A.Khodtseva
Associate
professor of Ukrainian academy of banking of NBU
Most ESP
methodologists regard ESP teaching as
extremely varied, and for this reason they use the term ’practitioner’ to
emphasise that ESP involves much more than teaching. T. Dudley –Evans and M. Jo
St John identify five key roles of ESP practitioner as teacher, course designer
and materials provider, collaborator, researcher and evaluator. Hence there is
an urgent need for continuous professional development of an ESP teacher.
The purpose of this article is to describe in-service teacher training courses (INSET) and peer observations as possible ways of professional development of an ESP teacher and to determine the terms of their effectiveness.
Short INSET
courses- ‘summer schools’, ‘refresher courses’, ‘professional upgrading
programmes’ are familiar phenomena in many countries where English is taught.
While they take various forms and are designed to fulfil many different
functions, their popularity lies in what
Widdowson calls the ‘social and professional intensity of the
event’(Widdowson 1987,p.27): the break in routine, the chance to meet new
colleagues and to discuss one’s professional problems, the exposure to lots of
stimulating ideas, the novelty of being students again. Yet how much good do
they do?
Brian Tomlinson
concluded that without subsequent follow-up courses, their effect would have
been ‘disastrous’, because the ‘motivation and stimulus the participants had
gained would soon have been negated by the confusion and frustration they would
have suffered in trying to apply all that they had learnt… within the existing
parameters of syllabus, examinations, materials, official expectations, and
class size’ (Tomlinson 1988,p.18).Too often the designers and tutors of INSET
courses leave the country and have little opportunity to discover the long-term
effect of their work.
Martin Lamb
claims that even more significant were the mental parameters within which they
conceptualised the teaching and learning process, and which had determined how
they had interpreted the ideas during and after the course.(Lamb:1995,p.73) In
short, what the tutors had said was not necessarily what the participants had
heard or remembered later. The importance of teachers’ conscious or unconscious
beliefs has been recognised by several educationists in recent years.
Ramani, for
example, distinguished between ‘research theory’, the body of knowledge
produced by academe, and the ‘individual teacher’s theory’, which she describes
as a ‘mix of vaguely perceived ideas and relationships, a primitive conceptual
framework , which has a far more influential and determining effect on
practice’( Ramani 1987,p.117).In this context the remedy of follow-up sessions
suggested by Tomplinson is surely not enough. They might be useful as first aid
for teachers painfully trying to understand and apply the advice they have been
given, though, it will be necessary to moderate the input itself. Models of
teacher education which depend on knowledge transmission seem to be essentially
ineffective. This is because they depend on received knowledge to influence
behaviour and do not encourage teacher-learners to construct their own versions
of teaching.
The focus of the
short INSET course should be the teachers’ beliefs themselves. These need to be
articulated and analysed for potential contradictions with each other, the
teaching circumstances and learners’ beliefs. Only then will ESP teachers be
able to accommodate new ideas-to appreciate the theory underlying them,
understand their practical realisation, and evaluate their usefulness.
There is a strong
argument for starting INSET course with awareness-raising activities, where
participants confront their own routine practice and the values it is intended
to serve. This can be done, for example, through examination of videoed
lessons, analysis of classroom tasks or the completion of questionnaires on
teacher and learners roles (Ramani 1987,p.120). And, finally, instead of tutors
recommending ready-made solutions for predetermined problems, it should be the
participants themselves who, on the basis of their expanded awareness of the
practice, determine the specific areas of their teaching that they wish to
develop, and formulate their own agenda for change in the classroom (Lamb 1995,p.79).In
this way, the short INSET course could serve not only as an intense learning
experience in itself, but could also enhance the learning value of all the many
occasions when teachers are exposed to new ideas- in the classroom, at
conferences, during peer observations etc. The latter needs our particular
attention as it can serve as a vehicle of continuous ESP teacher development.
This explains the
recent interest at all levels of education in various models of observation. These management techniques have
strong educational justification behind them and can have a very positive
effect on job satisfaction and staff development. However many of these have
been reduced to the level of a routine administrative procedure. This paper examines reflective models of peer
observation at tertiary level and their influence on teacher development.
Some of the
evidence shows that peer observation is frequently carried out for purposes of
appraisal or judgement of the observed, and can be detrimental both to teacher
confidence and to a supportive teaching environment. Furthermore, this approach
seems to have little value for active teacher development, since the focus is
on being developed, rather than on self-awareness and self- development. Peer
observation, therefore, should not be a vehicle for the evaluation of others on
the basis of our assumptions, but a reassessment of those assumptions on the
basis of their teaching.
Many teachers
have observed lessons, and have in their turn been observed. Their roles in
these two activities are radically different. When observing, their role is to
learn from others, and when been observed they are being assessed. Most
teachers, however, who seldom observed, or been observed by their peers, are
uncertain whether their role is to assess and to judge, or to learn.
This uncertainty
became clear to me in a recent discussion on the implementation of peer observation
in our department at the Ukrainian academy of banking. A number of comments
revealed that many of those present saw the exercise as threatening or
critical, and assumed that the observer was making some form of assessment on
the performance of the teacher. However, my contention is that they all arise
from a false view of what the objective of peer observation should be.
In the above
contexts, the teacher’s role is passive. There is an emphasis on teachers being
observed, and being told about their teaching, rather than a process of active
self-development through reflection, and self-awareness. It is debatable to
what extent teachers will improve their performance in the classroom from being
told what is wrong with their teaching; a very natural and common reaction
would be for them to become defensive, and resist any further suggestions. It
is also important to realise that teaching styles and methods are very
subjective, and that, despite much research, so far there has been no proof
that any one method or style of teaching is significantly more successful than
others [Ellis 1994, p.124]. It seems to me, therefore, not only that we are
unqualified to judge our peers, but also that our judgements are subjective,
and therefore of limited and questionable value to anyone other than ourselves.
As one of the buzz terms for the 1990s in
British methodology was ‘team building’, the aim was and is to work together to
improve team and individual performance and confidence, and to give mutual
support in the face of external judgements and assessment. Good teachers need
not only knowledge but enthusiasm, confidence, self-value, and a desire to grow
professionally. A commitment to mutual support was realised through three
‘supportive’ models:
Model 1:
Colleagues observe each other against a background of agreed criteria. This is
followed by constructive feedback and discussion: ‘The aim of the observation
is to help improve the skills of the observed, therefore quality feedback is
essential.’ [Fullerton 1993, p.82]
Model 2: Pair mentoring. Two teachers observe each
other’s lessons, discussing areas of mutual interest, and planning future
strategies [Whisker 1996, p.65]. This is less threatening, but limits awareness
of other teaching styles to just one teacher.
Model 3: Lessons
are videoed. Teachers watch extracts from lessons, relate these to agreed
criteria, discuss, and propose future developments. [Claydon and McDowell 1993,
p.23]
These models usually emphasize the importance of trust, supportiveness, and the recognition and development of good practice, rather than the locating and correcting of bad practice. They are, nonetheless, still based on the assumption that people improve and develop best through the comments and knowledge of others. This may be true at the initial training stage, although even then reflection and self-awareness can be vital, but I contend that for experienced teachers this is not the case, since genuine development comes about through self-awareness, reflection, and open-mindedness to other approaches and styles. The observation process itself can play a crucial role in preventing teachers from becoming routinized and isolated .It would therefore seem beneficial to widen that experience. The emphasis in a reflective approach, however, is very different.
In a reflective
context, peer observation is carried out in order to encourage self-reflection
and self-awareness about our own teaching. The focus is on the teachers own
development, rather than on any presumed ability to develop the teaching of
peers or colleagues. Those of us who have observed in this spirit know that
there is a great deal to be learnt by reassessing our teaching in the light of
other teaching styles. It stimulates awareness, reflection, and a questioning
approach, it may also make us aware of exciting techniques that we are
temperamentally unable to implement. If, as sometimes happens, a teacher is
totally lacking in self-awareness and self-criticism, there would seem to be
little chance of any approach helping them to become a good teacher.
Two possible
models of reflective observation have been revealed through the analysis of
Jill Cosh’s findings.
Model 4: An area
of general interest or potential problem is selected, e.g. variety and pacing.
Teachers observe a class, and fill in an observation task sheet or feedback
sheet about ideas generated, and any possible further action for their
development. A workshop is then held where everyone discusses the topic.
Model 5: Each
teacher observes a class on an area relevant to his/her own concerns and area
of teaching. There could be a bank of questions, criteria, or observation
sheets to focus on and promote ideas.
In their
particular case of implementation of these two models it was decided to use a
simple feedback sheet for the observer to record what has been learnt from the
observation. The role of the sheet was both to clarify ideas, and to make
suggestions for future staff development in the area of workshops, seminars or
demonstrations. The author points out that the anonymity of the observed should
be respected unless the observers wish them to demonstrate or explain some
example of good practice with their agreement. She hopes this will lead to
other staff development such as enquiry into theory, courses, conferences, and
to an atmosphere of enthusiasm about the processes of teaching and learning
[Cosh 1999, p.26].
It is important
to note that the size of department or institution, and the similarity or
otherwise of areas of teaching will influence whether these models are carried
out jointly by the whole group of teachers or in smaller groups. There is also
a need for a co-ordinator to make sure that insights are shared, good practice
is disseminated, and that the scheme doesn’t die through inertia. We have
decided to incorporate these ideas and practices into Ukrainian context. After
a year in operation the models will be evaluated by all involved, and any
refinements or alterations made.
In conclusion, I would argue towards a view of an ESP teacher as a professional, with autonomy and independence, as the initiator of his/her own development, rather than as a skilled person dependent on development by others. The art of teaching can best be developed by a ‘reflective’ view. This includes reflection in action- the ability to make decisions and adapt during the process, and creative reflection-examining and assessing of our own values and beliefs in the light of the theories and practice of others.
References
1. Claydon, T. and L. McDowell. Watching yourself
teach and learning from it.// ELT Journal Volume 23/1 January 2003, pp.45-51.
2. Cosh, J. Peer observation: a
reflective model //ELT Journal Volume 53/1 January 1999, pp.22-27.
3. Fullerton, H. Observation of teaching:
guidelines for observers // ELT Journal Volume 23/1 January 2006, pp.21-27.
4. Lamb,M. The consequences of INSET// ELT Journal
Volume 49/1 January 1995, pp.72-79.
5. Ramani,E. Theorizing from the
classroom. // ELT Journal Volume 41/1 January 1987, pp.3-11.
6. Tomlinson,B. In-service TEFL: Is it
worth the risk?//The Teacher Trainer Volume 2/2 February 1988,pp.17-25.
7. Wajnryb, R. Classroom Observation
Tasks. -Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992-234p.
8. Widdowson,H.G. A rationale for teacher education in Council of Europe Project #12.Council of Europe:Strasbourg, 1987.