Collaborative E F L teaching in primary schools

David Carless

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

This paper discusses an innovative programme of collaborative EFL teaching in Hong Kong primary schools, involving team-teaching shared between imported native-speaking English teachers and their local counterparts. First it analyses the way in which the scheme has evolved from previous experiences. The paper then draws on an open-ended questionnaire survey, email and face to face interviews, and classroom observations of teamteaching in action. It focuses on ndings related to the three main objectives of the scheme: impact on pupils, innovative teaching, and professional development. More positive outcomes were reported for the rst issue than the other two. Some implications for collaboration and the deployment of native-speaking English teachers are discussed.

Introduction

In contemporary ELT, it is common for countries to import native-speaking English teachers (N E Ts) to supplement or even to replace local English teachers (L E Ts). Neither native-speakers nor non-native speakers are inherently superior to the other (Medgyes 1992), but they possess potentially complementary attributes. N E Ts bring a number of advantages, most obviously their facility in English and their ability to create a genuine need for students to communicate through the target language. Some of the NET disadvantages are lack of familiarity with learner or context, and that they are often ill-equipped to communicate well through the students mother tongue. As illustrated by Medgyes (op. cit.), L E T capacities are mainly the converse of these, for example: L E Ts know local learners, syllabi, and exam systems well. Key issues in schemes whereby N E Ts are imported include the need for N E Ts to familiarize themselves with local conditions and the maintenance of the self-esteem of L E Ts. A strategy for tackling these two issues is for N E Ts and L E Ts to work together in the classroom as a means of enhancing mutual understanding and exploiting respective strengths. Generally, NETs have not been widely deployed in primary school EFL, presumably on the grounds that the limited language resources of the young learner may render communication difcult. This paper questions this assumption through a discussion of innovative programmes of collaboration between N E Ts and L E Ts in Hong Kong. The aims of the paper are to demonstrate that NETs can be usefully deployed in primary schools

328

E LT Journal Volume 60/4 October 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/ccl023

The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

through team-teaching with local teachers, and to analyse some of the main issues arising from this form of collaboration. The database for the paper includes a short open-ended questionnaire survey of 47 L E Ts; email and face-to-face interviews carried out with 12 N E T and 8 L E T teachers; three interviews with key personnel involved in primary N E T schemes; and classroom observations of six team-taught lessons in schools.

Native and non-native collaboration

Examples of the importation of native-speakers of English to schools include Eastern Europe and the Asia Pacic region. Alderson et al. (2001) describe a scheme in which undergraduate or postgraduate native speakers work in Slovenian schools carrying out both team-teaching and solo-teaching. The Japan Exchange and Teaching scheme (McConnell 2000) is a well-documented and longstanding example of team-teaching between NETs and L E Ts. These schemes have mainly employed young teachers with little training or experience, carrying out team-teaching with local teachers of English. Not requiring qualied teachers ensures a steady supply of personnel but limits the contribution that N E Ts are able to make. For a more substantial contribution to E LT, qualied and experienced NETs are required, especially those with sufcient cultural sensitivity to operate effectively in different contexts. In Hong Kong, all N E T schemes have only employed trained and experienced teachers. A common problem amongst reforms, in Hong Kong and elsewhere, is a failure to acknowledge and build on what has taken place previously (Morris, Lo, and Adamson, 2000). I wish here briey to set contemporary NET schemes in Hong Kong within the context of experiences over the last two decades. The rst large-scale scheme to import N E Ts into secondary schools was launched in 1987 with 91 participants. This was a high prole initiative with expectations that proved over-optimistic. Its evaluation at the end of a two-year period showed tangible but modest benets of NET instruction (British Council 1989) which failed to outweigh more sensational media reporting of struggling N E Ts or culture clashes. The scheme continued on a smaller scale until 1996, when the government recommended a new scheme to be launched in September 1998, as part of a package of measures to bolster English around the time of the 1997 handover. The aims of this scheme were to enable N E Ts to enhance the teaching of English by: n acting as English language resource persons, n assisting in school-based teacher development, and n helping to foster an enabling environment for students to practise oral English. An evaluation of this modied N E T scheme (Storey et al. 2001) concluded that the third objective was being achieved very well, the rst objective quite well, and not much progress was being achieved for the second objective. A key problem was the tendency for N E Ts and L E Ts to work in isolation with limited engagement between their very different views of teaching and learning. Storey et al. found that N E Ts were usually better at oral input than L ETs, but that deploying them to teach oral English
Collaborative E F L teaching in primary schools 329

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Native speakers in Hong Kong secondary schools

to too many different classes prevented them from getting to know students well and reduced their effectiveness. L E Ts, on the other hand, were deemed superior at more formal input, where their in-depth knowledge of examination syllabi was particularly useful. The 1998 scheme, although mainly focused on secondary schools, included some primary N E Ts, and Storey et al. note that primary school L E Ts had a more positive view of the N E T scheme than their secondary school counterparts. Storey et al. hypothesized that primary schools may be a positive site for NET input, since public exam pressure is largely absent and English content is more oriented towards social interaction.

Pilot scheme of native speakers in primary schools

The organized introduction of N E Ts into Hong Kong primary schools began in September 2000 through a two-year pilot project which involved 20 NETs and 20 seconded L ETs working collaboratively with school English teachers (SETs) in 40 schools. The N E Ts and L E Ts were deployed as pairs with each partnership serving two schools, carrying out team-teaching and staff development activities. This government funded project was called Primary School English Development (P S E D), a choice of name which by avoiding referring to itself as a N E T scheme, emphasized the idea of partnership between N E Ts and L ETs. In my interview with the PSED project manager, he argued, all parties have to feel that they are working in an atmosphere of mutual professional trust and respect . . . the N E T cant operate successfully without the support of the local teachers. The aims of P S E D were as follows (Higginbottom 2002): n To develop models of innovative teaching n To have a positive inuence on students n To provide professional development opportunity for all teacher participants. As it only involved 40 schools, P S E D was able to establish and enforce clear ground rules: rstly lessons should be team-taught; and secondly, to avoid efforts being spread too thinly and enable teachers to get to know their pupils, NET and LET partnerships should not be involved at more than two different year levels and should not teach any class for less than four lessons per week. These ground rules aimed to counter some of the challenges from the secondary N E T scheme referred to above: team-teaching was a way of reducing the lack of contact between NETs and L ETs when they each taught separate classes; focusing on not more than two year levels permitted teachers to achieve continuity and develop relationships with pupils. The ground rules put some pressure on schools to conform to the P S E D framework. There was also support from a project management team who visited partners in schools, facilitated workshops, and offered advisory back-up. Pressure and support are recognized as key concepts to promote the uptake of an innovation (Fullan 2001). Although expensive and labour intensive, as there are often three teachers (N E T, L E T, and SET) present in a classroom, PSED was positively evaluated by participants and was seen to have beneted students, teachers, and the overall development of the English curriculum in participant schools.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

330

David Carless

Two examples of areas of progress were rstly, that teaching and learning was being better differentiated to meet individual needs of learners and secondly, that formative approaches to assessment were being enhanced (Higginbottom op. cit.). One of my L ET informants commented on P S E D as follows: Our school was lucky enough to be one of the 40 schools in the P S E D pilot scheme. Every detail was systematically organized by the manager of the project such as the qualications of the N E T teacher, the duty of the seconded local teacher and the role of school teachers. Most of the teachers beneted much from the pilot scheme through conducting activities in school, organizing district-based experience sharing seminars/workshops, networking activities and evaluating the effectiveness of the scheme.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

The primary NET scheme

It was clearly going to be a major challenge to expand P S E D in 40 schools to a full primary N E T (P N E T) scheme for the 800 primary schools in Hong Kong. The issue of continuity between PSED and P N E T was not managed particularly successfully, or as the manager of P S E D put it, we never had a properly extended discussion with the architects of the new PNET scheme. We should have sat down for a day and discussed what we had learnt [ from P S E D]. One of the main problems was that on a large scale, it was not easy to reproduce the P S E D ground rules. For example, school principals had a high degree of autonomy and this sometimes resulted in N E Ts efforts being dispersed throughout the school rather than focused on particular year levels. In this way, some of the problems of secondary school N E T schemes, discussed earlier, were repeated. In addition, within a relatively short time span, it was impossible to recruit sufcient personnel and so only around 400 N E Ts were initially appointed and each of them served two schools, principally operating in each school in alternate weeks (obviously not an ideal situation). The core concept of team-teaching between N E Ts and L ETs has been retained. The main objectives of PNET (modied only slightly from PSED) are: n to provide primary pupils with an authentic environment to learn English and develop their condence in using English for communication n to develop innovative teaching and learning methods n to promote the professional development of L E Ts (Education and Manpower Bureau 2004). These three objectives form the focus of the ndings sections below.

Results of the PNET scheme Impact on pupils

Data from interviews indicated that NETs were almost universally extremely positive about their perceived impact on students and a selection of their comments is as follows: The best thing about the work is the response from the students. The thing I like most about my job is interacting with the kids, seeing them enjoy the lesson.

Collaborative E F L teaching in primary schools

331

The kids were very enthusiastic, sometimes if I hadnt taught a class for a few weeks, they would even applaud me when I went in the classroom. The open-ended questionnaire showed that a clear majority of L E Ts, even those who were more critical of the PNET scheme as a whole, also appreciated the impact of NETs on pupils: Pupils nd it interesting to have a foreigner as a teacher so it can raise their learning motivation. Our pupils love having NETs, most of them are looking forward to his/her lessons. The N E Ts expose pupils in a more authentic English speaking situation.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Many L E Ts also referred to the advantages for pupils inherent in the team-teaching situation: There is more opportunity to cater for diverse learning needs and support the weaker students because there are two teachers in the classroom. It is less boring for the pupils because there are two teachers to swap roles. Team-teaching creates more variety. Pupils may be more attentive because there are two teachers in the classroom. Learners are exposed to more English when the NET is there, the presence of the NET makes us less likely to switch to the mother tongue. A small minority of L E Ts presented less positive views and this was often focused on communication problems; for example for less able pupils, they dont like the NETs since they cant understand what the NETs say and cant express themselves in English. In sum, responses from both N E Ts and L E Ts presented perceptions of positive impacts on pupils in the classroom. My classroom observations corroborated positive responses from pupils, with encouraging levels of condence and enthusiasm being evident; for example, students often approached me and showed willingness to converse in English. More learner-centred activities were being carried out than in my previous observations of L E Ts teaching on their own and the presence of two teachers was particularly helpful in monitoring and supporting pair- or group-work.

Innovative teaching

In terms of innovative teaching, the data presented a more mixed picture. NETs reported that they were carrying out teaching that would be termed innovative in the Hong Kong context (more communicative, less traditional) but the impact on L E Ts was unclear. One N E T reected as follows, I really wonder if L E Ts are likely to implement the kind of innovative teaching I am carrying out. Another by contrast, was pleased to have observed some kind of carry over from his communicative activities into other L E T classes, although he acknowledged that this was only with one or two teachers.

332

David Carless

Another N E T described tensions in his team-teaching situation, It was a bit like a tug of war, a dance with daily compromises rather than open conicts, they [the L ETs] really like to stick with the drilling and testing regimes and dont welcome more creative inuences. One NET described how he was asked to develop some materials for the school: The phonics package I developed is not being used, I dont know why, its really disappointing . . . they just want to stick to the textbook. Other NETs, and perhaps these were the more culturally sensitive ones, were aware that change takes time and that they are a minority operating in a Chinese culture, for example, one commented, you have to lie low and not challenge things too much. You will get frustrated if you think you are going to change things radically. With respect to innovative teaching ideas, L ET responses were generally slightly more positive than N E Ts (or perhaps more diplomatic in their modes of expression):
NETs are helpful in thinking through, planning and carrying out some new ideas and activities which we local teachers are not condent to try in the classroom. More fresh and constructive ideas can be thought of during discussion and preparation periods. NETs act as some kind of force for change, they push us to reect on our teaching methods.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

These comments relate to fresh ideas but they do not provide any indication of implementation in the classroom. My classroom observations indicated that team taught lessons were innovative, but interview data from L ETs showed that they felt a need to catch up with the syllabus in their solo lessons so they often described these as traditional. Overall, in terms of innovative teaching methods, there was no clear evidence that the presence of N E Ts was leading to widespread implementation of progressive ideas outside the team taught lessons. It did appear however, that L E Ts were being exposed to different ideas or thinking and that this was promoting some to reect further on aspects of teaching. The development of innovative forms of teaching inevitably takes time. Observing N E Ts carrying out different teaching methods in the classroom may serve as a catalyst for future change, if the methods are seen to be effective.

Professional development of L E Ts

The third aim of P N E T is to promote the professional development of L E Ts, although exactly how the union of N E Ts and L E Ts might lead to professional development has not been specied. In the same way as reported in the previous section, NETs were somewhat sceptical about their impact on the professional development of L E Ts. One N E T commented as follows, some staff development activities have been planned but I query their usefulness because essentially the teachers dont want to do anything different. Another commented that because of heavy workloads, professional development activities could easily become yet another burden for an overworked teacher. One NET did, however, report considerable change in her L E T co-partner in terms of teaching approaches and what she was prepared to try in lessons.
Collaborative E F L teaching in primary schools 333

Again L E Ts generally portrayed a slightly more positive outlook than NETs with more positive than negative responses in the open-ended questionnaire data. Several L E Ts argued that the PNET scheme was benecial in terms of their teacher development; for example More ideas are developed amongst subject teachers through the co-planning work with the N E T on teaching pedagogies and materials. Teachers can have self-development and can be more professional because they learn something new from others by team-teaching and co-planning. It helps teachers to improve their English language communication ability and their teaching skills. Other L E Ts phrased the situation more negatively: If the N E T is energetic it is worth collaborating, otherwise they are a burden to local teachers or If the team are not having the same objectives, they cant get much from the collaboration. A recurring theme amongst L E T responses was that collaboration within the N E T scheme was time-consuming, for example, It costs too much time for teachers and the N E T to communicate and co-plan before team-teaching or more baldly, I dont like to use my free periods to plan lessons with the N E T. One of the advisers to primary N E T schemes in Hong Kong felt that one of the key positive elements was the value of teachers talking about their work and he believed that The NET scheme should be a catalyst to prompt teachers to reect on their practice. Overall, there was evidence that teamteaching with N E Ts was indeed prompting L E Ts to reect on teaching and learning approaches, but the extent to which reection can be equated with professional development is unclear.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Conclusions and implications

Whilst the data indicated that perceived impact on pupils was positive, the implementation of innovative teaching and the extent of professional development of L E Ts appeared variable. In any context, however, promoting innovation and achieving continuous professional development are perennially challenging areas. For more systematic development in these two areas, I suggest there needs to be a more focused approach on identied curriculum areas, in the same way that P SE D focused mainly on specic areas, such as individualization and formative assessment. Such a focus could be integrated with either individual school or more system-wide curriculum initiatives. Despite the difculty of achieving solid progress in innovative teaching and professional development, my overall conclusion is that N E T and L E T collaboration in the primary school is having a generally positive impact on pupils and teachers. The risk of the introduction of N E Ts threatening the self-esteem of L E Ts has been largely (though not entirely) averted through emphasizing the partnership nature of the N E T- L E T relationship. Team-teaching can also enable partners to complement each other by drawing out their respective strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. A further characteristic of this form of team-teaching is that it pushes N E Ts and L E Ts to discuss and express differing viewpoints and compromisean important part of the interpersonal process of intercultural team-teaching.

334

David Carless

For those interested in promoting collaborative teaching in other contexts, the following issues are worth consideration: n It is advantageous if team-teaching participants are trained and experienced in ELT methods, as well as receiving some training and/ or support in collaborative forms of teaching. n The success of team-teaching, to a large extent, rests on the interpersonal skills of partners; willingness to compromise and positive attitudes towards collaboration are important attributes of participants. n Teething problems are likely to arise. There should be mechanisms which enable appropriate lessons to be drawn, and plans for ongoing improvement to be implemented. As a nal reection on the study, I suggest there are a number of reasons why the primary school can be a positive site for N E T/L E T collaboration. Firstly, the younger age of pupils may make them more receptive to the kinds of communicative activities, tasks, or games often favoured by N E Ts. Secondly, primary school L ETs are sometimes less procient in English than their secondary school counterparts and, although lack of condence may be a barrier to collaboration, they may have more to gain linguistically through interacting with a N E T. Thirdly, the relative lack of examination pressure may also be a facilitating factor for the promotion of interactive oral approaches to English. Final version received June 2005
References Alderson, J. C., K. Pizorn, N. Zemva, and L. Beaver. 2001. The Language Assistant Scheme in Slovenia: A Baseline Study. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. British Council. 1989. Final Evaluation Report: Expatriate English Language Teachers Pilot Scheme. Hong Kong: British Council. Education and Manpower Bureau. 2004. Native speaking English teacher scheme. Retrieved 10 November 2004 from: http://www.emb.gov.hk/ index.aspx?nodeID262&langno1. Fullan, M. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change (Third edition). New York: Teachers College Press. Higginbottom, T. 2002. East meets West in Hong Kong classroom. Teachers Digest 4: 2630. McConnell, D. 2000. Importing Diversity: Inside Japans J E T Program. Berkeley: University of California Press. Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or non-native: Whos worth more? E LT Journal 46/4: 3409. Morris, P., M. L. Lo, and B. Adamson. 2000. Improving schools in Hong Kong: Lessons from the past, in B. Adamson, T. Kwan, and K. K. Chan (eds.). Changing the Curriculum: The Impact of Reform on Hong Kongs Primary Schools. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Storey, P. et al. 2001. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. The author David Carless is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University. He has worked as a teacher and teacher educator in England, France, and Hong Kong. His main research interests are in classroom-based research, task-based teaching, and assessment for learning. Email: dcarless@hkucc.hku.hk
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Nottingham Trent University on May 21, 2013

Collaborative E F L teaching in primary schools

335