chapter 8

8.8.3.6 Research instrument 6, question 6: "What do you need more of as a teacher on this programme (support, training, etc.)?"
Having established in questions 1 - 5 that certain goals have been achieved, questions 6-8 seek further feedback on existing problems, so that growth can continue, and the programme can develop in appropriate directions (question 9), taking on revised aims if appropriate. These questions are more "open", and therefore have greater variety of responses, but responses to question 6 (table A-72) show a majority in favour of "training" (9) and "administrative support" (6). If we include "interaction between teachers", "information on programme philosophy", "peer-observation", "teacher reflection" and "pep-talks", then the issue of training was the main concern of teachers, and was taken up fully in semester 2 of the 1999 academic year, when incoming teachers were given a new version of the initiation week, more time to reflect and talk to teachers, and more information on the programme (including a copy of a "teachers' journal" – section 7.3.5). All teachers were also observed twice during the semester, and reflected with the deputy director of the Language Centre after those observations.

Table A-78 also highlights the issue of training, especially in view of the nature of the programme goals:

Training – more about the philosophy of the programme. ... Many teachers are still working on the teacher-facilitator shift. (Table A-78)

Teacher training is the cornerstone of successful program development. In general, for whatever reason, program developers (myself included) have been mistaken in their belief that the acquisition of heretofore appropriately trained instructors is all that is required to run a successful program. (Table A-78)

The third quote (above) touches on an initial weakness of the programme: assuming that teachers would want to proceed without interference, "doing their own thing" within the given framework. It became apparent that they were generally untrained in the principles behind the programme, though being keen to learn about them, and about how to implement them in the classroom. Teacher-training therefore gradually increased in importance as the programme proceeded. Responses from a number of teachers mention being happy with the support given to them in the LC, and having few obvious teaching needs:

I've got lots of support from the other teachers. ... Being around these teachers is a kind of training. (Table A-78)

I need more experience of the programme. I couldn't fault the support I've been given. (Table A-78)

8.8.3.7 Research instrument 6, question 7: "How important is supportive management for this programme?"
References to administrative support in responses to question 6 (Table A-78) bring up an issue which is examined in question 7 of this research instrument (tables A-72, 79). This issue was included because of its particular relevance to the continuance of the programme, and to the teachers themselves. At the time of devising the research instrument, administrative support for the programme was ensured, but as 1999 progressed, it became evident that the new president of the university did not support the idea of a three-year Conversation English programme, and was determined to reduce it to one year, without consulting the programme designer, and without being available for discussion of the educational merits of the programme and its results. Teachers were thus faced with a fait accompli, and morale was adversely affected. Students were not made aware of changes until March 2000, by which time 18 of 21 teachers (including the programme designer) had moved on to other positions. The issue of administrative support therefore became a "hot topic" in the LC, as reflected in table A-72, in which responses range from "Essential, critical" (9), to "Very important" (5), "Important" (2) and "Not important" (1). Table A-79 reinforces these impressions, with teachers identifying supportive management (from university policy-makers) as essential for the programme:

[It is] not good when policy is endorsed by university officials, then changed to non-support, without justification. ( Table A-79)

Essential. Because the classroom in a programme like this is different from what most students have experienced before, management support in attitude and resources is extremely important. ( Table A-79)

Absolutely critical. Once you lose management support, things start to unravel for the teachers in their personal and professional lives, and that bleeds through into the classrooms. ( Table A-79)

Supportive management is a greatly under-rated area in EFL and has caused myriad problems in the field. ...There is nothing more singularly demotivating than to be certain that your ideas are sound with respect to your field and yet to have them obviated by the decision-making of someone working within a different agenda. Arbitrary or non-relevant executive decisions have done more to set this industry back than have inappropriate hiring practices. ( Table A-79)

8.8.3.8 Research instrument 6, question 8: "Have you noticed problems that need to be addressed?"
As with questions 6 & 9, question 8 is designed to feed back into the programme, providing information on problems as identified by its implementers. Responses are varied, but of particular note is the number of references to "More ... grammar in the textbooks" (table A-72). These were mostly from teachers in their first semester of teaching on the programme (table A-80), when it was normal for them to be dealing with classroom-role issues (cf. table A-77), and with the "guilt" (table A-77) of not "teaching" in the traditional manner. This was not to discount such opinions, but to see them as a training issue. Renewed emphasis was therefore placed on teachers becoming learning resources, establishing relationships with students in class, carrying out continuous informal needs analyses, and providing methods of solving learning needs as they arose (including grammar and structure), and a gradual easing of these problems was observed (cf. table A-77).

Other problems raised included training, grading, motivation, class sizes, the difficulty of performance-projects for certain types of students, colour textbooks, the need for vision from the Language Centre director (cf. section 7.2.2.1), and the need to re-structure the Sophomore and Junior textbooks. These issues were added to the "wish-list" of programme reform, though university policy made it impossible to change class sizes or composition. The textbooks were in fact published in colour in 2000, and NYT and TWA were restructured along lines suggested by the teachers.

8.8.3.9 Research instrument 6, question 9: "How can the programme progress from this point?"
The final question in this instrument addressed the ongoing nature of the programme and of the formative evaluation. Table A-72 shows a wide range of responses, from "Stay on track" (4) and "Develop subject-specific courses" (4) to "Excellence-based management" (1). These ideas were all valued as positive input, and were noted for future development of the programme. Listening (table A-72) had already been introduced as part of the Freshmen programme (section 8.5.3.2), the Junior textbook was re-structured (question 8, above), and extra conversation activities (table A-72) were added to the Sophomore book. Ideas such as designing EAP[1] courses addressed the developing nature of the programme and of Korean secondary education, envisaging a time when Freshman students would arrive with sufficient communicative competence to be able to bypass TMM and concentrate on the English they needed for their major studies (many major-course textbooks were in English). This tied in with the need to "contact other universities" (table A-72) and other departments in ANU.

Table A-81 also identifies the need for a pre-course oral test, more contrast between years, a reflection page at the end of each chapter in the textbooks, a fourth longer-term level to the programme, teacher training for English Education students, a revised grading system, and management issues.

Very apparent in responses to this and other questions in instrument 6 is the commitment of teachers to the programme, and the agreement on the professional value of having worked on it. All answers appear to be the result of a significant amount of reflection, and address issues honestly and constructively. This attitude was also seen in a lack of factionalism among the 21 teaching staff, and a genuine interest in talking about EFL (it was often said amongst teachers that arguments were about SLA rather than personal matters).

8.8.3.10 Research instrument 6: General remarks.
Before addressing the achievement of programme results, it will be interesting to consider briefly the extra remarks that teachers made about the programme (tables A-72, 82-88), but which are not contained in responses to questions 1-9 above. Table A-82 provides more comments about the programme, and about its appropriacy for ANU students:

I think that this programme is an answer to the biggest need that I've seen in Korean students and Asian students. (Table A-82)

The approach is very good for low-level students who already have a background in structure. (Table A-82)

I'm very impressed with the way the programme has got the students speaking straight away. ... and they're very enthusiastic about it and I think the success is generating more enthusiasm as they go along. (Table A-82)

These comments are mostly favourable to the programme, though a number of teachers confirm the need for vision: "[the programme]... requires a dynamic force to continue in the same way" (Table A-82), and commitment: "It is a tough programme to run" (Table A-82).

Table A-83 records teacher opinions on autonomy and independence, a topic that has not been touched on in the questions 1-9 (though "independence" was a part of question 2). General impressions seem to be that there was sufficient freedom for students and teachers: "It gave a lot of freedom to students who really needed it"; "[There was a] large amount of autonomy for the teacher" (table A-83), and that this was desirable: "Things have been wonderful – the freedom to go and do what you want to do"; "The teacher autonomy is marvellous" (table A-83), though one teacher felt that there was "maybe too much freedom in the Junior programme" (table A-83).

The classroom environment is addressed in table A-84, and comments are again mostly positive: "A lot of the classes are really noisy ... and I think that's great"; "There's more of a comfort level in the classroom now" (table A-84). Table A-85 contains comments about self-assessment, with teachers voicing problems concerning students who "didn't take it seriously at first" or who "generally marked themselves extraordinarily low" (table A-85).

Table A-86 provides further comments on the students (e.g. "I'm really happy with the successes they have made"), and their learning needs:

Table A-87 contains comments from teachers about teachers, showing awareness of role-change: "I see my role as an initiator"; "I try to be something of a cultural ambassador"; "The students are happy, but the teachers need to examine their role", and of the problems of "standing back":

[The teacher's role is] sometimes boring, since the students don't need to talk to the teacher, or are nervous, or shy. By the 4^th or 5^th class, it is easy to become bored. (Table A-8)

A major challenge for many teachers was the facilitative nature of the teaching approach, so that the topic of learning "how to relinquish power, as well as how to provide useful information and advice to learners" (Skehan 1998:262), was a common one in teachers' meetings and informal teacher/teacher conversations especially in the first two years of implementation (1997, 1998). When the Junior programme began in 1999, this need became even more urgent, due to the emphasis on student autonomy, and the consequently different teacher/student roles inherent in the process syllabus: "Where conventional project work is attempted, the teacher should occupy a facilitative, responsive role, with autonomy given to the learners" (Skehan 1998:270).

Finally, table A-88 looks at the textbooks, which teachers generally find helpful: "The textbook materials are great"; "... people can have a relationship with the materials", though there are further comments about the need for more structure: "About one third of the students need some specific instruction in grammar, and the book doesn't meet those needs" ( table A-88). Such comments were viewed by the programme-designer as a matter for teacher-training rather than revision of the textbooks, since the purpose of the programme was to get students talking, with teachers providing supplementary materials according to their professional judgement. If the teacher identified lack of structure as a problem (i.e. impairing communication) for any number of students in any class, then it was his/her role as language resource to advise and counsel students on their learning needs, and to make the structure(s) available to the students if they agreed on that need. Extra in-house materials had been developed during the two years (1998-1999) for this purpose, and were available in the teachers' lounge, along with a small library of commercial teacher-resource books. There were also links on the home page to interactive grammar sites and English puzzles.

8.9 Discussion of results: conclusion
In terms of its research role, research instrument 1, "My abilities", section 8.3, shows a modest stepwise improvement in students' perceived abilities in speaking English, with students seeing themselves making on average a ten-point gain in their scores in their first year of using this instrument:

This increase then levelled off in the second year of use (section 8.3.3), indicating either that students were concentrating on the social aspects of being in university (as was normal in the Sophomore year), and/or that the second-year book (NYT) was not as stimulating for them as the first year book (TMM). It is notable, however, that initial average scores were below the mean (44%) for this instrument, confirming the general (socially determined) tendency for students to perceive themselves as "poor" speakers of English (this was even true of English Education students, who had a strong command of grammar and vocabulary and were much more fluent than other students). In this case, a ten-point increase in perceived abilities represents a notable shift in perceptions.

Research instruments 2 and 3, sections 8.4 and 8.5, in addition to giving data on students' and teachers' opinions regarding various aspect of the programme, were also useful for their comparative function, showing (section 8.5.3) that students and teachers had differing perceptions of student needs, teacher needs, and of each others' perceptions of those needs, teachers generally seeing the programme as markedly more beneficial for the students than they saw it, and also seeing more improvement in communicative competence and CMI in the students than they saw in themselves:

Such results demonstrate the necessity for teachers to become familiar with their students' perceptions and beliefs regarding language-learning, so that they can offer informed and appropriate advice, though responses to the items in research questions 2 and 3 did not necessarily indicate a lack of awareness of these beliefs[4].

Research instrument 4, section 8.6 was an externally-administered and analysed student evaluation of the programme, mostly focussing on the quality of the educational service that teachers were giving to students. The LC scored higher than all other university departments in December 1998, and increased its score in 1999, indicating that students were satisfied with the programme and its teachers. Items regarding teacher preparation, teacher punctuality, mutual respect, the textbooks, the evaluation method and the advance notice students received about the tests and the evaluation criteria received notably higher scores than in other departments.

Research instrument 5: section 8.7 was interesting in that it gave students a chance to talk about learning-related issues, and there was noticeable warming to this topic as the interviews progressed (i.e. from interview 1 to interview 3). Awareness of learning strategies appeared undeveloped at this time, though there was evidence of students increasingly appreciating the value of learning English, and thinking about their learning problems, rather than simply continuing to learn vocabulary, grammar, study TOEIC and attend language institutes. However, it was not ascertained whether they saw the programme as helping them to solve their learning needs, and such a question would make a useful addition to the instrument.

The greatest amount of change (in attitudes, beliefs and perceptions) occurred with the teachers, as reported in research instrument 6, section 8.8. Responses to questions in this instrument showed positive attitude change regarding the programme and its effect on the students, and remarkably frank comments from teachers who had not "bought in" to the programme when they started at the LC. Teachers also saw an enthusiasm for learning in the students (cf. table A-82) that does not come over from the other instruments.

It is noticeable overall that teachers saw notable attitude change and improvement in CMI and communicative competence in most of their students, or in the students who participated in the activities in class. The approach of "All the students talking all the time" was seen as effective by them in promoting these qualities (sometimes in contrast with their experiences in other institutions), and the holistic task-based format was seen as an appropriate and facilitative means of giving the students the opportunity to use the target language in a non-threatening learning environment:

In this programme there's more speaking that goes on in class. ... It's a major improvement from what I've been doing. (Table A-82)

I see trust in the students. The trust inspires confidence, the confidence inspires motivation, and the motivation inspires learning. (Table A-73)

I've definitely developed an appreciation for the effectiveness of task-based activities. ... I've seen their value and effectiveness – that's been a change in my own teaching method. (Table A-77)

The advantages of the task-based communicative approach are apparent in the classroom. (Table A-84)

Chapter 9: "Conclusions and Recommendations"

[1] EAP = English for Academic Purposes.

[2] This was their first year of using research instrument 1.

[3] These figures indicate that (for example) 57% of teachers (December 1998) saw students as having improved their speaking skills, not that all teachers saw 57% of students as having done this.

[4] Teachers were not being asked whether they knew their students' opinions about these items.