while 56% of teachers who teach other subjects in addition to language subjects on the average have had no CPD. It is important to note that although these differences exist on the face value of the data, results of chi square tests of independence showed no substantial relationship between subject taught and teacher CPD (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 3.53; p=0.316).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9: Cross Tabulation of Subject taught against Qualification Status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualification status\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubject taught\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo CPD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCPD obtained\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage only\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e92 (59%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e63 (41%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOne language and a non-language course\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e19 (50%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e19 (50%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTwo languages\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e11 (79%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3 (21%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 265px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple subjects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 119px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e8 (62%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5 (38%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper has reported findings from a nationwide survey of the professional backgrounds of language (Ghanaian Language (L1), English and French) teachers in basic schools in Ghana. It began under the assumption that the findings from some localized studies that suggest that language competence in the school system is jeopardized by lack of language teacher competence could be widespread. The current study therefore sampled data from 80 basic schools across 20 districts in all administrative regions of Ghana. Using semi-structured questionnaires, the study asked questions about language teacher academic qualification, area of specialization and continuing professional development CPD. Major findings include the following:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage teachers in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s school system are largely bi/multilingual.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajority of language teachers speak a Ghanaian language as L1 and English/French as L2. However, a few of them speak French or English as L1 and Ghanaian Language as L2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajority of language teachers hold a post-secondary education certificate, e.g. Diploma, Bachelor, and Master\u0026rsquo;s degree - those without post-secondary certificates were found in private schools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbout 50% of language teachers with higher education have no specialization in language studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll KG-P3 teachers sampled had no specialization in language studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajority of sampled language teachers (52%) have had no continuing professional development since they became teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is variation in these issues across the different regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is variation in language teacher distribution across schools and regions - Whereas some schools had language teachers for each class, other schools had just one language teacher for the whole school.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings raise a number of concerns that need addressing by the Ministry of Education and Ghana Education Service if language education were to see improvement. On the one hand, the variations in language teacher distribution, language teacher qualification, and language teacher CPD suggest a lack of clear consistent and uniform policy that regulates language teaching in the school system. This suggests a lack of policy to regulate language teaching in our schools. On the other hand, the consistent use of teachers with no specialization in language studies at the lower primary level across schools whether it is by policy or practice point to a lack of proper understanding of what is required in producing language competence in our school system. This is because, to place teachers who do not have the requisite content knowledge and pedagogical skills in language teaching, especially where second language learning is involved at the foundation level is to jeopardize the whole enterprise of language teaching/learning. Language teachers in later stages of education may spend the time correcting fundamental errors created by a weak foundation in language learning instead of building on what should have been.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn either case, the situation undermines the whole purpose of making language competence a bedrock in Ghana\u0026rsquo;s education system as is stated in the (National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework 2018: 23). What is required to fix this problem is a concerted effort by both the Ministry of Education and GES to provide policy guidelines on who qualifies to teach a language subject, and to provide effective monitoring to ensure implementation respectively. As has been shown in the literature, language teaching is professionalized by policy in many countries around the world, particularly, where multiple languages are used in education, like ours. If we are to achieve effective language teaching and learning, and indeed, improvement in general education, only teachers with the requisite content knowledge and pedagogical skills should be allowed to teach language subjects in our school system We, therefore, recommend that KG-P3 teachers be made to specialize in language studies. Even though the 2018 teacher education curriculum includes language and literacy studies, if things are left to run their natural course, more damage may be caused by the time students of the new curriculum graduate and get posted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the practice where language teachers go for years without any CPD is not helpful in sustaining the production of language competence in the school system. To achieve effective language teaching/learning, language teachers must be interested in what they do and interesting to their students. This is possible only if teachers are not recycling obsolete information. Continuing professional development programmes, e.g. workshops, refresher courses etc. provide opportunity for teachers to update and upgrade their knowledge in their subject areas. In Ghana, CPD appears to be associated with educational reforms (Coffie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, T-TEL (Transforming Teacher Education and Learning) has been involved in providing CPD for teachers for a few years now. Nevertheless, T-TEL focuses mainly on pre-service training - T-TEL aims to \u0026lsquo;develop beginning teachers who will demonstrate interactive, student-focused instructional methods, gender-sensitive and student-centred instructional strategies, and who know and can apply the school curriculum and assessment\u0026rsquo;. Consequently, T-TEL supports CPD at the level of the colleges of education - for trainers of trainee teachers. For teachers outside this category, CPD appears to be optional, encouraged only for teacher promotion purposes and not for effective teaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs is the best practice in other countries, we recommend more frequent and compulsory professional development and capacity building programmes for language teachers - language teachers must have a specified number of continuing professional training in the languages they teach every year. We could actually adopt the Hong-Kong approach where language teachers have to demonstrate competence in the languages they teach from time to time. Finally, we recommend that language teachers be encouraged to belong to and participate in the activities of language professional bodies, e,g, the Linguistics Association of Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese recommendations are made under the conviction that using non-professional language teachers to teach language subjects in our school system is a potential negative production input in producing language education/language competencies, e.g. literacy, in the country.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The research included surveys and interviews that involved adults (language teachers) each of who filled a consent form to participate. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee for Humanities in accordance with the Human and Animal Research Ethics unit of the Research and Innovation Directorate, University of Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAccordance Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e All data collection methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the Ethics Committee for the Humanities, University of Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants were adults (over 18 years). Each participant consented to participate in the research by filling a consent form in accordance with the University of Ghana Ethics Committee for the Humanities Guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the University of Ghana\u0026rsquo;s Office of Research and Innovation Development (ORID) with project reference number:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUGRF/10/ILG-017/2016\u0026ndash;2017\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eG.N.A was the Principal investigator/lead researcher and contributed to the conceptualisation, data processing, drafting and editing of the manuscript.N.A.A. was a member of the research team and contributed to the conceptualisation, drafting and editing of the manuscript.P.K.B was a member of the team and contributed to the conceptualisation, data processing and drafting of the manuscript.S.C was a member of the research team and contributed to the conceptualisation, drafting and editing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors collected primary linguistic data through surveys, audio recorded interviews and field notes. The data was submitted to the School of Languages repository and may be available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfrifa, G. A, \u0026nbsp;Anderson J.A.,, \u0026amp; Ansah, G.N. (2019). The choice of English as a home language in\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;urban Ghana. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Issues in Language Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 20(4), 418-434.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgbedor, \u0026nbsp;P K. (1994). \u003cem\u003eLanguage Planning for National Development: The Case of Ghana\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;(Unpublished PhD Thesis). Canada: University of Victoria, British Columbia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmpiah, J. G. (2008). An investigation of provision of quality basic education in Ghana:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;A case study of selected schools in the Central Region. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Cooperation in Education\u003c/em\u003e, 11(3), 19-37.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnsah, G. N. (2014). Re-examining the fluctuations in language in-education policies in\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epost-independence Ghana.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMultilingual Education\u003c/em\u003e, 4(1), 12.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnyidoho, L. A. (2018). Shifting Sands: Language Policies in Education in Ghana And \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Implementation Challenges. \u003cem\u003eGhana Journal of Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, 7(2), 225-243.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBell, B. \u0026amp; Gilbert, J. (2005).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTeacher development: a model from science education\u003c/em\u003e. Taylor \u0026amp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Francis e- Library.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBorko, H., Jacobs, J. \u0026amp; Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;development. \u003cem\u003eInternational Encyclopedia of Education\u003c/em\u003e, 7(2), 548-556.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoffie, I. S. (2019). Transforming teacher education and learning in Ghana: The impact of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;continuous professional development on physics teaching at the colleges of education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, 6(6), 201-206.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColeman, J. S. (1968). Equality of educational opportunity. \u003cem\u003eIntegrated Education\u003c/em\u003e, 6(5), 19-28.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDako, K., \u0026amp; Quarcoo, M.A. (2017). Attitudes towards English in Ghana. \u003cem\u003eLegon Journal of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;the Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, 28(1), 20-30.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDay, C., \u0026amp; Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. \u003cem\u003eInternational\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers\u003c/em\u003e 3(32).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEberhard, D. M., Simons, G.F. \u0026amp; Fennig, C.D. (eds.). 2022. \u003cem\u003eEthnologue: Languages\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;of the World.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eTwenty-fifth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; http://www.ethnologue.com. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFullan, M. (2001).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe new meaning of educational change\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGhana Web (2018). \u003cem\u003eWASSCE: Students performance in English, Maths, Science drop.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ehttps://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/WASSCE-Students-perfor\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;mance-in-English-Maths-Science-drop-729155. Retrieved on 14th August 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGraphiconline.com (2019). https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/waec-release-2019-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003ewassce-results-over-74-000-fail-english-language.html\u003c/u\u003e. Retrieved on 16th August 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarris, D. N (2010). Education Production Function: Concepts. In Peterson, P. L., Baker, E. \u0026amp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; McGaw, b. (ed).\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;International Encyclopedia of Education\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHanushek, E. \u0026nbsp;A. (2008). Education production functions. \u003cem\u003eThe New Palgrave Dictionary of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Economics\u003c/em\u003e, 2, 749-52.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHenderson, D. J. Simar, L.\u0026amp; Wang, L. (2017). The three Is of public schools: irrelevant inputs,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;insufficient resources and inefficiency. \u003cem\u003eApplied Economics\u003c/em\u003e 49 (12): 1164-1184.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKachru, Braj. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. \u003cem\u003eWorld Englishes\u003c/em\u003e, 9(1), 3-20.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKlu, E. K., \u0026amp; Ansre, M.A. (2018). An overview of the language-in-education policy in Ghana:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Emerging issues.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;13(3), 596-601.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeon, M. \u0026amp; Lee, J. (2006). Hiring native-speaking English teachers in East Asian countries. \u003cem\u003eEnglish\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Today\u003c/em\u003e 22.(4): 53-58.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMinistry of Education, Science and Sports. (2007). \u003cem\u003eTeaching syllabuses for English language\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Primary1\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/strong\u003e4)\u003c/em\u003e. (accessed on 4th October, 2019). [http://www.ges.gov.gh/PRIMARYSYLLABUS/ENGLISH%20PRIMARY%201\u0026ndash;3.pdf].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoE (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework\u003c/em\u003e. Ghana: The Ministry of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOppong-Sekyere, D.. ,Oppong-Sekyere, F. \u0026amp; Akpalu, M.M. (2013). Some factors influencing the\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; academic performance of junior high school pupils in English language: The case of Assin\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;North Municipality.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;International Journal of English\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eand Literature,\u003c/em\u003e 4(5), 226-235.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOsei, G.M. (2006). Teachers in Ghana: Issues of training, remuneration and effectiveness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Development\u003c/em\u003e 26 (1), 38-51.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwu-Ewie, C. (2006). The language policy of education in Ghana: A critical look at the\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;English-only language policy of education. \u003cem\u003eIn Selected proceedings of the 35th annual\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;conference on African linguistics\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 76-85). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwu-Ewie, C., Eshun, E.S. (2015). The use of English as medium of instruction at the upper basic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; level (primary four to junior high school) in Ghana: From theory to practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Education and Practice\u003c/em\u003e. 6(3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePadwad, A, \u0026amp; Dixit, K. (2011). Continuing professional development: An annotated \u0026nbsp; bibliography,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eNew Delhi: British Council, India.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuarcoo, M. A. (2014). Language policy and language of education in Ghana: A reality or an\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;allusion? \u003cem\u003eWisconsin Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 4(49-59).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRasheed, M.I., Humayon, A.A, Awan. U. (2016). Factors affecting teachers\u0026rsquo; motivation: An HRM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;challenge for public sector higher educational institutions of Pakistan (HEIs). \u003cem\u003eInternational\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Journal of Educational Management\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepublic of Ghana (2002). \u003cem\u003eMeeting the challenges of education in the twenty-first century: Report\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; of the president\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/strong\u003es committee on review of education reforms in Ghana\u003c/em\u003e. (Anamuah- Mensah\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Committee). Accra: Ministry of Education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRixon, S. (2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritish Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;teaching worldwide\u003c/em\u003e. British Council.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSa\u0026rsquo;ad, T. U,,\u0026amp;Usman. R. (2014). The causes of poor performance in English language among\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;senior secondary school students in Dutse Metropolis of Jigawa State, Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eJournal of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Research \u0026amp; Method in Education\u003c/em\u003e 4(5): 41-47.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSCOLAR, (2020). https://scolarhk.edb.hkedcity.net/en/about-scolar-introduction\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eStein, M. K. Smith, M.S. \u0026amp; Silver, E. (1999).\u003c/u\u003e The development of professional developers:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. \u003cem\u003eHarvard\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eeducational review\u003c/em\u003e 69(3):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;237-270.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eU\u0026ccedil;an, S. (2016). The role of continuous professional development of teachers in educational\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003echange: A literature review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHarran Maarif Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, 1(1), 36-43.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWang, Li-Yi \u0026amp; Lin, T-B (2013). The Representation of Professionalism in Native English-speaking\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Teachers Recruitment Policies: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Taiwan. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Teaching: Practice and Critique\u003c/em\u003e, 12(3), 5-22.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) is the examining body of basic and secondary education across West Africa, including Ghana.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The teaching of English, French and selected Ghanaian languages is mandated by the country\u0026rsquo;s language-in-education policy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e (BECE) Basic Education Certificate Examination; (WASSCE) West African Secondary School Certificate Examination\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL); Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The administrative regions in Ghana were officially 10 at the time the data for this study were collected (March 2018-July 2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Language education, Language teaching, Ghana, Teacher professionalism","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper reports findings of a nationwide survey that investigated the professional backgrounds of language teachers in Ghana. Even though language teaching/learning is entrenched in the school curriculum from the early years of school, the production of positive language learning outcomes in Ghana’s basic education system has been a challenge for many years. Every year, WAEC\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e’s chief examiner’s report links students’ poor performance in national examinations to lack of language competence, e.g., inability to understand instructional rubrics. While earlier researchers attribute the problem to factors including inadequacies in language-in-education policy (Ansah 2014) and lack of TLMs (Ampiah 2008), findings from this study suggests that the use of non-professional language teachers in teaching approved language subjects\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e in basic schools is a potential major factor in producing poor performance in education in general and language education in particular in Ghana - while 50.4% had qualification in the language(s) they taught, 0% of lower primary (KG-P3) teachers (who lay the foundation of language education in the country) had qualification in language studies. The paper, therefore, concludes that there is a relationship between the use of professional/non-professional language teachers and education in general, and language education in particular (in Ghana).\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Professionalising Language Teaching and Language Education in Ghana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-04 18:08:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651022/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-08T16:59:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-12T12:57:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"157852090817885485566346325649862545670","date":"2026-04-12T12:14:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-10T17:30:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T20:27:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-01T10:38:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"46165007660919814555514357322197293408","date":"2026-03-26T16:55:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"296547594894157781451738182873745693659","date":"2026-03-24T13:56:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"52984866834469335004990790664205979845","date":"2026-03-24T11:57:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11051417167999010789546271197716974604","date":"2026-03-03T23:36:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"171768898687945789184389026713634997170","date":"2026-03-02T06:12:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-02T03:58:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-09T14:43:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-02T07:17:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T15:33:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-01-28T14:21:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"196a4a76-b0b3-4438-9a31-531aa99ba501","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 4th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-08T16:59:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-08T17:09:54+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-04 18:08:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8651022","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8651022","identity":"rs-8651022","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}