Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Dr. Rajab Esfandiari who helped me by his fruitful comments during the process of the research as well as the teachers of high school in Khodabandeh who participated in this study and gave me their time so generously. A special thanks also goes to Mr. Hadi Nazari, Mr. Navid Nasiri and Mr. Ahmad Nasiri who accepted me in their classes so warmly.
Not Cristal Clear Voices: Iranian TEFL Context and Non-Native Teachers
Seyyed Abbas Mousavi, Iran
Seyyed Abbas Mousavi is a Ph.D. candidate of TEFL at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He teaches EFL at high school and is also a part time teacher at Beheshti Farhangian University, Zanjan, Iran (Center for Teacher Education). He has published a book on Critical Discourse Analysis and has presented in some national and international conferences. He is presently working on social aspects of high stakes language tests trying to encompass various dimensions of consequential validity of language tests by more comprehensive social theories. E-mail: abbasmousavi2002@yahoo.com
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Native vs. non native teachers
Voices from periphery: Teachers and context of TEFL in Iran
Motivation
Method
Participants and setting
Data collection methods
Data analysis procedures
Findings and discussion
Teaching methodology
Teachers’ motivation
Teachers’ understanding of themselves as agents of change
Conclusion
References
Empowering non-native teachers has increasingly attracted attention in past two decades. The considerable amount of literature is, however, devoted to non-native teachers in comparison with native teachers, trying to give voice to the former. TEFL in Iranian context of high school almost exclusively involves non-native teachers, most with no experience of direct contact with target culture or native speakers. The purpose of this study is to highlight some context-specific challenges of Iranian high school teachers, focusing on teaching methodology and teachers' motivation for and understanding of 'change'. The participants of the study were 22 high school teachers attending in-service teacher training program in Zanjan city. The data comes from the recording of teachers' classroom discussion during the program, questionnaire and observation of some of their classes during and after the program. The model of analysis is mainly based on systemic approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998). The analysis of the data revealed that standardized curriculum and accountability procedure along with some variables of socio-cultural context of TEFL in Iran have contributed to the devoicing of the teachers and consequently have affected their overall understanding of their roles as agents of change.
Keywords: Non-Native teachers, Voice, TEFL, Motivation, Change
As the experiences and challenges of non-native teachers and their empowering get more attention (Canagarajah, 1999; Holliday, 2005, Braine, 1999; Hayes, 2009; Kramsch and Lam, 1999; Ma, 2012), much work within the area remains reactionary, that is, non-native teachers in most research have no single independent existence and their positions are studied in relation to native speakers in the Center. Challenging the linguistic identity of native speakers (for example Paikeday (1985) who claims that 'native speaker is dead' and exists only in the imagination of linguist and Rampton’s (1990) proposing the term “expert speaker” to encompass all who can communicate successfully) has appeared to be a logical path to follow in order to demarginalize non-native teachers of Center. However, the challenges and the problems of non-native teachers in their own context of non-native culture have not received the attention it deserves and sometimes there is the wrong assumption that non-native speakers do not experience marginalization comparing their fellow colleagues in the center (Lin, Wang, Akamatsu & Riazi, 2002). They can be said to be marginalized in two senses: (a) Borrowing from Martin Luther King they are exiles in their own lands isolated from the other communities of teaching in their educational system for being a foreign language teachers, and (b) they rarely if ever have contact or whatsoever with teaching community outside their country or even have ever spoken to native speakers.
The purpose of this study is to highlight the struggles and challenges that Iranian high school teachers face within their own specific socio-cultural context and to shed light on their teaching methodology and their understanding and motivation for acting as agents of change. The textbooks that they are working with are written around 1990 and time pressure for covering the book as well as accountability procedure are two present and undeniable factors affecting the methodology that they adopt for teaching and their desire to change things. Among the motivation issues which are well-articulated in literature (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001) ranging from lack of motivation to intrinsic motivation, we will concentrate on parts which directly contribute to motivation for change and not accepting things as they are naturalized for them (Fairclough, 2010). The questions are; do the teachers see themselves as responsible for changing the better? Can they actually change things if they want to? How much does the realities of the classes leave them options to opt from in order to teach as they want to. Better grasp of these issues can only take place considering the context within which these teaching practices happen.
Speakers of English as a lingua franca now outnumber native English speakers. Subsequently, 80 % of English teachers in the world are non-native speakers (Canagarajah, 2005). There seems to be a general consensus in literature on inappropriateness of taking a dichotomy approach toward native vs. non- native speaker. Moussu and Llurda (2008) believe that three arguments can be used to attack the legitimacy of this dichotomy: First, they assert that the division of native and non native is rooted in Anglo-centrism in which English takes the role of the most important language of the world and others are judged in terms of their relation with that language; whether they belong to those who claim to be the exclusive group of L1 speakers or they do not. According to them, Nayar attributes the prevalence of such dichotomy to linguistic imperialism:
My own view is that in the context of the glossography of English in today’s world, the native–non-native paradigm and its implicational exclusivity of ownership is not only linguistically unsound and pedagogically irrelevant but also politically pernicious, as at best it is linguistic elitism and at worst it is an instrument of linguistic imperialism (Nayar 1994: 5 as cited in Moussu and Enric Llurda (2008)).
The second argument is related to the first one, that is, along the same line of reasoning they put forward the idea of world Englishes. They point out that, for example, Australian speakers are not regarded as non-native though their language is neither American nor British English. The same can be supposed for India or some African countries in which English is indigenized. They agree with the idea that may be ownership can can provide an alternative to native-non native dichotomy, since here we can talk about various degrees of ownership. The third reason is that native vs. non native dichotomy lacks contextualization, in the sense that it does not take into account the interdependence between the practice of teaching the language and the context in which the language is taught. They agree with the claim that there exists “a continuum that accounted for all possible cases between the two extreme options, each corresponding to the two idealized notions of what traditionally was considered a native speaker and a non-native speaker. According to this view, individuals may stand on any given point along this continuum.” They argue however that despite these objections as a matter of convenience keeping such a dichotomy can be justified. It is because still they are many speakers who regard themselves as native or non native speakers.
Another sometimes neglected issue is the differentiation between non-native teachers teaching in the core countries and those who are teaching in their own countries. As Hayes (2009) puts it “in spite of a recent upsurge in writing on non-native English-speaking teachers in the global discourse of English language teaching (ELT), the experiences of NNESTSs working within their own state educational systems remain seriously under-investigated”.
Regarding the teachers in Iranian TEFL context, one can claim, with some degrees of certainty, that all school language teachers of Iran are non-native and rarely (if ever) they use English for original purposes of communication outside the educational context. Teachers’ learning experiences as a student, like many other teachers of the world, consist of learning in teacher-centered classes. Some of them have not studied ELT and their majors have been English literature or translation (Sahragard and Mousavi, 2012).
Closely related to teachers of TEFL is the context in which they are teaching. It is generally well accepted that all teaching and all learning is shaped by the contexts in which they occur (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). However, investigating the possible linkage among macro-level political, social and cultural variables, middle-level educational context and micro-level classroom activities goes beyond the scope of this study but for our present purpose the general claim can be made that for every country, the macro-political orientations, social practices of its people (including the mechanism of power distribution and power assignment as well as a host of other practices), and people’s cultural and religious beliefs can influence educational policy making and planning and this in turn can have relationships with how the teachers as well as students structure their views regarding education, teaching and learning. Since there is a top-down approach in almost every aspect of planning and implementation of education, the role teachers can play in this process needs more scrutiny. The major issues here is how much space to the teachers have to voice their thoughts and be held accountable for examining its consequences? How do the issues of voice and power can be managed to facilitate learning? How can we encourage teachers to find their voices and speak powerfully? Undeniably, further research on this topic is needed, but there are actions and answers implied by the data from this research.
Motivation of teachers with its different kinds and branches has extensively been studied in literature on the issue. Here, we will only review those aspects more relevant to non-native teachers and its contribution to desire for change. Teachers’ motivation is defined as a broad construct that captures the processes that account for the creation and maintenance of career choice and career continuance (Katzell &Thompson, 1990). According to Baumeister and Leary (1995), the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation (see also Deci & Ryan, 2000). If the teachers have a sense of belonging, therefore, their motivation for their motivation for positive changes will increase and they will have more optimistic view toward their teaching career. This can be accomplished desirably if the teachers are motivated intrinsically. Classical motivational literature defines intrinsic motivation as “doing an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequences” (p.56). Intrinsic motivation thus, is described as something desirable, often leading to long-term engagement and sustained effort of individuals in selected activities, as well as high-quality learning and creativity (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
All of the participants in this study are currently teaching in different grades of high school in Khodabandeh, Zanjan. They had attended an in-service teaching program that was held by Educational Office. The whole program lasted four 4 days approximately 4 sessions per day. There were 22 teachers,13 female and 9 male, who attended the class regularly. Their experiences of teaching were ranged from 3 to 25 years of teaching and interestingly the present researcher’s high school English teacher was also attending in the program. Regarding the environment of the class it did not have chairs but benches which made it difficult to arrange them in the semicircle form to have a face to face free discussion. As their official duty, these teachers have to teach 24 hours (about twelve 80 minute sessions) a week, but most of them teach more than that as extra work.
There was a free discussion on the teachers' problems and challenges in which they reacted to each other’s problem and provided their own solutions. The notes taken during the free discussion of their challenges as well as an open ended questionnaire were the main sources of data for this study. The present researcher, however, decided to observe the classes of three of the teachers in order to have a kind of data triangulation (Ary, Jacobs & Sorensen, 2010).
The model of analysis is mainly based on systemic approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998). Strauss and Corbin (1998) present a systematic approach in which the constant comparative method is the primary analysis technique. Open coding is used to develop major or core categories with axial coding to develop categories around the core. Selective coding is then used to develop propositions based on the model, showing how the categories are related. Since the questions of the questionnaire were open-ended, those parts which were irrelevant for the purpose of this study were disregarded and there was a deliberate attempt to concentrate on those parts of the responses which were relevant to teachers’ motivation, their teaching methodology, factors that they thought affects their teaching and their understanding of teachers as agents of change.
The analysis of the data presented the present researcher with a detailed account of teachers view toward teaching practices and the way they view themselves as agents of change as well as it provided him with an in depth analysis of their challenges in EFL context.
Even though in most part of the world CLT can be said to be dominant model for teaching practices to the extent that some researchers as Holliday (2005) regard it as traditional way of teaching, it seems that teaching communicatively was not even a concern for the teachers of the present study. The most important factor determining their approaches to teaching and subsequent classroom activities were student’s culture and adopting the methods or tailoring teaching to the level of the students. There were one mention of textbook as “creativity killer”, others presupposed the book in answering the question of what are you responses to a new native teacher who knows Persian well and asks you about how to teach English in your context of teaching. During the free discussion, however, they referred to the problem of the textbooks of high school. Among the problems that they mentioned was that they were old and had boring and uninteresting pictures with a lot of grammar whose points are not applicable. Some others said the present design of conversations and presenting the new words needs fundamental changes. In short, none of them were satisfied with the current design of the books and most of them felt the necessity of change, but they thought this is not something that they could do anything about. For example, Mr. Nasiri said:
The books are very old with no attractive picture, conversations are out of context and no music or song can be accompanied with them to make them less boring. The only method we can work with is maybe NEW grammar translation method [teachers laugh for the use of the new with grammar translation]. No choice is left to us especially when we think of the final exam which has to be within a predetermined framework.
Mr. Arab similarly commented
The grammar is not contextualized and there is no way to teach communicatively. Have a look at interchange; the grammatical points are practiced in conversation. The books are not attractive neither for teacher nor for the students. The is no pair work or group work activities designed in the book but only boring drills and vocabulary. I think if we could use books like interchange or headway instead of these books was better.
When talking about textbook they also put forward the idea of teachers proficiency, for example Mr. bigdeli said:
Most of us ourselves are not proficient enough in English. So even if the books are changed we need more qualified teachers, those who are more proficient than what most of us are now. First we need to have motivation as well as to take some courses to improve our own English.
He seemed right on the issue. Something that was obvious from the pronunciation and contributions that some of the teachers had in discussion. But it was interesting that with the current bhook that does not need communication they did not feel a need for improving their English because they could handle their classes well with their present proficiency.
Final evaluation was also among the issues that preoccupied their minds and affected their teaching practices. In one of the classes that was observed there were several mentions of how they will be tested on this or that part of the book. The teacher talked about it in a way that as if they have no power or control on the final exam. It seemed that washback effect of testing was a determining factor is designing classroom practices. During the classroom discussion most of them agreed that especially for third and fourth grade students, they have to teach in a way that to get the students ready for Konkur (University entrance exam in Iran).
The observed classes were totally teacher-centered. When the researcher raised the issue with the teachers they generally agreed on the fact that this is what students, parents and school principals expect from them, this is what the students experience in their other classes. It seems that they all have teacher-knows-all tendencies in their views and if anyone goes against their expectations she is challenging her own authority.
The other matters which they highly valued were patience, hard work, punctuality, flexibility, having happy classes, trying to have successful students (success seemed to be measured by end of the term exam). Most of them also emphasized good relationship they have made with their students. Observing some of their classes also confirmed the idea that CLT was not an option in their teaching practices.
Almost all of them thought that they are highly motivated to teach but some of them also complained about lack of facility, some others said the method that they have to adopt does not satisfy them. Others referred to the financial problems that teachers in Iran have. They were comparing themselves with other employees in other governmental organizations and were not at all satisfied with their salaries. One of the teachers said:
Preoccupation with economical issues does not let me to use my whole time and energy for teaching. If I had more salary, I did not need to have a second job and I could spend more time on teaching. I do not have my own house. My mind is completely busy. I cannot spend time to think about students’ family, their problems, their individual differences and their style of learning.
“Advocates of critical approaches to second language teaching are interested in relationships between language learning and social change. From this perspective, language is not simply a means of expression or communication, rather it is the practice that construct and is constructed by, the ways language learners understand themselves, their social surrounding, their histories, and their possibilities for future”(Norton and Toohey, 2004). Almost all of the teachers of this study agree that they cause positive or negative changes in students some of them, however, the understanding of the concept of change regarding student’s lives was limited to their change of attitude toward learning English or the students other courses. One of the teachers gives an example of the positive changes that she had caused in student named “Fatemeh”:
I agree that we are responsible for change. I had a very weak student, maybe she did not study [at all]. One day when I was teaching New Words of a lesson, I asked the students “those who can draw well, can come here and draw a picture for us”. The above-mentioned student came forward and drew a picture of a cat. Her drawing was so beautiful…… asked students to applaud her and told her “Fatemeh I am sure you are a student with high talent, surely one who can draw such a nice picture can deal with language better than you are doing now” she smiled. From the next session I felt some real changes in her……now after two years she does not get less than 20 [perfect score] in all of her lessons and one day she told me she owes me her success”.
Some of them while admitting the fact that they cause changes in students behavior, they do not believe it is their responsibility: “We are not responsible but are one effective factor for change ,……, I could change the way students view learning language, so some of them want to continue studying English in the university”.
Generally speaking, there were two overlapping branches of ideas: some understood the concept of change as change in the students’ learning of the course material whereas others, not denying this, thought that being a good model for the students can have positive changes in their behavior for example Mrs Nezami commented:
“I do agree with the responsibility that we have for students learning that ultimately causes changes in their behavior, but I also behaved in a way that has made them love me. So, I could teach them how to live in the present and enjoy the moment. What do I do is a prerequisite for change in their real life”.
Regarding the general policy of education in the country, in general, and teaching English in particular, however, they felt a strong need for fundamental changes. One of the comments regarding the question “ what changes are required to improve te teaching condition of English was as followed:
The government should value teaching English. It should be part of the curriculum of primary school. There should be TV channels broadcasting programs for children in English. Families also should know about the value of learning English and its uses for their children in the future.
The voice of the teachers was crystally clear: They wanted changes from the above; they wanted fundamental changes in politics, economy and general educational policy planning. Their narrow understanding of students’ change can also be one of the consequences of devoicing. Because when they feel a need for changes that they can do nothing for they try to fit themselves to what have constrained them.
The teachers’ perspectives on matters of classroom methodology and understanding as well as motivation for change which are presented here support those views which regard teaching practices as a response to locally-conditioned limitations and needs (Butler, 2005; Canagarajah, 2005; Mangubhai et al., 2005). Their avoidance of teaching English communicatively as well as their limited understanding of change can be understood in the lights of top-down educational policy of Iran which constraines them by several factors: (a) Having no control over selection of text books which as mentioned above are written two decades ago (b) The accountability procedure of educational sysyetm which gives a high value to final term exam for which teachers have minimum possible intervention (c) Time limitation for actually working the textbooks communicatively. (d) Low motivation of students for learning English when they feel no immediate need for doing so. These have also contributed to the teachers’ limited understanding of change. To use Fairclough (2010) terminology things are naturalized in a way that the teachers feel they are the way they ought to be. Since they do not have a voice in educational process they cannot direct their positive attitude for teaching to spark motivation in students. Getting free from sanctions of curriculum giving voice to those who have been historically voiceless in Iran are not things that can be accomplished overnight. Here, we argue that socio-cultural dynamics and context in which teaching practices takes place is critical to the understanding of and having a view to non-native teachers' world within their specific context of teaching. We need to have more research on the issue to illuminate the different aspects of teaching English as a foreign language in Iran to have a contribution to this field. As Hayes (2009) puts it “Teachers’ ‘nativeness’ in this respect needs to be given its due prominence in understandings of teaching and learning English as a foreign language in context, rather than disproportionate attention paid to ‘nonnativeness’ in terms of English language competence”.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Braine, G. (1999). Introduction. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. xiii-xxi). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, Y.G., 2005. Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research 9 (4), 423–446.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Interrogating the native speaker fallacy. In: Braine, G. (Ed.), Non-Native
Educators in English Language Teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 77– 92.
Canagarajah, A.S. (Ed.), 2005. Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychology Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Fairclough, (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman: Pearson Education.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13.
Hayes, D.(2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System, Volume 37, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 1-11.
Holliday, A. (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144-153.
Kramsch, C., & Lam, W.S.E. (1999). Textual identities: The importance of being non-native. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non- native educators in English language teaching (pp. 57-72). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lin, A., W. Wang, N. Akamatsu & M. Riazi (2005). International TESOL professionals and teaching English for glocalized communication (TEGLOM). In Canagarajah (ed.), 197–224.
Ma, L. P. F.(2012). Strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs: Perceptions of NNESTs in Hong Kong Linguistics and Education, Volume 23, Issue 1, March 2012, Pages 1-15.
Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., Son, J.-B.,( 2005). Similarities and differences in teachers’ conceptions of communicative language teaching: does the use of an educational model cast a better light? Language TeachingResearch 9 (1), 31–66.
Moussu, L., Llurda, E. (2008) Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Lang. Teach. 41:3, 315–348.
Norton,B.,Toohey,K. (2004) Critical pedagogies and language learning: An introduction. In B. Norton and K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning.(pp.1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Paikeday, T. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44.2, 97–101.
Sahragard, R., Mousavi, S.A. (2012). (In)applicability of Post-method Principles in Iranian TEFL Context. Paper presented at First Lorestan University Conference at TEFL.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
