7.3.5 Involving the teachers
Hills (1966:28) states that: "No teaching/learning method however innovative or systematic can succeed without a proper consideration of the two main participants, the student and the teacher" (cf. section 7.2.2.1). Thus, programme principles must embrace process-over-product and negotiation of meaning in management-teacher interactions as well as in the classroom, fostering "a shared vision of the implications of the change" (Carless 1998:366), and a "deeper and more complex change" (Kennedy 1988:329) than the professed acceptance of new ideas that is often more theoretical than practical (cf. Long & Sato 1983; Guthrie 1984; Nunan 1987a; Mitchell 1988; Walz 1989; Burns 1990; Kamaradivelu 1993; Karavas-Doukas 1996:187). In the programme under consideration this was particularly relevant, given the novelty of the teaching/learning approach and the materials used, and it was recognised that informing, training, and supporting teachers were important factors, without which the programme could not be put into effect:

If ... teachers are supported at all stages in implementing curricular innovation, if they are thoroughly trained in that innovation, and if they are encouraged to reflect critically on their implementation of the innovation, there is opportunity for change to occur. (Brock 1994:68)

... even when teachers face structural and cultural resistance to an innovation they are seeking to implement, change can successfully occur when adequate support is provided. (Brock 1994:68)

These three factors (information, training, support) were addressed in a number of ways:

1.  Web-site: a home-page (appendix C-79; cf. section 6.5) was made for the Language Centre, including  a "Mission statement" (appendix C-78) and a "Teachers' Resource" section (http://lc.andong.ac.kr/eng/index8.html), presenting foundational ideas about the programme and its realisation in practice, along with administrative information (e.g. class lists, grading policy, marking criteria, final tests, online teachers' books) and links to professional research and training organisations. This home page was continuously updated as the programme developed, and as more information became available online.

APPENDIX C-79: ANULC ENGLISH HOME PAGE, FEBRUARY 2000.

2.  E-mail: all 21 teachers were connected to the Internet by LAN cable in March 1999, and thus had easy access to email. A teachers' email-list was then made through "Egroups" (http://www.egroups.com) and was used to send memos and other information on a daily basis, providing not only up-to-date information, but also a convenient channel for two-way communication.

3.  Initiation weeks: new appointees were encouraged to read the LC home-page (http://lc.andong.ac.kr/eng) before arriving in Andong, in order to get some idea of the ideas behind the goals of the programme. Even then, however, the sheer number of innovations in the programme meant that it was advisable to give new teachers a pre-semester training week (e.g. http://plaza.snut.ac.kr/~lc/introweek/index.htm), in which the philosophy and practicalities of the programme could be investigated. These training sessions included explanation of the textbooks and Teachers' Resource Books for each year (TMM, NYT, TWA), sample lessons, discussions, videos (e.g. of final oral tests), use of the home page, and instruction in making individual home pages. This rather overwhelming format was subsequently pared down to a minimum of "what people really need to know in order to walk into the classroom on Day 1".

4.  Observation: ideas that can be difficult to take in during an initiation week can make more sense after new teachers have been in the classroom for a week or two, so it became policy for the author (in addition to visiting all teachers once per semester) to visit new staff in the classroom in the first two weeks of the semester, and to discuss any matters that came up, in a reflective and supportive manner.

5.  Teaching Journal: teachers need continuous support until they feel comfortable with all aspects of the programme. Part of the "Initiation Pack" supplied in the training week was therefore a "Teaching Journal" (Finch 1998a), which included consciousness-raising questionnaires (cf. TWA) and suggestions for reflection on teaching practices. This journal could be referred to during discussion of observation sessions.

6.  Sample lessons: the writer's lessons were always open to visitors, but occasional workshop lessons were also given for as many teachers as were able to attend, the aim being to stimulate discussion of related issues.

7.  Co-ordinator meetings: regular teachers'meetings were held for each year of the programme (Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors), at which attendance was voluntary. These provided a valuable forum for asking "silly questions" (i.e. questions that are only silly if you don't ask them), and sharing ideas and experiences.

8.  Presentations: the Language Centre offered financial support to teachers who attended or presented at local KOTESOL[3] conferences, thus encouraging them to become more involved in their profession, and to explore contemporary issues with colleagues around Korea. This practice had a beneficial effect on the teachers in terms of professional development, and a consequent positive "rub-off" effect on the Language Centre. 

9.  Positive support: the policy in the Language Centre was to "look after the students by taking care of the teachers" through active professional support (cf. item 8, above), developmental support (e.g. encouragement of Distance Learning studies), personal support (putting personal needs above institutional rules), administrative support (logistics, contracts, immigration matters, etc.), and classroom support, allowing teachers to "get on with their job", without having to worry about other matters (cf. Verspoor 1989). The resulting atmosphere of institutional trust also had the effect of helping teachers to view favourably the innovations that were being advocated by the programme designer, since the holistic principles of mutual trust that they were being asked to adopt were also being extended to them.

10.    Feedback: (cf. section 7.3.7,) teachers were encouraged to talk about the programme (textbooks, methodology, assessment, classrooms, students, etc.) in teachers' meetings, emails, and informal discussions, and these opinions were considered and incorporated into the programme as appropriate (e.g. in revisions of the textbooks).

Promoting a methodology in this context was more about teacher "growth" than technique, since the fundamental principles of the programme were largely humanistic, and since learning goals focused on development of abilities and strategies for learning. Hence attention to instructional methods was carried out in a non-threatening manner, through example and reflection. Teachers who disagreed with the basic tenets of the programme could then move on at the end of the contract without ill-feeling[4]. For those who did explore the implications of the "whole person" approach, personal and professional "growth", in terms of sensitivity to students' needs, was noticeable even over two semesters (cf. research instrument 6, tables A-73-88):

The more the teacher humanizes his teaching, the more teaching humanizes him. The more the teacher cares for his students, the more they will care for him. The more the teacher frees his students to grow, the more he frees himself to grow. (Pine & Boy 1977:30)

7.3.6 Involving the students
The language programme and the process approach to the syllabus provide a framework to enable learners to make more effective decisions about their own learning, helping them to become more effective, autonomous decision makers (Skehan 1998:262). But as Skehan points out, this assumes that learners are willing and able to play a full part in syllabus negotiation. In practice, learner training and learner "readiness" for that training is an important part of implementing a process syllabus, and imposition of change (including imposition of autonomy [Bassano 1986:13f]) upon differing needs, preferences, beliefs, learning styles, and educational backgrounds can lead to negative reactions (cf. Long 1977; Alsop 1969; Curtin 1969; McCoy 1969; Stevick 1980). Bassano (1986) suggests six steps towards avoiding or dealing with such reactions, when students experience unexpected teaching techniques, materials, or environment: 

1. Become aware of students' past classroom experiences and their assumptions about language learning.

2. Build students' confidence in the teacher's expertise and qualifications.

3. Begin where the students are and move slowly.

4. Show them achievement.

5. Allow for free choice as much as possible.

6. Become aware of the students' interests and concerns, their goals and objectives. (Bassano 1986:15)

As described in the sections on the philosophy and methods of the programme (chapters 4, 5 & 6), these six suggestions were part and parcel of the general student-centred approach adopted in the programme, and were recommended to teachers in the various workshops, training sessions, and post-observation discussions (section 7.3.5), as effective ways of fostering confidence, motivation, independence and trust in the classroom[5]. Bassano's suggestions were also implicit in the design of the three textbooks (and teachers' resource books), along with Hills' (1976) investigation of teacher/student needs[6], results from which showed that students felt a need ...: 

i)               for freedom to express themselves and to criticise the college;

ii)              to be able to participate in important educational decisions;

iii)            to have more contact with staff;

iv)            to be treated fairly and to have their natural youthful inclinations recognised;

v)             for teaching methods which take account of the student as an individual;

vi)            for less emphasis on the lecture as main teaching method;

vii)          for more emphasis on small group work, individualised instruction, less emphasis on the text-book;

viii)         to be given a clear statement of the aims and objectives of a course;

ix)            to be involved in a diversity of assessment methods, for example, continuous assessment, long essays, projects;

x)             to be shown the relevance of subject material to their chosen profession;

xi)            for feedback on their progress through a course;

xii)          for more time to produce quality work. (Adapted from Hills 1976:31)

Student involvement in the programme was inherent in the promotion of autonomous learning at all stages (even in TMM students were encouraged to choose activities and the rate at which they completed them), and was a major aspect of the 3^rd year course (cf. items ii, vi, vii & xii, above), facilitated by self-assessment (cf. items ix & xi) and the focus on the goals of CMI (e.g. items i, iv, v). The need for "a clear statement of the aims and objectives of a course" (item viii; cf. TMM, "Information Section", section 7.3.2.2) was identified by both teachers and students in Hills' 1976 study, indicating a desire to know "where we are going" that is central to all learning, and that is addressed by the teacher/student negotiation of the process syllabus. Even then, however, students need to know the aims and objectives of the autonomous approach, and they need assistance and training in forming specific sub-goals (even if the final outcome diverges from the original intention, as in Candlin's [1984] "retrospective syllabus", cf. section 3.4.4.3). Information and feedback (item xi) are therefore vital to the programme (see section 7.3.7, below).

7.3.7 Information and feedback
Combining statements from teachers and students, Hills (1976:32-33) finds that both express an overwhelming need in two areas: 

• i)                    better communication and understanding between students and teachers; and

• ii)                   better and more appropriate teaching methods.

Other areas less well represented in the teacher/student responses, but of some concern, are: 

• iii)                 the need for clear aims and objectives in a course of study;

• iv)                 a greater awareness and use of a variety of assessment methods;

• v)                  more feedback to both parties;

• vi)                 the need for:

•         teachers to show mastery and enthusiasm for their subject;

•         students to be motivated and shown the relevance of materials to their chosen profession;

• vii)               more time for:

•         teachers to prepare their work;

•         students to prepare better quality work.

Items i) and iii) (above) are about information and feedback, and as already mentioned (section 7.3.6), it is important for participants to be informed of programme goals, principles and methods, and of their own progress within that context. In the present study, such dissemination of information was greatly facilitated by the making of a Language Centre Home Page (http://lc.andong.ac.kr/eng), and by the use of email (cf, section 7.3.6). The home page provided updateable information about the programme philosophy, methods, and details (e.g. marking criteria), and had specific pages for learners and teachers. The Students' Resource page contained information on the language programme, its aims, the classroom "rules" (e.g. grading and attendance), and the final tests (which students could access and study by themselves from day 1 of the semester), as well as links to other web pages concerned with language learning resources (e.g. online dictionaries), online language courses, email pen-pal sites, English "chat rooms", grammar sites, TOEFL sites, writing-tutorial sites, English quizzes, etc. The Teachers' Resource page also had information about the programme, along with links to pages that teachers might find professionally useful, such as online lesson-plans, lesson materials, quiz-making software, exchange programmes, distance learning programmes, research sites, and career-oriented sites. The teachers' resource books (TMMT, NYTT, TWAT) were also put on the Home Page, so that teachers could download and edit the teaching materials.

The Home Page was produced and maintained by the author, but increasing computer-competence among teachers during 1998 and 1999 also resulted in a number of individual teachers' Home Pages. These provided extra teacher-student communication (cf. item iii, section 7.3.6), and were a convenient means of informing students about course-related details specific to the particular teacher (e.g. assignments, attendance, continuous assessment). They also stimulated email communication between teachers and students, and enabled the teachers to offer a more personal dimension to the individual attention that was often limited in the classroom.

Finally, information in terms of feedback on teacher/student perceptions was an integral part of the programme and of its formative evaluation, and was collected at the end of each semester through two main instruments. The first of these (internal feedback) was a five-part questionnaire, administered to students and teachers (as in Hills' 1976 study) in the Language Centre, and used formatively as an indication of programme areas in need of change, as well as being used to evaluate the programme (research instruments 2 & 3, sections 8.4/5). The second instrument (external feedback) was a 15-point student questionnaire administered by the university to all departments, providing comparative ratings across different disciplines (research instrument 4, section 8.6). These instruments are examined in the following chapter.