Teacher Training Workshop -
Exploring Ways for Japanese Teachers of English to
Make Their Classes More Communicative
教員養成ワークショップ:
日本人英語教師による、よりコミュニカティブな授業展開を求めて
NABEIToshiyo
名 部 井 敏 代
RogerPALMER
ロジャー・パーマー
ChrisCAMPBELL
クリス・キャンベル
2005年度、関西大学大学院外国語教育学研究科は、文部科学省委嘱事業「英語指導力開発 ワークショップ」を行った。ここでは、同ワークショップ第一フェイズで行われた、コミュ ニカティブな英語教育の展開に関する中学・高校英語教師の研修実践を報告する。
キーワード
教員研修(TeacherTraining)、コミュニカティブな言語教育(CommunicativeLanguage Teaching)、タスクを用いた言語教育(TaskBasedLanguageTeaching)
Introduction
Inthesummerof2005,theGraduateSchoolofForeignLanguageEducationandResearch atKansaiUniversityheldaworkshopforJapanesejuniorandseniorhighschoolEnglishteachers who wanted to improve their teaching abilities. Funding was granted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), with the aim of training experiencedEnglishteachersandprospectiveleadersinEnglisheducationtobecomemore skilledatcurrentcommunicativeEnglishteachingpractices(MEXT,2005).
Theworkshopconsistedofthreephases:aone-weeksummerretreatwhichdealtwith 実践報告
practicalaspectsofEnglishteaching(Phase1),a12-week-longlecture-basedworkshopwhich dealtwiththeoreticalaspectsofEnglishteaching(Phase2),andaone-weekwinterretreatwhich showcasedleadingEnglisheducatorsandtheirteachingtechniques(Phase3).Thisreport describesthePhase1workshopwhichfocusedondevelopingwaysforJapaneseteachersof Englishtomaketheirclassesmorecommunicative.
TheworkshoptookplaceatKansaiUniversity’sTakatsukiCampusduringthelastweekof August.Therewere11participants:sevenmenandfourwomen,fiveofwhomwerejuniorhigh schoolteachers.Theparticipantshadanaverageof16.7yearsofteachingexperience.Fourof themhadmorethan20yearsofteachingexperiencewhiletheleastexperiencedteacherhad only3years.ThetrainersweretwonativespeakersofEnglishwhoareveryexperiencedin Englishteachingandteachertraining.Forthemostpart,theworkshopsessionsdescribedinthis reporttookplacefor3hourseveryafternoon.
I. Background and Assumptions
ThegeneralgoaloftheworkshopwastoenableJapaneseEnglishteacherstoconduct communicativeEnglishlessonsusingL2inamannerthatwasinlinewithcurrentESL/EFL practices.Giventhatthetrainees’teachingbackgrounds,experiencesandapproacheswere unknowntothetrainers,anumberofassumptionsweremadeaboutthem:
1) ThetraineeshadacommitmenttoinstructingtheirclassesthroughthemediumofEnglish ratherthanthroughtheirmothertongueandviewedthisgoalasdesirableandattainable. 2) Theyhad,asaminimum,anupper-intermediateabilityinEnglish.
3) Theywereawareofthelimitsofmakingtheteachingofvocabularyandgrammarthe priorityoftheircourses.
4) Theywereprimarilyusinganon-communicativeapproachintheirclassrooms.
5) Theywereawareoftheexistenceofcommunicativelanguageteaching(CLT),buthadonly limitedexperienceemployingaCLTapproach.
6) Theywereessentiallyopentonewideas;however,theyhadsomeingrainedandpossibly limitingbeliefsaboutthenatureoflanguageteachingandtheirabilitytoconductclassesin English.
Itwasalsoassumedthatthetrainees’Englishclasseswerecharacterisedby:
1) ahighdegreeofteachertalkingtime, 2) extensiveL1usageintheclass, 3) ateacher-centredapproach, 4) lowstudentautonomy,
5) limitedvarietyofconfigurations(i.e.,pairs,groups)whenengaginginclassroomtasks, 6) test-orientedinstruction,and
7) limitedspontaneoususeofEnglish.
Withtheseassumptionsinmind,itwasthoughtnecessarytodividetheworkshoploosely intotwoparts,firstlyinordertogivethemsufficientbackgroundonmethodologyandissues surroundingCLT,andsecondlytoenablethemtoactuallyapplyaspectsofCLTtotheircontexts. ThefirstpartwasessentiallybroadandtheoreticalandconcernedestablishingtheplaceofCLT incurrentpractice,introducingtask-basedlearning(TBL)asthekeywayofmakingCLTwork, providingtraineeswithaframeworkthatwouldhelpthemdesigncommunciativetasks,and finallyexposingthemtoarichbankofspecifictasksandmaterialthattheycoulduseintheir classes.Arequesthadalsobeenmadeforthetrainerstocovertheteachingofdiscussionand presentationskills,andthiswasincludedintheworkshopasanextensionofthebackgroundon methodologyandteachingissues
Thesecondpartwasmorespecificandimmediatelypracticalinthatitfocusedonthe numerouscomponentswhichcompriseeffectiveCLT.Thesecomponentsincludedestablishinga frameworkforuseofL2withinamonolingualJapaneseclassroom,teachingtraineeshowtouse andgiveeffectiveinstructionsinEnglish,identifyingandpractisingthestagingofactivitiesby instructors,refocusingthelocusofinteractionfromtheteachertogreaterinvolvementand participationbythestudents,examiningclassmanagementinrelationtoalternativeteacherand learnerroles,andreconstructingtheEnglishclassroomintermsofacommunicativezonefor languageacquisition.Thesepartswerefairlycloselyintegratedandwererunconcurrentlybythe respectiveteachertrainers.
II.DescriptionofWorkshopContent
Methodology:CLTandTBL
ThispartbeganwithadiscussionofmethodologyinordertoputCLTandTBLintocontext. TraineeswererequiredtoreadaprimeronmethodologyextractedfromPracticalEnglish
LanguageTeaching(Nunan,2003,pp.4-7)forhomeworkandtoreflectontheirownapproach toteaching.Itwasmadeclearthatanon-communicative,grammar/vocabulary-heavyfocuson teachingEnglishwasineffectiveinencouragingcommunicativecompetenceasitisnowwidely definedandaccepted(Bachman,1991,p.87).Aftertheopeningdiscussiontraineeswereasked toconsiderredefiningtheirmeasureofsuccessasteachersfromtheabilityofstudentsto produce grammatically correct sentencestotheabilitytopassamessagesuccessfully through the medium of English so that their communicative goal is achieved. It was suggestedthatthebestwayofdoingthiswastointroduceTBLintotheirclassrooms.
TBLwasthendefinedasinvolvingstudentsinperformingtasksthathaveacommunicative purposeandadefinableoutcome.Taskswerebroadlypresentedas‘arangeofworkplanswhich havetheoverallpurposeoffacilitatinglanguagelearning’(Breen,1987,p.23)andseveraltask typologieswerediscussedinNunan(1989,pp.66-68),3typesfromPrahbu(1987,pp.46-7),7 typesfromClark(1987,238-9)and7typesfromPattison(1987).Thesetypologieswereusefulin helpingtraineesvisualizeandencapsulatethewiderangeoftasksthatexist(e.g.,Prahbu’s(1987, pp.46-7)simpledivisionofinformation,reasoningandopiniongapactivitytypes).Traineeswere exposedtoexamplesofeachtasktype,eitherthroughparticipationintasksordiscussionof sampletasksforillumination.
FollowingthisintroductionofTBL,traineeswerefurnishedwithtwoparadigmsorwork- cyclesforapplyingCLTintheirclassrooms:Presentation-Practice-Production(PPP)andTBL. Bothparadigmswereillustratedinaclassroomsituationbytheteachertrainerusingidentical materials.Followingthispracticaltreatment,thecomponentsofPPPandTBLwerecompared andcontrastedinordertoclarifythemasmodelsforlessonplanning.
DiscussionandPresentation
Anadditionalfocusofthecoursewashowtoteachdiscussionandpresentationskillsinthe class.Discussionwasdefinedinaverybroadsenseasspontaneousspokencommunication between two or more students for a variety of purposes; for example, establishing and maintainingsocialrelations,theexchangeofpersonalinformation,thecheckingoflanguage learningexercises,talkingaboutpersonallikesanddislikes,expressingideasandnegotiating choicesandcommunicatingtogetthingsdone.Inthissense,discussionashandledinthe workshopwasnotviewedasa‘high-brow’exchangeofideas,asthiswouldhavemadeitalmost impossibletoactuallyrealiseinclasseswithstudentsofverylowEnglishproficiency.
Traineeswereadvisedtousethefollowingguidelinestohelpintheirteachingapproachand materialsdevelopment(Bygate,2001,p.18):
1) Arangeofdifferenttypesofinteractionneedpracticing.
2) Theconditionsoforaltasksneedtodifferfromthoseforwrittenskills. 3) Improvisedspeechneedspractice,butaroundsomecontentfamiliarity.
4) Overtoraleditingskillsneedtobeencouraged,includingtheuseofcommunication
strategies.
5) Forlearners’oralabilitiestodevelop,thereneedstobeanemphasisonfluency,accuracy andcomplexity.
GiventhefocusonTBL,itwasalsosuggestedthatanydiscussionactivities,particularlyat lowerlevels,shouldinvolvethestudentsinthenegotiationofmeaningtocompleteaspecifictask soastoavoiddiscussionsthatweretooopen-ended.Asforpracticallyfacilitatingdiscussionin class,traineeswereprovidedwithadditionalguidelines:
1) Givestudentssufficientpracticeinpairsandgroupswithaminimumofteacherinterference. 2) Establisha‘classroomculture’ofcommunicationfromday1.
3) Establish ‘The English Zone’ (an English-only time during the tasks) in the case that conductingaclassfullyinEnglishwasanimpossibility.
4) Givelearnersareasontocommunicatesomethingbychoosingtaskseffectivelyandcreating agapthattheyneedtobridge.
5) Varygroupingsduringdiscussionactivities. 6) Balanceteachercontrolandstudentindependence. 7) Buildabankofdiscussionideas/activities.
8) Chooseactivitiesthattheyarechallengedbyandtheycansucceedat.
Traineeswereexpectedtoconsiderthesepointswhileplanningandteachingtheirfinal 15-minuteteachingpractice,whichrequiredadiscussioncomponentintheirlessontaughtusing theirpeersasstudents.
Presentationsweredefinedasaone-waytransmissionofinformationtoanaudienceusinga pre-determinedformatforaspecificpurpose:toinform,introduce,reporton,convinceor describe.Itwashopedthattheideathatpresentationswere,bydefinition,‘high-brow’couldbe
debunked so that teachers would feel comfortable doing simple ones with even low-level students.
Itwasalsonoted,however,thatconceiving,preparinganddoingpresentationsisasynthesis ofanumberofdifferentskillsandknowledgeareas(e.g.,vocabulary,discussion,research,note- taking,confidence-building,fluency,bodylanguage,tonamebutafew).Thisrequiresmuch planning,oftenoverseveralclassesanditwasrecommendedthatteachersusethefollowing cycleforguidance:
1) Introducingandmodellingthepresentation(listening). 2) Decidingthetopic(discussion).
3) Findingtheinformation(research,discussion,note-taking).
4) Organizingtheinformationanddecidingonthepresentationformat(criticalthinking). 5) Decidingwhatlanguageisrequired(vocabulary).
6) Rehearsingthepresentation(attentiontopresentationskills). 7) Givingthepresentation(demonstrationofpresentationskills). 8) Gettingand/orgivingfeedback(evaluation).
Itwasrecommendedthatfairlyhigh-level,sophisticatedstudentswouldbeabletodecide andconductthemselvescapablyinallstages,withteachersupport.Forlower-levelstudents,it wasrecommendedthatteachersfixnumbers1,2,4,5and8.Itemnumber4requiressome comment.Bytheterm‘presentationformats’,theauthorsmeantheshapeoroutlinethatthe contentofapresentationtakes.Forexample,inaTVcommercial,companiesoftenshowa situation(e.g.,arainyday),aproblem(e.g.,youcatchacold),asolution(e.g.,youtaketheir medicine) and a result (e.g., you feel better). This format is a SITUATION-PROBLEM- SOLUTION-RESULT type. The kinds of formats that can be adopted to guide students in organizingtheircontentincludethefollowing:
1) Situation-Problem-Solution-Result(Commercial).
2) Problem-Solution-Futureoutlook(Newsreport-Environmentalproblem). 3) Basicinformation-Family-Interests(Self-introduction).
4) Chronologicalorder(Pastevents).
5) Foreground-Middleground-Background(Spatialdescriptions-Picture).
6) Surveyquestion-Generalresult-Interestingresults-Opinion(Presentingsurveyresults).
7) Goodpoints-BadPoints(Comparing/Contrastingsomething).
8) Summary-Background-Problem-Resolution-FinalComment(Storytelling). 9) Mainopinion-Supportingpoints-Conclusion(Opinion).
10) Descriptionofobject-Whyit’sgood(Showandtell). 11) Geographical/Timedescription(Weatherreports). 12) Introduction-Tools/Ingredients-Procedure(Recipes). 13) Introduction-Body-Conclusion(Speeches).
14) Destination-Sights-Activities-Accommodation(Travelplans/Tours). 15) Mainpoint-Setting-Characters-Plot-Theme-Rating(Bookreport).
Followingthistreatment,traineeswerebrieflyexposedtothefactorsthatcompriseeffective delivery,althoughtimeconstraintsdidnotallowin-depthtreatmentandpracticeofallpoints. Traineeswere,however,requiredtogiveapresentationofateachingideainclasstotheirpeers, whichwasevaluatedasapartoftheircoursemark.
ImplementationintheClassroom
Thispartoftheworkshopbeganwithadiscussionamongstthetraineesabouttheissues and obstacles to conducting English-only instruction. Following that, the core concept of establishingaclassroomcultureofspeakingEnglishwasintroduced.Traineeswereaskedto considerwaysofmaintainingsuchaculture,andwereprovidedwithacontractofEnglish-usage promises (Woodward, 2001, pp.40-41). Contracts can contain classroom instructions for convenientreferenceinanyclass,andcanbespecificallyreferredbacktowhenstudentscarry outself-evaluationsattheendoftheircourses.Additionally,theneedforthoroughplanning, includinghowithelpedtosupporttheEnglishlanguageconfidenceofnon-nativeteachers,was showntobeaprerequisitewhenseekinggreatertargetlanguageusebystudents.
Afterestablishingaclassroomenvironmentconducivetotheaimsoftheworkshop,the centralideaofclassroomexpressionswaspresented,andaselectionfromstudentcoursebooks wasdiscussedandadapted.Theexpressionswereexpandedtoincludeteacherexpressions, meaninglanguagetoolstheteacherrequirestoconductacommunicativeclassusingthemedium ofEnglish(Hughes,1981,Ch.1).Traineeswereshownwaysofweavinginstructionsintothe fabricoftheclass,forinstanceusingacardgamepractisingclassroomlanguage(Martin,1997, pp.76-77),oralternativelyexperimentingwith‘readandrespond’activitieswherestudents physicallycarryoutinstructionslike“Shakehands”and“Writeyournameontheboard”or“Smile
attheteacher”.TotalPhysicalResponse(TPR)wasalsoillustratedasawaytoissueinstructions, therebystressingavarietyofteacherstylestopresent,practiceandreinforcenewlanguage,to takeaccountofdifferinglearningstylesthatexistamongstlearners.Traineesthenexperimented withteacher-to-classinstructions(i.e.,inputthattheirstudentswouldtypicallyreceive),aswell asclassmate-to-classmateinstructions(i.e.,outputthattheirstudentsneedmorepracticein).
Though appropriate use of expressions makes for clearer instructions, if they are not foundedonaseriesofproceduresthenclassactivitieswillfailtowork.Thelistofprocedures distributedtotraineesincludedfollowingexample:
1) Arousinginterestinthetopic. 2) Eliciting.
3) Gradinglanguage.
4) Providinganaturalframeworkorcontext.
5) Checkingunderstandinge.g.usingconceptquestions.
Asetofproceduresareconstantlyreferredtointheliteraturewhenintroducingtasks, whetherfollowingaPPP-typeorTBL-typeclassplan(forasamplelessonplan,seeHedge,2000, pp.32-33). Trainees were asked to consider more deeply the definitions of exercises and activities,andwhichonestendedtoworkintheircontext(Vale,etal,1991,pp.23-27).Theythen consideredaframeworkforassessingthemselvesandtheirpeerswhengivinginstructions,and reviewedtheirteachingonvideotape.Bybeingaskedto‘grade’themselvesandacolleague,they wereofferedawindowtoseetheclassbothasateacherandasanobserverorlearner,witha degreeofdetachmentthataidsreflection.
Yetknowingasetofproceduresisstillnotenough,forevenwhentheyareweddedtosound concepts,alackofawarenessofpacingandstagingcandestroylearnermotivation.Thekindsof stagesreferredtoinaPPPlessonincludedfollowingexample:
1) Makingthemeaningclear. 2) Makingtheformclear.
3) Checkingstudents’understandingofthemeaning.
4) Checkingstudents’abilitytopronounceandmanipulatetheform.
5) Givingstudentstheopportunitytoexpressthetargetiteminapersonalisedway.
6) Consolidatingthelanguageitemontheboard.
Traineeswereaskedtojustifywhatcomponentstoincludeina50-minutelessonusingtheir schooltextbooks,andtoprovidelanguagetolinkthestagestogether.Theywerealsourgedto makeeffectiveuseoftheboard,realiaandequipmentasinstructiontools,whilenoticingthe effectsonpacingofover-dependenceandunder-dependenceonboardworkandprops.Again,a combinationofdemonstration,observation,videoreview(oftheirownteachingpractice)and reflectionofferedinsight,especiallywhencoupledwithafter-dinnerdiscussion.Efficientuseof classtimewasclarifiedintermsofwhatitemstoinclude,thetimeallocatedtoeachstage,and therelativeweightofeachpartofthelessontotheclassasawhole.
Next,thelocuswasmovedawayfromthetraineesthemselves,towardstheparticipation, involvement,andinteractionoftheirlearners.Traineeswereaskedtorearrangetheclassroomas anadaptablespace.Englishinstructionsnowboundstagesofthelessontogether,without interferingwithorconstrainingstudent-to-studentinteraction.Viademonstrationonvideoand inclass,itwasshownhowdesks,unlessboltedtothefloor,couldbeclearedawaytomakea groupspeakingareawherepartners(onceequippedwithclassroomexpressionstoinitiate conversations)couldstartup,maintainandfinishconversationswitheachother.Thoughthere aretimeswhentheteacher-to-studentpatternisnecessary,learnersusinglanguageinstudent- to-studentgroupingsarekey.Theteachercanselectpartnersdirectly(e.g.,bypairingoffusing numbersforcontrolledpractice);orbyallowingrandomselection(e.g.,byhavingstudents choose from a deck of cards prior to free practice); or by allowing students to decide for themselveswhotoworkwith(especiallywhenasurveydemandsaskingthesamequestionstoa numberofdifferentpartners).Throughamoreanalyticalapproachtoplanningandcritical approachtoobservation,instructionsbecamepreciseandefficient,andthetimeallocatedto settingupwasreduced,leadingtoaprojectedincreaseinthequantityandqualityofEnglish usedbyallstudentsintheclass.
Buildingonaheightenedawarenessoftheclassasaspace,traineeswereaskedaboutways forlearnerstoassumemorecontrolovertheirownlearning.Teacherswouldnolongerfulfilone fixedrole,inherentinteacher-centredandstudent-centredparadigms,butwouldshiftrolesas needed.Learnersneededtobeshownhowtolearn,givenautonomyasappropriate,andmade accountablefortheirprogress.Hencethedetailsofclassroommanagementreturnedtotheinitial overview,whentraineesfirstconsideredaclassroomcontractandself-evaluations.Trainees
demonstratedtheirprogressthroughthisphaseoftheworkshop,submittingtheirlessonplans andteachingsamplemini-lessonsforevaluationbythetrainers,withtheirpeergroupactingas students.
III.ObservationsaboutTrainers,TraineesandtheWorkshop
TrainerObservations
Traineesshowedahighlevelofcommitmenttotakeonboardwhattheylearned,willingly watchingandcommentingonseveralhoursofvideofootageoftheirentiregroupgivingsample lessons,ratherthanjusttheirownteachingandthatofonefellowtrainee.Theymadefulluseof theteachingassistantswhoweretheretooffervideoandlanguagesupport.Theyrequested accesstoafullerlibraryofresourcematerialsthanhadbeenprovided,aswellasclassroom stationery to make realia. The interplay and rapport amongst themselves came across convincinglyintheirteachingpractice,anditisclearthattheirdedicationandprofessionalism surelybenefitstheirstudents.
Understandably,traineesweresometimeslessassuredinprecise,painstakingpreparationof clearclassroominstructions,whichsetupandlinktheitemsoflexisandgrammaratwhichthey aremoreadept.Indeed,aquicksurveyofattitudesatthebeginningoftheworkshopindicated that many trainees habitually used the mother tongue for setting up activities, as if those instructions were incidental to the communicative focus of the class. Furthermore, the communicativecomponentoftheclass,towhichtheyassignedsomeminutesoftheclasswhen carryingouttasks,appearedattimestobetruncatedintolittlemorethancontrolledpractice exercises.Bycompartmentalisingandreducingtheimportanceofcommunicationinthetarget language,theyrantheriskoflimitingtheirstudents’exposuretotheveryexperienceofusinga foreignlanguageforacommunicativepurpose.Difficultieswitnessedmayhavebeenduetogaps inknowledge,butreflectedgenuineconcernsofthetraineesabouttheirclasses(‘Studentsdon’t understandwhattodoinEnglish’).Inpart,L1usageamongteacherscreatessomeproblems itself:arelianceonL1instructionswouldmeanstudentscouldnotbeexpectedtounderstand simpleorders,couldnotuselanguagethemselvestoorganisetheirowngroupsandactivities,and consequentlywouldbeunabletocarryoutsimpletaskswithoutdirectionsfromtheteacher.
BesidesproblemsassociatedwithincompleteknowledgeorinadequateusageofEnglish classroomexpressions,thetraineestendedtostrugglewithclarity.Asimpleinstructiontoget
intopairsattimesresultedinanexplanation,ratherthandemonstration,andthreatenedto confusestudents.Itwasthereforeincumbentuponthetraineestoknoworhaveaccesstothe EnglishexpressionsnecessarytoconductaclassinEnglish,tosetanexampleoftheinteractive English-speakingclassculture,andtoexpecttheirstudentstotrytokeeptoEnglishduring tasks.Interestingly,expectationsofstudentstoconverseinEnglishseemedtobesetrelatively low,whereasexpectationstoabsorbnewvocabularyandstructures,orcomprehendwritten discourse, were set conversely high. It appeared to be a question of rethinking the class orientationtoreflectthecommunicativeaiminherentinlearningaforeignlanguage,andwas certainlywithinthereachofthetrainees.
Anattempttoadjusttheflowoftheclassdoesnotnecessarilyunderminetheteacher’s authority.However,traineestendedtogivetoomuchexplanation,andtoolittledemonstration; moretalkingabouthowtodoitthanshowingwhatneededtobedoneandallowingthestudents todoitthemselves.Bridgingthegapbetweenleadingandfacilitatingwasaccomplishedbythe majority of the trainees during their final 15-minute teaching demonstrations, when they embraced the workshop input and orchestrated a greater degree of student-to-student interactionwithacorrespondingreductioninteacher-to-studentlecturing.Thisseemedtohave noadverserepercussionsforrapportorpower-relationsintheclassroom;indeed,bytakingthe focusofftheteacherandengagingthestudentsmore,itwaslikelytorelievetheburdenonthe teacherinthetwinrolesofeducatoranddisciplinarian.
TraineeObservationsoftheWorkshop
Someimportantsuggestionsgatheredbyaworkshopquestionnaireattheendofthecourse werecompiledandpresentedbelow:
1) Thecoursecontentwasbothbroadandcomprehensive;however,ifthemainthemeshad beenmorefocusedandrestrictedandmoretimeallottedfordiscussionofthecontent,the workshopwouldhavebeenmoreeffective.
2) Thecoursepacketcouldhavebeenorganizedmoreeffectively.Manythingswerehardto findinitduetothesheervolumeofmaterialandthefactthatthepageswerenotnumbered. Thecoursepacketcouldalsohavebeendistributedtothetraineespriortotheworkshop.
3) Itwouldhavebeenusefuliftraineeshadbroughtinvideosoftheirownteachingforpeer
reviewandtrainerfeedback.
4) ItwaspreferablenottohaveTAsintheclassroomsunlesstheywerethereforaspecific purpose,suchasvideotapingtheworkshop.Inaddition,oneortwotraineesobjectedto beingvideotapedandphotographed.
5) Itwouldhavebeenmoreeffectiveiftraineeshadbroughtinthematerialstheytypicallyuse totheworkshopsothattheycouldmakeuseofthemintheirlessonplanningandteaching practice.
6) Astheteachertrainersworkedinahighlyintegratedfashion,itwasnotalwaysclearwhen thehomeworkwasdueandwhatwasexpectedofthehomeworkassignments.
7) Thetrainersmightbenefitfrommoreexposuretothetargetteachingcontextssothatthey canmorefullyunderstandwhatitislikeintheclassrooms.
8) Photocopyingfacilitieswouldbeusefulfortraineesindoingtheirhomework.
IV.Recommendations
According to the feedback from both trainees and observers, the trainees benefitted enormouslyfromthehands-onnatureoftheworkshop.Forthem,acquiringandpracticingnew andimmediatelyapplicableteachingideas/techniquesandgettingextensivefeedbackthrough peerobservation,trainercommentsandself-reflection(usingvideo)wasauniqueandvaluable experience.Thissectionpresentsvariousrecommendationsderivedfromavarietyofobservers: thetrainers,trainees,TAsandworkshoporganisers.Iffollowed,theserecommendationsare expectedtoresultinthemaintenanceandimprovementofthequalityoftheworkshopand illuminateissuesthatwillhavetobetacklediftheworkshopisscaled-uptoaccommodatemore participantsinthefuture.
Teachingissues
Bywayofsummarisingtheobservationsoftrainees,anumberofsuggestionsweredrawnup asareasforteachertrainerstoworkonmoreextensivelyinfutureworkshops:
1) Useoftheboardforpurposesotherthanvocabularyandgrammarexplanationsrequired consideration.Specifically,futureareasfortraineestoexperimentwithwereboarduseby studentsaskedtocollaborateactivelyinteams,theuseofcolourforhighlighting,anda boardmenuofactivitiesforstudentstoknowthedirectionoftheclass.
2) Planningofclassstagesandpacingweresuggestedasareaswheremosttraineescould benefit.Asystematicapproach,forexample,wouldensureabalanceofcommunicative exercisesandactivitiesineveryclass.InaPPPtypelesson,itwouldbesensibletouseclear, simplelanguagetogetthroughearlystagessothatatleastthemaintaskofstudent-to studentinteractionalwaystakesplace.ByusingTPRmoreintheinstructionstagetheclass wouldbeenergisedandstudentinteractioncouldreplacemuchoftheteachertalk.
3) TheneedtoteachEnglishthroughEnglish,establishingandmaintainingacultureof Englishspeaking,hadtogainacceptanceamongtraineesbybeingshowntowork.Trainees canthenapplyitevenwhenpresentinggrammarandvocabulary,bypredictingbeforeclass theEnglishwordsandphrasestheywillneed.Eliciting,demonstrating,rephrasingandusing picturesneededgreateremphasis,asstudentswouldlackimportantskillsifnotexposedto them.Givingupandusingthemothertonguecreatesabarriertostudentsfeelingateasein thetargetlanguageandattainingcommunicativecompetence.
4) Classroominteractiontendednottoreachagenuinestudent-to-studenttaskstage,orelse hitaplateauofinteractionbestdescribedascontrolledpractice.Itwassuggestedtothe traineestochallengetheirstudentsmore,forexample,byhavingthemlistentoauthentic discourseatnaturalspeed,whichwouldpracticeavarietyofgistanddetailedtasksoffering top-downandbottom-upprocessingskills.Afterthiscomprehensibleinputstage,trainees wouldthenbeabletocreateabridgeorintakestageofcontrolledpractice,movingmore swiftlytofreerpracticeorcomprehensibleoutput.Studentsappeartogainfrommore speaking time (quantity of interactions) as well as from meaningfully personalising experienceandusinglanguagetoachievetaskswithoutcomes(qualityofinteractions).It mayproveusefulwhenvideotapingtraineestotimesequencesandinstructionstodefine theamountofteachertalkrelativetostudenttalkinpairs.Itisalsosuggestedtorearrange desksandcreatestandingspacestochangethekindsofstaticinteractionsthatcantake placeintoactivecommunication.
Coursematerials:Contentandorganisation
1) The way in which TBL could practically be applied by the trainees was not clearly understood.Theconceptofdoingmeaningfultaskswasunderstood,however,morespecific ideasonhowtobringTBLintothetrainees’existingEnglishcurriculumweremissing, particularly for low-level classes. In the day-to-day conception and use of classroom activities,PPPemergedasthemostreadilyadaptableapproach,whereasTBLwasviewed withsomeconfusion.Thisshortcomingmaybepartiallyduetohowitwaspresented, however, adopting TBL demands curriculum planning decisions as well as teaching decisions.
2) Time constraints require that teacher trainers be careful about selecting content and developingcoursematerialssothatthemainconceptsandtheirapplicationsarecoveredin themosttime-effectivewaywithoutcomingout‘half-baked’.Ideally,whatisrequiredfor traineestogetsufficientgroundingincurrentCLTpracticeisacoursesimilarinlengthand contenttoafourweekintensiveRSACELTAcoursefornon-nativeteachers.Giventhatthis isnotpossible,areviewofmaterialsisrequiredbeforethiscourseisrunagaintoensurethe mostsalientpointsarebeingcovered.
3) Themaincontentoftheworkshopappearedinthebodyofthecoursepacketandwas,by necessity,quitetext-heavy.Intheinterestsofmakingthecontentoftheworkshopmore accessibletotrainees,itisrecommendedthatthesalientpointsortechniquesbeteasedout ofthemainbodyofthecoursepacketandplacedinanewsectionintheappendix.Thisnew appendixwouldconsistofbriefandsuccinctexercisesordiscussionsthatwouldallowthe trainersandtraineestofocusondiscretepointsortechniquesinawaythatwouldbeless overwhelmingforboth.
4) Teachingpracticewasnotsufficientinlengthforeachtraineetodemonstratetheirmastery ofallcontentinthecourse.Fifteenminutescanallowthemtodemonstrateagraspon classroommanagement,forexample,butnotonothercontentareas.Perhapstheevaluation oftrainees’performanceneedstoberethoughttomoreaccuratelyreflectthis.
5) Itwouldbepreferableinteachingpracticetouseactualhighschoolandjuniorhighschool students. In the teaching practice, trainees functioned as students for each teacher, however,thisisunrepresentativeofthetargetteachingenvironment.
6) ThesectionoftheworkshopdealingwiththetheoryofTBL,presentationsanddiscussions seems too unwieldy at present. It might be preferable to reduce the emphasis on presentationanddiscussionteachingandpractice,asaseparatetopicanddealwiththem undertheumbrellaof‘tasks’.
Logisticsandworkshoporganisation
Afewimprovementsinlogisticsandorganisationarerecommended:
1) Traineesshouldberequiredtobringintheteachingmaterialstheycommonlyuseasraw materialforworkshophomeworkassignmentsandteachingpractice.
2) Traineesshouldbeaskedtobringinavideooftheirteachingwhichtheycanuseforpeer feedbackoutsideclasstime.
3) Aportableresourcelibraryshouldbeassembledandmadeavailabletotraineesfortheir homeworkassignments.
4) Stationeryshouldalsobemadeavailabletothetrainersandtrainees.
5) Foragroupof15participants,aminimumoftwoandideallythreeclassroomswillbe requiredtorehearseandperformvarioustasksforevaluation.
Forthesuccessoflargerworkshops,itiscriticalthattheuniqueapproachwithitshigh degreeofindividualattentiongiventothetraineesinthispilotworkshopnotbeundermined.In theeventofaworkshopscale-up,thefollowingpointsshouldbeconsidered:
1) Ifthesamenumberoftrainersisusedtohandle30trainees(2classes),theresultwillbea morestreamlinedcoursewithlesspersonalattention,feedbackandevaluation.Ifthecourse isrunwith45ormoretrainees,itwillbeimpossiblefortwotrainerstoeffectivelyhandlethe workshop. In the event that three classes of 15 trainees each participate in future workshops,anadditionalteachertrainerwillberequiredtocopewiththevolume.
2) Individualtrainerresponsibilitiesandrolesmayhavetochange.Inthisworkshop,thetwo trainersworkedwithahighdegreeofcooperationandthesamegroupof11students.This
trainerstaffingreflectstypicalTEFLcoursessuchastheCambridgeRSACELTAcourse with15trainees,inwhichthetwotrainers’rolesarehighlyintegrated.Intheeventthat largernumbersoftraineesjointheworkshop,thescheduling,trainerrolesanddegreeof trainercooperationwillhavetobeconsideredcarefullytoensureitsqualityandefficiency.
3) Teachingpracticewillhavetobealtered.Teamsof5traineeswillhavetoworktogetherto teach a 75-minute lesson for final evaluation. The time allotted for rehearsing and performingteachingpracticewillhavetoexpand.
4) Therequirementforteachingassistantswillincrease.Theroleofteachingassistantswill requireclarification,especiallygiventhereluctanceofsometraineestohavethempresent inclass.
Bibliography
Bachman,L.(1991).Fundamentalconsiderationsinlanguagetesting.Oxford:OUP.
Breen,M.(1987).Learnercontributionstotaskdesign.InCandlin,C.,&Murphy,D.(Eds.).1987. Languagelearningtasks.EnglewoodCliffsNJ:PrenticeHall.
Bygate,M.(2001)Speaking.InCarter&Nunan(Eds.).TheCambridgeguidetoteachingEnglishto speakersofotherlanguages.Cambridge:CUP.
Clark,J.(1987).Curriculumrenewalinschoolforeignlanguagelearning.Oxford:OUP. Hadley,A.O.(2001).Teachinglanguageincontext(3rded.).Boston:Heinle&Heinle.
Harmer,J.(1991).ThepracticeofEnglishlanguageteaching.Middlesex:LongmanGroupUKLimited. Hedge,T.(2000).Teachingandlearningintheclassroom.Oxford:OUP.
Hughes,G.S.(1981).AhandbookofclassroomEnglish.Oxford:OUP. Martin,D.(1997).Talkalot:Startingout.Saitama,Japan:EFLPress.
MinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,Science,andTechnology.(2005).Summaryofworkshopproject fordevelopingEnglishteachingabilities.RetrievedonNovember28,2005fromhttp://www.mext. go.jp/b_menu/houdou/17/07/05071101/002.htm/.
Nunan,D.(1989)Designingtasksforthecommunicativeclassroom.Cambridge:CUP. Nunan,D.(2003)PracticalEnglishlanguageteaching.NewYork:McGraw-Hill. Pattison,P.(1987)Developingcommunicationskills.Cambridge:CUP. Prahbu,N.(1987)Secondlanguagepedagogy:Aperspective.Oxford:OUP.
Vale,D.,Scarino,A.,&McKay,P.(1991).PocketALL(Australianlanguagelevelsguidelines):A users’guidetotheteachingoflanguageandESL.Carlton,S.Victoria:CurriculumCorporation. Woodward,T.(2001).Planninglessonsandcourses.Cambridge:CUP.