This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction 

PARALESSONS

or

Observations on quality, evaluation and the role of the teacher from the edge of EAP lessons
                                                                                                                     Adult
Dr Richard Kiely, University College, Chichester, UK

Conventional approaches to classroom observation, whether for training or research purposes, focus on what happens in the formal period of instruction where the pedagogic interaction is between the teacher and a group of students. While these approaches are not problematic in themselves, they simplify the complex net of relationships which underpin interactions in the classroom, and which may account for both teacher decision-making within lessons and programmes, and phenomena of student participation in the pedagogy. This article examines an ethnographic account of an EAP classroom to describe some interactions occurring outside the formal period of instruction. It then explores what these data tell us about the programme, and what implications this small study might have for EFL and EAP programmes more widely.

My data are ethnographic field notes and interview transcripts collected in a study of an EAP module in a British university. The programme was a 36-hour module, with twelve three-hours sessions over twelve weeks. These sessions represent the core programme, the structure around which a range of further interactions took place. My research focus was the evaluation of the programme – the way teacher and students made judgements regarding the value of the various learning activities. The study of the evaluation of the programme was not in any way an evaluation per se: rather I wanted to document how teachers and students made value judgements about the programme, and what the impact and consequences of these judgements were. Developing an ethnographic account of the programme soon generated the problem of where the programme began and ended: I could not ‘restrict’ my account to the formal timetabled period. I could see in the classroom that the break time and the period after the end of lesson were actively used by the teacher and students, to revisit, augment or complement what happened in the lesson – the formal period of instruction in the public space of the classroom. The teacher, for example, invited students to see her in the break, and signalled her availability by sitting at her desk when she announced the 20-minute break. The students, on this announcement, formed a short queue at the teacher’s desk. An observable feature of these interactions was the use of the classroom space. The core lessons were teacher-led, with a range of learning activities directed by the teacher. The students remained at their desks, while the teacher moved from her desk into the students’ space. In the break, however, the teacher remained at her desk, and the students went there. From my observation point in the classroom I could often hear the conversation, and often managed to discuss the interaction with the teacher and student afterwards, sometimes informally as we left the classroom, sometimes in recorded interview. 

These teacher-student conversations on the edge of lessons provide an insight into the network of interpersonal relationships which developed through the programme. The descriptions below show how these are opportunities for learning. They also reveal the ways in which the programme is successful, or unsuccessful, for students. By definition, such interactions and the relationships are not part of the planned programme, such as the syllabus or programme specification, or evident in artifacts of the programme such as materials or students work. Yet they are central to our understanding of how language programmes work, and the bases of programme evaluation, whether in terms of student satisfaction or other notions of quality. 

1.	Contexts of interaction

The data reveal four contexts of interaction in the break, two initiated by students, and two primarily teaching-related.

a)  Learning queries

The queries which students raised with the teacher include EAP learning needs and  clarifications of feedback on written work. Mat (not his real name) told me after he had spoken to the teacher that he had asked her:

how to be critical, when he was discussing the points in the text he did not know where to criticise - the text seemed fine - he did not know where to give his view. T. had said that that was important, and we will be doing that as we go through the module. 

Classroom observation notes Week 2  

Helen asked the teacher about her feedback on the written work just returned:

Helen has a problem with the language text - T explains using French translation of certain phrases, and comment on the idea or proposition.

Classroom observation notes Week 5

One aspect of this programme that we can infer from the data here is that the teacher is approachable. Her responses to Mat and Helen differ however. In Mat’s case the query is a complex one, a can of worms the teacher feels it is best not to open at that point. She shelves it, with the result that Mat does not gain a learning benefit from his query. Helen’s query is more specific, contextualised by her written work, and thus answerable in the limited time available. She commented later (as we were leaving the classroom) that the teacher’s feedback on her written work were very useful as it showed her what she had to concentrate on. She successfully completed the programme, whereas Mat dropped out. In interview he explained the importance of discussions with the teacher:

Mat: I have to discuss all with [the teacher], my weakness, she will correct me. But if I just keep quiet, I’m just keeping my mind free, it will just stay in my mind, so whatever problems I have, I would like to speak to the teacher, then she will give me advice or a comment.
Interview with Mat Week 2

His belief that the teacher (as well as the programme) can help him, and his behaviour in queueing to see her are both sound strategies. However his query unlike Helen’s, lacks specificity, and is not resolvable in this context. 

b) Administrative queries

Students regularly raised administrative queries. In the first few weeks of the programme the teacher briefed new students on the programme:

T. is talking to the new students about the Module Guide - about assessment, and bibliography section, and then about the work done last week
Classroom observation notes – Week 2

The observation notes in Week 9 (I was able to eavesdrop on this exchange) show Della sorting out a range of issues:

T. returns, sits at table. Della returns, and asks T about a certificate of attendance - with marks on it. T says that she will organise this to the delight of Della. Then T reminds her that it will not be soon - because she will have to wait until marks are approved by the boards […] Della says OK, then asks if she can do her presentation on 14 May, because here boyfriend is coming to London on 7 May and she may not be in class. T says OK and notes this. Della has another question: Could T help her with a reference on her English for summer course.  T. says she could but it might be better to have a German specialist do it, as the form is in German - she refers her to a German specialist. Della accepts this, and sits in her place …
Classroom observation notes – Week 9

This interaction shows the relaxed, equal relationship which Della has with the teacher. Her participation in the programme is negotiable, and her positive view of the teacher, evident also in interviews with Della, is reflected in her wish for her to act as a referee. The teacher here seems to be limiting her commitment to administrative tasks which arise from student queries. While accommodating student requests is in general good for the social capital of the programme, the teacher must avoid being overwhelmed by them. Della’s use of the break opportunity for interaction with the teacher arises from a somewhat different view from Mat’s: she focusses on the social dimension of the programme rather than learning issues.

c) The teacher evaluates students

The teacher used the encounters during the break to build her understanding of students’ needs and suitability for the programme. The case of Sao illustrates this:

Sao talks to me (during the break): She seems very clear on the nature of her problem - she could not read [the text] very well, and not being able to understand the ideas, she can’t summarise. I suggest that she talks to T. T. is free and she talks  to her. T. seems to encourage her, tells her to think of her own ideas, and to do the writing tasks, the aim of the module is to give practice, so she must try, many people have problems like she has with the technical skills involved.
Must ask T. what she makes of this student. 
Classroom observation notes – Week 3

I raised this with the teacher in an unrecorded discussion later. Her assessment of Sao was clear:

T. knows how weak she is because, firstly, she has done written work which is very short and poor, and secondly she has come to her (T) in the break to say that she does not understand. There is not much that T. can do for her in this class, as it is not meant to be a class for people who have such basic problems.
 Notes on conversation with teacher  - Week 4

There are two significant aspects to this excerpt of the story of Sao. First, despite her sound strategy of seeking advice on her learning (first from me, then from the teacher), she is not at the appropriate level for this class, and eventually drops out. Second, the teacher is constructive in her advice in Week 3, even though the encounter is illustrating to Anna the serious nature of the learning problem which Sao has. The negativity of the teacher’s view seems directed more at the institution’s placement procedures for this programme than at the student: to Sao, she is constructive and encouraging, keen to develop possible benefits from the programme.

d) Tutorials on assignments

The assessment tasks for this programme consisted of an oral presentation on a topic chosen by the students, a written version of the presentation, and an examination. Each student was required to negotiate the topic and outline with the teacher - a task set for the break: 

It is 10.50 T. announces break until 11.10. Reminds students who have not yet negotiated assignment titles to see her during the break. A queue quickly develops …
Classroom observation notes – Week 6

The effectiveness of these tutorials is underlined by a negative case: the experience of one student, Laure, who found it difficult to plan a project, and did not manage to have a tutorial in the weeks specified:

…my plan and everything was done before Easter, but the problem was that on that day I had to leave at 12 o’clock, so I couldn’t stay, and during the break, she was speaking with some other students, so I say, Oh I will give her the title next week, and in fact I tried to write something for her yesterday, but now I will do it next week. 
Interview with Laure – Week 7

Laure seemed somewhat in awe of the teacher, and avoided revealing the seriousness of the problems she had with selecting and focussing her topic. Laure saw the teacher briefly two weeks later, but did not overcome these problems. She got the lowest marks in the class for these assessment tasks.

Discussion

The data discussed above show a number of students using the break to interact with the teacher. There is no obvious pattern in the relationship between programme outcomes and availing of these opportunities: Helen and Della clearly benefit; Sao and Mat do not succeed in completing the programme; and Laure who avoids an individual tutorial with the teacher, does not do well, but pulls through nevertheless. In terms of process, however, these encounters reveal something of the social fabric of the classroom. The teacher flags up her accessibility, and actively seeks to relate to students as individuals. The students become active, responsible learners when they take the initiative and enter the teacher’s space. 

These data are hardly controversial: most practising teachers in contexts such as this will be familiar with such encounters, and will have their own approach to managing them and learning from them. The phenomenon documented here has implications for three aspects of ELT:

1.	The nature of programmes

A programme is a plan, a set of intentions, which can be set out in general terms, and have validity without reference to specific experiences. They are typically set out as syllabuses or institutional descriptions, for example the programme discussed in this paper. This planned programme makes what may be only a minor contribution to the actual curriculum, the learning experience of the different students. The folk knowledge in our field suggests that what matters is the network of relationships which are developed and maintained in the course of the programme. Teachers talk of groups ‘gelling’, and the nature of teaching activities which make up a programme are due in part to the way a group gels. Senior (1997) and Bailey (1996) explore aspects of the process, social dimension of ELT programmes. Legutke and Thomas (1991) describe a humanistic, task-based curriculum where explicit attention to the student’s construction of the programme and their participation in it. Current perspectives on motivation are informed by the notion of investment: an idea of students contributing to their learning by strategically availing of the opportunities within the programme, and relating these to their personal learning needs (Dornyei 2000). 

The data discussed here suggest that the network of relationships within the programme is important. It determines the strategies adopted by both teacher and students: in this case, the teacher’s strategy of engaging individually with students during the break, and the students’ availing of this opportunity. In interview, students were without exception, positive about the accessibility of the teacher in general, and brief consultations with her in the break in particular. This sense of relationship may have the effect of individualising learning – students were particularly positive about the individual feedback which they received on the written work. Many of the features which characterise the success of this programme are traceable to the one-to-one pedagogical acts of the teacher. 

2.	Quality and evaluation

The notion of quality is becoming increasingly important in ELT. Quality indicators typically involve benchmarks on a set of planning and resource factors on the one hand, and student satisfaction measures on the other (White 1998; Kiely 1998). These dimensions of quality, conventionally and in many respects properly, do not focus on ‘personality’ aspects of the teacher. Yet these are what students refer to when they describe the factors which make for them a good programme. Students like a nice, friendly, helpful, accessible teacher, who attends personally to their learning. The nature of the programme for each individual student is determined by the relationship with the teacher: students commented repeatedly in interview on the friendliness and accessibility of the teacher as one of the ‘good’ features of the programme (Kiely 2000). 

A key task of evaluation in ELT is to identify and measure ‘quality’. This includes evaluations within the inspection tradition which focus both on scrutiny of provision and resource factors, and on evaluations of satisfaction, the latter usually by means of  questionnaires to students at the end of the programme. Both are important for the development of the programme. There is an increasing trend in British universities to ask students to rate their own contribution as well as the various aspects of the programme for which the tutor or institution in responsible. While this may related to defensive thinking – deflecting responsibility for failure from the teacher – it is a potential gateway to the set of factors around teacher contribution. We need to understand the factors which promote students’ contribution – effort, engagement, investment – especially those which relate directly to the teaching strategies and behaviour of the teacher. 

Conclusion

There are a number of research issues raised by this discussion of paralessons. First, we need to know more about the social construction of language programmes. We have had three decades of developing a pedagogy based on interaction, but with only limited attention to what underpins interactions – a sense of relationship. Second, we need to understand better how social and relationship factors impact on language learning processes, particularly motivation and demotivation. The key issue here is the extent to which engagement, personal investment and effort are promoted and maintained by the network of relationships developing within the programme. A particularly interesting context for the examination of these issues is independent learning: how do relationship factors within the programme engage students in availing of learning opportunities outside the classroom. Third, the discussion here raises issues regarding the role of the teacher. In recent decades, this role has been constructed in terms of instructor – presenting the language system – and facilitator – organiser of activities which promote learning through communicative use. These do not account adequately for the role of the teacher in a good programme. However, adding some notion of personal service provider is problematic in a number of ways, not least teacher concerns about mandated personal relationships. Research in the teacher thinking tradition may provide access to the issues here: if we can understand better the ways teachers think about their task of teaching a programme both as a series of learning activities and managing a new and complex set of relationships, then we can better understand paralessons, the sense of relationship which underpins them and how they shape perceptions of good programmes. 
 
References

Bailey, K.M.  1996 The best laid plans. in  Bailey, K.M. & D. Nunan (Eds) pp. 15-40
Bailey, K.M. & D. Nunan (Eds) 1996 Voices from the language classroom.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dornyei, Z. 2000 Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson
Kiely, R. 1998 programme evaluation by teachers: issues of policy and practice. in Rea-Dickins & Germaine (Eds.) 1998:78-104
Kiely 2000 Classroom Observation by Teachers: an Observational Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Warwick
Legutke, M. & H. Thomas 1991 Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. Harlow: Longman
Rea-Dickins, P. & K. Germaine  (Eds.) 1998  Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman
Senior, R. 1997 Transforming language classes into bonded groups. English Language Teaching Journal Vol 51 No 1: 3-11
White, R. 1998 What is quality in English language teacher education? English Language Teaching Journal Vol 52 No 2 pp. 133-139