Empowering The Learner and All That Rubbish
by Dr Anthony Bynom, Ph.D., ESP Unit, UAE University
http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/rubbish.html
We teachers of EFL, ESL, TESOL, ESP, ELT, EAP, IATEFL, SIG and whatever other initials you can think of, are all too willing to adopt acronyms. It seems to me that we show even more willingness, indeed eagerness, to adopt ‘Buzz words’, or perhaps ‘Buzz Phrases’ would be a better description. Notice I do not claim that teachers accept or even understand the ideas encapsulated in such phrases. No, this use of these phrases is part of our jargon. Of course, all occupations have their jargon; it is a way of letting people in the same occupation know that you are part of that occupation. However, jargon seems to fulfill another function, that of giving the users the appearance of knowing more than they do. Thus, we are inundated with various phrases intended to convey that we are fully up-to-date with all the latest educational theories and practices.
Over the years we have had ‘The Grammar Translation Method’, ‘The Direct Method’, ‘The Oral Approach’, ‘The Audio Lingual Method’, ‘The Silent Way’, ‘Total Physical Response’, ‘The Natural Approach’, ‘Suggestopedia’, ‘Community Language Learning’ (Richards & Rogers, 1986), and perhaps the one most of us are most familiar with: ‘Communicative Language Teaching.’
It seems that we practitioners of English language
teaching are prone to embrace new fashions in teaching without really going into what we
are letting ourselves, and our students in for. In the past, there have been many
methods held up to be the answer to language teaching, each of these methods being an
attempt to react to a perceived change in the needs of society at large, and, by
implication, the changing needs of students. I would also suggest that many of the
methods mentioned above have, at one time or another, been seen as the only way forward
for language teachers, language learners and even administrators; the latter, possibly to
gain increases in their budgets, present their institution as a progressive institution
using the latest methodologies. Thus, we hear phrases like ‘Our institute/our
teachers are trained in/ believe in Life Long Learning, The Learner Centred Curriculum,
Learner Independence and Empowering the Learner’, being bandied around.
Let us look at this word "emPOWERing", and
take the word centred in it - the word power. Strange word, this word power;
it frightens us and has negative connotations. It
is emotive; we speak of ‘power without responsibility’ and, as Lord Acton wrote
in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
So much does it frighten us that we try not to use the word. How many teachers talk about their power?
Not too many. Instead, they opt for words like 'a teacher’s
responsibility'. But, make no mistake about it, the classroom teacher is a very
powerful person and, as human beings, we enjoy that power, we enjoy being in
control. Think about how ‘invaded’ most teachers feel when it comes to
classroom assessment by an outsider, no matter how ‘user friendly’ the
evaluation purports to be. The outsider will, whether we like it or not (and mostly
we do not), alter the dynamics of that class. We feel it is no longer our class
because we are no longer the most powerful person in that room. The most powerful
person in that classroom is perceived to be the evaluator. The power base of the
classroom has shifted from teacher to the evaluator and, no matter how level-headed we
think we are, this leads to resentment, because no matter where the curriculum comes from,
usually imposed from the top, it is the teacher who interprets and represents that
curriculum to the learner. It is the teacher who regulates what goes on in any
particular class and, by doing so, sets up the classroom interaction between teacher and
learner.
“Most teachers plan
instruction by (a) specifying behavioural objectives, (b) specifying students’
entrance behaviour, selecting and sequencing learning activities so as to move students
from entry behaviour to objectives, (d) evaluating the outcomes of instruction to improve
planning” (Shavelson & Stern, 1981:477, in Nunan, 1988)
It is the teacher who holds the power. Mostly
this feeling of being in control comes with experience. As we develop strategies
that are effective for us, we become more and more reluctant
to give them up. Indeed, it has been shown that teachers are extremely reluctant to
give up the power derived from such strategies, no matter what teaching methodologies they
say they support. In a study carried out in the U.S., over 88% of teachers returned
to their old ways within three weeks of being told about or subjected to the latest
educational research on teaching methodologies (Open University, 1984).
If I understand it correctly, empowering the learner
means that teachers should relinquish some of their power and hand it over to the
learner. Most of us, in the current teaching climate, and wishing to appear in touch
with the latest educational theories, would say this a very laudable
objective. However, I would contest that in reality teachers would be reluctant to
do this. Why do I feel this? Well, I
think that most, if not all, the lovely phrases we hear batted around at conferences, in
discussion groups and workshops are what Argyris & Schon (1974 & 1978) call
‘espoused theories’. These are things that teachers say they believe
because P.D.(Professional Development) is now being enforced in a lot of institutions as
part of teacher evaluation. However, what they actually practice - their ‘theories in
action’ (Argylis & Schon, ibid) - are somewhat different. As you can
imagine, if there is a large discrepancy between what teachers say they believe and what
they actually practise, not only are confused signals sent out to the learner and to
teaching colleagues, but they also reflect back onto the practitioner. I would
contest that such is the case with learner empowerment.
As I said above, teachers work out strategies that they
find effective, and tend to return to those strategies because they work in the dynamics
of the learning/teaching ambiance that teachers build up in their classrooms.
These are their ‘theories in action’ (Argylis & Schon, ibid). Of
course, teachers do ‘espouse theories’. They listen to new ideas,
and try out new methods of teaching that, in some cases, work for them. However,
when the pressure is on to deliver results, to reach objectives, to prepare for exams or
to keep in step in a ‘lockstep’, curriculum teachers return to methods that they
believe in, that they have found work for them; in short, to their ‘theories in
action.’
Now, just as I would argue that teachers are reluctant
to hand over some of their power, so I would argue that students are reluctant to accept
this exchange. As Brindley (1984: 111, in Nunan, 1988) suggests, students,
especially adult students, have fixed ideas about the course, how it should be taught, the
content of the course and their position in it. Thus, they are somewhat reluctant to
accept ideas outside their preconceived parameters. Students are used to regarding
the teacher as a dispenser of knowledge, but they are not used to regarding the teacher as
a guide or facilitator. Furthermore, as Nunan reports,
“ learners should
never be forced to engage in learning experiences to which they object” (Nunan,
1988: 46)
Nunan goes on to say that if this does happen, then
resistance may be expected. Such resistance may not be overt, but can manifest
itself in forms of passive resistance to the learning process. Sounds familiar
doesn’t it? It would seem that learners
and, again, adult learners in particular, are in no way sympathetic to methods, which we
might file under the heading ‘communicative’. In fact, teachers and
students hold quite opposite ideas of what is beneficial.
In a study by Alcorso & Kalantzis (1985, in Nunan,
1988) students rated grammar exercises and structured writing as the two most important
aspects of learning a language. Both these activities are very much teacher-centred.
Other teacher-led activities rated as important, in a further study by Willing
(1985, in Nunan, 91 ibid) were:
· pronunciation practice
· explanations to the class
· error correction
· vocabulary development
Following this study, a group of language teachers in
Australia in the Adult Migrant Education Programme asked students to evaluate the
usefulness of different classroom activities. The results echoed almost exactly the
Willing study. Pronunciation practice, explanations to the class, error
correction and vocabulary development were all rated ‘very high’, whereas those
activities much practiced by language teachers such as pair work, self-correction and the
use of audio and video cassettes were rated ‘low’. Language games were
rated ‘very low’ (Nunan, 1988).
Thus, it would seem to me that we have here a dilemma. On the one hand, there are the theories which teachers say they believe in, because they see P.D. as part of an evaluation package. This is something I called 'professional jargon' earlier, and the difference between these professed beliefs and their actual practices leads to a reluctance to share or give up power.
On the other hand, we have students who are reluctant
to take up any offer of power, who feel threatened by such an offer and who resist this
offer by either refusing to cooperate in it or cooperate with reluctance and offer passive
resistance. It follows, therefore, that there has to be a shift of perception and
practice on the part of everybody involved in the learning/teaching process. I would
include administrators in this, advising them not to set goals or build up expectations
that are unrealistic, and to make professional development something that teachers want to
partake in rather than be forced to partake in for the sake of good evaluations. Teachers should want to take part in P.D. because
they see it as a way forward personally - not
because they are forced to.
“There can be no really significant development of a person's teaching which does not also involve personal change.” (Edge, 1999)
Institutions should build an atmosphere whereby
teachers want to develop IN THEIR OWN WAY AND AT THEIR OWN PACE.
Teachers could then open themselves up to new practices honestly. Surely they would be more willing to do so when the pressure on them to perform and conform to someone else’s preconceived notions were taken away. When such pressures are eased, they can spend time on teaching students to be learners rather than just recipients of dispensed knowledge. When students have learnt to be learners, they too will see the benefits of those activities they now resist. Only then will they be truly empowered.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974 ). Theory In Practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edge, J. (1999). Managing professionalism or ‘Hey, that’s my development. IATEFL Issues, 149. June/July 1999.
Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: CUP.
Open University (1984) D102 Course Book. Milton Keynes: Open University Press
Richards, J. & Rogers, T (1986). Approaches & Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP