Action Research for theDefinition of Communicative and Linguistic Standards

in an English Teaching Courseof a Chilean University

Author: Ana María Hurtado MaldonadoChile, 2006

2

ABSTRACT

This action research project aimed at establishing in a precise, rational andconsensual way the linguistic and communicative levels that the students of theEnglish Teaching Course of Universidad San Sebastian should be able to attain atthe end of 1st to 4th years.

Specifically ,we wanted to involve the teachers and students to:- discuss the general aims of the English Teaching Department related to

the development of communicative & linguistic skills in English;- propose consensual changes in the contents of the School Curriculum

in relation to the development of these skills;- monitor the process of change in the students’ linguistic and

communicative skills, taking into consideration their needs and nationalMinistry of Education policies.

According to the nature of this research focus –which implies improvement andcurricular change—the methodology of this study was qualitative. It was, thus,oriented to the process of discovery, exploration and description. It monitored thechange, taking into account the voices of the different actors: teachers andstudents.

The method chosen to conduct this project was action research. It was,therefore, collaborative, carried out by a practitioner and its purpose was that ofimproving the situation in the specific context of the School of English Teaching ofthe University.

In the action research process, the following controversial issues were brought upby the participants:

1. The state of English teaching in Chile at the present time and thefeasibility of introducing international levels over various time scales

2. How well informed teachers and students are about internationalstandards

3. Connections between the different components of the languageimprovement curricular programmes

4. Streaming students according to their linguistic level on entry5. Students’ attitudes towards learning6. Quality of initial teacher training7. The development of team work among the teachers

Different teams of teachers implemented the proposals of this project in thisUniversity. New ideas and paths of action have come up as the process of

3

reflection and self-criticism continues and as the national and internationalscenarios continue evolving.Key words: action research, curricular change, international standards

4

CONTENTS

I Introduction

II Definition of the Issue

III The Context and Relevance of the Issue

IV Boundaries and Constraints

V Principles of Procedure

VI Research Methodology

VII Data Analysis and Interpretation

A – Computer Adaptive Test

B – Semi-Structured Interviews

VIII Categories: Interviews with Teachers and Students

1. Opinion about the introduction of international standards2. Information about international standards3. Streaming students according to their linguistic level on entry4. Class size5. Teachers’ and students’ roles6. The “plateau” effect7. Quality of initial teacher training8. Teaching lexis9. Building up team work

IX Conclusions

Appendix 1 -Common Reference Levels: Global Scale(Extracted from the Common European Framework for Languages: learning,teaching, assessment), Council of Europe

Appendix 2 – University of Cambridge Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of OtherLanguages) exams

Appendix 3 – Standards of Language Competence: English Teaching School,Universidad San Sebastián

Appendix 4 - English Teaching Course Plans

5

I – INTRODUCTION

There was something that was disconcerting. The English Teaching Course ofUniversidad San Sebastián had fixed general statements about the levels ofproficiency in English that the students had to attain each semester in its courseprogrammes.

However, I felt we needed to discuss, clarify and define consensually andaccurately what general linguistic and communicative standards the studentscould realistically attain at the end of each year of the English Teaching Course.

Furthermore, we needed to specify the goals and outcomes of the EnglishTeaching Course. These definitions and statements should take into account thepurpose of our students’ L2 learning; i.e. teaching English as a foreign language.

There was also the need to standardise the language we were using to definethese levels, designating parameters for the description of language use, and toidentify clearly the stages in their process of acquiring the target language.

II – DEFINITION OF THE ISSUE

I wanted to start a process aimed at establishing in a precise, rational andconsensual way the linguistic and communicative levels that our students of theEnglish Teaching Course should be able to attain at the end of years one to fourof their course.

Specific Objectives

1. Discuss the general aims of the School of English Teaching of USSin the area of the development of communicative and linguistic skillsin English at each of the years of the Course.

2. Propose consensual changes in the contents of the School Curriculain the area of development of the communicative and linguistic skillsin English.

3. Monitor the process of change to align the objectives of the Schoolcurricula to the national policies stated by the Chilean Ministry ofEducation.

6

III – THE CONTEXT

Universidad San Sebastián was founded in 1890. The School of EnglishTeaching started in 2001. During these years it had had two different CoursePlans. The changes in the course plans reflect the growing relevance that initialteacher training has been gaining in teacher training in general in Chile. On theother hand, the subjects related to developing competence in English, had notchanged in the Plan. However, the contents had been modified according to theperceived contextual needs of the country, as we will see later (see item 5: CoursePlan in the Area of English Language).

There are some documents that we considered to give an account of the contextof this project:

1. Chilean Ministry of Education: Teaching CompetenceStandards (November 2000)

2. Chilean Ministry of Education: Framework for Good Teaching3. Programme of the Ministry of Education: “English Opens

Doors”

These documents are well known in Chile. However, there are some others thatrequire a description.

1. Chilean EFL Standards and ALTE levels2. USS Profile of the Graduate (2002)3. USS Faculty of Education: Mission (2003)4. University of San Sebastián English Teaching School: Course

Project Document5. Course Plan in the Area of English

1. Chilean EFL Standards and ALTE levels

While I was carrying out this project, the Chilean Ministry of Educationdetermined specific levels of English to be achieved by 8th graders and 12th

graders, as well as by EFL teachers. The Mineduc defined the followingtargets to be attained by 2010;

• For 8th graders Alte 1: Waystage• For 12th graders Alte 2: Threshold• Teachers of English Alte 3: Independent

7

2. USS Profile of the Graduate (2002)

It was defined in terms of competences and classified into two areas:

Area of Values and Attitudes

- Creativity and innovation- Self-management- Team work

Area of Professional Development

- Intellectual leadership, which includes discipline mastery.- Communication (including communication in a L2).- Economy management

3. USS Faculty of Education: Mission

Mission

“The mission of the Faculty of Education of the University of San Sebastián is totrain teachers with pedagogical vocation, reflective thinking, competent in theirdiscipline and with attitudes in agreement with the values that our Universitypromotes.

For this purpose, we implement a global-humanistic curriculum that emphasisesthe educational praxis and the development of educational programmes that useinnovative teaching and technological resources, to contribute to the improvementof the quality of education.

In this sense, we develop a teaching culture that orientates its pedagogicalpractices by means of permanent professional development, research andself-evaluation.” (The translation and underlining is ours.)

4. University of San Sebastián English Teaching School: Course ProjectDocument

The School of English Teaching stated in its Course Project Document aprofessional profile which is characterised as follows:

8

- good mastery of the English language (through immersion,communicative teaching, etc.)

- early contact with schools through participative observation- broad view of the educational system- equipped with methodological tools for EFL teaching- critical mind- aware of the psychological characteristics of the adolescent- self-reflective- knowledge and practice of effective methodologies and new technologies- motivated, dynamic and participative

The study plan includes subjects in the following three areas:

1. English language2. Pedagogical training3. Initial teacher training

5. Course Plan in the Area of English Language

The subjects that develop the communicative competence in English are “LenguaInglesa” and “Práctica de la Lengua Inglesa”.

To provide a clear picture of the contents of these subjects, I would like to explain,in the following chart, what skills are meant to be developed in each of them.

Year “Lengua Inglesa” “Práctica de la Lengua Inglesa” Number ofpedagogical hours inthe academic year

First 1) General English 2) Speaking3) Listening4) Reading & Writing

232

Second 1) General English2) Speaking & Listening3) Reading & Writing

174

Third 1) General English2) Proficiency3) Usage

174

Fourth 1) General English2) Proficiency3) Usage

174

TOTAL 754

In the General English component, the course book “New Interchange”, startingfrom the second in the series, was used from 2001 to 2003.

9

In 2004, we started using other course books in the First, Third and Fourth years,according to our intention to introduce international standards in the EnglishTeaching Course.

Course Course BookFirst year Objective PET, Hashemi, L. & Thomas, B. CUP, 2003Second year New Interchange 3, Richards, J., CUP

Third year Objective FCE, Capel, A. & Sharp, W., CUP

Fourth year Objective FCE, Capel, A. & Sharp, W., CUP

At the beginning of 2004, there was a School meeting, where all the lecturersattended and were given a document about the communicative and linguistic aimsof the Course (see Appendix 3). This document was mainly based on “ACommon European Framework of Reference for Languages. Learning, Teaching,Assessment”, produced by the Council of Europe.

The document was prepared by the School Council in October, 2003. ThisCouncil was constituted by the Director and four lecturers.

Relevance of the issue

Our students were going to be the first English teaching graduates of theUniversity (which later expanded to Puerto Montt, Valdivia and Santiago). Weneeded to imprint an identifying seal to these professionals. But how is thisidentity being shaped? How is this expressed in terms of the English languageskills that we intend to develop in our students, how we develop them, what thestudents learn, what they think about their process of learning an L2 and how theysee their progress from year to year?

The issue stated is relevant if we consider the fact that this is a young School. Weare in the process of shaping our identity as a working team of teachers, tryingdifferent methodologies, being open to changes.

In 2003, the Ministry of Education announced the goals and deadlines for theimplementation of international standards. Our School of English Teaching held ameeting in October, 2003 and decided to implement the European Unionstandards in our teaching in a gradual way. We decided to start implementing

10

Alte 2 level materials in the 1st year of the course and Alte 3 level materials in the3rd and 4th years, as we can see in the Course Plan (item 8 of the “Context”). In2004, we started implementing these innovations. This research monitored thisprocess of change.

IV – BOUNDARIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Most of the teaching staff of the English Teaching Course, works on a part-timebasis and with short-term contracts. The teaching staff with long term contractsconsists of:

• 1 Director and EFL teacher• 3 EFL teachers

There is very little time for meetings or interviews and, therefore, the teachersparticipated in this project on a voluntary basis. This means that I had to appealto the teachers’ motivation to develop professionally, to reflect on what washappening in our school and how they saw its projection in terms of Englishteaching and teacher education.

V – PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

When dealing with the participants, I had bear in mind that being under researchcan provoke anxiety. Therefore, all the people involved were well informed aboutthe aims of the project and the ethos underlying it. The following principles werecommunicated to the participants and respected at all instances.

1. Respect and openness to all the different opinions and attitudes.2. Confidentiality, so that all research transactions were handled with strict

reserve and professionalism. Names were anonymised.3. Freedom. The participants held the right to accept or refuse to participate

in the research.4. Empowerment. The teachers and students are the subjects of this

research and the ownership of this project is meant to be with them. Theresults of this research are meant to contribute to improve the quality of theteaching and learning processes in the School.

I intended this experience to help trigger a teacher development instance whichcould empower us to suggest and make the necessary changes to the presentsituation. Consequently, the approach was that of the “reflective practitioner”(Schon 1983, Wajnryb 1992). In this approach, the teachers are seen asexplorers of their own classrooms, initiators of their development, constructors oftheir personal meanings, owners of change. The model is non-prescriptive and“bottom-up”.

11

All the above was crucial as I intended this project to be collaborative andparticipative; therefore, an atmosphere of trust and respect had to be created.

VI - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

According to the nature of this research focus –which implies improvement andcurricular change—the methodology of this study is qualitative. It is, thus,oriented to the process of discovery, exploration and description. It has beenintended to monitor the change, taking into account the voices of the main actors:teachers, students.

The method chosen to carry out this project is action research. It has been,therefore, collaborative, carried out by a practitioner and its purpose has been thatof improving the present situation in the specific context of the School of EnglishTeaching of our University.

According to this methodology, I planned the following stages in the developmentof the enquiry:

• Development of the research question within the field of ELT Curriculumand Teacher Development

• Literature review• Data collection,

a) Including the documents mentioned in III- “The Context”b) Application of a Placement Test to the students of the English

Teaching course (Quick Placement Test, Oxford UniversityPress). Ninety one percent of the total number of studentstook the test; i.e. 122 students out of 134, a figure which isvery representative.

c) Semi-structured interview with 2 focus groups of students:- 1st year students: Focus group 1 (students usingCourse book “Objective PET”)- 3rd year students: Focus group 2 (students usingCourse book “Objective FCE”)

These interviews were recorded and transcribed.• Semi-structured interviews with seven EFL teachers from the USS English

Teaching School, all of which were recorded and transcribed.• Written account of events: journal.

12

VII DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A – Computer Adaptive Test

The Computer Adaptive Test chosen was the Quick Placement Test, whichwas taken by 91% of the students of the Course, a percentage that is veryrepresentative. This placement test measures Listening, Reading, Grammarand Vocabulary. Its results must be considered with this reservation, as itdoes not include Speaking or Writing.

The results of this Placement test were the following:

20

1214

1 1 10

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4 5

NúmberofStudents

Alte Levels

Placement Test First Year

13

1

13

21

52

00

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4 5

NúmberofStudents

Alte Levels

Placement Test Second Year

Percentages

2%

31%

50%12%

5%

0%

012345

14

0

4

10

7

1 002468

1012

0 1 2 3 4 5

NúmerodeAlumnos

Alte Levels

Placement Test Third Year

Percentages

0%

18%45%

32%

5%

0%

012345

15

1

5

21

0123456

0 1 2 3 4 5NúmerodeAlumnos

Alte Levels

Placement Test Fourth Year

Percentages

0% 11%

56%0%

22%

11% 012345

16

The interpretation and suggestions derived from this data are presented in theconclusions.

B - Semi-structured interviews

- I interviewed seven EFL teachers from the School. They represented abroad range of opinions. The interviewees were asked permission to be recorded.The principles of anonymity and confidentiality were stated before the interviewand were respected.

The interviews took place at the end of the first semester, i.e. in July/August 2004.During the interviews, the teachers could see the tabulated results of the QPT andcontrast these with their perceptions.

The semi-structured interview questions were the following:1. What is your opinion about the linguistic and communicative level your

students had at the beginning of the year you are teaching? (Please referto the attached document about international levels and to each yearseparately.) See chart below.

2. What linguistic and communicative level do you think your students canreach at the end of this year? (Please refer to the attached document aboutinternational levels and to each year separately.)

3. What information do you have about the effort that our School is making tointroduce international standards?

4. Are you in favour of the introduction of international standards? Why? Whynot?

This procedure was extraordinarily useful. It proved to be very adequate,especially because of its flexibility and the degree of control the interviewees keptduring the conversation. The dialogues with the interviewed teachers andstudents were surprisingly rich and thought provoking. I was aware of the sourceof bias mentioned by Nunan (1992) –i.e. the “asymmetrical relationship” betweenthe participants—and therefore, I tried to minimise its effect by creating a friendlyatmosphere in which the students could express their views freely.

During the interviews the teachers could see the chart in Appendix 1, whichdescribes, in general terms, ALTE and European Union levels. These proceduresproved to be very useful and necessary, as the teachers, in general, were not wellacquainted with the levels.

17

- I also interviewed two focus groups of students

The first group was made up of 4 students from the 1st year of the EnglishTeaching Course, where materials of Alte level 2 were being piloted.

The second group was made up of 4 students from the 3rd year of the EnglishTeaching Course, where materials of Alte level 3 were being piloted.

The principles of confidentiality and anonymity, again, were stated and respected.These interviews were recorded and transcribed.

The interviews were held at the beginning of the second semester, i.e. in August2004.

VIII – CATEGORIES THAT EMERGED DURING INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERSAND STUDENTS

Category 1: Opinion about the introduction of international standards

All the interviewed teachers agree with the idea of introducing internationalstandards in the English Teaching Course for various reasons.

a) It is a government policy, and Chile is part of an international community.

“It is absolutely necessary to be assessed internationally because weare citizens of the world, not only of Chile, and we have to be testedwhether we like it or not.”

b) The Government of Chile is interested in raising the communicativecompetence standards in English both of teachers and students in theschools of the country. The Ministry of Education is aware of the realitythat English is being taught in Spanish in many schools. That is why theMinistry of Education has set a minimum level of language competence,aligned with Alte 3, for teachers of English to be able to stay in the stateowned or subsidised system.

“Your concern came rather parallel to the concern of the Ministry.(…) Teachers of English are not teaching in English, and studentsare being tested as well. They don’t speak English, they can readvery little and they don’t produce, they cannot communicate in thelanguage…”

18

c) The government has given a powerful signal to the English teachers. It isnot enough to learn English while at the University. Professionaldevelopment is a continuous necessity.

“…that means they have to continue studying, continue developing,going to seminars and speaking English, and worrying about it.”

“It was something that had to be done. Teachers with over 20 yearsof experience were unwilling, they didn’t matter about it, in terms ofknowledge (of the language), in terms of theories…”

“The ones who were teaching for 5 years, of course, that’ssomething different. There you are afraid, you are willing to learn, totry new things…”

d) Our students will attain higher language proficiency levels.

“... and I think for our students who are going to become Englishteachers, that is great. We did not have anything like that in thepast. We did not know what our level of English was when we leftUniversity…”

e) International standards are prestigious. This measure will improve theChilean educational system.

The teachers also suggested some measures we, as a School, could take toparticipate in this process more effectively:

Some teachers feel the need to improve their language proficiency.

“I haven’t been assessed internationally, I would like that. I’minterested in pursuing a course…”

Another teacher, suggested we could have a meeting with an expert ininternational standards, so that we can accomplish our goals in a better way.

We can see that some teachers feel identified with the concept of teacherdevelopment, as Adrian Underhill defines it:

“Teacher Development is the process of becoming the best teacheryou can be. (…) Teacher development is a continuous process oftransforming human potential into human performance, a processthat is never finished.” (Adrian Underhill, 1997)

19

Teachers are not afraid of change. On the contrary, they know innovation has ahigh cost in terms of the time they need to devote to implement it. All the same,they feel that change is an essential need.

Students, on the other hand, acknowledge there has been a tremendous change.Some of their opinions were quite positive:

“…the system and methodology used to be different. Now even theteachers are teaching in a different way. All the emphasis is on theuse of language, the everyday life, indeed.”

“This is positive in the sense that it is a challenge and that way wefeel encouraged. But the change is too noticeable. At the sametime, we know they are giving us the tools to be able to projectourselves internationally. This is extremely beneficial.”

On the other hand, the students hold a positive view about the course books“Objective PET” and “Objective FCE”. They stress the fact that with these booksthe emphases are in the use of the language, vocabulary expansion. At the sametime, they find them user-friendly and a good support for their learning.

Focus group 1“You can study from this book on your own because the instructions

are clear.”“The order is very clear and easy to understand and it issupplemented by the other subjects.”“At school, we had to write only. Now we need to listen and domany things.”

Focus group 2

“There isn’t a ‘grammar focus’. We are applying knowledge now.This is better because we are not only memorising things, but we areapplying them (…) This will be very useful when we becometeachers.”

“I noticed the change in the vocabulary, mainly. More phrasal verbsare used. Grammar is replaced by use.”

“The book helps us to get ready for the Exam on our own.”

“Now everything is about the use of the language; it is about real lifeindeed.”

20

The shift from the emphasis in teaching usage to fostering the use of languagehas been acknowledged by students. This adds complexity to the languagelearning process, but is valued positively by the students as being “real” language.

David Crystal highlights the difference between the study of use and usage in thefollowing terms:

“There is a major qualitative difference between studying thecomponents of English structure (…) and studying the domains ofEnglish use. The structural properties of the language are many andcomplex, but at least they are finite and fairly easy to identify: thereare only so many sounds, letters, and grammatical constructions,and although there is a huge vocabulary, at least the units (thelexemes, p. 118) are determinate and manageable. None of thisapplies when we begin to investigate the way English is used: weare faced immediately with a bewildering array of situations, in whichthe features of spoken or written language appear in an apparentlyunlimited number of combinations and variations.” (Crystal 1995)

David Nunan (2001) reinforces the importance of developing the ability to uselanguage in a communicative way in the following terms:

“…a basic principle underlying all communicative approaches is thatlearners must learn not only to make grammatically correct,prepositional statements about the experiential world, but must alsodevelop the ability to use language to get things done. (…) It wasrecognised that simply being able to create grammatically correctstructures in language did not necessarily enable the learner to usethe language to carry out various real-world tasks.” P.25

It is clear that the teachers’ and the students’ are faced with a much morecomplex and paramount task if they are to teach and learn the components ofEnglish as well as the actual use of it.

The students have also perceived more connections among the differentcomponents of the language improvement subjects (Lengua Inglesa and Prácticade la Lengua Inglesa) as a result of the implementation of international levels:

“The connection among the subjects was not so noticeable in thefirst semester. (…) Now there is a kind of chain where the fourcomponents are linked.” (Focus Group 1)

21

“Everything is more connected than before. What we study in Usageis the same as in Proficiency and English, but everything related toFCE”. (Focus Group 2)

However, gradually, during the interview, the students expressed more and morecriticism towards the issue of the international levels, and especially about the Altelevel 3 (or FCE).

“We are only getting ready to take the exam. We’d better enter alanguage school then…”

“We even took a mock exam. Isn’t that too much? And when theytell us that we have to take it at the end of this year, I do not think wewill be ready. (…) We feel too much pressure.”

The students have felt the increase in the demands of language competence as aresult of the introduction of international levels in the School. They have mixedfeelings about this project. On one hand, they feel the need for challenge, but, onthe other, they have resented the pressure.

The students themselves suggest ways in which the pressure could have beenlowered:

“It is not necessary to say this is the FCE, this is the way it is done,and you have to take it. Instead we should concentrate on revisingwhat is weak, applying our knowledge of the language, not losingthe right track.”

Overemphasising exam skills could be counterproductive. It may be that theteachers in their effort to keep up to the national demands and internationalstandards have set objectives that are not realistic and are not taking into accountthe learners’ feelings. We cannot forget that our first aim is to help our students todevelop language competences and skills, not just to prepare them for an exam.Jeremy Harmer’s suggestion suits this situation very well:

“When we are preparing students for an exam, we need to ignorethe exam from time to time so that we have opportunities to work ongeneral language issues, and so that students can take part in thekind of motivating activities that are appropriate for all Englishlessons.”

Harmer, 2004 p. 333

22

Creativeness and autonomy can be fostered and tension lowered in many ways,according to Harmer:

“Just because students need to practise certain test types does notmean this has to be done in a boring or tense manner. (…) Studentscan be encouraged to write their own test items, based on languagethey have been working on and the examples they have seen so far.The new test items can now be given to other students to see howwell they have been written and how difficult they are.”

On the whole, there is broad consensus for the implementation of internationalstandards in our School. The teachers and students recognise the need tointroduce changes aligned with national and international requirements.

Standards provide…

“… a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses,curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. (…) It describesin a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to doin order to use a language for communication and what knowledgeand skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively.”(Common European Framework of Reference for Languages – CEF)

Now that the School is engaged in introducing international standards, we have avery interesting opportunity for starting or reinforcing teambuilding.

The challenge both for the teachers and the learners is huge and worthconsidering how to face it collectively.

Category 2: Information about International levels

Almost all the teachers felt there was lack of information about this school project.They received some written information in the first meeting of the acade,oc yearabout the international levels to be attained at each year of the Course. The firstyear students also received this same information, but there were not follow-upmeetings to learn about the implementation of this project. Two teachers stated:

“… we haven’t had a special meeting for talking about these levels,for exchanging our experiences, for studying more about them… Ithink we don’t have a monthly meeting in order to discuss aboutthis.”

23

“… I don’t feel well-informed (…) I’m not very familiar with all thethings described here. I think it would be very interesting if all theteachers talked and shared all this that you are recording nowbecause I think it would be interesting to hear the other teachers.”

Although the students showed interest, they were really confused with thesesudden changes.

“About these tests: what are they about? Where and when are theygiven? What are the benefits as teachers?”

“If we are going to be English teachers, we should talk about thesetopics; know what is happening, comment the news.”

“What we know is that, in the near future the Ministry will demandthe FCE as the minimum level to become an English Teacher. Isthis true?”

“We thought that taking the test was obligatory, as they talk all thetime about that. I didn’t know it was optional. I am confused.”

Michael Fullan (1993) states four main capacities which are necessary to dealeffectively with change:

- Personal vision-building“…When personal purpose is present in numbers it provides thepower for deeper change.”

- Inquiry“Reflective practices, personal journals, action research, working in

innovative mentoring and peer settings are some of the strategiescurrently available. Inquiry means internalising norms, habits andtechniques for continuous learning.”

- Mastery“Mastery and competence are obviously necessary for effectiveness,but they are also means (not just outcomes) for achieving deeperunderstanding.”

- Collaboration“People need one another to learn and to accomplish things. Small-scale collaboration involves the attitude and capacity to formproductive mentoring and peer relationships, team building and thelike.” Fullan 1993, pp 12-18 (headings added)

24

The School has a big advantage to implement change. There is consensusamong the teachers about its necessity as well as contextual pressure. However,it had not been able to make the School community feel part and own theinnovations.

Category 3: Streaming students according to their linguistic level on entry

At the beginning of the year, the students of First year were split according to theirscore in the Computer Adaptive Test. The weaker students were placed inSection 1, whereas the stronger ones were placed in Section 2.

According to some teachers we cannot put extreme pressure in first year students,given the fact that there is not any entrance test for them.

The aim of the first year, in terms of language, should be to level students and atthe same time to encourage them and set realistic goals so that they do not getdisappointed from the beginning of their teaching course.

“…levelling them, getting them to be enthusiastic about what theyare going to do because this is the way they are going to earn theirliving, and not to kill them with this pressure of reaching the PETlevel (…) …they could panic and they don’t learn anything.”

“If a student doesn’t get to level 1 at the end of the year, theyshouldn’t stay in the course because that means no interest becauseyou cannot start and finish at the same level.” It means “no interest,no abilities”.

We can see that some teachers think that setting Alte level 2 as the goal for thefirst year students is not realistic. Demanding at least Alte 1 level at the end of thefirst year would be fairer. The teachers think, though, that we should be very strictin this demand and not let students with a lower level get into the second year.

As regards streaming first year students according to the results of the ComputerAdaptive Test, some teachers expressed their doubts.

In the first place, they stated that the weaker students can benefit from anatmosphere where English is spoken more or less fluently by most of thestudents.

“Everybody speaks English, even if you want to borrow an eraser.So that helps a lot. This atmosphere helps a lot.” (Referring toSection 2).

25

Even stronger, was the argument that stated that there could be a discriminatorybias in splitting the students according to their language level.

“To be honest, I’ve never agreed with that. (…) It is not good for anyof them because if you feel like ‘I am so bad that I’m in group 1’ youfeel inferior.”

In general, we can say that the students’ perceptions about this decision are good.

“The split was good. Had we started all together, it would have beena total disorder…”

“As some knew more and some knew less, the teacher could devotemore time and reinforce the ones who knew less.”

About the issue of grouping learners, Nunan (1988) states that:

“It is assumed by teachers (and learners) that effective learning canonly take place in classes that are relatively, homogeneous in termsof student proficiency level. (Recent research into second-languageacquisition in the classroom is beginning to question thisconventional wisdom…). However, the fact remains that teachersconsistently nominate mixed proficiency groups as the most difficultto plan for adequately.”

It is clear from what has been said, that we need to evaluate and re-consider thedecision we made about splitting the First year students according to theirlanguage proficiency.

Category 4: Class Size

Different teachers expressed their concern about the big size of the classes in the1st year. It is very interesting to see that they see class size as a factor thatcounteracts our School’s efforts to raise standards. Big classes make it difficult toprovide personalised attention and feedback to each student. Furthermore, thecommunicative aims are less likely to be attained with big classes.

“With more than 25 students in a speaking class, doing pair work,there is too much noise and the teacher does not have enough timeto provide specific feedback to individual students.”

“The teacher can provide individual feedback during oral interviews,but then it is a test situation and the students feel under pressure.

26

There is not a personalised attention required to developcommunicative skills in speaking.”

“We cannot ask the students to reach more than Alte level 1 (basiclevel) at the end of the first year because we have large groups of 30students or more.”

“For me the size of the group is important, especially forcommunicative goals. So, when you are working with a group of 33students, (…) it is hard to monitor and help them.(…) Payingattention to the way they are speaking, in order to measure maybetheir language improvement (…) is difficult.”

Individual feedback/tutorship was suggested, too. There should be morepersonalised attention to the students. Special time in the teachers’ timetableshould be allocated to give individual feedback about their progress (apart fromthe tests). This issue was strongly raised by one of the teachers in the followingterms:

“… keeping the students in touch with their progress throughout thesemester. It is not about getting a mark, it is about them knowingthe way they improve, what they need to make furtherimprovements.”

Most international reports maintain a consensual view in terms of the convenienceof reducing class size for better students’ performance. However, this factor hasto be accompanied with teacher qualification and classroom management skills toensure effectiveness of the measure.

“Reducing class size to below 20 students leads to higher studentachievement. However, class size reduction represents aconsiderable commitment of funds, and its implementation can havea sizable impact on the availability of qualified teachers.Strengthening teacher quality also leads to higher studentachievement. There is more than one way to implement class sizereduction, and more than one way to teach in a smaller class.Depending on how it is done, the benefits of class size reduction willbe larger or smaller.”

Ivor Pritchard, Reducing Class Size, What Do We Know? National Institute onStudent Achievement, Curriculum and Assessment, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 1999

27

Category 5: Teachers’ and Students’ Roles

We should make an attempt to change the attitude the students have towardslearning. There is a conformist attitude according to some teachers.

“They see the course as a series of hoops they have to go through.They just want to pass.”

Personal tutorship was suggested as a way to encourage on-going learning. Theteachers have a crucial role in motivating the students and invite to enjoylanguage learning and the idea of teaching it to other people in the future.

The role of teachers in their classrooms is heavily influenced by the approach toteaching he/she believes in and practises. There is a repertoire of roles fromwhich to draw if the teachers want to promote a change in attitude in the students.For example:

“Active Teaching (…) focuses on the teacher’s ability to engagestudents productively on learning tasks during lessons… sees themanagement and monitoring of learning as a primary role forteachers.”Cooperative Learning (Kagan 1987; Kessler 1992) constitutes an“attempt to redefine the roles of both teacher and learner through amethodology which relies less on teacher-directed teaching andmore on cooperative group work and pair work activities.” (Richards,1996, p. 102)In Communicative Language Teaching, “the teacher has two mainroles: the first is to facilitate the communication process between allparticipants in the classroom, and between these participants andthe various activities and texts. The second role is to act as anindependent participant within the learning-teaching group…”(Breen and Candlin 1980:99)

If we perceive a conformist attitude in our students, we have to explore ways inwhich we could promote and provoke change. We could, for example, try differentapproaches to teaching and learning, like the ones described above and fosterautonomous learning

Referring to the second year, a teacher stated:

“It’s a very responsible group. The problem is that some of them arenot working properly, systematically. You know what that means.Implies doing homework, attending classes regularly, going to self-access, studying at home every day, watching or listening to real

28

authentic language. (…) Now, I think that they need to change theirattitude.”

We should encourage the students to reflect about their learning and to developan autonomous attitude. Many of the teacher trainers are self-reflective and seekfor their professional development too. And this is, definitely, a good startingpoint.

“However good a teacher may be, students will never learn alanguage –or anything else—unless they aim to learn outside as wellas during class time. This is because language is too complex andvaried for there to be enough time for students to learn all they needto in a classroom. (…) To compensate for the limits of classroomtime an to counter the passivity that is an enemy of true learning,students need to develop their own learning strategies, so that as faras possible they become autonomous learners.” (Harmer, 2003, p.335)

Harmer (2003) also suggests different ways in which teachers can promoteautonomous learning:

- Learner training (e.g. self-reflective questionnaires, vocabularynotebooks, self-analysis discussions)

- Homework (e.g. student driven homework, negotiated homework)- Keeping ‘learning journals’ (voluntary or directed journals,

teacher’s comments, teacher’s letters)- The self-access centre, with appropriate guidance and appealing,

user-friendly classification systems- Staying in touch with the language (e.g. English language TV or

radio channels, films, pop songs, newspapers, etc.)- Training students to continue learning, with specific guidance to

find what suits them best.- Personal plans based on the students’ individual needs- Students staying in touch with each other to share interesting

web sites, magazines, etc.

Penny Ur (2002) refers to a classic study on language learning (Naiman et al,1978) and indicates that successful language learners are not necessarily those towhom language comes easily, but those who display a number of characteristics,most of them related to motivation. She enumerates the following:

1. Positive task orientation2. Ego-involvement3. Need for achievement4. High aspirations

29

5. Goal orientation6. Perseverance7. Tolerance to ambiguity

The interviewed teachers especially valued students’ perseverance. There was agroup of students who scored very low in the Placement Test and who were notable to communicate in English at the beginning of the First year. However, theywere not discouraged and invested their best efforts in learning. We can see thatthe results for most of them are rewarding, both for the students and the teachers.

Category 6: The “plateau” effect

The Third year students have acknowledged the increase in the demands of thelanguage improvement subjects and are feeling the “plateau effect”

“We are stuck because I can’t learn any more. We wonder if, someday, we will be fluent enough or we will maybe attain fluency bytravelling to an English speaking country. “

“There isn’t much to memorise, not much to study because it is theuse of the language. (…) We are not talking about rules, but the useof English. In that sense, it is more difficult. But if we can study andcope with that, why not?”

“The idea is not to make basic grammar mistakes when we areteaching. They are demanding much more from us, to give the bestof us…”

“The aim (Alte 3) is achievable; maybe not this year, but in the nearfuture, why not?”

“The demands are higher, we have to make our biggest efforts, butthe marks are low and that is de-motivating.”

We can see that the Third year students are experiencing the plateau effect.They cannot see their progress. They have to be much more patient. Progress isnow less evident; it is subtler. What can the teachers do? Harmer (2004)suggests:

“Teachers need to be sensitive to the plateau effect, taking specialmeasures to counteract it. Such efforts may include setting goalsclearly so that students have a clear learning target to aim at,

30

explaining what still needs to be done, making sure that activities areespecially engaging, and sparking the students’ interest in the moresubtle distinctions of language use.” (p. 45)

For the above to happen the teachers need to develop their own languagecompetence and their language awareness.

“Once they have discovered and acknowledged the diversity andcomplexity of language, teachers will be able to share this with theirlearners and help them to face the challenge of thinking aboutlanguage and progressing to be increasingly self-reliant. In theclassroom the only views of language that really matter are the onesthat teachers and learners have built up in their own heads.” (Bolitho& Tomlinson, 1995, p. iv)

It is clear from the evidences presented above that teaching English to developcompetencies aligned to international standards is complex and needs to besupported by teacher development/training measures for the teacher educators.

Category 7: Quality of Initial Teacher Training

According to Teacher 2, the prospective teachers should know what it is like to bea teacher, even from the first year.

“I think students should be able to visit schools and maybe in thefuture start to teach one class a week. I think students should knowwhat it is like to be a teacher from the very beginning. “

The third year students, on the other hand, expressed their concern about thedelay in getting the methodology training. They declared:

“We came here to be teachers. That is our priority. (…) Theyshould teach us to teach English, that is what they do in the Spanishsubjects, but in English there is nothing like that.”

“I think all the story about the FCE is excessive. It is okay to getready for the exam, but we cannot forget that we are here to becometeachers. You sometimes have the feeling that we get lost in theway, but then we come back…”

This concern is very valid. This group of students has studied with the old Coursesyllabus in which the EFL methodology subjects are placed in the 4 th and 5th

years. They have had general pedagogy subjects taught in Spanish, but the ELT

31

methodology subjects have been delayed. The remedial measures the Schoolhas taken have not been enough. The students perceive the complexitiesinvolved in becoming a teacher.

“… teaching involves more than care, mutual respect and well-placed optimism. It demands knowledge and practical skills, theability to make informed judgements, and to balance pressures andchallenges, practice and creativity, interest and effort, as well as anunderstanding of how children learn and develop. It recognises theimportant part other people play in pupils' learning: in the classroom,the home and the local community.”

“Just as teachers must have high expectations of their pupils, sopupils, parents and carers are entitled to have high expectations ofteachers. Teaching is a creative, intellectually demanding andrewarding job, so the standards for joining the profession must behigh too.”

Teacher Training Agency, United Kingdom (The underlining is ours.)

The Chilean researcher, Beatrice Avalos (2002) identifies the construction of thepedagogical identity as one of the main aspects in the process of learning tobecome a teacher. She holds that most young people in their initial teachertraining have a weak vocation to become teachers. However, the growth of thisidentity and vocation can be enhanced if the students develop social sensitivityand the capacity to search for development opportunities. It is the teacher traininginstitutions’ responsibility to support the personal development of the futureteachers and the gradual development of their identity as teachers.

The new Course Plan has incorporated progressive teaching practice from thesecond year. However, the students who are now in their third and fourth year willcontinue their studies without this important element included in their syllabuses.The teaching practice will take place in the second semester of the Fifth year,which is not at all convenient in terms of shaping the pedagogical identity. TheSchool is aware of this problem and has taken remedial measures to make up forthe lack of early contact with schools. For all these students, there is aprogramme of “helpers” who go to schools and start getting acquainted with theeducational reality.

This weakness has been a concern for the School teachers. As one teacher putsit:

32

“I think the quality of our students is fundamental because, at theend of the day, the employers want quality. The government is urgedto improve the quality of English language teachers and if ourstudents do not reach the top quality to which the government isengaged, then employers will prefer to hire students from otheruniversities. In terms of being a profitable university, we need toincrease the quality.”

Nunan (1988),mentions the following indicators of the quality of a school oreducational institution:

“1. There are clearly stated educational goals.2. There is a well planned, balanced, and organized program that

meets the needs of its students.3. Systematic and identifiable processes exist for determiningeducational needs in the school and placing them in order of priority.4. There is commitment to learning, and an expectation that studentswill do well.5. There is a high degree of staff involvement in developing goalsand making decisions6. There is a motivated and cohesive teaching force with good teamspirit.7. Administrators are concerned with the teachers’ professionaldevelopment and are able to make the best use of their skills andexperience.8. The school’s programs are regularly reviewed and progresstoward their goals is evaluated.”

The School needs to contrast its present practices to these indicators andestablish its strengths and weaknesses.

Category 8: Teaching lexis

Some teachers express their concern for the teaching of lexis, which together withgrammar, is absolutely essential to develop language proficiency.

Teachers see a necessity to expose the students to different kinds of words,expressions, and patterns. They go to the lab and make lists of words andexpressions according to the different topics. These can be tested at any time.Some think that grammar and lexis have to be put together,

33

“Some of them don’t use the vocabulary. They don’t understand thatthey have to put everything together to have good English. (Teacher4)

Alan Maley used the word lexico-grammar, acknowledging the fact that lexis andgrammar work together and not separately. He stated the following:

“Current thinking, based in large part on the analysis of computercorpora, has emphasized the importance of collocation, andtherefore the fact that vocabulary is largely phrasal. Words bandtogether in typical clusters rather than exist in splendid isolation.Lexico-grammar –the zone where syntax and lexis cooperate toforge meaning—has become a key consideration in the wayvocabulary is taught.”

Maley, A., (2004)

There are interesting efforts in the School to emphasise vocabulary teaching. InFirst year, for example, the students keep a “Vocabulary notebook” where theyregister the new vocabulary learned and examples of its use.

In the Reading and Writing classes included in the subject of “Práctica de laLengua Inglesa I and II”, the students get acquainted with the fact that there are2000 top frequency words which are considered the minimum survival kit thestudent needs to be able to understand 80% of any written text.

Vocabulary has been gaining importance in the teaching of English, and there aresome teachers of the School that have become more aware of its key role forlanguage learning. As Jack Richards states:

“Vocabulary and lexical units are at the heart of learning andcommunication. No amount of grammatical or other type of linguisticknowledge can be employed in communication or discourse withoutthe mediation of vocabulary (…) Understanding of the nature andsignificance of vocabulary knowledge in the second languagetherefore needs to play a much more central role in the knowledgebase of language teachers.” (Richards 2000)

Category 9: Building up team work

There were different strong teachers’ voices stating the need to develop teamworkand for various reasons.

34

f) We should share ideas, materials and help each other. We cannot workin an isolated way.

“That’s the way things have to be. It is team work, otherwise thesethings don’t work. Thinking in an isolated way doesn’t work. Maybeyou are not doing something correctly and the other person is goingto share his ideas with you. If I don’t have things clear, I ask forhelp.” (Teacher 1)

g) There should be much more connection among the English languagesubjects. We need to know what the other colleagues teaching Englishare doing. The teaching of the different skills should be integrated.

“What is the use of me asking the students to learn about first aids?The idea would be that they use that in the speaking, reading orwriting components, for example (…) They listen to that, but theyare able to use that in another part. It should be like that.” (Teacher1)

Some teachers see this way of working as a weakness. Referring to the Englishsubjects related to language improvement and skills Development (LenguaInglesa and Práctica de la Lengua Inglesa), teachers feel it is absolutelynecessary to meet with the teachers who are in charge of the different parts of thesame subject. The subject of “Lengua Inglesa” is divided in three parts, normallytaught by three different teachers.

“If we continue working in this isolated way, I don’t feel we are goingto get anywhere. Everybody teaches inside his small circle and thisis not the point.” (Teacher 3)

“We need to meet regularly. (…) I have the feeling that everybody isdoing a very good job, but there is a big problem: lack ofcommunication. (…) (Teacher 3)

“It is a subject that is divided into three, so we need to find time toorganise it and co-ordinate… One of the components of the subjectis like a mystery to me…” (Teacher 4)

h) Meeting time should be part of our timetable. Short regular meetingsshould be an established practice in our School, part of our policy.Teachers of the same subject (Lengua Inglesa) communicate by e-mail;however, they feel they would like to see their colleagues.

35

“I haven’t been called for a meeting at the beginning of thissemester. It is important to have the time fixed in the timetable.”(Teacher 1)

“It has to do with co-ordination. We have to get together. Honestly, Ihave only had one meeting to co-ordinate in all the semester.”

“…there are some moments when you have to see the people, youwork with faces… Because for communication to take place you alsoneed to see people, you need to see reactions. I think it is quiteimportant because then we could talk about cases, difficult peopleand the way to try to sort problems out…”

“So it would be quite advisable to become more demanding.Demanding everyone to spare some time to co-ordinate…At leastonce every 2 or 3 weeks. It could be just 45 minutes.”(Teacher 5)

There are informal co-ordinations among some teachers, but this is apractice that comes out of their personal initiative and not part of theinstitutional culture of our School. Some teachers meet in pairs to contrastthe calendar programme to what they are actually doing, to modify theirprogrammes, to supplement the units with audio-visual material they comeup with. Some feel it is absolutely necessary to work in a coordinated wayand to have an instance where they could share their successes andfailures.

“Maybe with a simple meeting and you say: Anything new? Whatare we doing? Where are you? I am doing this. I found this material.Something very brief, but we are in contact.” (Teacher 1)

d) Working in a coordinated way is a must if we want to introduceinternational standards in our School.

“If the school is interested in introducing international standards, Ithink it would be quite advisable to start working together.” (Teacher3)

The need for co-ordination in this process of change is essential. As theCEF points out, international standards:

36

“…provide the means for educational administrators, coursedesigners, teachers, teacher trainers, examining bodies, etc., toreflect on their current practice, with a view to situating and co-ordinating their efforts and to ensuring that they meet the real needsof the learners for whom they are responsible.”A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,Council of Europe, p. 1

The teachers feel the need to overcome communication barriers and set acommon ground when we speak about levels of language proficiency.

One of the principles of cooperative learning can be applicable to workingcooperatively in an organisation towards improvement and change.Positive interdependence is a crucial element to bring efforts together andmaximise the effectiveness of a group’s initiatives.

“Positive interdependence is critical to the success of thecooperative group.(...) When cooperation is successful, synergy isreleased, and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.”

California Department of Education, January 2003

Head and Taylor (1997) state three reasons why groups are more effectivethan individuals in managing change:

“Firstly, other people’s views are a primary resource for enabling individualsto increase their self-awareness. In a caring and supportive environment,learning from other people how they see you as a colleague and teachercan also be an important way of building up self-esteem and feelingpositive about the possibilities for development.

Secondly, a group of people who meet together regularly and are free todecide their own agenda tend to develop strong interpersonal bonds whichcan support an individual member in any decision that they might bemaking about their own development. (…)

Thirdly, a group of people with similar ideas and objectives can exert apowerful collective influence on the culture of institutions. In the context oforganizational change, people do well to combine their efforts in managingthe change process, and to make it their business to get the best they canfor themselves.” p.97

37

VIII – CONCLUSIONS

1. According to the Computer Adaptive Test results, and considering that itmeasures the receptive skills of Reading and Listening, together with Grammarand Vocabulary, we can say the following:

- In the First year, a significant group of students (41%) started at Altebreakthrough level (level 0 in the chart). Setting Alte Level 1 for theFirst year students, as some teachers have suggested, would meanvery little challenge for 59% of the students.

- In the Second year, the largest group (50%) started at Alte level 2, pre-intermediate, which added to the students who started at Alte level 1(31%) give a total of 81% students who started at the pre-intermediatelevel (receptive skills) or below.

- In the Third year, the largest group (45%) started at Alte level 2, pre-intermediate. If we add to this group the 18% who started at Alte level1, there is a total of 63% of students who started at the pre-intermediatelevel or below.

- In the Fourth year, the largest group (56%) started at Alte level 2. If weadd to this the percentage of 11% of students who started at Alte level1, then there is a total of 67% of students who started at the pre-intermediate level or below.

Considering these results and the teachers’ and students’ opinions, Isuggest the following scheme as the minimum targets for each courseduring the present academic .

Students “Receptive” Skills(Listening & Reading)

“Productive” Skills(Speaking & Writing)

1st year Alte 2 Alte 12nd year Alte 2 Alte 23rd year Alte 3 Alte 24th year Alte 3 Alte 3

However, the School has to acknowledge the present reality and providespecial support to the students who enter 1st year with an Alte level 0 orbelow. Another possibility is to introduce an entrance test, so that studentswith Alte level 0 would need to improve their level before starting theEnglish Teaching Course.

38

It is clear also, that the School has to raise its linguistic and communicativestandards. The students who do not progress during the year should notcontinue passing the English courses. Quality must be ensured and for thisto happen, our teaching methodologies and assessment procedures shouldbe improved.

2. Ownership of change should be developed among the members of theSchool community. This is a pending task on the part of the School ofEnglish Teaching. We have to involve all the students and teachers in theinnovations and the first step is to inform the community thoroughly aboutthe School’s and about the Ministry of Education plans.

3. During the academic year 2004, there was an increase in the class size inthe First year classrooms. For the first time, we had sections of 30 or morestudents in language classes. This counteracts the efforts and commitmentof the School to implement a communicative approach, which is applicablemuch more effectively in 15 to 20 students’ classrooms. We need todiscuss this issue, evaluate its effects and make the corresponding well-founded proposals to the University administrators.

4. Raising the quality of the training of teachers at USS Teacher TrainingSchool is an issue that has been raised in different ways by theinterviewees. This is a governmental concern, too. The ways suggested toaccomplish this aim are varied. One of the main ones is that theprospective teachers should be trained to be EFL teachers from the verybeginning of their course. Concerted efforts should be made to introducereflective teaching and learning as well as early meaningful contact withschools.

If we want to develop self-reflective professionals (as some of the teacherssuggested in the interviews), the common thread promoted along thecourse should be the development of self-reflective attitudes and habits.We need to make concerted efforts to encourage our students to reflectabout what they learn and how they learn, using different tools such as“reflection cards”, learning journals, portfolios, etc.. But, most important,we, the teachers, need to discuss our own beliefs about teaching andlearning, about reflection and self-reflection, and if it is worth devoting timeand effort to these endeavours. We can only develop self-reflectivepractitioners if WE are self-reflective educators.

The initial teacher training subjects (Prácticas Iniciales Progresivas 1 to 5)should aim to bridge the gap between the university and school realitiesand to equip the students with the necessary tools to face the presentchallenges of the English teaching profession.

39

5. Some teachers are aware of the need to continue improving themselvesand expressed the wish to take a language development course. This islogical. If we are implementing international levels, it is convenient to knowwhat the level of the teacher educators is and take measures to improve it.

Teaching to develop competencies aligned to international standards is achallenge that most of the teacher educators have faced with their personalresources. However, in order to support this project and in response tosome of the teachers’ enquiry, the Direction found the financial support andstarted a language improvement course for the School teachers. Thiscourse started in August 2004 and was given by a British EFL teacherusing the course book “Objective Proficiency” by Annette Capel and WendySharp. In 2004, 4 EFL teachers from the School attended this courseregularly. It is expected that, in the future, language improvement coursescould be part of the regular training for teacher educators of the School.

6. We need to evaluate the decision made about splitting the First yearstudents according to their language proficiency. To get a thorough viewabout this sensitive matter, I gave a questionnaire to all the First yearstudents at the end of the academic year 2004 and asked about how theylived this process. More than 80% of them agreed with the measure andstated that it had been beneficial for their learning. However, we need tocontinue monitoring this situation.

Reflecting about the action research process as a whole, I can say that it hasmeant gapping the bridge between teaching and research for me. It graduallybecame a useful tool that has contributed to get a deeper insight into what isgoing on in our English teaching course.

This action research project has also contributed to standardise the terminologywe use to describe the communicative and linguistic aims of language use at thedifferent stages of the English teaching course.

It has been a collaborative activity, which has implied a great variety of interactiveexchanges. I have learned to listen actively and sharpen my awareness tobecome more alert and open to the different “voices” of the different classrooms.This has meant a change of habits: I had to develop a stronger willingness tounderstand and to refrain from judging from appearances and making swiftgeneralisations.

Action research has proved to be an empowering instrument. From being objectsof study, the teachers and students of the English teaching course have gradually

40

become subjects and owners of the enquiry process, and, I hope, agents of futurechange.

The challenge now is to disseminate the results of all these exchanges andconversations and engage our learning and teaching community in the process ofchange. My hopes are that, as the participants get more and more involved, theneed for change and improvement will become essential for everybody. AsSomekh (1996) states with enthusiasm:

“As colleagues become more involved and move from being participants andinformants towards being researchers, they will begin to make an input into theanalysis and interpretation of the data you have collected. They will have theirsuggestions about what it might be most interesting to do next and to thatextent you lose control. You get much more powerful opportunities for changebut a loss of control over the direction of the change—which I find veryexhilarating and a very interesting way of working.” (p.6)

I come from this experience with many ideas, different points of view and againwith more questions about the future: How can we raise the linguistic andcommunicative standards of the students? How can we generate a moreparticipative culture inside the School? How can we make all the members of theteaching and learning community feel involved in the process of change? Howcan we better equip the future teachers with the language and pedagogic toolsnecessary to meet the challenge of actually developing communicative skills inEnglish in their classrooms?

I have become aware of the areas of development the School has to face urgentlyif it wishes to become a prestigious institution that trains EFL teachers equippedwith the tools to face the challenges of our profession. Knowing this also implies aresponsibility to spread the word convincingly among colleagues andadministrators.

Anyway, I am hopeful because the action research experience has made it clearthat there are teachers who know what the weaknesses of this young School areand who are open and enthusiastic about change. These teachers are fully awareof the ethical responsibility underlying this enterprise, and also recognize the needto be up to the demands of the dynamic realities of our country and of an ever-changing world. A good diagnosis is just a starting point. Anyway, it is anabsolutely necessary step towards professional and institutional growth andimprovement.

January 2006

41

X - Bibliography

Avalos, B. (2002), “Un proyecto para mejorar la formación inicial de docentes enChile: el Programa de fortalecimiento de la formación inicial docente”, SimposioInternacional ‘Perspectivas de Formación Docente’, Lima, PerúBolitho, R. & Tomlinson, B., (1995), Discover English, HeinemannCouncil of Europe (2001), A Common European Framework of Reference forLanguages, Learning, Teaching, AssessmentCrystal, D. (1995), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language,Cambridge University PressElliot, J. (1991), Action Research for Educational Change. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.) OUPFullan, M. (1993) , Change Forces, London: The Falmer PressHarmer, J. (2003), How to Teach English, LongmanHarmer, J. (2004), The Practice of English Language Teaching, LongmanHead, K. & Taylor, P. (1997), Readings in Teacher Development. Preface byAdrian Underhill. HeinemannLabarca, Alexis (2001), Métodos de Investigación en Educación, UniversidadMetropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, ChileMaley, A. (2004), Introduction to Vocabulary, 2nd ed., Morgan and Rinvolucri, M.,Oxford University PressNunan, D. (1993) Research Methods in Language Learning, CUPNunan, D. (1988), The Learner-Centred Curriculum, A study in second languageteaching, CUPQuick Placement Test (2002), produced in collaboration with the University ofCambridge ESOL Examinations (formerly UCLES). Oxford University PressRichards, J. (2000), series editor’s preface, in N. Schmitt, Vocabulary inLanguage Teaching, CUPRichards, J. (2001) Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, CUPStephen, K & Mc Taggart, R. (1992), Cómo Planificar la Investigación-Acción ,LaertesSomekh, B. (1996) Beyond common sense: action research and the learningorganisation, ELT Management, IATEFL SIG Newsletter, Number 22, Nov. 1996Ur, Penny. (2002), A Course in Language Teaching, Practice and theory,Cambridge University Press

Linkography

http://www.tta.gov.uk/php/read.php?sectionid=160&articleid=1051Teacher Training Agency, United Kingdom

http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/cooplrng2.html

42

California Department of Education, January 2003

43

Appendix 1

Common Reference Levels: Global Scale(Extracted from the Common European Framework for Languages: learning, teaching,assessment), Council of Europe)http://www.eui.eu/Documents/ServicesAdmin/LanguageCentre/CEF.pdf 21 June, 2010

ProficientUser

C2 Alte5

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Cansummarise information from different spoken and written sources,reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Canexpress him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiatingfiner shades of meaning even in more complex situations.

C1 4 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recogniseimplicit meaning .Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneouslywithout much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexiblyand effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produceclear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlleduse of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

IndependentUser

B2 3 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete andabstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field ofspecialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity thatmakes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strainfor either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjectsand explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages anddisadvantages of various options.

B1 2 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar mattersregularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with mostsituations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language isspoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar orof personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopesand ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions andplans.

BasicUser

A2 1 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areasof most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and familyinformation, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate insimple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange ofinformation on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple termsaspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areasof immediateneed.

A1 0 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basicphrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introducehim/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personaldetails such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/shehas. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly andclearly and is prepared to help.

44

Appendix 2 – Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages)examsThese exams are linked to the Common European Framework of Reference forLanguages, published by the Council of Europe.

General EnglishKET (Key English Test)An elementary level exam, testing your ability to deal with basic written andspoken communications.

PET (Preliminary English Test)An intermediate level exam, testing your ability to cope with everyday written andspoken communications.

FCE (First Certificate in English)An upper intermediate level exam - ideal if you can deal confidently with a rangeof written and spoken communications.

CAE (Certificate in Advanced English)An advanced exam - if you can communicate with confidence in English for workor study purposes, this is the exam for you.

CPE (Certificate of Proficiency in English)A very advanced level exam - perfect if you have achieved a high level oflanguage skills and are able to function effectively in almost any English-speakingcontext.

The equivalents in the Council of Europe Scale are the following:

Main Suite Council of EuropeCambridge Proficiency Examination C2 MasteryCambridge Advanced Examination C1 Effective Operational ProficiencyFirst Certificate Examination B2 VantagePreliminary English Test B1 ThresholdKey English Test A1 Breakthrough

This information was extracted from University of Cambridge ESOL website:http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/general-english/index.html21 June, 2005

45

Appendix 3 – Standards of General Language Competence: EnglishTeaching School, Universidad San Sebastián

Levels Listening/Speaking Reading Writing

4TH YEARAdvanced(Equivalent toCAE)C1Alte 4

Good command of TL in a wide range of situations.Converses with ease, utilising diverse languagestrategies. Can participate effectively indiscussions and deal with complicated tasks andsocial situations with confidence.

CAN narrate and describe in past, present andfuture with lengthy connected discourse which islinked smoothly. The only hesitations are theresult of the consideration of the appropriatenessof expressions. Uses pause fillers, stalling devisesand different rates of speech to cope withcommunication gaps. Extensive vocabulary.Understood without difficulty by all native speakers.L1 structures recede and L1 accent, if present,doesn’t affect message clarity.

CAN understand long andcomplex factual and literary texts,appreciating distinctions of style.CAN understand specializedarticles and longer technicalinstructions, even when they donot relate to the field ofEducation and English teaching.

Can summarizeinformation from differentspoken and writtensources, reconstructingarguments and accountsin a coherent presentation

Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed texton complex subjects,showing controlled use oforganizational patterns,connectors and cohesivedevices

3RD YEARUpperIntermediate(Equivalent toFCE)B2Alte 3

CAN initiate, maintain and close a conversation ona fairly wide range of topics with ease andconfidenceGenerally effective command of TL in mostuncomplicated communication tasks and in arange of situations although errors are evident e.ginaccuracies and inappropriate usage. .

ABLE to give a coherent talk on a topic new to thespeaker and shows the ability to connect discoursein particular when narrating and,or describing.Limits on vocabulary causes some hesitation butlanguage flow maintained most of the time. Ingeneral is understood even by thoseunaccustomed to non-native speakers although L1interference is evident and communication gaps dooccur.

CAN understand contemporaryliterary prose.**MARCELO (LITERATURE)

Can produce clear,detailed text on a widerange of subjectsand explain a viewpointon a topical issue givingthe advantages andindependentdisadvantages ofvarious options.

2ND YEARIntermediate(Pre-FCE)Alte 2/3

CAN deal with a variety of uncomplicatedcommunication tasks and social situations. e.g.Can ask and answer questions, express opinionson abstract, cultural matters, offer advice within aknown area and participate in short conversationsand discussions although has difficulty linkingideas. Is able to follow a talk on a familiar topicwith little difficulty and understand the gist ofrecordings of unfamiliar but non-technical subjects.

CAN construct fairly long utterances but only ableto use complex language in well rehearseddiscourse. Has ability to combine and recombineknown elements of TL but only in a reactive way.Makes long pauses and hesitations but generallyunderstood by native speaker familiar withstudents of this level although L1 interferenceimpinges on pronunciation and structures of thelanguage produced.

CAN read articles and reportsconcerned with contemporaryproblems in which the writersadopt particular attitudes orviewpoints

CAN understand the descriptionof events, feelings and wishes inpersonal letters and articles innewspapers and magazines

CAN write a variety ofpersuasive andargumentative textsadopting a particular pointof view.CAN write short narrativetexts with awareness ofelements such as plot,characters and settings.

46

1ST YEARElementary toPre-Intermediate(Equivalent toPET)B1Alte 2

Limited but effective command of TL in predictabletopics and familiar everyday social situations.Within those limits can ask and answer questions,understand basic instructions and publicannouncements and initiate and respond to simplestatements.

CAN give simple opinions and make shortcontributions in group discussions. Range oflanguage although limited allows the student toparticipate in and maintain a conversation albeit ina restricted manner with some linguisticinaccuracy. L1 interference causes occasionaldifficulty in understanding for a native speakerfamiliar with students of this level.

CAN understand texts thatconsist mainly of high frequencyeveryday or job-related language.

CAN read short, texts related tovaried topics, using readingcomprehension strategies like:prediction, scanning,identification of main ideas andpatterns of organisation.

CAN find specific, predictableinformation in simple everydaymaterial such as advertisements,prospectuses, menus andtimetables

CAN understand short simplepersonal letters and shortauthentic narrative anddescriptive texts.

CAN write short textsrelated to varied topics ofeveryday life withawareness of themechanics of theorganization of ideas andmoving towardsdeveloping textcoherence.CAN write letters aboutfamiliar or predictablematters accurately,giving special attention toformal aspects such asthe layout, punctuationand spelling.

Concepción, October 11th, 2003