| . |
. |
. |
|
The Key
to Teacher Development
|
|
|
|
The last decade has witnessed
a shift of emphasis in teacher education from teacher training to teacher development with
teacher educators arguing that training methods only provide teachers with ritual teaching
behavior (Maingay 1988) instead of preparing them to cope with the ever-demanding
profession of teaching in an ever-changing world. This paper describes how lesson
observation can be used for ESOL teacher development at both the pre-service teacher
education stage as well as at the in-service stages.
First, a distinction will be made between teacher training and teacher development with
special reference to Cameroon. Second, an observation model for ESOL teacher development
will be suggested. Third, a new role-that of teacher developer through lesson
observation-will be assigned to the ESOL inspector. |
|
|
|
Teacher training and teacher development
|
|
|
A distinction has been made between teacher
training and teacher development with respect to their conceptual framework and
implementation. Teacher development is viewed as a continuous process that begins with
pre-service teacher preparation and spans the entire career of the teacher (Sithamparam
and Dhamotharam 1992). Teacher training involves giving novices and experienced teachers
alike "ready-made answers" as opposed to "allowing them to discover their
own alternatives" (Lucas, 1988:42). According to Davis and Plumb (1988:40) training
entails a "pre- planned" agenda set by the workplace or syllabus as opposed to
an "impromptu, flexible agenda set by groups;" "needs of workplace" as
opposed to "personal needs;" "qualification" as opposed to
"career development;" "leader and experts" as opposed to "peer
group;" and "standardization" as opposed to "innovation."
|
|
|
Irvine-Niakaris and Bacigal (1992:42) see
"the trainee passively undergoing a period of conditioning during which the
"dos" and the "don'ts" of classroom practice are inculcated. Only
after this basic training does the teacher trainer become concerned about empowering
trainees to become agents in their own development, much in the same way that the scales
must be mastered before a would-be pianist is able to interpret a sonata." Freeman
(1989:39) defines training as a strategy for direct intervention by the collaborator in
the teacher's teaching. "The intervention is focused on specific outcomes achieved
through a sequence of steps, within a specific period of time. It is based on the
assumption that through mastery of discrete skills, teachers will be effective in the
classroom." Freeman considers development as a strategy of influence and indirect
intervention that comes with complex, integrated aspects of teaching. These parts are
idiosyncratic and individual. The purpose of development is for the teacher to generate
change through increasing or shifting his/her awareness.
|
|
|
Some of our practices regarding lesson
observation for training were handed down from our colonial master. We need to change
them.
|
|
|
What is lesson observation, and how does it
relate to teacher development? Simply put, lesson observation means sitting in on a class
and observing a teacher in action. Maingay divides lesson observation into four
categories: observation for training, observation for development, observation for
assessment, and observer development.
|
|
|
Observation for training.
|
|
|
1. Student teachers (STs) are taught to produce
elaborate, step by step, rigid lesson plans, which they usually abandon as useless and
time consuming once they leave school. Typical examples include the pre-service primary
school format designed by our primary school teacher training colleges and the American
Peace Corps "six-point-lesson."
|
|
|
2. There is usually no meeting between the
observer and the teacher prior to the observation. Sometimes there is a non- structured,
post-observation meeting and where this exists, data collected during the lesson may touch
on everything the observer could see. The feedback is often uni-directional in which the
observer is the expert who tells the ST what s/he did well and what s/he did poorly. Some
observers, often the teacher trainer, take delight in dishing out observation data in
devastating language-negative, judgmental feedback that only discourages the neophyte.
|
|
|
3. The trainer-observer usually "pops
in" and "pops out" of the classroom at will; s/he seldom (if ever) observes
a full lesson.
|
|
|
4. Often the trainer-observer stands outside
looking in on more than one lesson at a time by shuttling from one classroom window to
another. When the observer does enter a classroom, s/he either takes the ST's lesson plan
and walks out or sits in briefly before walking out.
|
|
|
5. The trainer-observer may interrupt ongoing
lessons at will without any prior agreement with the ST concerned as to when and how s/he
may intervene (see Footnote 1 ).
|
|
|
6. There are generally no records/reports kept
on STs during teaching practice (TP). Evaluation is based solely on one or two lessons
taught under examination conditions with one or more examiners determining the
"fate" of the candidate. There are few clearly defined objective criteria for
grading these lessons.
|
|
|
7. Demonstration lessons, a vital element of
training, often given by the trainer or the cooperating teacher (COOPT) are meant to be
imitated by the ST resulting in what Maingay calls "ritual teaching behavior."
|
|
|
8. STs are rarely given a chance to try out
techniques that are unknown to the COOPT or the trainer-observer especially when this
observer is another one of the teachers in the institution.
|
|
|
9. There is generally no COOPT to observe
lessons on a lesson-to-lesson basis as the class teacher is often away "having other
fish to fry."
|
|
|
10. COOPT teachers instruct ST's and ensure that
instructions leading to conditioned behavior are carried out without due consideration to
initiatives that the ST may want to take.
|
|
|
11. Generally feedback in training is
judgmental, firm and directive.
|
|
|
Observation for teacher development
|
|
|
Having outlined the features of lesson
observation for training in the Cameroonian setting, I will now turn to those that
characterize lesson observation for development.
|
|
|
1. The ST is not instructed to reproduce a
prescribed lesson plan. Instead the ST is provided with broad guidelines and explanatory
notes justifying the inclusion of certain activities based on lesson objectives.
|
|
|
2. Lesson observation is cyclical consisting of
a pre-observation meeting, the observation itself, and a post-observation meeting.
|
|
|
3. There is always a COOPT-usually the class
teacher fulfilling the role of a teaching partner.
|
|
|
4. The lesson observer is a full partner in the
TP exercise; s/he is punctual, sits in during the entire lesson, taking notes (data) on
the goals/targets set at the pre-observation discussion.
|
|
|
5. The observer does not intervene during the
lesson unless the whens and the hows have been agreed upon during the pre-observation
meeting.
|
|
|
6. The observer, if a COOPT, writes a
summarative report on the ST, counting toward the final assessment of the ST.
|
|
|
7. The observer and ST hold pre-and
post-observation meetings. Pre-observation meetings are held well ahead of the lesson so
as to provide enough time for the ST to make necessary lesson plan adjustments, additions,
and refinements. Post-observation meetings are held (preferably) immediately after the
lesson has been observed.
|
|
|
8. Demonstration lessons are given whenever the
need is felt. Such demonstration lessons, especially in in-service programmes, are
considered as options/alternatives among many. In that sense, they are considered
"model" lessons to be imitated.
|
|
|
9. Feedback is given in the most objective
manner possible as the observer tries to avoid being judgmental.
|
|
|
10. The COOPT is a facilitator and remains
supportive and a full partner in the education process.
|
|
|
11. The observer, if a COOPT, hands over his/her
entire class to the ST as early as possible and continues to work with the ST as described
in 4.
|
|
|
12. The COOPT encourages the ST to experiment
with new techniques or ideas.
|
|
|
13. A record file is kept on the ST's general
conduct and work during the TP and constitutes the core of the summarative report to be
written by the COOPT at the end of the practicum. The report is of paramount importance in
determining whether or not the ST is qualified for certification. Where a practical
teaching examination is required, the ST is called upon to teach several lessons and is
examined by a panel comprising the COOPT, the teacher trainer, and a person from the
Ministry of Education, the school board, or the department of teacher education. Clearly
defined criteria are used by the examiners for the assessment of the ST.
|
|
|
The cyclical supervisory model of lesson observation
|
|
|
The cyclical supervisory model (see diagram above) consists of the same three phases of
the teacher development model. During the pre-observation meeting, the observer (who may
be the ST's colleague, the ESOL inspector, or a teacher educator) and the teacher
himself/herself set a limited number of professional "targets." These may be any
aspect(s) of the lesson that the ST in-service trainer would like the observer to target.
Depending upon the needs of a particular ST/teacher, both the observer and the teacher may
choose to run through a checklist established for this purpose consisting essentially of
the following: lesson topic, lesson content, objectives, materials, prerequisite learning,
lesson development, closure, student evaluation, etc. It is vital to hold this meeting
well in advance of the observation to enable the teacher or ST to revise the lesson plan
or other aspects of the class before the lesson is taught.
|
|
|
Pre-observation meetings are the time when the
teacher and the observer can agree upon issues such as the observer's intervention during
the lesson proper. Some teachers do not want intervention but others do. Peer teaching
roles can also be discussed and assigned. The observer may refer the ST to relevant
literature that may help in lesson planning and execution. S/he may also help the ST get
access to specialized libraries which would otherwise have been impossible.
|
|
|
The second phase of the clinical supervisory
model is the observation of the lesson itself. At this stage, the observer focuses
strictly on the targets set at the pre-observation meeting and collects relevant data for
the teacher's attention. The data thus collected constitute a vital part of the content of
the ST's teaching profile.
|
|
|
The third and final phase of the cyclical
supervisory model is the post- observation meeting at which the teacher and observer look
back at the lesson and the data gathered. Another controversial issue is how feedback
should be given during this phase of observation. Some teacher educators suggest that data
should be presented in the most nonjudgemental manner possible giving the teacher the
opportunity to analyze the data, and to make decisions as to its significance. Others
suggest that positive feedback should be given to create a good climate for further
discussion of the lesson, and to give the ST a sense of accomplishment. Still, others say
that the "good" points of the lesson should be pointed out to the teacher while
the "bad" ones should be given in the form of suggestions for improvement. There
are some who say that the trainer/observer should not be hypocritical and should tell the
trainee what s/he did right or wrong in a direct manner.
|
|
|
My own position on giving feedback to STs during
post-observation meetings is simply to be eclectic for the simple reason that no single
procedure will cover all teaching situations across all cultures. In some situations,
telling the ST directly and firmly what to do and what not to do may be the only
acceptable way, but in others this may be rejected for fear of encouraging dependency. In
some contexts, dialogue journals kept by the ST and shared with the observer are the most
efficient way of giving feedback (see Footnote 2 ).
|
|
|
Whatever the approach adopted, the goal is to
make the teacher an independent decision maker at all times. The means to achieve this
ideal may differ from setting to setting but this goal is primary.
|
|
|
The role of the ESOL inspector
|
|
|
In Cameroon, the Inspector of Education is the
direct representative of the Ministry of Education. The inspector's responsibility is to
ensure the strict implementation of laws and regulations on educational matters and policy
as stipulated by the state, country, board, community, etc. Inspectors write reports which
determine whether or not teachers deserve promotion, salary increment, suspension, or even
dismissal. The inspector's reports say unequivocally what s/he considered the teacher did
right or wrong, and state what the teacher should do in subsequent lessons. The report
usually carries a grade. The inspector is respected by some and dreaded by many. What I
see as necessary in in- service development programs is for the inspector to take on a
more "humane" role.
|
|
|
In some countries of Francophone Africa, the
Ministry Education prescribes the textbooks for use at primary and secondary schools. It
is usually the subject inspector who selects these texts from among the many available on
the academic market. These texts and their methodologies should be introduced to the
teachers through national, and regional seminars by the ESOL inspectors. Where
demonstration lessons are needed the clinical supervision model is recommended. Since the
participants would normally be in-service teachers, post- observation discussion may
explore alternative procedures, or techniques.
|
|
|
The ESOL inspector should go to the schools
where teachers have no formal professional education. In such schools, workshops and
demonstration lessons can be given, and real lessons should be observed under the
leadership of the inspector. Where this is not possible, the inspector should invite or
recommend such teachers to attend seminars on topics that would be of particular interest
to them.
|
|
|
Lesson observation by peers
|
|
|
In some school systems, there exist subject
heads or department chairpersons whose role includes coordinating examinations and keeping
official records This official role can be extended to embrace teacher development as
well. Colleagues less fortunate in terms of professional training can be helped within the
department with the chairperson playing the roles of coordinator, demonstrator, organizer,
etc.
|
|
|
It is within ESOL departments that teacher
development through peer training/peer evelopment/peer observation can be effectively
carried out. In this regard, the procedure for peer observation, recently recommended by
Richards et al. (1991-1992), may be adopted.
|
|
|
This procedure is patterned, in part, on the
clinical supervision model. At the pre-observation orientation session, teachers meet and
discuss exactly the kind of lesson, methods, techniques, classes etc. they would like to
watch, whether in groups or on a teacher-to-teacher basis. Once these preliminaries are
decided upon, then the teachers discuss what the teacher observer has to look for during a
lesson. The teacher to be observed then assigns the observer a goal for the observation.
At the post-observation meeting, the observer reports on the data collected and discusses
them objectively.
|
|
|
In settings where inspectors are appointed on
the basis of some nepotistic, tribal, regional or linguistic criteria, development is
severely handicapped. But in settings where inspectors and school administrators are
appointed from among the most qualified and experienced-professionals-where teachers,
student- teachers, inspectors, pupils, and school administrators are considered equal
partners in teacher development-the framework for teacher development presented in this
paper can contribute immensely to the quality of English language teaching.
|
|
|
Thomas
Tenjoh-Okwen is an ESOL teacher- trainer at the cole Normale Superieure,
University of Yaounde, Cameroon. His interests include second language acquisition and the
teaching ofcomposition. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Brinton, M. D., G. A. Holden, and T. M. Goodwin. 1993. Responding to dialogue journals
in teacher preparation. What's effective? TESOL Journal, 2, 4, pp. 15-19.
- Davis, P. and K. Plumb, l988. Teacher development for teachers not trainers. IATEFL
Newsletter, 100, p. 40.
- Freeman, D. 1982. Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and
developments. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 1, pp. 21-28.
- ---. 1989. Teacher training, development and decision-making. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 1,
pp. 27-47.
- Irvine-Niakaris, C, and S. C. Bacigal. 1992. How can the trainer promote teacher
development? English Teaching Forum, 30, 1, pp. 42-43.
- Lucas, C. l988. A model for teacher development in a large EFL institution. IATEFL
Newsletter, 100, p. 42.
- Maingay, P. 1988. Observation for training, development or assessment? In Explorations
in teacher training: problems and issues, ed. by T. Duff, London: Longman Group UK LTD.
- Richards, J. C., and C. Lockhart, C. 1991-1992. Teacher development through peer
observation. TESOL Journal, 1, 2, pp. 7-10.
- Sithamparam, S., and M. Dhamotharam, 1992. Peer networking: Towards self- direction in
teacher development. English Teaching Forum, 30, 1, pp. 12-15.
- Tenjoh-Okwen, T. l992. Teaching practice: A partnership. Paper presented at the
University of Regional University of Yaounde.
- Winer, L., and M. S. Steffensen. 1992. Cross-cultural peer dialogue journals in ESOL
teacher education. TESOL Journal, 1, 3, pp.23-27.
- Woodward, T. 1992. Ways of training: Recipes for teacher training. Singapore: Pilgrims
Longman.
|
|
Footnote 1
| 1. As a pupil in a practicing school some 35 years
ago, I saw, to my greatest astonishment, a teacher trainer seize chalk from a trainee
after shouting insults at him in a manner typical of a haughty colonial inspector,
continue the lesson, leaving the trainee utterly flabbergasted before us, his pupils. |
Footnote 2
| 2. Dialogue journals can be directed or non-directed/
open. In a non-directed or open dialogue journal, the student teacher pursues any topic of
his/her choice. Questions on suitability of materials, class participation, specific
techniques, etc. can be asked by the student teacher and answered by the
supervisor/trainer. In directed journals, students are assigned topics to explore. The
assignment may be traditional, in which the trainer gives the topics, and student-teachers
produce texts. Sometimes the topics are set by the student teachers themselves (Winer
& Steffensen, 1992:23.) |
Back to Article
|
. |
. |