D Carless 2006 Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools.pdf

7/28/2019 D Carless 2006 Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools.pdf

1/8

Collaborative E F L teaching inprimary schools

David Carless

This paper discusses an innovative programme of collaborative EF L teachingin Hong Kong primary schools, involving team-teaching shared betweenimported native-speaking English teachers and their local counterparts.

First it analyses the way in which the scheme has evolved from previousexperiences. The paper then draws on an open-ended questionnaire survey,email and face to face interviews, and classroom observations of team-teaching in action. It focuses on findings related to the three mainobjectives of the scheme: impact on pupils, innovative teaching, andprofessional development. More positive outcomes were reported for the

first issue than the other two. Some implications for collaboration and thedeployment of native-speaking English teachers are discussed.

Introduction In contemporary ELT, it is common for countries to import native-speakingEnglish teachers (NETs) to supplement or even to replace local Englishteachers (L ETs). Neither native-speakers nor non-native speakers areinherently superior to the other (Medgyes 1992), but they possesspotentially complementary attributes. NETs bring a number of advantages,most obviously their facility in English and their ability to create a genuineneed for students to communicatethrough the target language. Some of theNET disadvantages are lack of familiarity with learner or context, and thatthey are often ill-equipped to communicate well through the studentsmother tongue. As illustrated by Medgyes (op. cit.), L ET capacities aremainly the converse of these, for example: LETs know local learners, syllabi,and exam systems well. Key issues in schemes whereby NETs are imported

include the need for NETs to familiarize themselves with local conditionsandthe maintenance of theself-esteem ofLETs. A strategy for tackling thesetwo issues is for NETs and LETs to work together in the classroom asa means of enhancing mutual understanding and exploiting respectivestrengths.

Generally, NETs have not been widely deployed in primary school EFL,presumably on the grounds that the limited language resources of theyoung learner may render communication difficult. This paper questionsthis assumption through a discussion of innovative programmes of

collaboration between NETsand L ETs in Hong Kong. The aims of the paperare to demonstrate that NETs can be usefully deployed in primary schools

328 ELT Journal Volume 60/4 October 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/ccl023 The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

atN

ottinghamTrentUniversityonMay21,2013

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/


2/8

through team-teaching with local teachers, and to analyse some of themain issues arising from this form of collaboration.

The database for the paper includes a short open-ended questionnairesurvey of 47 LETs; email and face-to-face interviews carried out with12 NET and 8 LET teachers; three interviews with key personnel involvedin primary NET schemes; and classroom observations of six team-taughtlessons in schools.

Native andnon-nativecollaboration

Examples of the importation of native-speakers of English to schoolsinclude Eastern Europe and the Asia Pacific region. Alderson et al. (2001)describe a scheme in which undergraduate or postgraduate nativespeakers work in Slovenian schools carrying out both team-teaching andsolo-teaching. The Japan Exchange and Teaching scheme (McConnell2000) is a well-documented and longstanding example of team-teachingbetween NETs and L ETs. These schemes have mainly employed youngteachers with little training or experience, carrying out team-teachingwith local teachers of English. Not requiring qualified teachers ensures

a steady supply of personnel but limits thecontribution that NETsareabletomake. For a more substantial contribution to ELT, qualified and experiencedNETs are required, especially those with sufficient cultural sensitivity tooperate effectively in different contexts. In Hong Kong, all NET schemeshave only employed trained and experienced teachers.

Native speakersin Hong Kongsecondary schools

A common problem amongst reforms, in Hong Kong and elsewhere, isa failure to acknowledge and build on what has taken place previously(Morris, Lo, and Adamson, 2000). I wish here briefly to set contemporaryNET schemes in Hong Kong within the context of experiences over the last

two decades. The first large-scale scheme to import NETs into secondaryschools was launched in 1987 with 91 participants. This was a high profileinitiative with expectations that proved over-optimistic. Its evaluation atthe end of a two-year period showed tangible but modest benefits ofNET instruction (British Council 1989) which failed to outweigh moresensational media reporting of struggling NETs or culture clashes. Thescheme continued on a smaller scale until 1996, when the governmentrecommended a new scheme to be launched in September 1998, as part ofa package of measures to bolster English around the time of the 1997handover. The aims of this scheme were to enable NETs to enhance the

teaching of English by:n acting as English language resource persons,n assisting in school-based teacher development, andn helping to foster an enabling environment for students to practise

oral English.

An evaluation of this modified NET scheme (Storey et al. 2001)concluded that the third objective was being achieved very well, the firstobjective quite well, and not much progress was being achieved for thesecond objective. A key problem was the tendency for NETs and L ETs towork in isolation with limited engagement between their very differentviews of teaching and learning. Storey et al. found that NETs were usuallybetter at oral input than L ETs, but that deploying them to teach oral English

Collaborative E FL teaching in primary schools 329

atN



Downloadedfrom


3/8

to too many different classes prevented them from getting to knowstudents well and reduced their effectiveness. LETs, on the other hand,were deemed superior at more formal input, where their in-depthknowledge of examination syllabi was particularly useful. The 1998scheme, although mainly focused on secondary schools, included someprimary NETs, and Storey et al. note that primary school LETs hada more positive view of the NET scheme than their secondary school

counterparts. Storey et al. hypothesized that primary schools may bea positive site for NET input, since public exam pressure is largelyabsent and English content is more oriented towards social interaction.

Pilot scheme ofnative speakers inprimary schools

The organized introduction ofNETs into Hong Kong primary schools beganin September 2000 through a two-year pilot project which involved20 NETs and 20 seconded L ETs working collaboratively with school Englishteachers (SETs) in 40 schools. The NETs and LETs were deployed as pairswith each partnership serving two schools, carrying out team-teaching andstaff development activities. This government funded project was called

Primary School English Development (PSED), a choice of name whichby avoiding referring to itself as a NET scheme, emphasized the idea ofpartnership between N ETs and L ETs. In my interview with the PSEDproject manager, he argued, all parties have to feel that they are working inan atmosphere of mutual professional trust and respect . . . the N ET cantoperate successfully without the support of the local teachers.

The aims ofPSED were as follows (Higginbottom 2002):

n To develop models of innovative teaching

n To have a positive influence on studentsn To provide professional development opportunity for all teacher

participants.

As it only involved 40 schools, PSED was able to establish and enforce clearground rules: firstly lessons should be team-taught; and secondly, to avoidefforts being spread too thinly and enable teachers to get to know theirpupils, NET and LET partnerships should not be involved at more thantwo different year levels and should not teach any class for less than fourlessons per week.

These ground rules aimed to counter some of the challenges from thesecondary NET scheme referred to above: team-teaching was a way of

reducing the lack of contact between NETsand L ETs when they each taughtseparate classes; focusing on not more than two year levels permittedteachers to achieve continuity and develop relationships with pupils. Theground rules put some pressure on schools to conform to the PSEDframework. There was also support from a project management teamwho visited partners in schools, facilitated workshops, and offered advisoryback-up. Pressure and support are recognized as key concepts to promotethe uptake of an innovation (Fullan 2001).

Although expensive and labour intensive, as there are often three teachers(NET, L ET,and SET) present in a classroom, PSED was positively evaluatedby participants and was seen to have benefited students, teachers, and theoverall development of the English curriculum in participant schools.

330 David Carless

atN



Downloadedfrom


4/8

Two examples of areas of progress were firstly, that teaching and learningwas being better differentiated to meet individual needs of learners andsecondly, that formative approaches to assessment were being enhanced(Higginbottom op. cit.).

One of my L ET informants commented on PSED as follows:

Our school was lucky enough to be one of the 40 schools in the PSED

pilot scheme. Every detail was systematically organized by themanager of the project such as the qualifications of the NET teacher,the duty of the seconded local teacher and the role of school teachers.Most of the teachers benefited much from the pilot scheme throughconducting activities in school, organizing district-based experiencesharing seminars/workshops, networking activities and evaluatingthe effectiveness of the scheme.

The primary NE Tscheme

It was clearly going to be a major challenge to expand PSED in 40 schoolsto a full primary NET (PNET) scheme for the 800 primary schools in

Hong Kong. The issue of continuity between PSED and PNET was notmanaged particularly successfully, or as the manager ofPSED put it, wenever had a properly extended discussion with the architects of the newPNET scheme. We should have sat down for a day and discussed what wehad learnt [ from PSED]. One of the main problems was that on a largescale, it was not easy to reproduce the PSED ground rules. For example,school principals had a high degree of autonomy and this sometimesresulted in N ETs efforts being dispersed throughout the school ratherthan focused on particular year levels. In this way, some of the problemsof secondary school NET schemes, discussed earlier, were repeated.

In addition, within a relatively short time span, it was impossible torecruit sufficient personnel and so only around 400 NETs were initiallyappointed and each of them served two schools, principally operating ineach school in alternate weeks (obviously not an ideal situation). The coreconcept of team-teaching between NETs and L ETs has been retained. Themain objectives ofPNET (modified only slightly from PSED) are:

n to provide primary pupils with an authentic environment tolearn English and develop their confidence in using English forcommunication

n to develop innovative teaching and learning methodsn to promote the professional development of LETs

(Education and Manpower Bureau 2004).

These three objectives form the focus of the findings sections below.

Results of theP NE T schemeImpact on pupils

Data from interviews indicated that NETs werealmost universally extremelypositive about their perceived impact on students and a selection of theircomments is as follows:

The best thing about the work is the response from the students.The thing I like most about my job is interacting with the kids,

seeing them enjoy the lesson.


atN



Downloadedfrom


5/8

The kids were very enthusiastic, sometimes if I hadnt taught a classfor a few weeks, they would even applaud me when I went in theclassroom.

The open-ended questionnaire showed that a clear majority ofL ETs, eventhose who were more critical of the PNET scheme as a whole, alsoappreciated the impact ofNETs on pupils:

Pupils find it interesting to have a foreigner as a teacher so it canraise their learning motivation.Our pupils love having NETs, most of them are looking forward tohis/her lessons.The NETs expose pupils in a more authentic English speakingsituation.

Many L ETs also referred to the advantages for pupils inherent in theteam-teaching situation:

There is more opportunity to cater for diverse learning needs and

support the weaker students because there are two teachers inthe classroom.It is less boring for the pupils because there are two teachers toswap roles.Team-teaching creates more variety.Pupils may be more attentive because there are two teachers inthe classroom.Learners are exposed to more English when the NET is there,the presence of the NET makes us less likely to switch to themother tongue.

A small minority ofL ETs presented less positive views and this was oftenfocused on communication problems; for example for less able pupils,they dont like the NETs since they cant understand what the NETs sayand cant express themselves in English.

In sum, responses from both NETs and L ETs presented perceptions ofpositive impacts on pupils in the classroom. My classroom observationscorroborated positive responses from pupils, with encouraging levels ofconfidence and enthusiasm being evident; for example, students oftenapproached me and showed willingness to converse in English. Morelearner-centred activities were being carried out than in my previous

observations ofLETs teaching on their own and the presence of two teacherswas particularly helpful in monitoring and supporting pair- or group-work.

Innovative teaching In terms of innovative teaching, the data presented a more mixed picture.NETs reported that they were carrying out teaching that would be termedinnovative in the Hong Kong context(more communicative, lesstraditional)but the impact on L ETs was unclear. One NET reflected as follows, I reallywonder ifLETs are likely to implement the kind of innovative teaching I amcarrying out. Another by contrast, was pleased to have observed some kindof carry over from his communicative activities into other LET classes,

although he acknowledged that this was only with one or two teachers.

332 David Carless

atN



Downloadedfrom


6/8

Another NET described tensions in his team-teaching situation, It wasa bit like a tug of war, a dance with daily compromises rather than openconflicts, they [the L ETs] really like to stick with the drilling and testingregimes and dont welcome more creative influences. One NET describedhow he was asked to develop some materials for the school: The phonicspackage I developed is not being used, I dont know why, its reallydisappointing . . . they just want to stick to the textbook. Other NETs, and

perhaps these were the more culturally sensitive ones, were aware thatchange takes time and that they are a minority operating in a Chineseculture, for example, one commented, you have to lie low and not challengethings too much. You will get frustrated if you think you are going to changethings radically.

With respect to innovative teaching ideas, L ET responses were generallyslightly more positive than NETs (or perhaps more diplomatic in theirmodes of expression):

NETs are helpful in thinking through, planning and carrying out

some new ideas and activities which we local teachers are notconfident to try in the classroom.More fresh and constructive ideas can be thought of duringdiscussion and preparation periods.NETs act as some kind of force for change, they push us to reflecton our teaching methods.

These comments relate to fresh ideas but they do not provide any indicationof implementation in the classroom. My classroom observations indicatedthat team taught lessons were innovative, but interview data from L ETsshowed that they felt a need to catch up with the syllabus in their solo

lessons so they often described these as traditional.

Overall, in terms of innovative teaching methods, there was no clearevidence that the presence ofN ETs was leading to widespreadimplementation of progressive ideas outside the team taught lessons. Itdid appear however, that LETs were being exposed to different ideas orthinking and that this was promoting some to reflect further on aspectsof teaching. The development of innovative forms of teaching inevitablytakes time. Observing NETs carrying out different teaching methods inthe classroom may serve as a catalyst for future change, if the methodsare seen to be effective.

Professionaldevelopmentof LE Ts

The third aim ofPNET is to promote the professional development ofL ETs,although exactly how theunion ofNETsand LETs might lead to professionaldevelopment has not been specified. In the same way as reported in theprevious section, NETs were somewhat sceptical about their impact on theprofessional development ofLETs. One NET commented as follows, somestaff development activities have been planned but I query their usefulnessbecause essentially the teachers dont want to do anything different.Another commented that because of heavy workloads, professionaldevelopment activities could easily become yet another burden for an

overworked teacher. One NET did, however, report considerable change inher LET co-partner in terms of teaching approaches and what she wasprepared to try in lessons.


atN



Downloadedfrom


7/8

Again L ETs generally portrayed a slightly more positive outlook thanNETs with more positive than negative responses in the open-endedquestionnaire data. Several LETs argued that the PNET scheme wasbeneficial in terms of their teacher development; for example

More ideas are developed amongst subject teachers through theco-planning work with the NET on teaching pedagogies and materials.Teachers can have self-development and can be more professionalbecause they learn something new from others by team-teachingand co-planning.It helps teachers to improve their English language communicationability and their teaching skills.

Other LETs phrased the situation more negatively: If the NET is energeticit is worth collaborating, otherwise they are a burden to local teachers orIf the team are not having the same objectives, they cant get much fromthe collaboration. A recurring theme amongst LET responses was thatcollaboration within the NET scheme was time-consuming, for example,

It costs too much time for teachers and the NET to communicate andco-plan before team-teaching or more baldly, I dont like to use my freeperiods to plan lessons with the NET.

One of the advisers to primary NET schemes in Hong Kong felt that one ofthe key positive elements was the value of teachers talking about their workand he believed that The NET scheme should be a catalyst to promptteachers to reflect on their practice. Overall, there was evidence that team-teaching with NETs was indeed prompting LETs to reflect on teachingand learning approaches, but the extent to which reflection can be equatedwith professional development is unclear.

Conclusions andimplications

Whilst the data indicated that perceived impact on pupils was positive, theimplementation of innovative teaching and the extent of professionaldevelopment ofLETs appeared variable. In any context, however, promotinginnovation and achieving continuous professional development areperennially challenging areas. For more systematic development in thesetwo areas, I suggest there needs to be a more focused approach on identifiedcurriculum areas, in the same way that PSED focused mainly on specificareas, such as individualization and formative assessment. Such a focuscould be integrated with either individual school or more system-wide

curriculum initiatives.Despite the difficulty of achieving solid progress in innovative teachingand professional development, my overall conclusion is that NET and LETcollaboration in the primary school is having a generally positive impacton pupils and teachers. The risk of the introduction of NETs threateningthe self-esteem ofLETs has been largely (though not entirely) avertedthrough emphasizing the partnership nature of the NET-LET relationship.Team-teaching can also enable partners to complement each other bydrawing out their respective strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. Afurther characteristic of this form of team-teaching is that it pushes NETs

and LETs to discuss and express differing viewpoints and compromiseanimportant part of the interpersonal process of intercultural team-teaching.

334 David Carless

atN



Downloadedfrom


8/8

For those interested in promoting collaborative teaching in other contexts,the following issues are worth consideration:

n It is advantageous if team-teaching participants are trained andexperienced in ELT methods, as well as receiving some training and/or support in collaborative forms of teaching.

n The success of team-teaching, to a large extent, rests on theinterpersonal skills of partners; willingness to compromise andpositive attitudes towards collaboration are important attributes ofparticipants.

n Teething problems are likely to arise. There should be mechanismswhich enable appropriate lessons to be drawn, and plans for ongoingimprovement to be implemented.

As a final reflection on the study, I suggest there are a number of reasonswhy the primary school can be a positive site for NET/LET collaboration.Firstly, the younger age of pupils may make them more receptive to thekinds of communicative activities, tasks, or games often favoured by NETs.

Secondly, primary school L ETs are sometimes less proficient in Englishthan their secondary school counterparts and, although lack of confidencemay be a barrier to collaboration, they may have more to gain linguisticallythrough interacting with a NET. Thirdly, the relative lack of examinationpressure may also be a facilitating factor for the promotion of interactiveoral approaches to English.

Final version received June 2005

References

Alderson, J. C., K. Pizorn, N. Zemva, and L. Beaver.

2001. The Language Assistant Scheme in Slovenia: ABaseline Study. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education,Science and Sport.British Council. 1989. Final Evaluation Report:Expatriate English Language Teachers Pilot Scheme.Hong Kong: British Council.Education and Manpower Bureau. 2004. Nativespeaking English teacher scheme. Retrieved 10November 2004 from: http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID262&langno1.Fullan, M. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational

Change (Third edition). New York: TeachersCollege Press.Higginbottom, T. 2002. East meets West in HongKong classroom. Teachers Digest 4: 2630.McConnell, D. 2000. Importing Diversity: Inside

Japans JE T Program. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or non-native: Whosworth more? E LT Journal 46/4: 3409.

Morris, P., M. L. Lo, and B. Adamson. 2000.Improving schools in Hong Kong: Lessons fromthe past, in B. Adamson, T. Kwan, and K. K. Chan(eds.). Changing the Curriculum: The Impact ofReform on Hong Kongs Primary Schools. HongKong: Hong Kong University Press.Storey, P. et al. 2001. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme. HongKong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.

The author

David Carless is an Associate Professor in theFaculty of Education, Hong Kong University.He has worked as a teacher and teacher educatorin England, France, and Hong Kong. His mainresearch interests are in classroom-based research,task-based teaching, and assessment for learning.Email: [email protected]


atN



Downloadedfrom
http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=262&langno=1

Documents

D Carless 2006 Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools.pdf