RESEARCH PROJECT II - CLASSROOM OBSERVATION

A useful summary of current thinking on the observation of foreign language classrooms is provided by Parkinson (1992). He suggests that observation should be broken into phases, that notes on the lessons observed should focus on the amount of involvement of individual learners and that observation categories should be related to ‘specific modern ideas of language teaching’ (by which he means communicative language teaching): the principle of authenticity; the information gap; error treatment and learner-centredness.

There are a great variety of observational categories apart from those proposed by Parkinson, of course. The most influential set are those of Flanders (1970), FIAC or Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories, whilst those of Moskowitz (1976), FLINT or Foreign Language Interaction are more appealing to us, founded as they are in humanistic education  (ex­plored in Moskowitz 1978). Both are summarised and examined in Malamah-Thomas (1987) as examples of Interaction Analysis.

Interaction Analysis itself appears to have developed, for some researchers, into a blandly ‘scientific’ attempt to register just what happens on the surface in the language classroom without reference to affect (e.g. Ellis, R. in Gass and Madden 1985).

Our approach is much broader.

Chaudron (1988) criticises second language classroom researchers for limiting themselves to specific areas of discourse and sees four traditions in second language classroom research: psychometrics, interaction analysis, discourse analysis and ethnography.

Psychometrics sought to establish a relationship between various classroom behaviours and language achievement. Its weakness is primarily an uncertainty about qualitative distinctions. Interaction analysis, although useful, does not always have a quantitative dimension, which limits its scientific standing. The derivation of categories for observation instruments in interaction analysis is, according to Chaudron (1988), highly idiosyncratic, not systematically theoretical or empirical. Van Lier (1988) agrees and offers convincing arguments for the unreliability of interaction analysis findings  (Lier 1988:44).   Discourse analysis sees things from a theoretical and linguistic viewpoint primarily.  We have already indicated the weakness of excluding an affec­tive element from classroom observation.

The ethnographic tradition (e.g. Van Lier 1988; Ellis 1987)) may lay emphasis on the learner’s and teacher’s understanding of events rather than the observer’s and is potentially highly complicated  (and, finally, confusing) in actual practice complicated or as confusing, one might add, as the approach we have taken in this thesis). It emphasises a qualitative ap­proach.  On the other hand, for an understanding of the Hong Kong language teaching and learning situation, ethnography is useful in that it emphasises the context of the classroom and the context of language use, relevance, status etc.(questions which we have investigated earlier in this thesis).  Principles of ethnography are said to be watching and asking.  In this phase of our research, we have confined ourselves to watching (“asking” having been performed, to some extent, earlier in the thesis).

With the attractiveness of the ethnographic approach there is also an alarming lack of structure for our purposes. The FLINT system - used within an ethnographic’ perspective - was proposed as a solution. We would thus observe lessons in the broad, unstructured, open and emic manner proposed by ethnography whilst having at our disposal the clearer lines of the FLINT model of analysis (which has clear relevance to humanistic concerns and to Transactional Analysis via Moskowitz’s later work (1978)).

The observation model we arrived at was thus one incorporating:

1)      MOSKOWITZ (1972)                                    

2)       VAN LIER (1988)

See Chaudron (1988) pp. 32-3         Free-floating attention.

                                     A multitude of relevant data.

                                     Why this classroom?

                                     Transcription/analysis.

                                     Order derived from the ‘exotic village’ of the classroom data.

                                     Let the data lead the way.

                                     Social context.

                                     Learner cognition.

3) FANESLOW (1977) - FOCUS

The categories of communication we seek are not explicitly covered by FOCUS but may be accommodated, given some thought.  This model, being quite detailed and widely-used, forms the third of our ‘backgrounds’.

NOTES ON VAN LIER’S MODEL

Free floating attention

We have taken this term from Freudian psychoanalysis to indicate the open and emic approach of the ethnographer whose attitude, according to van Lier, must be akin to that of the anthropologist’s holistic compilation of all available data, even though what is presented may appear inchoate, inexplicable or irrelevant at first.

A multitude of relevant data

Data can be gathered from reports, diaries, recording, self-assessment etc. as well as through outside observation. What is said and done in class may not be as important as seemingly trivial changes of mood and atmosphere, impossible to capture in ordinary observational models.

Most ethnographers, in keeping with the maxim ‘letting the data lead the way’ are for sound or video recording of the classroom events under analysis. In Hong Kong, it has been our experience that teachers not only react defensively towards visitors but that recording is practically out of the question. This camera and microphone shyness is, naturally, an ethnographic fact and must be analysed as such. Chinese people are often shy in ways that appear strange to Westerners. Mostly then, the observer has had to rely on his own ears and eyes in one ‘live performance’.

Why this classroom?

The classrooms offered to us for observation were selected from willing friends of the Institute of Language in Education, a sometimes controversial branch of the Hong Kong Government.  Questions presently unanswered are: What motivated the schools to cooperate in the project?  Are the schools typical or ‘show schools’ and do they often receive visitors?

Transcription/analysis.

In the anthropological tradition, the lessons observed are ‘written up’ in as much detail as possible, without reference to FLINT or other models of analysis. Analysis, in the form of attention patterns, repetitions, shifts in focus and tacit agreements will reveal the significance of the mass of data.

Order derived from the ‘exotic village’ of the classroom data

The order imposes itself.

Let the data lead the way.

The data are paramount.

Social context

The events of the classroom must be seen within a broader social reality.

Learner cognition

The observed data should also be interpreted in their context within the individual, i.e. his cognitive framework.

VAN LIER’S PROCEDURE FOR OBSERVATION

Describe participation in class (although observed participation is not directly related to actual learning).

Turn taking: Prominence. Partial prominence. Allocation.

Transition. Distribution. Initiative.

The one-floor law (no overlapping).

The lesson plan.  Framing.  The rhythm of the lesson.

Topic and activity.

The organization of repair (i.e.mutual adjustment of speaker and hearer).

Classroom rituals: ‘The preference for collective interaction over individual teacher-learner dyads may be cultural..’ (van Lier 1988:225).

In the actual observation of classrooms, van Lier becomes a discourse analyst and does not emphasise the more general areas of real ethnography.

INTERACTIVE TEACHING, INTERACTION AND INTERVENTIONS

Interactive Language Teaching (W. Rivers 1987) proposes interaction as a principle of good language teaching. There is a strong principle of AUTHENTICITY which is related to our concerns:  “Students achieve facility in using“ a language when their attention is focused on conveying and receiving authentic messages (that is, messages that contain information of interest to speaker and listener in a situation of importance to both). This is interaction. “(Rivers 1987:4).

Real interaction takes place then, in Rivers’ understanding, where the teaching and the subject material are authentic.  (What observational framework could demonstrate authenticity, however?)

Authenticity and, more generally, REALITY are concerns not only of the teacher but of the student: “In interaction, students can use all they all they possess of the language - all they have learned or casually absorbed - in real-life exchanges where expressing their real meaning is important to them.” 
(Rivers 1987:4)

Interaction is for Rivers an interchange :

Teacher-directed and dominated classrooms cannot, by their nature, be interactive classrooms, and this is what language teachers need to learn.  Interaction can be two-way, three-way, or four-way, but never one-way.” (Rivers 1987:9).

What sort of interaction takes place in the classrooms we will see? Probably not at all the INTERACTIVE kind Rivers proposes: “Real interaction in the classroom requires the teacher to step out of the limelight, to cede a full role to the student in developing and carrying through activities, to accept all kinds of opinions, and be tolerant of errors the student makes while attempting to communicate.” (Rivers 1987:9).

Yet, clearly some kind of interaction does take place in Hong Kong classrooms even though it is unlikely to be the interactive kind described by Rivers. This takes the form of:

1.   Listening to authentic materials.

2.   Students listen and speak in role plays and through games.

3.   Students are engaged in joint tasks and purposeful activity.

4.   Students watch films and videotapes of native speakers interacting.

5.   Pronunciation improved through poetry reading and creation.

6.   Cross-cultural interaction. Recognition of national stereotypes.

7.   Lively interaction of reader and text.

8.   Writing tasks lively and relevant: class newspapers, group composition, dialogue journals.

9.   Grammar is learned ‘with students internalizing the rules through experience of their effectiveness in expressing essential meanings.’ 

10. Testing should be interactive and proficiency-oriented rather than a sterile, taxonomic process.

11. We must not forget interacting with the community that speaks the language.

In conclusion, it is useful to have in mind what Rivers understands by NON-INTERACTIVE: ‘classrooms where language-learning is a tedious, dry-as-dust process, devoid of any contact with the real world in which language use is as natural as breathing. Grammar rules are explained and practiced; vocabulary and paradigms are learned by heart and tested out of context; the ‘book’ is ‘covered’ and students move on.’ (Rivers 1987:14).

In our observation of classrooms, we are above all looking for interaction if not the INTERACTIVITY of Rivers. Rivers’ proposals are useful as a general background, we believe, of what constitutes ideal language learning interaction.

Interaction is usually analyzed by discourse analysts and interaction analysts as composed of teacher talk and student talk (although some observation instruments allow for non-linguistic and para-linguistic events).

In formal terms of functional categories of teacher talk we are looking for two types: directives of RELEVANCE and VALUE together with directives of language learning KNOWLEDGE. These directives could also be termed INTERVENTIONS.

It is believed that the interventions we are looking for occur most readily in real student teacher, give-and-take interaction.

It is also believed that such interventions are vitally important for language learning and, in the Hong Kong context, essential, given the number of DIFFICULTIES facing the student and teacher from the environment, the status of the language, the curriculum, the examination system etc. etc. (identified in the first research project).

Such interventions may serve to COUNTERBALANCE the effect of the DIFFICULTIES.

In other words, we believe that for truly efficient language learning to take place, the Hong Kong language teacher must constantly strive to nullify DIFFICULTIES by PSYCHOLOGICAL means.

Efficient language teaching methods, planning and his own competence are UNIMPORTANT in combating DIFFICULTY. His personality and willingness to communicate for example ENTHUSIASM and RELEVANCE are, we believe, more decisive factors.

Winter (1989) found that, in general, teachers use more approval than disapproval in Hong Kong classroom interaction.  Teachers liked to focus on academic behaviour and the task in hand (cf. Observation 1a) below). As a limited observation instrument founded in behavioural psychology was used (OPTIC), there was no indication of what enthusiasm or relevance was transmitted to students (and despite the article’s title, little real indication is given of the quality or character of student-teacher interaction in Hong Kong classrooms).

Morris (1992) reports in one study of economics teaching classroom observation that 1.919% of classroom time was devoted to ‘broad questions’ (general knowledge about the subject) and that the main characteristic of most lessons was the transmission of information: “Teachers spent most of the time lecturing and the pupils busied themselves recording the information presented.” (Morris 1992:24-25).

Tsui, A.B.M. (1985) found over 80% of the lessons she observed in Hong Kong given over to teacher talk.  Her observation framework did not have the categories of general direction or of relevance/value. It appears that teachers bludgeoned students with a large amount of input but with little spirit behind it. It was therefore not surprising that interactivity was so limited.

We are curious, therefore, to find out what degree of RELEVANCE, ENTHUSIASM and GENERAL LANGUAGE LEARNING DIRECTION is suggested or imparted to the students through (probably lengthy) teacher talk in the classes we will observe.

FEEDBACK

Another way to describe what we are looking for is ‘feedback’.  Zamel  (1981) and Annett (1969) (see Chaudron p.  134) see a tripartite function of feedback: REINFORCEMENT, INFORMATION and MOTIVATION. Feedback is often understood as the teacher’s reac­tion to student error (for Chaudron 1988 it means little else).  In fact, feedback is a much broader concept and may take many forms apart from the merely linguistic or directly paedagogi­cal.  Feedback, as Parental approval or Child appreciation or enthusiasm, is essential, we believe, for good language learning.   Such feedback is a PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than a LINGUIS­ TIC reality. We would suggest also that the LINGUISTIC CONTENT of teacher feedback is secondary to the PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT.  (Unfortunately, L2 learning research is dominated by linguists, not psychologists and less thought is given to the impact  of correction than what form it takes, how often it is  performed, whether it is accurate etc. etc.. The urge to measure and draw up tables, even if they do not offer solutions to problems, is irresistible.)

The question then arises, how can we measure, or at best observe, PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT?

The permission we had from teachers to observe their classes did not extend to recording the class or to assessing the psychological impact on their students through questionnaires or interviews.  We did however feel enormously privileged to be able to observe classes at all. The option to come back to schools for a ‘second go’ is not excluded. We did not wish to shock teachers with suggestions of interviewing students and recording classes at this early stage.

WHAT CONSTITUTED OUR OBSERVATION MODEL?

In order not to preclude the free-floating attention and NAIVETY necessary for true ethnographic study and for any psychological observation, we did not limit ourselves to a tick the box taxonomy or a single observational model. Rather, we had in mind some of the concepts from our own ideas on language learning (TALL and Adams 1991 founded in Transactional Analysis);the FLINT model of Moskowitz; Faneslow’s FOCUS model; van Lier’s ethnographic model and the ideas of Rivers on what constitutes interactive teaching.

To avoid a simple impressionistic assessment of the class events, we did however have two specific sets of functional distribution of teacher talk in mind for special attention: the directives of the teacher encouraging RELEVANCE AND VALUE and directives giving some general KNOWLEDGE about language learning in general. We term these directives INTERVENTIONS.

In our work at Po Kok School in May 1992, we observed a number of such interventions:

Do you know what you are saying?

Don’t behave mechanically!

Did you see the TV film about mosquitoes?

Have you seen the film PRETTY WOMAN?

Here are some order forms for the HK

STANDARD.

Unfortunately, these interventions were the sum total of six periods of English. We were very curious to know whether the teachers in the schools we were to visit would make more such interventions and what form they would take. We were also aware that a fundamental attitude of relevance, reality and language teaching confidence and accessibility to students might make such deliberate interventions unnecessary or superfluous. On the other hand, the same ‘interactive’ attitude might produce a relatively great number of such interventions, naturally and spontaneously, which is the way of interactive teaching.

THREE TEACHERS - THREE TEACHING STYLES

We observed a number of teachers in secondary schools and one in a teacher training college. The following is a sample report on three of the teachers observed. We chose the teachers because of their contrasting teaching styles. Teacher A is a middle-aged lady, quite conservative in outlook and very exam-oriented and full-frontal in approach. Teacher B is a younger lady, more liberal in outlook and with a lively, communicative, well-structured (‘activity-oriented’) teaching style. Both these teachers work in a successful Kowloon school. Teacher C works in the New Territories and is an aesthetically inspired male with a teaching style characterised by over-expectation of the students and loose course structuring.

What follows are edited highlights of their lessons, analysed into phases. A primary concern was to isolate ‘interventions’ on the part of the teacher which made the learning of English more relevant and intrinsically valuable or which gave students general guidance about the whole business of learning another language. These interventions are hypothesized as being those which can contribute to relieving the complicated structures of difficulty discussed so far.

TEACHER A

i)    Form Five, 39 students (24F/15M), 8.40-10.15 a.m..

The overall impression of this lesson was of a well-structured and aimed lesson lacking in any real communicative or interactive content. This said, the lesson had a strong paedagogical effect of a kind in that it will probably help ensure that this famous school continues to get good exam results and over 90% of its students into tertiary education for it was primarily a lesson in ‘How To Pass Exams’. 

Unfortunately, the lesson echoed some of the common criticisms of the Hong Kong education system in its encouragement of rote learning, concentration on exam success rather than true understanding and, in English language teaching, a crushingly ‘full-frontal’ approach which cramps the development of oral ability  (teacher talk approx. 95%).  The lesson seemed to illustrate Morris (1992):15: “ Teachers meanwhile satisfy  the expectations  of  pupils, colleagues,  parents  and  principals which  places a premium on a teaching approach which  minimizes the  risk of failure. This emphasizes coverage of the examina­tion syllabus and maximizing pass rates as indicators of suc­cessful performance.”

This said, the lesson also had a decent number of positive interventions.

Students were alert and cooperative. To judge by their bags, shoes and general appearance, many of them belonged to the Kowloon working class.

The classroom itself was of normal size (i.e. rather small), very noisy with buses drowning out the classroom from the left side of the students (open windows on main road). The teacher has a standard issue microphone (many others were seen in the staff room) to plug into a specially appointed socket at the front of the class under the blackboard. The loudspeaker was placed above the blackboard. Sound quality was actually rather poor.

The class was divided into eight groups (although little group work took place).

Content focus of the lesson was a past paper from the HKCE dealing with mosquitoes.

PHASE ONE (8.40-9.08): The students were directed to their corrected worksheets for detailed analysis. There were several INTERVENTIONS in this first phase of the lesson: at 8.44, 8.46 9.00, 9.03 and 9.04.

The first took the form of a vivid and authentic reply to the question of where mosquitoes may be found:

“I don’t check behind my washing machine. I must do it.”

(Laughter)

The second was a general question aimed at the whole class:

“Do you report people to the relevant authorities?”  

The third was a reference to the difficulty of the ambience:

“The bus is outside. We can’t hear you.”

Although trivial, this had the effect of reassuring me, at least, that the physical difficulty of the classroom was being perceived.

The fourth intervention served to highlight the relevance in instrumental terms of the lesson:

“This paper is very important because it is from the examination authority.”

The fifth intervention attempted to coax students away from rote:

“Don’t write down my answers word by word. Just think.”
 

PHASE TWO (9.08-9.32): Information was now provided on the official marking scheme proposed by the examiners of the paper. The students copied down details of the marking scheme from 9.16.

The marking scheme covered content, presentation, style, rele­vancy, comparison skills and logic, accuracy, penalties.  No real explanation was given on what, for example, constitutes ‘relevancy’ or ‘style’. 

PHASE THREE (9.32-9.52): The main Letter to the Editor on page 24 of the South China Morning Post, 16.11.92, written by a Tuen Mun secondary school principal on the subject of floating class students, was set as a reading comprehension task. Students were asked to give their own opinions. The vocabulary level of the piece was difficult. The lesson wound up at 9.52.

I interviewed one female student briefly:

DO YOU LIKE ENGLISH?

English is useful for speaking with foreigners...

BUT DO YOU LIKE ENGLISH LESSONS?

Yes. We like debates. Arguing.

HOW OFTEN DO YOU HOLD DEBATES?

Not so often.

WHO CHOOSES THE SUBJECTS OF THE NEWSPAPER PIECES?

TEACHER A (cont.)

b)      27.10.92, Form Five, 39 students (31F/8F), 11.45-13.05.

The classroom is a brighter and more spacious one in the old block. Traffic noise is still a problem at times but not the extent of c).  Teacher uses a voice amplifier.

The overall impression of the lesson is of an authoritative, well-directed lesson focussing on the task at hand rather than interaction and fun. This does not mean that the lesson was not valuable. I am inclined to think that it was, in its way, highly valuable, perhaps more so in actual effect than the more engaging style of a) and c). The Adult resources of student and teacher were used to their full extent and the Child almost never broke through in the teacher and only occasionally in students.  The effect of the constant overuse of Adult in the long run may make the lessons in English rather boring for the class.

The teacher has taught for over ten years. She confides to me that students are afraid to make mistakes, afraid to speak and that they are, in general, poorly motivated.

PHASE ONE (11.50-12.03): Teacher writes down eight questions dealing with text from passage from textbook devoted to the question of capital punishment. The questions call for explanation of vocabulary items as well as general comprehension of the text and the issues involved.  Question 5 is especially relevant: “Does capital punishment exist in Hong Kong?”

PHASE TWO (12.03-12.14): Books exchanged and marked. Students answer in chorus to teacher’s questions. Teacher goes through exercise with little ‘trimming’.

12.12. “You have become so passive”.              

PHASE  THREE (12.14-12.25): Although students are divided  into groups,  teacher stays at front of class and directs  question- and-answer  session. Individual students stand up to give answers.  Teacher talk is estimated to be 95%. There is a great deal  of choral reading in an unnatural way  (giving  incorrect stress and intonation).

A noticeable feature at this point is the curious names given to some students: Edison, Peace, Focus, Rejoice.  Is this a creative use of English or an indication of its artificiality? 

PHASE FOUR (12.25-12.36): A motion for debate is written on the board - “Capital punishment is the best way to fight serious crime in Hong Kong.” Students chatter but some audibly discuss the subject in English in their groups.

PHASE FIVE (12.36-13.03): Students come out and give arguments for and against. Encouragement: “We cannot expect perfection” nd “You’re welcome” Quality of the students’ presentations gets better as they progress. The fear of speaking problem is quite apparent. Teacher gives good constant support.

12.47 ‘What is inhuman?’ asks teacher.

Students are enthusiastic. Teacher’s technique is to maintain a strong Adult mood and to win the students’ intellectual energy.  This approach is successful and leads the students on to self-development and growing confidence in using the language.

PHASE SIX (13.03-13.05): Setting of homework and reading comprehension task (from SCMP page three article entitled: ‘Transplants hit by donor shortage’.)

“Think clearly about your arguments. Mind the logic and give objective evidence.”

“Do you want to be an organ donor after your death? Why or why not?”

Suggestion that students write from the point of view of ‘I know a friend who is blind/deaf.’ and of traditional Chinese culture’s reluctance to divide up body. Then there is a sudden switch to highlight vocabulary which somehow reduces impact of the relevant directions.

The teacher.

It was interesting to hear a Parental answer to the question:

‘Do you enjoy English lessons?’

TEACHER B

i)    Form 6, 28 students (19F/9M), 10.15-11.30 a.m.

The overall impression of this lesson was of a somewhat hasty but enjoyable English class, impressive in the spontaneity and enthusiasm displayed by teacher and students. The manner of the activity  and presentation was very interactive and, as I  fol­lowed the teacher around the classroom, I heard a lively use of English and a free use of interventions.

Classroom conditions were similar to those in a) above.

PHASE ONE 10.16-10.22: The language game was quickly, too quickly we felt, explained. The ‘communicative strategies’ to be practiced were those of ‘structures of avoiding misunderstanding and seeking clarification’. These were presented on a small piece of xerox paper without any clarification or opportunity for the students to avoid misunderstanding!

PHASE TWO 10.22-10.45: The first part of the language game was performed in pairs (one player, A, having a plan of a house and its grounds and having to communicate the same to his/her partner, B). The teacher hovers around the classroom like a petulant bee. At 10.42 the exercise is halted and there is some discussion of the strange results of the exercise (the inaccuracies in the map of player B).

PHASE THREE 10.45-11.08: Students moved into groups of five or six for the second part of the language game, ostensibly ‘taking turns’ (but again, there is no focussing by the teacher on the structures said to be practiced).  The groups draw up different security measures to guard the grounds in the plan used in Phase Two. A lot of teacher talk at the beginning of this phase.

There is excellent interaction both in the groups and between students and teacher in this phase. I followed the teacher around the classroom, eavesdropping as it were over he shoulder as she monitored and aided the groups. Interventions included:

“I’m not an expert on that.”

“It’s like that thing on TV.”

PHASE FOUR 11.15-11.28: Plenary consolidation of the group work. Students were given the opportunity to use the microphone.  Most interventions occurred in this phase and were usually humorous:

“Should we install security cameras in the classroom? Yes, after 1997.”

“Closed-circuit TV. What we notice in some shops.”

“Are Hong Kong policemen reliable? No comment.”

“Don’t ask the USA to lend you their Star Wars systems.”

PHASE FIVE 11.28-11.30: Setting of reading comprehension and writing task (same as a.)). Useful intervention:

“This Letter to the Editor is very relevant to your situation.”

TEACHER B

c)      27.10.92, Form 6, 30 students (22F/8M), 8.40-10.00 a.m.

The general impression of the lesson is similar to the sameteacher’s performance in a) but with the slight suspicion that although students do enjoy the lessons and interaction does take place, there may not be the desired pedagogic effect.

The classroom appeared to be even noisier than in a). The auditory problems were compounded by appreciable building noise, noisy neighbouring classes and the absence of a teacher voice amplifier. A new distraction, noticeable to me at least, was the strong smell of cooking bacon towards the middle of the lesson.

PHASE ONE (8.45-8.49): Teacher leads discussion of informal letters, the focus of the lesson. Gives students key ideas of informal letter writing but with little elucidation. The teacher forces the pace.

PHASE TWO (8.49-9.05): The class was divided into groups of three or four to discuss one of the four handouts presented in the lesson.  All the boys worked in one group. Teacher moves from group to group and I follow, observing interventions.

8.55 ‘I have no idea again’ - has the effect of teacher abnegating omniscience. 

8.57 “I’ll give you some Chinese equivalent”. Appears to establish the reality of what is taking place.

8.59 “You can use foul language in letters.” Relevant direction.

9.05 “It’s up to you what information you want to give.” This intervention establishes the student’s right to self-expression, even in the medium of English.

PHASE THREE (9.05-9.30): Return to full-frontal teaching mode.  Writing on board seeks to reinforce the purpose of the lesson in various headings (e.g. letter format, punctuation, abbreviation, sentence structure). 

9.15 Teacher reacts well to unexpected student suggestion of tag-questions as indicator of informal language use.

9.17  “You had this point. Why didn’t you tell me just now?” Establishes reality of the proceedings (in English). Teacher can express irritation in English.

9.21 “In your daily life, do you usually use the passive voice?

When we write to close relatives, we don’t so often.”

9.25 “When you talk to other people in English, do you notice how you use short forms?”

9.27 “She looks flash (example from text). Do you want to look flash? Is it good or bad?” Student shouts to other student:

“He’s so flash.”

PHASE FOUR (9.30-9.36): The focus of this phase is teacher-led introduction to a writing task (advising a friend how to deal with an over-enthusiastic girlfriend). Students are giggly and embarrassed.

PHASE FIVE (9.36-9.40): Silent reading for information (handout no. 4).

PHASE SIX (9.40-9.52): Discussion in groups to resolve the set problem (how to reply to over-enthusiastic girlfriend). There was a great deal of merry interaction between teacher and the groups.

PHASE SEVEN (9.52-10.00): Teacher asks students for their suggestions and writes them on blackboard. The homework task is set (write letter of advice).

TEACHER C

Observations of Teacher C took place at a secondary school in the Western New Territories. First impressions were favourable: an interested headmaster who described himself as an ‘educationalist’, perfectly fluent in English, and said to be ‘very supportive’. The teacher, aesthetic in appearance and manner, appeared highly interested in English and its associated ‘cultures’.  The school building, built 1981, appears to be a clone of buildings in Kowloon and elsewhere but is severely run down with paint visibly flaking everywhere.  The staff room is just as cramped as others we have seen.

i)    9.12.92, Form Five, 38 students, 24M/14F, 14.00-15.10.

The class makes a very pleasant impression and are possibly healthier and less sophisticated than their urban counterparts. Some of the girls sit next to boys whilst some sit in single-sex couples.

PHASE ONE (2.08-2.20)

There is no formal greeting of the teacher (a ritual marker typical of Hong Kong secondary school English classes).

Teacher asks students about their attitudes towards English.  The questions posed by teacher (e.g. “On what occasions can you not do without English?”) suggest instrumental Adult answers:

‘Exams’, ‘English lessons’, ‘Talking to foreigners’. Other questions posed by the teacher are: “ What is students’ motivation” and “What is their resistance?”.

PHASE TWO (2.20-2.27)

Students are asked to form groups of four (something which they obviously do not normally do) to formulate three things which motivate them to learn English and three things which distract them from doing so.  Teacher walks around class ‘supervising’ groups rather than interacting with the same.

PHASE THREE (2.27-2.47)

The groups gave the following replies:

THINGS WHICH MOTIVATE                                  THINGS WHICH DISTRACT

*English international language                                        *English boring/uninteresting

*Examinations                                                                    *No chance to meet foreigners

*Work/careers                                                                    *English not useful

Girlfriends                                                                             Influence of Chinese                                                  

Penfriends                                                                            No practical teaching                                                   

Entertainment                                                                      Expressing feelings difficult

Travel                                                                                  Not mother tongue

Western culture                                                                   People use Cantonese

Communication with foreigners                                         Eng. requires too much time

Emigration                                                                          Fear of making mistakes                                                           

Contact with the world                                                         Grammar

More comfortable to express                                                 Pronunciation

feelings in English                 

Don’t want marry foreigner

Study abroad                                                                        Use Chinese to express cultural strength

These reasons present some surprises but are largely similar to those produced by our questionnaire in Project I. Instrumental motivation predominates whilst difficulty takes a great variety of forms.

Finally, in this phase, the teacher admits that he ‘can have a closer relationship with students if he uses Cantonese’.

PHASE FOUR (2.47-2.54)

The teacher focuses attention on the question: “How can we improve English and make it more exciting?”

At this point, the tedious character of the teacher’s approach becomes very obvious. He loves to talk (about 95% of the time), does not structure the lesson and there is no activity.  Students are phenomenally bored. Subsequent inquiries to students revealed that what I saw was typical.

All students read subtitles on TV and at the cinema.

People who need English are: businessmen, teachers, reporters, interpreters, translators, emigrants, salesmen.

PHASE FIVE (2.54-3.10)

Focus is now the class ‘book’, FOCUS by Jack Richards.  Richards’ book has too much text and not enough practical examples. Teacher talks about ‘the power paradigm’, ‘formal and casual speech styles’ and ‘solidarity strategies’ (from the book) to the bewilderment and boredom of students.

The conclusion of all this teacher talk is that: ‘you must be very careful with language’.

Overall, the impression made by this class was a very nice man with absolutely no teaching skill and unable practically to relate to his students’ needs and interests. Although there was a fairly frank and open atmosphere suggested by the teacher’s spontaneous manner, the lack of structure and variety made intervention impossible.

ii) 10.12.92, as i) above, 8.50-10.00 a.m.

PHASE ONE (8.46-9.09)

Teacher mentions an essay competition.Focus of the lesson is W.H. Auden’s poem ‘Funeral Blues’. The ‘communication situation’ is emphasised as the way to approach the poem by means of a blackboard diagram:

Poet---->Speaker----->Poem----->Listener----->Reader

(whatever this may mean...)

The poem is read (very quietly) by a girl student.

It looks like another expository lesson. Teacher questions: “Why did you read it the way you did?” and “Is the poet angry?” Choral reading of the first lines of each stanza.

PHASE TWO (9.09-9.16)

Teacher plays recording of student reciting poem (complete with dog, piano, clock and telephone).

The performance on the tape is screaming and over-dramatic.

PHASE THREE (9.16-9.41)

A  long session of quizzing students (‘to whom is  the  speaker speaking’ etc.).

This phase is unnecessarily long, unstructured and tedious.

At 9.31 a kind of intervention of relevance is made when aircraft noise is heard overhead and related to a line in the poem.

PHASE FOUR (9.41-9.58)

To rescue himself from the tedium of phase three, teacher initiates an impromptu oral exercise: Ways to describe your girlfriend. Answers include ‘ my honey, everything, heart, shirt(!), life, direction and mother(!!). Great hilarity ensues.

PHASE FIVE (9.58-10.00)

This phase is devoted to the question: “How would you pacify the speaker in the poem?” The class draws mercifully to a close.
 

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Although the data presented above cannot claim to be absolutely representative, they are nevertheless typical of what was observed in the schools we visited. It is noticeable that the more ‘open’ and liberal teaching style (Teacher C) is not necessarily the most conducive to intervention. Moreover, we discovered that the ‘conservative’ teaching style of Teacher A did present opportunities for intervention. The drawback with Teacher A was that so much use was made of the Adult. Teacher B’s active group work with direct teacher involvement seemed to be the best ‘approach’ of the three and allowed for a good deal of one-to-one intervention. The drawback was that this method is very demanding for the teacher and would be a little difficult to maintain given the timetabling reality of Hong Kong secondary schools where teachers may have over thirty periods a week to teach.

We could not gauge the success of the interventions we identified in such a short time and a longitudinal study would be needed to assess the success of specific interventions or intervention types.

It was encouraging to see that the supposed intractability of  the Hong Kong classroom situation could be tackled by certain teachers. It was discouraging to note however so few interventions overall and the missed opportunities for intervening which constantly occurred.

Our hypothesis that interventions are possible and produce tangible results in the long term can only be speculated on. It did however appear that interventions of the kind we describe further student enthusiasm and participation and, ultimately, encourage the removal of English language learning difficulty.